Michael Joyce is a writer-producer with HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Here’s an example of what happens when it starts at the source with grandiose language used by the study authors, is perpetuated in newswire/releases and the publishing journal, and is ultimately parroted and amplified by news organizations.
A case report of 3 men (ages 40, 52, 67) who received dietary education and underwent intermittent fasting over 10 months; all three were able to go off their insulin, lose weight, and experience very mild reductions in their hemoglobin A1C (a rough average of blood sugar levels over the previous 2-3 months). In this study “intermittent fasting” was roughly three 24-hour periods each week in which the subjects were limited to water, coffee, tea, or bone broth.
The published conclusion: “Medically supervised, therapeutic fasting regimens can help reverse type 2 diabetes” (and minimize the use of prescriptions “and possibly surgical interventions” as well).
“What qualifies as a ‘reversal’ with diabetes is unclear. But what is clear is that following a single test like hemoglobin A1C, or simply going off insulin, does not qualify as reversal. Much more robust data is needed and no sort of clinical recommendations can be made from the results of just three subjects.”
The lead author (or authors) is/are quoted as saying:
Much of the news coverage was contradictory and, therefore, confusing if not misleading. For example, HealthDay — which used the reversal language in its headline and lede — rightly pointed out that with “just three patients it’s impossible to draw firm conclusions about the use of fasting to treat type 2 diabetes.” Yet, in the very next sentence wrote:
Still, the results are noteworthy, given that one in 10 Americans and Canadians have type 2 diabetes, the investigators said in a journal news release.
So which is it? Impossible to draw conclusions? Or truly noteworthy or even newsworthy?
Equally confusing was Newsweek frequently (and uncritically) using the reversal language but then providing reasons why the study “does not speak to the entirety of diabetes care and management in a way that is truly generalizable” … such as the need for much larger randomized studies, as well as the potential harms of precipitously dropping blood sugar levels with fasting.
Ultimately, it’s irresponsible for researchers who know the science of the disease to imply they can “reverse” it based on the responses of 3 men. Especially when such dramatic claims often lead to reporters carelessly adopting this erroneous and misleading language. It’s a disturbing example of a message that got polluted at the source and trickled down to readers.
Also disturbing is that this case report has been promoted under BMJ’s “Myth Exploded” series, the inclusion criteria of which aren’t carefully defined by the editors. This raises two important questions. First, does any case report have the statistical power to explode a myth? One would think only multiple, randomized controlled trials are robust enough to do that.
And couldn’t anecdotal case reports like this one achieve the opposite? That is, perpetuate a myth?