Back and forth this story goes:
Using the word "also" in that last quote implies that some other beneficial effect has already been established in this study and story.
It hasn’t.
This was petri dish research. "Intriguing," as the Cancer Society expert said. But it’s difficult to say much more. Yet this story was republished by BusinessWeek, health.msn.com, and other news organizations!
If journalists were going to report about every agent that looked effective against cancer cells in a petri dish, they wouldn’t have room to publish anything else. Is there an editorial policy in place? Will ALL such stories be reported?
Costs weren’t mentioned. It took us only a few seconds to find out how much this stuff is sold for online.
Potential benefits were exaggerated far beyond what this laboratory-only research showed. Again, the story stated:
Also? No human benefit was proven in this story!
Not applicable. You can’t talk about harms from an agent that’s only been tested in a petri dish. But, then again, you really can’t say much at all. Yet they made a news story out of this.
The story does inject a few caveats about the study:
But it didn’t give any context for how many other agents have looked good in the lab but failed to pan out in animals much less humans. Instead, it played editorial ping pong with readers, because it also stated:
Not applicable because there really wasn’t any meaningful discussion of breast cancer.
One independent source was quoted.
The story included the American Cancer Society expert’s recommendations for breast cancer prevention.
The story states that bitter melon extract is a popular nutritional supplement and is a common vegetable in India, China and South America.
There’s been a lot of research for a long time on bitter melon extract. We quickly found one study from as far back as 1983. The story didn’t provide any of that context.
The story did include a comment from an American Cancer Society expert, so it doesn’t appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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