This piece reported that use of twice daily injections of a synthesized version of the hormone leptin helped maintain weight loss in a small group of individuals who lost 10% of their body weight in the preceding 5-10 weeks by following a very low-calorie diet. There was no comparison group of people who did not receive the twice-daily injections fed a comparable number of calories following weight loss. No context was given, providing no mention of any other weight loss maintenance methods. The conclusion that this study (of an injected hormone) “suggests that the weight loss solution may eventually be a pill” is totally unsupported by anything in the original research. And it conflicts with a line that appeared just three sentences earlier in the story, which explained, “the lead investigator said the 10-week study was too short and too small to determine whether continuous leptin treatments could allow dieters to keep off their weight permanently and effortlessly.” Finally, the story did not reveal that in the study, subjects were fed a meager 800 calories a day, which is more akin to starvation than to dieting. So it makes the conclusion of the story even less relevant to dieters trying to keep weight off, which was the way the story was framed.
No mention of possible costs
for leptin; no mention of costs of other methods of weight maintenance.
The story presented as a benefit that leptin increased number of calories used during low level
activity. But it fails to mention that at higher levels of energy expenditure, this effect was not observed.
No mention of any possible
harms. What, if anything, happened after the study subjects stopped receiving leptin injections?
The piece does inform the reader that this was a study that examined too few
people and that the 10 weeks was too short a time period to determine whether continuous leptin injection was a feasible way
to keep weight off.
Weight loss is framed as starvation.
The study this piece was based on fed the study subjects 800 kcal/day which is more akin to starvation than dieting. It
makes the piece less relevant to the dieting process.
The story provided a quote only from the lead investigator of the
study; the story includes no input from any other independent source.
No mention of any other weight loss maintenance methods.
Doesn’t mention that there is no FDA approval for the use of
leptin in maintenance of weight loss.
Doesn’t mention that leptin
is a purely experimental treatment – a hormone discovered in 1969.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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