Look at that headline – “Coffee buzz protects brain from Alzheimer’s.”
Think of how many coffee stories you’ve seen.
Think of how many Alzheimer’s stories you’ve seen.
Then appreciate that this work was in mice – and that the story goes out of its way to not only pump up the mouse findings but to project about human data that no one has yet seen.
And then you can understand why readers get turned off to preliminary research stories that hype extremely preliminary findings.
Not applicable – the cost of coffee not in question.
The story states: “Amazingly, the equivalent of four to five cups of caffeinated coffee every few days led to much improved memories in the Alzheimer’s mice.”
All the mice?
All the time?
Did any fail to respond?
Just a simplistic, formulaic introduction states: “For years we’ve been told that caffeinated coffee was bad for us. It’s unhealthy and addictive, doctors warned.”
But it’s precisely these kinds of “once it was bad for you but now it’s good for you” stories that turn people off to health/medical/science news.
This is the nut graf, as it were, of our review.
There wasn’t one word about the limitations of such mouse research. In fact, the piece went out of its way to anticipate reactions like ours and to counter it, when it concluded:
“Lest you dismiss this study because it’s just in rodents, Arendash says he’s got new data in humans. That data is still being analyzed, he says, but so far it looks like caffeinated coffee has the same impact in people as it does in mice.”
So you give the researcher carte blanche credibility for data we haven’t seen? We don’t think that’s in anyone’s best interests.
No overt disease mongering of Alzheimer’s disease.
The piece promoted one researcher’s work with no insight provided from anyone else in the vast field of Alzheimer’s research.
No comparison is provided – not even a line – about any other research studying possible methods of protection from or prevention of Alzheimer’s onset.
Not applicable – the availability of coffee not in question.
At least some context was provided about other, prior research in this field.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the piece relied on a news release. But we can be sure that no independent perspective was provided.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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