This was a story about an approach to augment weight loss involving manipulation of the vagus nerve that is currently under very limited investigation. While containing cost estimates for the approaches discussed, the story was rather vague about the risks and benefits of these means to weight loss. The story provided little detail that would enable an interested reader to pursue more in depth information about these techniques.
When comparing a medical device to disrupt neural signaling along the vagus nerve with surgical severing of the vagus nerve, the story did mention that surgical severing was irreversible and did discuss that implanting a device to disrupt the nerve involved having a foreign object within the body. However beyond these two suggested problems, the story was lacking in discussion for the role of the vagus nerve in the body. The vagus nerve is involved in far more than just mediating food intake; affecting it could have serious impacts on digestive system and on the cardiovascular system as well.
The story included cost estimates for the procedures mentioned.
The story mentioned a study by a doctor of 30 people, involving a device that interfered with vagal nerve transmission in which 80% of the people lost 30% of their excess weight in the first six months. As the story mentioned that this was done in 2005 and it is currently 2008. One wonders what the long term weight loss for these people was. A query of the National Institutes of Health medical library database (PubMed) using the name of the doctor and vagus nerve failed to find any published report of this study. Was the weight loss only temporary?
Beyond this information, there was no information on the amount of weight that might be lost using the techniques or procedures affecting the vagus nerve or whether weight loss with a method of this nature would be temporary or long term.
The discussion of harms was much too brief, and with only the presentation of glowing anecdotes, readers might walk away with an imbalanced and incomplete view of harms and benefits.
When comparing a medical device to disrupt neural signaling along the vagus nerve with surgical severing of the vagus nerve, the story did mention that surgical severing was irreversible and did discuss that implanting a device to disrupt the nerve involved having a foreign object within the body. However beyond these two suggested problems, the story was lacking in discussion for the role of the vagus nerve in the body. The vagus nerve is involved in far more than just mediating food intake; affecting it could have serious impacts on digestive system and on the cardiovascular system as well.
An inadequate job was done exploring the ramifications of damaging the vagus nerve.
The story included anecdotes from several individuals who had had procedures that disrupt the signal from the vagus nerve; these people attested to their perception that the procedure had better enabled them to lose weight. (One of the individuals interviewed claimed to have lost 20 pounds since December. Interestingly, as this piece was written at the start of June, this works out to around 4 lbs per month. There was no discussion about this magnitude of weight loss.)
While the story contained some discussion about historical precedent that suggested that disturbance of the vagal nerve could be utilized for the purpose of encouraging weight loss, the story did not include data about the efficacy of these approaches, whether such information had actually been compiled, or whether this approach to weight loss was entirely speculative. This is an important oversight.
The story did not engage in disease mongering; in fact, the story was clear that these are treatments for obesity, not simply overweight.
Several physicians involved in the use of devices to disrupt the vagal nerve for the purpose of weight loss and several individuals who had experienced weight loss using this type of methodology were interviewed for this story. There was insufficient comment from objective experts on weight loss who might have been able to provide some perspective for the relative merit or interest in this avenue of research. There was only a one line comment from Dr. Samuel Klein of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis predicting that vagotomy may produce only temporary weight loss. Better balance in sources – or in space provided them – was needed.
Although this piece did not discuss other options, it was part of a series of reports by the paper that did discuss other options.
The story made it clear that the newer (non-permanent) vagal nerve treatments are only available via clinical trials at this time. And the availability of vagotomy surgery (and gastric bypass) was also clear.
It was clear from the story that the surgery was not new and which approaches were experimental.
There are enough different sources used in this story that it is safe to assume that it did not rely on a news release.
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