This is little gem of a story—a 454-word précis that lays out a succinct history of the research on garlic’s purported success in lowering LDL cholesterol (lab and animal studies), describes the methods and results of a new randomized trial in adults who have moderately high cholesterol, adds the voices of four sources representing a variety of viewpoints and interests, and entertains the reader in the deal. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t perfectly satisfy all of our criteria: In another 50 words or so it could have mentioned the costs of supplements, the incidental “harms” of consuming garlic (bad breath and body odor) and alternative methods for lowering cholesterol (e.g. exercise, diet, and drugs). Fortunately, many readers will be familiar with these. The story might also have added one more caveat (noted in an accompanying editorial): that atherosclerosis is an extremely complex problem involving much more than cholesterol — and that, conceivably, garlic might help trim some other risk factor important to our cardiovascular health. (Charlson M, Arch Intern Med 2007;167:325-6)
Though the article does not mention costs or compare costs of garlic and garlic supplements with other treatments, many readers will be familiar with these.
The story reports that the consumption of garlic in any of three forms (raw, powdered supplement, aged extract supplement) had no effect on LDL cholesterol or triglycerides. To quantify this non-effect in mm/dL is unnecessary, and would have been numbing for the average health news consumer.
A majority (57%) of individuals in the trial who ate garlic-laced sandwiches reported bad breath and body odor, a “harm” the story neglected to mention.
The article reflects an appreciation for the hierarchy of evidence, noting that “there was good evidence in test-tube and animal studies” that garlic could lower LDL cholesterol, and explains the randomization methods in the new clinical trial.
The article cites four sources and provides sufficient information about their potential conflicts of interest.
The article fails to mention alternative methods for lowering cholesterol, though many readers may be familiar with these (most prominently exercise, diet, and drugs).
Most readers will be familiar with the availability of the health interventions studied—raw garlic and garlic supplements.
The story rightly notes that garlic is not a new “treatment” for high cholesterol.
No obvious use of text from a press 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.