'Wonder jab' story 'over-hyped and misleading'

On Monday 9 April, the Express published its latest 'cancer cure' story:

On 20 January, the paper reported that statins beat cancer:

On 10 March, it was 'new aspirin':

Two days later, it was aspirin:

Now it is a 'wonder jab' that kills '90% of the cancers'.

The Express seems to have picked up the story from the Telegraph, which referred to a 'universal cancer vaccine'.

The Telegraph seems to have got the story from a press release (pdf) issued by the producers of the vaccine in question. It cites unpublished results from just seven patients.

Both articles include a quote from Dr Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK, but both relegate it to the very end. She says:

“There are several groups around the world investigating ­treatments that target MUC1 as it’s a very ­interesting target involved in several types of cancer.

“These are very early results that are yet to be fully published, so there’s a lot more work to be done to prove that this particular vaccine is safe and effective.”

On the Cancer Research UK Science Blog, she wrote more about these stories:

We are concerned that some of the coverage of this story has been over-hyped and misleading.

She added:

It’s important to be cautious about the results from the early-stage trial of ImMucin reported in the media, which are based on data from seven patients (out of ten treated so far) with multiple myeloma – a cancer affecting the immune system.

Furthermore, the team’s results are yet to be published in the scientific literature – the ‘gold standard’ for reliable research. Instead, the results have come directly from a press release from Vaxil Biotherapeutics Ltd, the company that makes the vaccine – something that wasn’t made clear in some of the media coverage of the story...

While MUC1 is certainly an important target in cancer and the results from the handful of myeloma patients in the ImMucin trial look promising, it’s a far cry from being a “wonder jab” that “kills 90% of all cancers”.

Finally, Arney noted that following the publication of these stories, Cancer Research UK had been contacted by concerned patients asking about the treatment:

We’ve already been contacted by cancer patients wondering how to get access to this “wonder jab” as a result of the news coverage. As we’ve said before, over-hyped stories like this only serve to raise false hopes in people suffering from cancer and mislead the public.

Every day cancer researchers in labs and hospitals around the world are making huge strides against this terrible disease, and their progress and successes deserve to be reported to the public. But misrepresenting and over-selling their early baby-steps isn’t helpful to anyone, most of all cancer patients and their families.

Perhaps Cancer Research UK should forward these calls to the Telegraph's Richard Gray and the Express' Paul Broster. 

Reporting that should carry a health warning

On the day the Express was changing its mind - again - about statins, the Mail asked: 'Can taking aspirin in pregnancy make your son infertile?'

As Primly Stable pointed out, this followed previous Mail articles - including one from August - that taking aspirin during pregnancy could 'prevent pre-eclampsia'. But it could also double the risk of miscarriage.

As NHS Behind the Headlines says in response to the 'fertility' story:

Current advice states that pregnant women should avoid ibuprofen and aspirin during pregnancy, although there is no evidence that occasional use of paracetamol is harmful. The results of this study are unlikely to change those recommendations, but women should seek advice from their GP or midwife before taken any medications during their pregnancy.

And they should not seek guidance from stories in the media. Yet articles about miracle cures or health scares have become a staple. Conflicting advice about the dangers or benefits of aspirin, for example, are common, as is poor reporting about medicine, science and research.

Recently, Angry Mob published a post on the 'unacceptable' way a recent study on CPR was reported, particularly by the Mail.

And there are plenty of other examples. Here's another one from the Mail:

How remembering to eat your celery could halt memory loss

A taste for celery is one that many people never acquire, but scientists have just given them a reason to eat it. They have discovered that a chemical found in high concentrations in celery – and in peppers – could halt memory loss as we get older.

The U.S. researchers say the plant compound luteolin reduces inflammation in the brain, which is associated with ageing and its related memory problems, by halting the release of molecules that cause the inflammation.

Only after that does the Mail explain the research was conducted on mice.

NHS Behind the Headlines explains:

Although this is interesting basic research that may give insight into at least one of the processes involved as the brain ages, its direct relevance to humans is limited.

The mice were given a relatively high supplement of pure luteolin. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that normal dietary consumption of luteolin–rich vegetables such as celery can improve memory in humans.

And:

The Daily Mail’s report has exaggerated the relevance of this study to humans and the effect that eating celery might have on human memory.

Meanwhile, on 13 October, the Express ran the front page headline 'Drug to stop memory loss'.

The paper's health editor, Victoria Fletcher, wrote:

An anti-ageing drug for the brain has come a step closer after an amazing breakthrough by a British team of researchers.

They have discovered that the drug can halt the process that causes frustrating memory problems as we get older.

Early tests suggest the drug can block enzymes that trigger stress hormones linked to ageing.

Once again, it was only several paragraphs into the article that it was revelaed the tests had only been done on mice.

And, once again, NHS Behind the Headlines was not impressed by the way the story has been presented:

This is good research within its own right, and well documented by the researchers in their research paper. However, this is still early-stage research in animals. As there was no long-term follow-up of the animals and its effects on other types of memory, the findings have little immediate relevance to the health of people with dementia. The Daily Express’s front-page report is not justified by this research...

The newspapers have over-interpreted the relevance of these findings to humans.

A few days before that, both the Express and Mail reported on the latest research about the benefits of tea.

Tea, a heart protector: three cups a day can prevent cardiac problems, say experts, claimed the Mail.

Two cups of tea a day 'cuts heart disease' said the more optimistic Express.

But:

The review was reported in both the Daily Mail and Daily Express, whose reporting generally did not reflect the uncertainty of the study’s conclusions. For example, the Mail reported that three cups of tea a day can prevent cardiac problems, while the Express said drinking tea two or three times a day could reduce risk of the disease by 11%. These claims appear to be based on a 2001 analysis, which the reviewers considered to be flawed. The review actually suggests that this earlier research had several problems that undermine the certainty of the results.

Both newspapers also claim that drinking two cups of tea will provide as many antioxidants as eating five portions of vegetables. Although tea does contain antioxidants, the suggestion that it can be a substitute for the numerous health benefits of fruit and vegetables is not supported by this research.

On 18 October, the Express was leading on the 'secret' to a long, healthy life.

And what was this 'secret' that no-one could possibly have ever known about before the Express revealed it on their front page?

...research showed that the answer was a widely varied diet that might include oily fish, porridge oats and blueberries.

Hardly a surprise.

Next they'll be saying that drinking moderately, not smoking, doing exercise, watching your weight and eating less red meat is good for you.

Oh, they already have.

Also in October, the Mail's Fiona MacRae was reporting that 'having a child makes you more intelligent':

New mothers often grumble that their brain has turned into mush. But having a baby may actually make you brighter, a study has found.

Did the study find this? Not exactly:

This story is based on a small study which looked at the brains of 19 new mums, using scans to understand how they changed between two weeks and four months after having a baby. It found that the volume of the certain parts of the brain increased in this period, and that this increase seemed to be greater among women who used more positive words to describe their baby.

Contrary to what is implied by the newspaper, the study did not assess the women’s intelligence, and it is not possible to say whether the changes in brain volume led to any changes in intelligence or behaviour. Also, the study did not examine any women without children, so we cannot say whether the effect only occurs after birth or if it occurs in other situations where new skills must be learnt.

A similar leap was taken by Fiona MacRae in the article 'Violent films, video games and TV shows DO make boys aggressive'.

Watching violent video games, films and TV shows really can make children more aggressive, scientists believe.

DOES this study say that?

The small study looked at brain activity and automatic nervous response (skin sweating) in boys aged 14 to 17 years who were watching short video clips of low-to-moderate levels of aggressive behaviour. The researchers found that sweating and brain response to moderate aggression reduced over time, but response to milder scenes did not change as much. Despite what has been implied by the media, this study did not look at the boys’ behaviour.

Crucially, although this study may suggest some short-term changes in the brain activity of teenage boys watching aggressive material, it cannot tell us if it would actually influence their actions.

Back to the miracle properties of food, and the Express was claiming last week that:

A daily glass of beetroot juice could combat the onset of dementia among older adults.

NHS Behind the Headlines was less convinced:

This news story is a based on a small study in 16 elderly people...conducted over an extremely short time span. Its findings suggest that adults who eat a diet high in nitrates may experience an increased blood flow to certain areas of the brain within a short interval, compared with eating a diet low in nitrates.

However, this does not mean that beetroot juice, or any other food high in nitrates, can help prevent dementia or even improve mental function...

The researchers only measured blood flow in parts of the brain and did not measure the participants’ cognitive abilities. As such, it is not known whether a high nitrate diet does benefit people in this way.

What about the Mail's 'Strict diet two days a week 'cuts risk of breast cancer by 40 per cent'' which was highlighted in Ben Goldacre's recent article about the 'Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19'?

Well, it appears to have been an accurate cut-and-paste job from a press release, but Cancer Research UK pointed out:

...the way this study has been promoted, and subsequently reported, has been been misleading and inaccurate. In short, this was a study about dieting and weight loss, and not about breast cancer at all. And it can’t be used to conclude anything about breast cancer risk, nor about how women should or shouldn’t diet.

Cancer Research UK have also been at the forefront in challenging claims about cancer being a new, man-made disease.

Andy Coghlan at New Scientist said the:

assertions have dismayed cancer researchers, and have led to a rash of uncritical coverage.

Such as in the Mail, where Fiona MacRae, again, wrote 'Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies'.

Her article does include several passages very similar to the original press release. For example, press release:

...it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers and the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Mail:

The 17th century provides the first descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers. And the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours only occurred in the past 200 years or so, including scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775 and nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761.

And, press release:

Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce – a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils...

Mail:

Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossil...

But Cancer Research say the claims are 'false and misleading':

We were concerned to see headlines in the media today claiming that scientists say cancer is ‘purely man-made’. This is not only scientifically incorrect, but misleading to the public and cancer patients.

Our lifestyles have a great impact on our chances of developing cancer – as we’ve said many times. But the evidence that’s being used to justify these latest headlines doesn’t in any way support the assertion that cancer is modern or man-made.

Coghlan adds:

A quote from [Rosalie] David put out by the University of Manchester saying "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle" caused particular consternation.

What's so wrong with that?

There are dozens of natural causes of cancer, including ultraviolet light from the sun, natural radiation from radionuclides such as radon in rocks, and infection by viruses that trigger cancer, such as the human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and hepatitis viruses that can cause liver cancer. Likewise, soot and smoke from fire contain a multitude of carcinogens, as do fungal aflatoxins deposited on peanuts. "And that's to say nothing of cancers caused by genetic inheritance," says Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK.

David then had an opinion piece published in the Mail, which led Cancer Research to rebut the claims again:

Claims that cancer is ‘purely man-made’, based on an interpretation of a relatively small number of ancient remains, are confusing and misleading, and certainly don’t reflect the huge amount of scientific evidence piling up about the true causes of this devastating disease.

Sadly, so much science reporting seems to be 'confusing and misleading' because eye-catching headlines take precedence over accuracy.

Express is back on the aspirin

In April 2009, the Express reported this:


And today, it reports this:


It is the latest in a long line of at times contradictory stories from the Express and Mail which suggest aspirin will either cause or cure some terrible disease.

Like many of those earlier stories, the headline is misleading. Here's the start of Victoria Fletcher's article:

An aspirin a day can slash the risk of bowel cancer, it is revealed today.

'Can slash the risk' isn't the same as 'stops'.

It goes on:

The new research is further evidence of the health benefits of the wonder drug.

The same beneficial 'wonder drug' that the Express said causes brain bleeding?

The research found:

The results showed that taking 75mg of aspirin every day for between one and three years led to a 19 per cent reduction in risk.

For people taking the drug daily for three to five years, there was a 24 per cent reduced risk, rising to 31 per cent for those taking the drug for five to 10 years.

So taking a daily aspirin for up to ten years may cut the risk of getting bowel cancer by 31%. This is not quite 'a small dose stops bowel cancer' which the Express front page claims.

Fletcher admits that:

The risk of getting the disease increases for people who have a poor diet, drink too much alcohol, are obese and take no exercise.

Which sounds like better advice than rushing to take aspirin. Indeed, towards the end of the article:

Yinka Ebo, Cancer Research UK’s health information officer, said: "This doesn’t mean that we should all reach for the medicine cabinet just yet, because the risks may outweigh the benefits."

And:

Mark Flannagan, chief executive of the charity Beating Bowel Cancer, said: “These findings are encouraging, particularly as, unlike previous studies, this shows that even the lowest daily dose can have an effect on risk-reduction after just one year.

“Anyone looking to lower their risk of developing bowel cancer should reduce their intake of red and processed meat, high-fat foods and alcohol, and increase their intake of fruit, vegetables and fibre, take regular moderate exercise and stop smoking.

“In the case of daily aspirin, we recommend that you consult your GP before undertaking any course of treatment.”

If there is a link between taking aspirin and reducing the risk of cancer that is worth reporting on in a measured, accurate manner. But headlines such as the one the Express serves up today are not helpful and risk giving people false hope.

Indeed, the research paper's abstract makes clear:

[Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] use prior to [colorectal cancer] diagnosis does not influence survival from the disease.

'Stops'?

Immigrants and benefits, aspirin and cancer

Yesterday's Daily Express:


Over the past week or so the Express has had front pages stories about foreigners taking your jobs (twice), your home and now, your money.

You'd almost think the Express has some kind of anti-immigrant agenda...

For this story, the Express is upset that the High Court Judgment has ruled a Portuguese man who came to the UK and worked for four years until being incapacitated following an accident in his work place is entitled to child benefit for his children in Portugal.

The Express considered this a 'scandal', a 'monstrous injustice' and an 'unacceptable burden'. The editorial ranted:

the message goes out to the indolent classes across the EU that Britain is the place to be.

A man works for four years before being seriously injured, and yet is dismissed as 'indolent'? Charming.

The paper's daily phone poll asked 'Should benefits to immigrants be stopped?' The result won't be a surprise.

But buried in the story is a quote from a lawyer involved in the case. Gareth Mitchell said:

The EU rules that Mr Ruas has relied on also benefit the 1.5 million UK workers who live outside the UK and elsewhere in the EU.

The EU rules say that where parents go abroad to work and children stay behind, it should be the country in which the parents are working that should pay child benefit.

Up to 1.5million Brits working in the EU may be benefiting from such reciprocal social security agreements as the man in this case?

That figure came from Angela Eagle, Minister of State for Pensions and Ageing Society, in a House of Commons debate in December 2009 (column 525).

She said:

However, we are bound by EU reciprocal laws on social security that enable the 1.5 million UK citizens who live and work in the European Union to benefit in turn from local arrangements in the countries in which they work.

And as the Department of Work and Pensions website makes clear:

If you are in another EEA country and you are employed or self-employed; and you are insured under that country's insurance scheme you can usually get the children's allowance paid by that country. You can get it even if your child stays, or your children stay, in the UK.

So does the Express think it's a 'scandal' and 'monstrous injustice' that British workers abroad may also receive child benefit from their host country for children living in the UK?

Alas, they don't say. Indeed, they don't seem very interested in that point at all. After all, it wouldn't fit with their view that it's only ever Britain that is paying out to immigrants.

The other main story on the Express' front page was 'Now aspirin may cut risk of breast cancer'.

This may seem surprising given that a year ago, the paper ran this front page:


So, the Express' advice on aspirin appears to be: take it and get brain bleeding or don't and get cancer.

Not to mention that in November the Express said aspirin 'can be bad for your health' but in December it could stop you going blind.

Hmm.

So does aspirin cut the risk of breast cancer, as also reported by the Sun?

Here's the verdict from the NHS Behind the Headlines team:

this study does not provide any evidence that aspirin, anti-inflammatory drugs or paracetamol reduces the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast or ovarian cancer.

This study did not examine cancer outcomes in these women.

Oh.

And as for the presentation of the research:

Withstanding the headline, the Daily Express generally gave an accurate representation of this research by discussing how regular use of aspirin was associated with lower oestrogen levels, and this in turn may be related to risk of cancer.

It is not clear where The Sun's claim that aspirin can cut the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer by up to 10% originated. The Sun also did not mention that regular aspirin use is associated with the risk of serious side effects such as internal bleeding.

Neither newspaper mentioned that this was a cross-sectional analysis, and so cannot prove that current painkiller-use is the cause of current hormone levels.

So the Express headline was exaggerated and then stuck on the front page, while the Sun seems to have exaggerated in other ways.

Either way: it's eye-catching but unsubstantiated reporting about cancer. As usual.

Take aspirin! Don't take aspirin!

On previous occasions, the Mail has revealed how a daily aspirin could lower the risk of breast cancer, keep away heart attacks for the middle aged, slash the risk of heart attacks if taken at night, keep breast cancer at bay, cut the risk of pre-eclampsia, lower the threat of bowel cancer, stave off cancer and help victims survive, save thousands of loves, be a breakthrough on lung cancer, and suggested it may be a 'miracle cure'.

Less than two weeks after the breast cancer story from October 2008, it started to back track and said aspirin may do more harm than good.


Then in April 2009 it decided aspirin may cause brain bleeding. Two weeks after that story, it was back to cutting the risk of cancer in over 40s.

In May it repeated it may do more harm than good. And in August, it has now put it on the front page and repeated again that it could (but only could) be bad for you.

In sum - don't rely on the Mail for guidance on medical (or any other) issues.

And that goes the Express as well, who have done the aspirin flip-flop before. And who are reprinting 'miracle cure' press releases on their front page. Again.

Express and aspirin

Two months ago, the Express told us an aspirin a week helps fight stomach cancer.

Five months ago, the Express told us an aspirin a day could help fight prostrate cancer.

Today, the Express told us an aspirin a day could cause bleeding in the brain.

The story goes on to say:

British experts welcomed the findings but urged people using aspirin not to suddenly stop taking their medication.

Yes, doctors warn people not to suddenly stop taking their medication. As people might if they read something sensationalist about that medication on the front of a newspaper.

Mail's latest miracle cure

In a story with a not entirely coherent headline, the Mail is reporting a study that mushrooms can cut the risk of breast cancer.

This is of course the latest in a long line of breast cancer stories that the Mail has printed recently.

Other tips: don't work nights, drink three cups of tea a day, have HRT, take a daily aspirin, take up salsa, don't drink wine every day, get lots of calcium and vitamin D, go outside, don't lead a stressful city life, don't put on weight, don't give birth over 30...in other words, exercise, eat healthily, don't drink too much alcohol and not getting too anxious at work are more conducive to a healthy life. Who'd have thunk it?

In any case, even this mushroom story isn't exactly new - the link was reported nearly a year ago.