Our Review Summary
This story reports on a very small study suggesting that psilocybin, a compound found in hallucinogenic mushrooms, reduces anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer. While the story failed to meet many of our criteria, it should have at the very least, acknowledged the limitations of a trial that only contains 12 people.
Why This Matters
A study of 12 people for a disorder that already has effective treatments may not matter at all. While there is always room for better treatments, we are a long way from showing any advantages for this compound.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There would have been two ways to approach costs in this case. The first would be to ask local, state or federal law enforcement sources for ballpark estimates of the street value of the drugs involved. The second would be to ask the researchers how much they spent to obtain the drugs.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not provide any data and only indicated, rather vaguely, that patients seemed “somewhat less anxious.”
Not Satisfactory
The story suggests that the treatment was safe; however, the research showed that psilocybin significantly increased heart rate and blood pressure, compared to the placebo. In addition, the research did not report any serious adverse events in 12 patients, but that still leaves open the possibility that up to 25% of patients would have serious adverse events based on confidence intervals.
Not Satisfactory
While the story pointed out the two major strengths of the study design, randomization and double blinding, it would have been even better if it mentioned why these methods are important. The story also failed to point out that a study of just 12 people is extremely small and additional studies are needed to verify the results. Based on this story, we know very little about the study participants. For example, it would be helpful for the reader to know that the patients had various types of anxiety, eight out of the 12 of them had prior experience with hallucinogens, and four people died before the study concluded.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in disease-mongering. The story also failed, though, to provide any information on what types of cancer the patients had, nor did it mention the level of anxiety or depression that the patients were experiencing. Without this information the reader could wrongly conclude that all cancer patients, with any type of anxiety, may benefit from this treatment.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not quote any independent sources. The story also failed to mention that study authors, Drs. Grob and Greer, serve on the board of directors for the Heffter Research Institute, which provided partial funding for the study and exists to promote research on hallucinogens.
Not Satisfactory
There was no mention of existing treatments for anxiety disorders, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or medication.
Satisfactory
The story makes it clear that psilocybin is not legal in the U.S.
Satisfactory
The story makes it clear that the use of hallucinogens for treating anxiety dates back to the 1950s.
Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory
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