HealthDay published – and at least one major news organization (BusinessWeek) republished – this overly enthusiastic story about what substances in tequila plants, garlic and onions may do to "fight bone loss" and a host of other problems. Read the review for full details.
The credibility of journalism is called into question with stories like this. Independent vetting? None. Making the leap from mouse research to what "can be used" in products for children and infants to help prevent various diseases? Indefensibly definitive language.
Not applicable. Cost not discussed but there is no product yet to cost estimate.
First, this was in mice – a fact that was minimized in the story. But we don’t know how many mice were tested. Was it two? Was it 200? And we’re only given a relative benefit statistic – "50 percent increase in levels of a protein associated with the build-up of new bone tissue." 50% of what?
Yet this mouse story allowed the researcher – based on a quote from a news release – to say:
"They can be used in many products for children and infants to help prevent various diseases, and can even be used in ice cream as a sugar substitute."
Shameful.
Not a word about potential harms.
It took 5 paragraphs – half way through the story – before it was mentioned that the research on bone growth was in mice. And even then no caveats were provided about interpreting such evidence.
Besides the headline claim about fighting bone loss, the story states that "Experimental studies suggest that fructans may be beneficial in diabetes, obesity, stimulating the immune system of the body, decreasing levels of disease-causing bacteria in the intestine, relieving constipation and reducing the risk of colon cancer." Are you sure you didn’t leave something out?
No independent sources.
No such comparisons provided.
Not applicable. The availability of these plants is not in question.
The story briefly mentioned past experimental studies suggesting benefits from fructans.
The story admits that it is based on "background information in a news release from the American Chemical Society."
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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