‘Alzheimer’s disease can be fully cured:’ Medical Daily story is a forehead-slapper

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Costs don’t rate a mention in the story. The drug in question requires a prescription in the United States and is expensive, ranging between $111 and $400 for a 30-day course of treatment.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Given the over-the-top headline and first sentence, we would have expected to see at least a little in the way of quantification of the benefits in mice. The story provides no numbers, though. The story says, “Researchers observed that memory loss was fully reversed to the levels seen in mice without Alzheimer’s.”

But even if the story had provided specific study findings on benefits, this was a mouse study–known as a pre-clinical trial. Any benefits measured in mice is far too premature to make any extrapolative statements to people.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

While the story does allude to harms, there are two problems. First, we are troubled that the explanation was actually taken directly from the news release about the study. Second, we feel that it was too vague and not explored in any meaningful way. The story says only, “they also warned that these ‘drugs are not without side effects and should not be taken for Alzheimer’s disease at this stage–studies in people are needed first.'” What are the side effects? We’re not told.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

This is perhaps the biggest failing of the piece. The article makes no mention of multiple areas that should give readers pause:

1. No mention of the fact that these weren’t just regular mice. These were transgenic mice, meaning they were genetically manipulated to create certain traits. Even if the quality of the evidence in these mice was solid — which it isn’t — it would not have broad application to other mice, let alone humans.
2. No mention of the fact that this study only looks at some biochemical pathways and not at any clinically significant changes. Similar effects on humans is speculative at best, and it could be years, if not decades, before we can even study this in humans or see any relevant results in non-four-legged animals.
3. No mention of how many mice were studied. (Looks like it was only three.)
4. No mention of how the mice’s “memory loss” was assessed or quantified before/after the administration of the medication
5. No mention of what the markers for “brain inflammation” were and how the researchers assessed their reversal.
6. No mention of the study’s methods

The study, which is available for free online, is complex and would be hard even for other researchers to understand.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

There are no independent sources in the story.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

The story has no independent sources, and uses language from the news release nearly verbatim in multiple places. For example:

News release: Memory loss was completely reversed back to the levels seen in mice without the disease.

Story: Researchers observed that memory loss was fully reversed to the levels seen in mice without Alzheimer’s.