Michael Joyce is a writer-producer with HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Here’s an example of what can happen when a study author makes grandiose claims, a news release unabashedly promotes these claims, and a host of reporters run with it because the topic is popular (food allergies) and the affected group is vulnerable (babies).
How baby wipes are making your baby sick (NY Post)
Baby wet wipes ’cause food allergy,’ new study warns (The Telegraph)
These headlines are representative of many covering a study out of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. It investigates a possible skin-based explanation for babies developing allergies to foods they haven’t consumed.
The researchers speculate that the following combination of factors — genetic mutations affecting skin permeability + allergen exposure by caregivers handling children + soapy baby wipes removing a protective oily coating on the skin — all work together to create what the news release labels a “perfect storm” and the lead author calls “a recipe for developing food allergy.”
Dave Stukus, MD is a pediatric allergy/asthma specialist in Columbus, OH (click image to enlarge)
Problem is the research was done in mice, not humans.
This means the lead author’s statement that the results represent “a major advance in our understanding of how food allergy starts early in life” is simply exaggeration (unless she’s talking about ‘early in life’ for rodents, and even then the study cannot prove causation).
But this didn’t stop the majority of coverage I read — and it was extensive — from parroting this unjustified language almost verbatim.
Kudos to NBC’s Today Show who, despite their provocative headline, made it clear that the role of soapy baby wipes in newborns developing food allergies is “pure speculation.”
[Check out our recently updated toolkit primer on how to approach health claims based on animal and lab studies.]
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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