This release reports on a study looking at the effects of taking daily doses of a readily available garlic supplement on the buildup of so-called soft plaque in coronary arteries. After one year of supplementation the rate of accumulation of this plaque had been reduced by 80%, according to the release. Our greatest concern with the release is its unsubstantiated claims about the benefits and the serious conflicts of interest (plural) at play. The paper discussed in the release was published as a paid supplement to the Journal of Nutrition and presented at a symposium sponsored primarily by commercial interests from the nutrition industry.
[Editor’s note: In this review, we characterize the garlic study as being “not yet available” (see below under “Why This Matters”) because the release described the study as “scheduled to be published.” Our reviewers felt that the release’s description was explicit about the fact that the study was not published — and that if it had been published, the release should have noted this. An official from the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute contacted us to clarify that the study was in fact published and available at the time the release was issued. We are passing this information along to readers.]
If correct, this research would suggest a fairly easy and inexpensive way to reduce the buildup of plaque in the heart’s arteries which would be a boon in treating coronary artery disease. However, the release provides barely enough information to make such claims and is exceedingly vague in the specifics of the work. Moreover, the release touts a study scheduled to be published but not yet available. Writers lured by this release would do well to show justifiable caution.
This release makes no mention of the cost of this supplement in its discussion, although the supplement and its cost are easily available via the web. It would be nice to know what a year’s worth at the prescribed dose would cost.
The closing paragraph of the release claims that the supplement “had slowed total plaque accumulation by 80%, reduced soft plaque and demonstrated regression (less plaque on follow-up) for low-attenuation plaque.” However, the opening paragraph of the release goes quite a bit further, stating that “the supplement Aged Garlic Extract can reverse the buildup of deadly plaque in arteries and help prevent the progression of heart disease” — a far more definitive claim than the release’s information can substantiate. There’s nothing in this release to suggest that the supplement affects any outcome that matters to patients such as actual heart attacks and strokes.
The release makes no mention of any harms that could arise from taking a garlic supplement although a quick web search shows potential negative side effects including nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. There are also some indications that garlic may lower blood pressure, increase bleeding, and possibly irritate the intestinal lining, issues that should be of concern to some who might potentially take this supplement.
The release states that its conclusions are drawn from a randomized controlled and double-blinded study, which is good. But the small number of volunteers (55 total, aged 45 to 75) and the fact they all had metabolic syndrome detract from the study’s application to a wider audience. First off, metabolic syndrome patients are not adequate surrogates for the general population, and even if they were, a cadre of only 55 patients can never represent the broad public as a whole. Moreover, based on information in the release, the year-long study made no mention of controls for other possible variables (such as race and income) other than taking the garlic supplement. Perhaps the study incorporated such additional controls but if the release omits them, then readers cannot tell the quality of the conclusions that the release touts.
The release does not commit disease mongering.
While this release does mention that the study was funded by a company that produces the garlic supplement and that the study’s main author received payments from that company, it doesn’t go nearly far enough with disclosures. The paper, published as a paid supplement to the Journal of Nutrition, needed to be labeled as such. Paid supplement articles differ from routine, peer-reviewed papers published in the journal. The work was presented at a symposium sponsored primarily by commercial interests from the nutrition industry and the main author served as the paid chair of that meeting. All of this is information that readers should have to properly evaluate the value of the information.
The release only discusses the impact of a single commercial product, Aged Garlic Extract, which is produced by the company funding the research and one of the supporters of the conference at which the research was presented. It does not provide any information on other similar products although there are many available on the market. In addition, there are other ways to prevent or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease including, but not limited to, avoiding smoking, controlling blood pressure, cholesterol and weight and taking daily aspirin.
The Aged Garlic Extract mentioned in the release is readily available at health food stories and other venues.
This release appears to be touting the same research that was the focus of a Los Angeles television station’s news report from 2014 quoting the same main author and generally reporting similar results. If this is the case, this release fails to show any novelty that would warrant any additional news coverage, over and above any other weaknesses it includes.
This release does not use any unjustifiable language.
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 (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Stephen Cox, MD
February 1, 2016 at 9:28 amEven though our “brilliant” congress has made the FDA edentulous to adequately control the vast and unscrupulous claims and wasted money by makers and sellers of “nutritional” supplements, one would think these inadequate claims and studies should not be allowed. Consumers have little defense for such false promotions. They should all read “Quackwatch, Healthfraud and Dr. Edzard Ernst posts on line to understand the facts and misinformation propagated by alternative health providers and the supplement industry.
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