All you have to do is use our search engine on HealthNewsReview.org to search for “Alzheimer’s” and you’ll get countless returns of stories and claims such as:
Spinal-Fluid Test Is Found to Predict Alzheimer’s
Drug for Immune Disorders Helps Alzheimer’s
Miracle drug for Alzheimer’s patients
A cocktail to remember? Nutrient elixir shows promise against Alzheimer’s
I could go on and on listing a litany of claims about abilities to diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease earlier and better, surely leading the way to better treatments. Some stories already make sensational claims about treatments.
Now read Derek Lowe’s important blog post, “Lilly’s Gamma Secretase Inhibitor for Alzheimer’s: Worse Than Nothing.” Excerpts:
“Well, well, well. We finally have solid clinical data from a large trial of a gamma-secretase inhibitor for Alzheimer’s disease. And it doesn’t work.
…
And now we have the results.Nothing. Worse than nothing – they saw real declines in cognitive function compared to the placebo group. It’s not getting as much play in the news this morning, but it also appears – insult to injury – that the drug was associated with a greater risk of skin cancer. Lilly has halted any development, and told all the study centers to stop dosing immediately. All the patients who received it will be monitored to see how they do over the next few months.
This is about as bad a result as could possibly be obtained, and I think it really has to torpedo the idea of gamma secretase as a drug target. Unless someone comes up with a very compelling and intricate argument to explain these results, I don’t see how anyone can risk going down this particular road again. What must they be thinking today over at Bristol-Myers Squibb, where they’ve been developing a direct competitor, BMS708163?
And what does this say about the amyloid hypothesis itself? Nothing good. This is the crucial period for the whole idea, with several different approaches finally yielding late-stage clinical data. And it’s starting to look as if the whole idea may have been just a terrible diversion.”
This is an example of why we react negatively to stories that mention “new pathways to a cure” after a study of just 3 people – as the NYT piece yesterday on Lou Gehrig’s Disease did.
This is why we react negatively to Alzheimer’s Disease stories that emphasize what scans can show when we don’t fully understand what the images and findings mean.
This is why we react negatively to Alzheimer’s stories about treatments that hype results from small, preliminary studies.
We think it’s wrong – bordering on malicious – for journalists to sensationalize research findings in an area where sick people are desperate for evidence and for solid information on benefits and harms. Hope has value; sick people have told me that THEY can decide where to invest their hope – they don’t need journalists doing it for them. False hope is a harm. And it’s a harm that is committed far too often in news coverage of diseases like ALS and Alzheimer’s disease.
ADDENDA ON AUGUST 18:
See the Harvard Health Blog post,
“Alzheimer’s study on biomarkers generates debate.”See also Robert Langreth’s column on Forbes.com,
“The Man Who Predicted Eli Lilly Alzheimer Failure.”
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
ellen
August 18, 2010 at 6:57 pmI just saw a disappointing story on the recent Alzheimer’s studies on PBS Newshour (Wed 8/18/10). They presented the comments of just a single expert, who expressed unquestioning faith in the amyloid hypothesis. They seemed to quite totally miss the point. (Sorry, the story doesn’t seem to be posted yet, but it looks like it will be up 8/19 or 20.)
anci
August 22, 2010 at 9:16 amThank you for sharing with us
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like