HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Fountain Of Youth In A Wine Rx?
January 25, 2009
The story approach was very similar to 60 Minutes’ coverage of what they called the "Kanzius Cancer Cure" months ago. Cheerleading. Lacking evidence. Failure to interview independent sources.
Our Review Summary
In 1992, a French researcher coined the term "French Paradox" to describe the seemingly contradictory idea that while the French eat much fattier foods, they have a relatively low incidence of heart disease. It was immediately speculated that the French consumption of wine, particularly red wine, could explain this discrepancy. However, many other factors could be related to this difference, such as the consumption of unsaturated fats, higher quantities of fish, smaller portions, and other lifestyle factors such as more physical activity and lower stress.
But this did not stop researchers from aggressively pursuing the red wine angle. This fall Sitris, a company in Cambridge, MA, was sold to GlaxoSmithKline for $750 million on the red wine premise. Scientists at Sitris are trying to develop a pill with highly concentrated levels of reservatrol, a compound naturally found in red wine. These scientists are also master marketers and have made many claims that their pill can cure diabetes and even lengthen life, although to date their only evidence comes from studies done on yeast and mice.
This story has great entertainment value but provides very little substance for the consumer. It fails to meet many of our criteria for health news reporting. It is particularly egregious in how it describes the evidence to support the use of the pill. The story mentions only positive results from the mice trials but does not talk about the negative results. Although the story mentions that trials in yeast and mice are a long way away from it working in humans, it could have done more to emphasize this point.
Furthermore, it quotes no sources who have no personal or financial stake in how the pill is perceived. The story does a disservice by not quoting other experts who could have provided some badly needed perspective. Finally, it grossly overstates the potential benefits of the pill. The story does a lot of speculating about the number of years of life extension possible, without any basis to back up these claims. The story also has the audacity to imply that somehow this pill will help us have a better death - that with this pill people will die "quietly in their sleep." As if anything could have that kind of control over how we die!
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Here's an excerpt of the story taken from the CBS website:
But the question that most of us want answered is: when do we get this pill?
"I would say five years to be conservative that this'll happen within our lifetimes. I'm fairly certain about that," Sinclair says.
Sinclair is one of the co-founders of the company working on the drug. His 5-year estimate should have been checked with at least one independent source for comment. Also, note how that comment - as transcribed by CBS - makes no sense.
The story does not speculate on the cost of the drug, which could be substantial. If it's not too early to speculate about all the potential benefits of this drug (how we could all be taking it soon and how it could prevent the diseases of aging) then it's not too early to speculate about costs.
The intro to the story suggests that "we all may soon be taking a pill that could give us an extra decade or two of healthy old age." We understand that they want to keep us tuned in with flashy intros. But there are many people who do not embrace the "pill for every ill" mentality and, indeed, will predictably NOT be among the predicted universe of people who would pop such a pill even if it did pan out - which is a long way away to say the very least - not "soon" as promised.
The story also stated that "The pill ... could prevent the diseases of aging, like Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, even cancer." Perhaps. It may also be shown to be unable to do so. This is wild hyperbole that just isn't necessary or warranted. Stick to what's known now and let the future unfold as it does.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence. The story mentions only positive results from the mice trials but does not talk about the negative results. Although the story mentions that trials in yeast and mice are a long way away from evidence of efficacy in humans, it could have done more to emphasize this point. And even when the point was made about the poor track record of drugs that look good in mice but fail in humans, that point was immediately followed by a cheerleading note about the "speed and results" they've generated.
The story does not mention any harms, potential or known.
The idea that there is something protective in red wine is not a new one. For at least 15 years, scientists have discussed the "French Paradox", particularly when it comes to heart disease. However, the story adequately represents the novelty of potentially discovering the "active agent" in the red wine.
The story does a lot of speculating about the number of years of life extension possible, without any basis to back up these claims. The story also has the audacity to imply that somehow this pill will help us have a better death - that with this pill people will die "quietly in their sleep". As if anything could have that kind of control over how we die!
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release.
The story only quotes individuals or researchers who are heavily invested in the claims made, both financially and with their personal involvement. The story does a disservice by not quoting other experts who could have provided some badly needed perspective.
The story mentions calorie restriction as the other way to prevent aging and mentions exercise. The story should have done more to discuss these options. Instead, it practically dismisses them as difficult and ineffective. Story excerpt: "But if the scientists at Sirtris are on the right track, it could mean forget dieting, forget the sweaty business of working out - just pop a pill and you are in guilt-free couch potato paradise."
Total Score: 1 of 9 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.