This story looked at the potential for "harnessing the curative effects (of human breast milk) to fight terminal cancer."
But the segment:
It was described as “a highly alternative treatment.” What does that mean?
What did any of this mean to viewers? It went from saying there was "promising research that would indicate that in the future, the solutions for not only preventing cancer, but even treating and curing cancer might be within human milk" – to saying "there’s no research that says…human breast milk will benefit a man, such as this man suffering from cancer."
Yet the network gave lots of airtime to the suggestion of potential benefits.
Such a “yes it can, no it can’t” use of network TV airtime is not a public service.
No explicit cost information was provided. The story said that "for most adults, breast milk is expensive." But we don’t know what that means. But it is a stretch to be worried about cost if the idea in question is completely without evidence.
The segment is all over the map. One physician is quoted as saying there is "promising research that would indicate that in the future, the solutions for not only preventing cancer, but even treating and curing cancer might be within human milk."
But another part of the segment says "there’s no research that says…human breast milk will benefit a man, such as this man suffering from cancer."
Yet the network gave lots of airtime to the suggestion of potential benefits.
The broadcast inadequately dealt with the potential harms from the treatment. There was no discussion about the fact that breast milk is a biological fluid that has been shown to transmit viruses such HIV, hepatitis, and meningitis; additionally there is potential for breast milk to become contaminated or to have issues arise from improper storage.
This is not a trivial point in this context as persons undergoing cancer treatment are often immunosuppressed and would be especially vulnerable to infection.
The broadcast inadequately informed viewers about any evidence to support the contentions made about breast milk. Instead, it referred to "harnessing the curative effects to fight terminal cancer." Wow.
The story really didn’t give any background about colon cancer or prostate cancer – the two cancers mentioned.
No oncologists, gastroenterologists, immunologists or lactation specialists appear to have been interviewed for this piece. More articulate commentary about how to think about magical treatments would have been valuable for viewers.
No other discussion of other research into ways to boost the immune system for people with cancer.
It was clear from this broadcast that human breast milk is not readily available and that it was an unusual addition to cancer treatment for adults.
There is scant reference to "promising research" but we’re not given any details about the history of such research.
Did not appear to rely on a press 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