This was a story about an industry-funded study with many of the quotes coming from an inventor from an institution that holds the patent on the product.
The quotes from the VP of medical and scientific affairs at the Alzheimer’s Association were important.
But what are readers to make of this?
Readers might be better able to make sense of it if the story provided more data, but numbers and details were lacking.
It’s Alzheimer’s Disease – that’s why it matters. And when you put “drink might boost memory” in the headline and let the inventor say existiing data now suggests that it may be possible to receive something that will sustain cognition” – then you’re going to get peoples’ attention. Is this worthy of attention? The story didn’t make the case clearly enough.
The story states “There are no plans to market Souvenaid, so the cost hasn’t been established.”
The results were only discussed in broad, general terms – no quantified details were provided.
The story only paraphrased the researchers saying “there were no serious side effects.” That’s not good enough. What did the data show? What was observed? In how many people? Then let readers or independent observers judge what is serious or not. At a minimum, the percentage of people in the trial with any side effects should be given.
The Alzheimer’s Association spokesman offered this:
Medical foods do not have a requirement for FDA premarket approval, but they do have a requirement for having a scientific foundation and some evidence of efficacy,” he said. “But they don’t have the kind of data we would find for a medication.”
That makes it difficult to make a clear-cut statement about the value of the product, he said.
“There isn’t a clear diet that prevents you from getting Alzheimer’s disease or improves your memory,” Thies said.
In addition, medical foods for Alzheimer’s most likely won’t be covered by insurance, he said.
“You are making a judgment without the protections you have when dealing with a medication,” Thies said. “You’re going to be making a decision using your own funds and we would advise anybody to make sure they understand what the product offers and make sure they understand what it’s going to cost.”
That section of text above was the best part of the story because it draws attention to the functional/medicinal food vs drug difference in the eyes of the FDA.
There was no disease-mongering of Alzheimer’s disease.
The Alzheimer’s Association spokesman added some needed perspective. Manufacturer support for the study, and MIT’s patent on the product, were disclosed. It would have been better to additionally have a scientist who studies nutrition and neurodegenerative disease comment on the study.
There was no discussion of any other research in the field of memory boosting. A brief nod to what is known (exercise, stimulation such as puzzles, etc.) about reducing cognitive decline would have been appreciated.
The fact that there were no plans yet to market the product was explained.
The story briefly mentioned earlier animal and human clinical studies.
The story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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