Sometimes when we read health news stories, we think of Louis Armstrong singing, “And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!” WebMD, which in recent stories, has reported on baking soda boosting athletic performance (0 stars), on resveratrol for aging (1 star), and on “lots of coffee lowering oral cancer risk” (1 star), now rewrites a university news release to trumpet how drinking beet juice may fight dementia.
This from a study of 14 people for four days. But despite the dementia-fighting claim, the story didn’t include one word about how study participants felt, or anything about improved cognition – outcomes that people would care about.
“Press release by proxy” isn’t journalism.
But even for people who write news releases, we remind you that surrogate endpoints do not necessarily reflect on overall health outcomes. And especially not from a study of 14 people over four days.
And from this we get the headline that “drinking beet juice may fight dementia”???
Not applicable. The costs of these veggies was not discussed, but it’s not in question.
As we said in the “disease-mongering” criterion above, benefits were not expressed in terms of any outcomes that people would really care about in their lives, but, rather, only in terms of improved test scores which may not correlate with improved outcomes.
There was no discussion of potential harms from consuming high concentrations nitrates.
There was not one word about the limitations of a study involving just 14 people for just four days.
There was very little discussion of the underlying problem of dementia, which appears prominently as “the problem” in the headline.
But there was an element of disease-mongering in the framing of surrogate endpoints – test markers or images or scores such as MRI scans of brain blood flow and blood tests – as goals for “overall good health.”
Indeed, there was not one word about how people felt, how they thought, how they performed – outcomes that really matter.
There were no independent sources. All quotes came from a university news release.
There was no comparison – not even a line – between what nitrites could do and what other approaches might do or have already been shown to do.
The story explains that nitrites are found in high concentrations in beets, celery, cabbage and other leafy green vegetables like spinach.
The story briefly mentioned something about previous studies of nitrites in widening blood vessels, but then claimed that this study was the first to find nitrites also increase blood flow to the brain. Of course, that’s what it said in the news release.
The story was nothing more than a rewrite and a rearrangement of a Wake Forest University news release.
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