The very preliminary study mentioned in this news release relies on only 12 cancer patients filling out an unvalidated questionnaire about whether taking lactoferrin supplements improved their sense of taste and smell.
This is a weak news release about a weak observational study because it provides no supporting data, never mentions how small the study is, and doesn’t explain the basic design or multiple limitations of the study.
To then write a headline broadly claiming alleviation of chemotherapy side effects and state the “findings could bring relief to millions of patients undergoing cancer treatment” is a textbook example of overreaching and unjustified hype with significant potential for misleading — not “bringing relief” to millions.
What this news release does do well is establish that altered taste and smell in cancer patients is a very real problem with very real consequences. An effective therapy could help millions of people and potentially make millions of dollars for those who develop such a treatment.
Dangling headlines of false hope without supporting evidence is not just irresponsible, it’s potentially unethical.
Avoiding this egregious level of misinformation is not difficult. At the very least it could be addressed by including study results and clearly explaining to readers what the strengths and limitations of those findings are. After that, double check your headline and ask yourself: is it more eye-catching or more evidence-based?
The cost of lactoferrin supplements is not mentioned.
The 250 mg capsules used in this study were supplied by Jarrrow Formulas who list the capsule price as 50 cents. Therefore, three-a-day dosing — as tested in the study — would cost $1.50.
A study author is quoted as speculating that lactoferrin …
“elicits changes in the salivary protein profiles in cancer patients — changes that may be influential in helping protect taste buds and odor perception” — which in turn — might “reduce TSA (“taste and smell abnormalities”), restoring their ability to enjoy food during a time in which nutrition can play a key role in recovery.”
Although the logic here appears sound there is no data included to support this chain of eventualities.
No mention is made of potential harms from lactoferrin.
Readers might be curious about the potential for intoxication (animal studies have been inconclusive in this area) or intolerance.
WebMD mentions:
“Lactoferrin can cause diarrhea. In very high doses, skin rash, loss of appetite, fatigue, chills, and constipation have been reported.”
Several problems here that aren’t mentioned in the release:
Not addressing these limitations is a major weakness of this release and, therefore, a huge disservice to readers.
This news release does not disease monger. Rather, it clearly states that TSA in cancer patients is a common problem, and can be detrimental to cancer patients’ recovery.
Funding sources are excluded.
Careful review of the author disclosures included in the study reveal no significant conflicts of interest.
It’s rather misleading to claim “until now, there have been no reliable therapies” for TSA, because this study cannot establish lactoferrin as a “reliable therapy” based on only 12 patients.
Many approaches have been tried to help cancer patients cope with altered taste/smell including: dietary changes, Zinc supplementation, and agents which increase saliva production, to name a few.
It wasn’t made clear enough in the release that lactoferrin supplements are available online. Many readers might erroneously think the only source is drinking milk.
Using an agent that binds iron is not novel.
Also, the release does not make it clear if there are other agents currently being investifated that “elicit changes in the salivary protein profiles in cancer patients that may be influential in helping to protect taste buds and odor perception” as lactoferrin is postulated (but not proven) to do.
A preliminary study that relies heavily upon a highly subjective questionnaire completed by just 12 patients does NOT justify a headline/subhead like this:
“Milk protein shown to alleviate chemotherapy side effects: Findings could bring relief to millions of patients undergoing cancer treatment.”
“Our results suggest lactoferrin may be developed as an effective dietary supplement to treat TSA caused by chemotherapy and increase the expression of salivary proteins.”
This statement is barely supported by the data and the extrapolation made in the news release is completely unfounded.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
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