Anyone want to give me odds on any of the following news stories — which all showed up in our newsfeed before 9 AM today — winning some sort of Toilet Bowl for health news?
Good news. If you’re a bald mouse with access to a McDonalds, your ship has come in.
Newsweek wants you to know that dimethylpolysiloxane — “the silicone added to McDonald’s fries to keep the cooking oil from frothing” — makes a great cell culture medium for growing “hair follicle germs” (HFG’s) that can be transplanted on to nude mice and make hair grow.
Apparently this “groundbreaking method” is enough of a “breakthrough” to justify the headline, but maybe not enough of one for McDonalds, whom we’re told “did not respond to Newsweek’s request for comment.”
There is one factoid included that might help explain the clickbait; we’re told, “in 2016, the U.S. hair loss treatment manufacturing industry was worth $6 billion.”
I think we already knew that. But I bet a lot of mice didn’t.
From McDonalds, the newly coiffed mouse can then head over to the local watering hole, and knock a couple down for memory’s sake.
While the news release does well to remind people that “excessive consumption of alcohol is a health hazard,” it’s only halfway into the release we learn this is a mouse study and the headline is, therefore, simply unjustified hype.
And then there’s this coverage from Fox News. Are these two sentences an attempt at balance?
… and …
“It’s important not to overdo it, though: Rodents exposed to high levels of alcohol fared less well, with inflammation, cognitive impairment and impeded motor skills.”
That second sentence is bio-speak for “drunk.”
And the headline emphasizing that alcohol “can help you fight Alzheimer’s” is simply called “guessing.” It’s based on the notion that if low levels of alcohol help clear waste from mouse brains — and that “waste” includes things like amyloid and tau which are associated with Alzheimer’s — then low-dose alcohol must help humans fight Alzheimer’s disease.
That’s one giant leap, indeed.
Does it qualify as hype if you take an observational study looking at noise pollution and heart disease and write a headline like this?
Yes. It does. Because you can’t establish cause and effect with this kind of study.
And it’s also not in the public’s best interest to include a sentence like this:
“Noise pollution should be considered a risk factor for heart disease, similar to that of high cholesterol and obesity.”
NBC’s icing on the cake is including this quote from the lead author:
Though there is no set threshold to establish risk, we do know that anything above 60 decibels can increase risk for heart disease.
For the record, 60 decibels is the level of conversational speech. And we’re being led to believe we should be as worried about that as a large order of fries? (at least the latter will prevent baldness).
Rule of thumb: when writing about a study that has only two subjects, and the author of that study tells you “I think this is a breakthrough in vitiligo treatment,” at the very least do two things. Don’t just tell people that vitiligo affects 2 percent of the population (a nice inclusion) but also make sure to let your readers know the study involved just two subjects.
Also, let people know that the author of the study has financial ties to the company that makes the drug being studied; in this case, Pfizer makes the tofacitinib that was combined with the ultraviolet-B light therapy and produced (per the author) “results that are impossible to achieve with common therapies.”
And while you’re at it, why not mention the cost of this off-label treatment, the possible side effects & drug interactions, and use data — rather than anecdotes from the study’s two subjects — to help us weigh the risks versus benefits.
This isn’t the first time we’ve wanted to flush and clean the bowl. Here are some other examples.