 |
|
|
|||||
Imagine this: Youre scrolling online late at night and with just a few clicks, you can order gummies that promise to boost your sex drive, a cream claiming to rebalance your hormones, or even prescription drugs from a telehealth site that spent millions on a Super Bowl ad without any disclaimers or mention of side effects. The solutions seem endless, and like most things that sound too good to be true, they often are. After 25 years in biotech and 10 years spent squarely at the nexus of science and womens health, Ive seen how hype can often race ahead of science. Evidence-based treatments for women remain chronically underfunded and underdeveloped. Its no wonder the wellness industry has rushed to fill the void with promises that sound like medicine but dont measure up. WHEN WELLNESS FILLS THE GAP At best, many wellness products are ineffective, with claims based on anecdotal evidence or poorly designed studies. At worst, they can be outright dangerous. A 2024 analysis found that corporations promoting healthcare interventions that are not supported by evidence, or conceal or downplay evidence, increase the risk of harm to women through inappropriate medicalization, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. Take the multibillion-dollar supplement industry. Celebrities like Kourtney Kardashian and her Lemme line of wellness supplements are tapping into genuine unmet needswhere women want solutions to problems that the medical establishment has overlooked. But theres a gap between marketing and accountability. The Lemme Purr web page, for instance, tells us that clinically-studied SNZ-1969 probiotics support vaginal health and freshness. While there is some data that the 50+ year old strain supports gut health, a literature search did not identify any strong peer-reviewed evidence that SNZ-1969 supports vaginal health. The reality is that the FDA doesnt have a mandate to review supplements for safety or effectiveness before they hit the market. That means companies can sell products with minimal oversight, leaving consumers to trust claims that are based on marketing, not science. Now compare that to therapies developed through the FDA: Treatments designed to deliver specific outcomes, studied in rigorous clinical trials, and evaluated for safety, quality, and effectiveness. Unlike supplements or untested formulas, they must demonstrate measurable benefit before they can ever reach patients. The process could not be more different. But to the average consumer, the distinction is almost invisible. SEPARATE EVIDENCE FROM EMPTY PROMISES Women shouldnt be left to navigate risk alone. Thats why they need tools to separate evidence from empty promises. And companies providing health products should make it easy for them to find the information. Before trying a new product, women should ask themselves three questions: Was it clinically tested or was it studied in a randomized placebo-controlled trial? Clinically tested could mean almost anythingmaybe five people tried it and said they felt better. Maybe it was a survey given to a few loyal customers who already love the brand. But thats hardly proof. A randomized placebo-controlled trial means that participants are randomly assigned to receive either the treatment or a look-alike placebo, making it the gold standard in medicine to understand if an intervention truly has an effect. Was the whole product testedor just the ingredients? A common loophole in wellness marketing is citing evidence for individual ingredients but not testing the final product formulation. Just because an ingredient has been clinically studied doesnt mean the finished product is safe or effective. Is the product FDA-approved or made in an FDA-regulated facility? Regulation matters. Without it, theres no guarantee of safety or consistency. 503B outsourcing facilities are FDA-regulated and must follow strict manufacturing and safety standards, ensuring consistency, quality, and clinician trust. Women deserve more than quick fixes or empty promises when it comes to their health. As the lines between wellness and healthcare continue to blur, companies that commit to accountability and rigorous science stand to build lasting trust with consumers to unlock massive, underserved markets. Sabrina Martucci Johnson is founder and CEO of Daré Bioscience.
Category:
E-Commerce
A voluntary layoff? In this economy? The mass layoff meat grinder is out in full force this week. In just the past couple of days, thousands of workers have fallen victim to job cuts at Amazon, Target, Paramount, CBS, and other large companies. YouTube has also quietly introduced voluntary exit packages for employees who are willing to be laid off with severance benefits, according to an internal memo first reported by Alex Heaths Sources AI newsletter. Adding words like opt in or voluntary in front of separation, retirement, and severance packages is the new way to soft-launch layoffs, in the hope of making the idea of losing one’s job slightly more palatable to employees. (Also, why not just call these things what they are: buyouts?) These programs are not new, and saw a resurgence of popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, offering a few months extra pay, healthcare coverage, and other employment services such as career counseling, to sugarcoat what is, in most cases, bad news. Not everyone is buying the idea. Framing a layoff as a “Voluntary Career Transition” is wild, one X user wrote in response to news of potential layoffs ahead at video game developer Massive Entertainment. As they enter a period of restructuring, the Ubisoft subsidiary is instead asking staff to volunteer for career transition. Impressive word salad for a severance package, one X user replied. Next up: Mandatory Sabbatical of Indefinite Length,” another quipped. The voluntary nature of some buyout programs gives employees the illusion of control over their fate. The reality of opt-in layoffs is psychological and emotional outsourcing, Holly Howard, founder of Ask Holly How, a culture-first business consultancy, told Fast Company. It’s a bit of a PR strategy to avoid what might be a complicated and negative narrative and instead transfer that burden onto the employees themselves. In some cases, it works well. For those with jobs already lined up, coming up to retirement, or already halfway out the door, it can be seen as the lesser of two evils. For those who choose not to opt in, however, the writing is on the wall. They run the risk of ultimately being laid off down the line, but without any of those benefits to ease the blow. Anytime a company offers this, Ive learned to take it, one Reddit user responded in the r/Layoffs subreddit to the news of YouTubes voluntary exit packages. One company I had did this, and I didnt take it. Then they started doing rolling layoffs without severance, and it was incredibly toxic working there while waiting for the axe. Another suggested: They are great for the current employees, but these are still people without a job added to the unemployed market. They continued: Voluntary or involuntary, unemployment is still bad. More than 1 in 4 workers without jobs have been unemployed for at least half a year. That number is the highest since the COVID-19 pandemic, and a level typically only seen during periods of economic turmoil, The Washington Post reported.Each day brings more layoff news. For those clinging desperately to their jobs, voluntary exit packages may be about as reassuring as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Category:
E-Commerce
Two federal judges ruled nearly simultaneously on Friday that President Donald Trumps administration must continue to fund SNAP, the nations biggest food aid program, using contingency funds during the government shutdown. The judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island gave the administration leeway on whether to fund the program partially or in full for November. The rulings came a day before the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nations social safety netand it costs about $8 billion per month nationally. Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions. The administration said it wasnt allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion in it for the program, which reversed a USDA plan from before the shutdown that said money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. The Democratic officials argued that not only could that money be used, but it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion is available for the cause. In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday. Along with ordering the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits, McConnell ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. The USDA, during the shutdown, has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans, and others. The courts ruling protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight and upholds the principle that no one in America should go hungry, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said of the Rhode Island decision. There were similar elements in the Boston case, where U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in a written opinion that the USDA has to pay for SNAP, calling the suspension unlawful. She ordered the federal government to advise the court by Monday as to whether they will use the contingency funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program using both contingency funds and additional available funds. Defendants suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that the Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure continuation of SNAP payments, she wrote. This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program. It wasnt immediately clear how quickly the debit cards that beneficiaries use to buy groceries could be reloaded after the ruling. That process often takes one to two weeks. The rulings are likely to face appeals. States, food banks, and SNAP recipients have been bracing for an abrupt shift in how low-income people can get groceries. Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the debit cards used in the program. At a Washington news conference earlier Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, said the contingency funds in question would not cover the cost of SNAP for long. Speaking at a press conference with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Capitol, she blamed Democrats for conducting a disgusting dereliction of duty by refusing to end their Senate filibuster as they hold out for an extension of healthcare funds. A push this week to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown failed in Congress. To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of fours net income after certain expenses cant exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children. By Michael Casey, Geoff Mulvihill, and Kimberlee Kruesi, Associated Press Associated Press reporter Lisa Mascaro contributed.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||