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.