LA Times strikes the right balance by reporting evenly on both harms and benefits of ‘magic mushrooms’ for cancer patients

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

Satisfactory

The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done.

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

Satisfactory

The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: “But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials — the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike.” This is the sort of thing we like to see.

However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was “limited blinding” — how did that possibly affect the outcomes?

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering here.

However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer.

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

Satisfactory

The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization’s long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert.

However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which saw in some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: “[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use.” Well done.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That’s enough to earn it a “Satisfactory” rating. However, the story doesn’t mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know.

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

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to rely on a news release.