Kind of my point.

Sure, but no one reads a sports website for factual information on science. The sports/pop culture writers write what people want to hear. Clearly, you cannot convolute a supplement company (and their hot tubs) with some arbitrary liability to prove your product is effective for treating sunburns. Why would they, given that they have no incentive?

Would it hurt the author (of any mainstream article about scientific “breakthroughs”) to add a little data in support of their claims? Maybe describe the study, or the specific caveats that make one dataset (which shows no benefit) better than another (that shows some benefit)?

As others have mentioned, it is possible that the actual plant has some benefit. But very few rigorous scientific studies exist. Why? Someone write that article.

The real story is obviously more complex and requires a deeper dive into the actual scientific evidence, as well as supplements and marketing and politics and a culture of “fix me Doctor Walgreen”.

But that takes time. Grantland used to take on these topics.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.