This television news segment reports on the claim that a drug called Baclofan successfully treated a French physician’s alcoholism. It draws on the opinion of a single medical expert who has ambivalent comments on it.
There is nothing wrong with airing a segment about one doctor’s unusual claim. Indeed, given the book’s popularity, you could argue a report is useful to the public.
Unfortunately, the producer and reporter fail to follow medical journalism best practices:
The viewer’s takeaway is likely to be: A French doctor says a pill cured his alcoholism. I wonder if [name of friend or family member] should try it?
Given how little is known about the pill and the singularity of the doctor’s experience, this is not a good outcome.
Alcoholism is a serious, deadly disease. Alcoholics and their loved ones are very hopeful for a "cure." They deserve a more diligent, detailed, responsible report than this one.
The story does not state the price of the drug or what the duration of the treatment would be.
No data is cited about the effectiveness of the drug.
While the segment mentions that the drug has "had little success in clinical trials," this should have been explored a bit more. The lack of proof of efficacy is too central to a viewer’s understanding of the story to justify simply mentioning it in passing. The expert interviewed heaps more hope on the pill by saying that in combination with other drugs it looks even better. Where’s the data?
The segment does not mention Baclofen’s risks, which include respiratory failure, irregular heartbeat, fainting and vomiting. There is also a risk of withdrawl syndrome when the drug is stopped after chronic use.
The report is based on the general topic of a book written by a French physician. We know nothing about his credibility or the nature of the book, aside from that it’s a "best seller."
The report should have made clear whether the book contains any evidence other than the single case of the author’s experience.
The one line at the very end is too little too late – "Dr. Garbutt says Baclofen has had little success in clinical trials and doesn’t work for all alcoholics." What does "little success" mean? How many does it not work for? What’s the evidence?
The story does not overstate the severity or prevalence of alcoholism. It resists using anecdotes to create emotion.
Having said that, the visuals that accompany this story–exotic drinks in upscale venues–create one visual portrayal of alcohol dependence. A bigger picture would portray people in cheap liquor stores, car wrecks, ERs and homeless shelters. The story runs the risk of conveying the message: "Don’t you wish it were safe for you (suffering alcoholic) to indulge in drinking the way these people can? This magic bullet should excite you!"
The segment interviews one expert on alcoholism.
That’s not sufficient for a story that highlights a provocative, suspect claim about a serious and deadly condition.
The story mentions that other drugs are used to treat alcoholism, and the opinion that Baclofen may eventually play a role in multiple-drug approaches. Naltrexone is mentioned but other approved medications are not (i.e. acamprosate and disulfiram).
The story should have mentioned the success rate of controlling alcoholism with medications or other treatments– which include psychotherapy with community self-help and treatment of withdrawal–so viewers could put this potential treatment in context.
Current treatments include psychotherapy and community self-help and treatment of withdrawal.
The segment makes clear that the drug Baclofen is a widely used muscle relaxer. The images on screen make clear that it is a prescription drug, not an over-the-counter product.
The story makes clear that the drug is widely used but its application to alcoholism is novel.
We can’t be sure what prompted the story – why the author of the book on which all the news is based wasn’t interviewed – and why the expert who was interviewed was chosen.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
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.