HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Homegrown Cure: Can Breast Milk Heal Adults?
May 27, 2009
Story on the potential for "harnessing the curative effects (of human breast milk) to fight terminal cancer." But it left viewers' heads spinning over what - if anything - is known.
Our Review Summary
This story looked at the potential for "harnessing the curative effects (of human breast milk) to fight terminal cancer."
But the segment:
- failed to adequately document any evidence of the benefits of this approach in adults;
- failed to explain that breast milk has been shown to transmit viruses such HIV, hepatitis, and meningitis – an important point when discussing its use in immunosuppressed cancer patients who are especially vulnerable to infection;
- failed to include interviews with any oncologists, gastroenterologists, immunologists or lactation specialists.
What did any of this mean to viewers? It went from saying there was "promising research that would indicate that in the future, the solutions for not only preventing cancer, but even treating and curing cancer might be within human milk" – to saying "there's no research that says...human breast milk will benefit a man, such as this man suffering from cancer."
Yet the network gave lots of airtime to the suggestion of potential benefits.
Such a “yes it can, no it can’t” use of network TV airtime is not a public service.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
It was clear from this broadcast that human breast milk is not readily available and that it was an unusual addition to cancer treatment for adults.
No explicit cost information was provided. The story said that "for most adults, breast milk is expensive." But we don't know what that means. But it is a stretch to be worried about cost if the idea in question is completely without evidence.
The story really didn't give any background about colon cancer or prostate cancer - the two cancers mentioned.
The broadcast inadequately informed viewers about any evidence to support the contentions made about breast milk. Instead, it referred to "harnessing the curative effects to fight terminal cancer." Wow.
The broadcast inadequately dealt with the potential harms from the treatment. There was no discussion about the fact that breast milk is a biological fluid that has been shown to transmit viruses such HIV, hepatitis, and meningitis; additionally there is potential for breast milk to become contaminated or to have issues arise from improper storage.
This is not a trivial point in this context as persons undergoing cancer treatment are often immunosuppressed and would be especially vulnerable to infection.
There is scant reference to "promising research" but we're not given any details about the history of such research.
The segment is all over the map. One physician is quoted as saying there is "promising research that would indicate that in the future, the solutions for not only preventing cancer, but even treating and curing cancer might be within human milk."
But another part of the segment says "there's no research that says...human breast milk will benefit a man, such as this man suffering from cancer."
Yet the network gave lots of airtime to the suggestion of potential benefits.
Did not appear to rely on a press release.
No oncologists, gastroenterologists, immunologists or lactation specialists appear to have been interviewed for this piece. More articulate commentary about how to think about magical treatments would have been valuable for viewers.
No other discussion of other research into ways to boost the immune system for people with cancer.
Total Score: 2 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.