The Express and salt (cont.)

Thursday's Express serves up another 'miracle cure' front page story:

This is not the same 'cure for high blood pressure' that the Express announced on 18 December 2012. It's different from the one from 1 November 2011, too.

Today, 'five easy steps' to 'curing high blood pressure' are revealed by Jo Willey:

Keeping active, slashing salt intake, eating a healthy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, cutting down on alcohol and not smoking all cut the chances of developing the deadly condition.

Most of these are rather obvious things that pop up frequently in 'secrets of a longer life'-type stories on the front of the Express.

But the inclusion of 'slashing salt intake' is interesting because in July 2011, one paper said:

cutting our daily intake [of salt] does nothing to lower the risk of suffering from heart disease

And

a study...shows although blood pressure reduced when salt intake was cut, this had no long-term health benefits.

The quote from the leader of the study pointing out it wasn't quite as simple as that was left until nearer the end of the article

“We believe that we didn’t see big benefits in this study because the people in the trials we analysed only reduced their salt intake by a moderate amount, so the effect on blood pressure and heart disease was not large.”

And all this appeared under the headline:

'Now salt is safe to eat: Health fascists proved wrong after lecturing us all for years'

Which paper? The Express, of course:

The article under that silly headline was also written by Jo Willey and it included this:

Earlier this year the Daily Express revealed how “nanny state” council bosses at Stockport Council banned salt shakers in fish and chip shops as part of a healthy living drive. But critics condemned the move, insisting customers should be free to make up their own minds.

While that is indeed what the Express claimed in a front page story ('Salt banned in chip shops'), it was not true. 

Not smoking is good for you, reveals Express

The front page of Tuesday's Express reveals '7 Easy Steps To A Longer Life':

Jo Willey's story explains what those '7 easy steps' are:

staying physically active, sticking to a healthy weight, eating a health diet, maintaining good cholesterol levels, keeping blood pressure down, controlling blood sugar levels and not smoking.

This is, the paper says, 'latest research':

Latest research has found that following the simple steps and making small changes to daily routine are the key to a long and healthy life.

These seven steps were devised by the American Heart Association in 2010 - this research confirms, not entirely unexpectedly, that doing these things are good for you.

However, it would be a surprise if any of this was news to most people. Express readers may think this all sounds a bit familiar. For example, on 3 August 2011:

The 'secret' was:

Not smoking, regular exercise, not being overweight and eating a Mediterranean-style diet could 'substantially reduce' the risk of early death.

Stunning stuff. And the sub-heads on both front pages begins: 'Experts find key...'

It does seem odd that the Express considers this front page news at all. There were two big news stories on Monday - the political deal on future regulation of the press, and the Cyprus bailout. For such a strongly anti-EU paper as the Express, it's curious that they decided not to lead on events in Cyprus, and chose this instead.

'We cannot get ahead of ourselves'

The front page of Wednesday's Express 'revealed' that a '3p blood pressure pill beats dementia':

The headline on the online version of the article is slightly different: '3p pill cuts dementia risk by half'.

This story emerges from the launch, rather than the completion, of a four-year trial of losartan. The lead researcher, Dr Pat Kehoe, told Sense About Science:

"While we certainly have an attractive drug candidate both from the point of view of possible effect and the low cost, we cannot get ahead of ourselves here or over simplify things - we still have to conduct the study to generate the proper evidence before we can make any claims as to how useful the drug will be."

More 'miracle cures' revealed by the Express

Another Express front page, another 'wonder pill' to 'beat' a disease:

Jo Willey's article explains:

People at risk from cholesterol could soon take a simple pill which controls levels and protects sufferers.

Scientists are hailing the treatment as a new fat-buster because of the way it helps to prevent the clogging up of patients’ arteries.

'Scientists are hailing the treatment'. But the Express forgets to mention something rather important about the 'scientists' in question. The research covered by the Express was led by Dr Mitchell Jones. The 'pill' comes from a company called Micropharma.

And:

Dr. Mitchell Jones has been with the company since its inception and is the driving force behind Micropharma’s innovation and R&D.

The paper has included a dissenting view, although it comes deep into the article, as usual:

Victoria Taylor of the British Heart Foundation said: "This is a relatively small piece of research and it’s still some way off before we could recommend probiotic supplements to help people with high cholesterol."

Similarly, last week the Express revealed '7 easy ways to beat arthritis':

Jo Willey (again) explained that the 'easy ways' were:

The seven key methods are herbal therapies, exercise, massage, acupuncture, yoga, meditation and dietary supplements.

Organisations working with sufferers must be delighted that beating arthritis is so 'easy'. But the quotes in the article suggest - shock - it may not be that simple:

A spokeswoman for Arthritis Research UK...said: “...there isn’t very much hard scientific evidence that many of these therapies actually work.”

Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said...“There is no evidence that any of these therapies have any impact on slowing or halting the disease."

The Express, dementia and chocolate

Another day, another 'miracle cure' on the front page of the Express:

The article - by Jo Willey, of course - begins:

A daily does of cocoa could be the secret to halting Alzheimer's, researchers claim.

So while the headline says 'can', the story says 'could' - par for the course for such stories.

It is worth comparing the Express - 'Chocolate can halt dementia' - with the first line of American Heart Association press release which says:

Eating cocoa flavanols daily may improve mild cognitive impairment...

The Express fails to mention who was behind the research:

Mars Inc. funded the study and provided the standardized cocoa drinks.

It is also worth noting that:

this study was not done with chocolate, but with lower-calorie, nutritionally balanced drinks rich in cocoa flavanols.

The Express includes quotes from the research leader, Dr Giovambattista Desideri, which are more cautious than that front page headline:

"It is yet unclear whether these benefits in cognition are a direct consequence of cocoa flavanols or a secondary effect of general improvements in cardiovascular function. Larger studies are needed to validate the findings..."

But the Express does not include this quote:

"Based on the current explosion of obesity, which is particularly evident in children, we should be careful when recommending chocolate ingestion to our patients...In real life, the progressive increment of body weight due to an unbalanced diet is likely to counterbalance the positive effects of cocoa on vascular function."

There's an important quote - in the final paragraph of the article, of course - from Alzheimer's Research UK:

“It would be useful to see more long-term studies to investigate the lasting effects. Ultimately we would need to see the results of large-scale trials to know whether cocoa flavanols could help prevent or delay dementia.”

Dr. Sam Gandy, from the Mount Sinai Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, told HealthDay:

"the lifestyle intervention with the strongest science behind it is physical exercise. I would recommend physical exercise before I would recommend chocolate...the study is interesting but requires replication before it can be taken seriously."

Or put on the front page of a paper?

Express cancer story 'potentially dangerous'

An article in yesterday's Express stated:

Jo Willey's article said:

Drinking grapefruit juice can dramatically boost the ­effectiveness of cancer drugs, according to scientists.

It means patients might be able to lower their dose of medication while still getting the same benefit as if from a higher one.

But the NHS Behind the Headlines response is that the Express' reporting is not only 'misleading' but also 'potentially dangerous':

The findings of the research do suggest that combining sirolimus with grapefruit juice may achieve a successful “trade-off” between effectiveness and reduced side effects. However, the researchers are clear that further research must be done to develop these preliminary findings.

Therefore, headlines claiming that grapefruit juice "boosts cancer drugs" are both misleading and irresponsible. This was a carefully controlled trial, looking at a single medication, that employed rigorous safety protocols.

Encouraging people to mix grapefruit juice with both prescription and non-prescription drugs could lead to overdoses, which could be dangerous. Cancer patients should not alter their current medication dosages or start drinking grapefruit juice based on this research.  

And:

The media reports failed to give clear warnings about the potential dangers of anyone drinking grapefruit juice while taking certain medications, due to its ability to strengthen the drug’s dose. 

The Express’s headline was particularly misleading as it implied that all cancer drugs would benefit from being combined with grapefruit juice. In fact, the researchers were only looking at a single drug, and even then, this medication is not widely used to treat cancer. 

The reports may lead some cancer patients to think that reaching for the juice is a good or at least harmless idea. However, drinking grapefruit juice while taking medication is potentially dangerous. NHS Choices specifically states that if you are taking immunosuppressant medications such as sirolimus, you should never drink grapefruit juice without consulting your doctor.

The Express and arthritis (cont.)

Another day, another health 'cure' story from Jo Willey and the Daily Express:

This is not the same pill that the Express trumpeted as stopping arthritis pain on 25 April:

And on 9 May, the paper didn't mention any 'seaweed pill' when it claimed to have revealed the 'best way to battle arthritis':

And on 18 May, the seaweed pill was mysteriously absent from the Express' story claiming to reveal the 'easy way to halt the misery of arthritis':

With all these stories, it's a wonder there's anyone still suffering with arthritis at all.

But what of today's story about the 'seaweed pill'? Willey's article begins:

A pill made from seaweed could be the key to tackling arthritis.

'Could be'. A bit different from the front page 'will'.

But it seems that the 'seaweed pill' - the 'amazing tablet' than can 'fight other diseases' - doesn't actually exist in tablet form.

Willey goes on to say:

Various laboratory tests were carried out and the research team discovered that the seaweed – Leptolyngbya crosbyana – generates natural products known as honaucins with potent anti-inflammation and bacteria-controlling properties.

She then quotes one of the researchers, who points out:

"It’s a long road to go from this early-stage discovery to application in the clinic but it’s the only road if we want new and more efficacious medicines...In different arenas these compounds could be helpful, such as treating chronic inflammatory conditions for which we currently don’t have really good medicines."

Willey's article is a bit of churnalism that originated from a press release from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

The press release said:

Scientists identified the “nuisance” organism in 2008 on the reefs directly adjacent to the National Park Pu‘uhonua o H’onaunau off the Kona coast of Hawaii. The cyanobacterium is believed to be native to Hawaii and is usually inconspicuous.

Willey 'changed' this to:

Scientists first identified the “nuisance” organism in 2008 threatening the reefs next to a national park off the Kona coast of Hawaii. The cyanobacterium is believed to be native to the islands and is usually inconspicuous.

And this bit from the original:

Choi, Gerwick and their colleagues conducted various laboratory experiments and discovered that the seaweed (the cyanobacterium Leptolyngbya crossbyana) generates natural products known as honaucins with potent anti-inflammation and bacteria-controlling properties.

Became this:

Various laboratory tests were carried out and the research team discovered that the seaweed – Leptolyngbya crosbyana – generates natural products known as honaucins with potent anti-inflammation and bacteria-controlling properties.

Incidentally, the press release does not specifically mention arthritis.

Express headline 'wildly misleading'

The front of today's Daily Express claimed 'Statins halt Alzheimer's':

As ever when the Express leads on such stories, it's always worth skipping straight to the end of the article first. It's only here that Jo Willey reveals:

Dr Simon Ridley, of the charity Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “Overall evidence suggests that statins like Simvastatin do not benefit people with dementia, but this suggests the timing of treatment could be vital. Many experts believe that treatments for ­dementia will be most beneficial if given very early in the disease process.

“While these new findings are valuable, the benefits are shown in mice and we don’t know how they will bear out in humans. There is a real need to push on with research that will boost early detection and help sufferers get more benefit from treatments.”

And:

Study leader Dr Hamel agrees more research is needed to prove if humans could benefit.

So 'Statins halt Alzheimers' eventhough we don't know if these results would apply to humans.

The NHS Behind the Headlines analysis says:

These attention-grabbing claims could easily lead readers to assume there has been a major breakthrough in the fight to cure Alzheimer’s disease. However, they are based on a small laboratory study which used mice that were bred to display signs of Alzheimer’s...

Even though these seem like positive results in mice, research has already looked directly at whether statins can stop Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia in humans. For example, two recent high-quality reviews of research into statins and dementia suggest that there is no evidence that statins provide any specific benefit to humans with Alzheimer’s. While the new research suggests that the timing of statin use may allow it to have an effect, the evidence is far from conclusive and this would need to be explored further in a laboratory.

Given the limitations of this research and the uncertainty over its results, the headline “Statins halt Alzheimer’s” is wildly misleading.

And:

Newspaper headlines about this research were generally misleading and suggested that it directly applies to humans. Most media reports took a few paragraphs, and in some cases half the article, to inform readers of the key fact that this research was carried out in mice and not humans. While the Daily Express’ headline suggests that statins have been proven to “halt Alzheimer’s”, this is not justified by the newly published research. In fact, the current body of high-quality research on this topic suggests the opposite is true.

Wine and breast cancer

Daily Express, 1 October 2011:

Daily Express, 2 November 2011:

(See also the Mail's versions of the same stories)

'Misleading and alarmist'

The front page of Thursday's Express contained yet another health scare:

'Britain on alert for new super-flu: Killer virus could spread in 24 hours', it screamed.

Jo Willey's article begins:

A new strain of killer flu which could spread to Britain within 24 hours is “one of the biggest biological threats of our time”, experts warned.

The alert comes after people started to fall victim to seasonal flu and the more virulent swine flu at the same time.

The Mail followed it up with the article 'Fears of new deadly super-flu which 'could spread to Britain within 24 hours''.

The 'could' is important because the 'deadly' 'new super-flu' - which Britain is 'on alert for' - isn't known to exist.

Secondly, the people who have 'started to fall victim' to seasonal and swine flu at the same time, are two people who fell victim in 2009.

In Cambodia. 

As the NHS Behind the Headlines report explains:

The research the news was based on was actually a small, but important study that had examined a Cambodian patient who became unwell during the swine flu pandemic of 2009. Examining the man and four of his contacts, scientists determined that two of the five subjects were infected with both swine flu and a seasonal flu virus that was circulating in the environment at that time. None of the five infected individuals required hospitalisation and all made a full recovery.

This is valuable research in the light of the very real public health threat faced by flu pandemics; particularly as co-infection also offers the possibility for different viruses to combine their genetic material and produce new strains. However, such a ‘super-flu’ or ‘killer-flu’ has not been found, and is merely a possibility.

So what of the Express' front page headline?

Although news coverage has reflected the findings of this study accurately and quoted flu experts, the overall emphasis of reports has been misleading and alarmist. Their headlines suggest that a “deadly super flu” has been found and is ready to spread to the UK...[but] these are laboratory findings from five people infected in 2009 with swine flu and/or seasonal flu. None had severe illness or required hospitalisation, and none died from a ‘deadly new super-flu’.

Express takes 'enormous leap of faith'

The headline on the front page of today's Express says: Daily pill to cure diabetes: New drug brings hope to millions:

The continuation on page nine carries the headline 'It works, without side effects'. But as usual with the 'miracle cure' stories that the Express splashes all over its front page with such tiresome regularity, the facts are rather less eye-catching.

As the first line of Jo Willey's story states:

A daily pill which could treat or even cure diabetes is a step closer after scientists discovered how to reverse the condition.

'Could treat or even cure'. What we have is some research that involved injecting mice with a naturally occurring chemical.

So contrary to what the front page claims, there's no 'new drug' and no 'pill'.

Towards the end of the article, there's a quote from Dr Iain Frame from Diabetes UK, who says:

"The research is at a very early stage and has shown some benefit in female mice with diabetes and less benefit in male mice. Whilst promising, it would take an enormous leap of faith to assume a new pill will soon be on the market."

But Diabetes UK have a slightly longer version of Frame's reaction. The sentence that's not included in the Express' article is rather important, in the context of their front page splash:

"The idea that Type 2 diabetes will be cured or prevented by taking a simple pill is not supported by this paper. The research is at a very early stage and has shown some benefit in female mice with diabetes and less benefit in male mice. Whilst promising, it would take an enormous leap of faith to assume a new pill will soon be on the market for people with, or at high risk of, Type 2 diabetes."

The NHS Behind the Headlines verdict is:

The news coverage by the Daily Express was quite sensationalist and may have overemphasised the significance of these findings for humans. For instance, the report says that “the groundbreaking finding effectively means that the obese and those at risk of getting type 2 diabetes could one day take a tablet to stop the condition developing”.

This and other statements may give the impression that a diabetes pill is just around the corner, which is not the case. This research was in mice and did not test the effect of a pill on humans. It merely represents the very first stage of a long process.

Express reveals another 'miracle'

Here we go again:

Yes, it's another Express front page headline about health that promises to reveal some great secret. The sub-heading sounds promising: 'Experts develop a miracle diet that is key to saving lives'.

And what is this 'miracle'? Well:

Taking more exercise, eating more fruit and vegetables, reducing alcohol intake and slashing the amount of saturated fat in our diet

This may sound a tad familiar. In August, the paper revealed that 'experts' had found the 'secret' to a longer life. It was:

Not smoking, regular exercise, not being overweight and eating a Mediterranean-style diet.

And in June, the Express claimed there was an 'easy way to lose weight' and this 'secret' was being revealed just in time for summer. The secret?:

eat a lot more “natural” foods, such as fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and yogurt, while avoiding anything processed...cut out fizzy, sugar-sweetened drinks...Exercise reduced weight, while alcohol added.

Today's front page about heart disease is attached to an article written by Jo Willey. She begins:

The secret to fighting heart disease was revealed by experts last night.

'Last night'? Did people really not know that exercise, fruit and veg were good for your heart before 'last night'?

Willey goes on to explain that this 'miracle diet' is actually a 'healthy living plan' called 'Ultimate Cholesterol Lowering Plan', which has been produced by the charity Heart UK.

But their press release on the Plan is dated 1 September. So not only are the general tips very well known, the specific plan is actually two week-old news.

And that is what they Express has decided to lead on.

Unfortunately, they haven't explained where the 'free chocolate mousse' fits into this 'miracle diet'.

Chocolate and exercise

On Thursday, the Mirror reported:

The Mail said:

 And the Express claimed:

The articles began with similar claims. Jo Willey in the Express said:

Chocoholics who shun the gym can celebrate – a little bit of dark chocolate can improve health in much the same way as exercise.

Tamara Cohen in the Mail said:

Eating dark chocolate improves athletic performance just as much as exercise, a study has revealed.

In each article, it was only in the third paragraph that it was revealed that this research was based on experiments conducted on mice. At the end of the Express' article, it says:

Could this be extrapolated to humans? “It is something we hope to identify in future studies,” said Dr Malek.

So the tone of these headlines and articles isn't really justified.

Indeed, the NHS Behind the Headlines view is that the newspapers 'overreacted':

These misleading headlines refer to the findings from a small study in 25 mice. The relevance of these findings to humans is uncertain...

These findings provide evidence that giving mice epicatechin can lead to increases in their muscular performance that are similar to those obtained by regular exercise.

Contrary to the statements made in the news reports, it is unclear whether the chemical would have the same effect in humans, and further research would need to investigate this.

Also, epicatechin is found in dark chocolate, but chocolate was not tested in this research. It is unclear how much would need to be consumed to get the levels that were given to these mice, or the appropriate level of epicatechin needed to get a similar response in humans. 

In conclusion, they say:

the study does not show that eating dark chocolate is beneficial, or that it is a substitute for exercise in humans, attractive though the idea is...Such statements are not backed up by this study.

'Overly optimistic'

The front page of Wednesday's Daily Express saw the paper proclaim another 'miracle cure':

A 'pill to beat alzheimers'. The paper's health correspondent Jo Willey explained:

A daily 10p vitamin pill could prevent millions of people being struck down by Alzheimer’s disease.

Research has found that vitamin B can help protect the brain from dementia.

A large daily dose of a combination of three types of vitamin B has been shown to slow mental decline in the elderly who suffer from mild memory problems.

Only a few months ago, Willey and the Express were claiming 'cake' was a 'cure' for dementia. That article claimed:

cinnamon, used in everything from cakes to curries, could be the “holy grail” in slowing or even eradicating dementia in patients.

Now it's Vitamin B:

The breakthrough could lead to a simple new treatment for people at risk of dementia which would be the “holy grail” of research into Alzheimer’s.

Skip to the end of the article and there's the inevitable clarification:

Professor Robin Jacoby, research author and Alzheimer’s Society trustee, said: “These studies add weight to the argument that vitamin B is good for our brains.

“However, people shouldn’t rush out and empty the shelves of vitamin B tablets. More research is needed to establish if it could prevent dementia.”

And the NHS Behind the Headlines team express further doubts:

While its results look promising, this small, well-conducted study does not show that vitamin B can help prevent dementia. However, it suggests that high doses of the vitamin may help some people with MCI, which sometimes develops into dementia. A larger trial is required to explore the possible role of the vitamin in slowing progression to dementia.

They add:

Newspaper coverage of this research has tended to be overly optimistic about the study’s findings. For example, the Daily Express described vitamin B supplements as a “Pill to beat Alzheimer’s”.

The Express also listed some “natural ways to beat dementia”, which include eating meat, fish and vegetables.

This information is misleading, as none of these foods has been found to prevent dementia. While the foods listed in the Express can be dietary sources of vitamin B, the amount of vitamin B in the pills used in this study was extremely high, and the study’s authors have been quoted as saying that they should be considered to be medicines rather than regular vitamin supplements.

The Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent also covered this research.

Express takes on 'health fascists' over salt

Wednesday's Daily Express leads on yet another health story:


'Now salt is safe to eat: Health fascists proved wrong after lecturing us all for years' is a silly headline with an entirely inappropriate use of the word 'fascists'.

The article is another by the paper's health correspondent Jo Willey. She says:

Salt is safe to eat

Well, it always was, just in small doses.

Salt is safe to eat – and cutting our daily intake does nothing to lower the risk of suffering from heart disease, research shows.

For years, doctors have been telling us that too much salt is bad and official NHS guidance aims to speed up new measures to control how much we eat.

Yes, those 'fascist' doctors 'lecturing us all for years' about the dangers of too much salt - something the Express would never do...


Willey also says:

Earlier this year the Daily Express revealed how “nanny state” council bosses at Stockport Council banned salt shakers in fish and chip shops as part of a healthy living drive.

And she's right - the Express did run that story earlier this year. But it wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Neither the Council, nor anyone else, 'banned' salt from fish and chip shops in Stockport.

Willey goes on to describe the results of a study by Professor Rod Taylor at the University of Exeter:

this review has shown slashing our daily intake is not as beneficial as thought. People who cut the salt they ate by a small amount saw their blood pressure reduce after six months.

'Not as beneficial' is not the same as 'does nothing' - the claim made in the first paragraph of the article. And that reduction in blood pressure shows there clearly is a benefit.

Then one of Taylor's quotes goes further in suggesting the Express' angle isn't quite right:

He said: “We believe that we didn’t see big benefits in this study because the people in the trials we analysed only reduced their salt intake by a moderate amount, so the effect on blood pressure and heart disease was not large.”

But Willey's article contains no doubts about Taylor's research. Compare that to heartwire, which spoke to two people whose work Taylor included in his meta-analysis:

"The review by Taylor adds little to our knowledge about the health effects of sodium reduction," Dr Lawrence Appel (Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Baltimore, MD) told heartwire. None of the studies included were designed to test the effects of sodium-reduction interventions on CVD events and mortality, he says, and "even in aggregate, the number of events is small and the statistical power is limited."

And Dr Nancy Cook from Harvard Medical School said:

"This was a crude analysis of the results in these studies, and therefore loses information. In my view, several of the studies were misrepresented and the results of the review are not reliable."

Heartwire adds:

Taylor, himself, concedes that the review may have been underpowered.

They also quote Katharine Jenner from Consensus Action on Salt and Health:

"Contrary to the author's concluding headline—The Cochrane Library Press release announces, 'Cutting down on salt doesn't reduce your chance of dying,'—the review further demonstrates that reduced salt intake reduces blood pressure, [with them] stating that 'our findings are consistent with the belief that salt reduction is beneficial in normotensive and hypertensive people.'"

"It is very disappointing that the message from this small review indicates that salt reduction may not be beneficial; this is a completely inappropriate conclusion, given the strong evidence and the overwhelming public health consensus that salt raises blood pressure which leads to cardiovascular disease."

A 'completely inappropriate conclusion', but one that the Express has decided to splash all over the front page.

Express front page: vitamin supplement has just gone on sale

Another day, another health story on the front page of the Express:


Only yesterday, the Express was claiming there was a 'wonder pill' to 'reverse premature ageing'. This was an article by the paper's health correspondent Jo Willey, which echoed claims made on the front page of the paper two years ago about a compound called rapamycin. But, as with Wednesday's 'cake 'cures' dementia' story, it was jumping to conclusions based on some tests conducted on mice. It ended with a key quote:

Dr Dimitri Krainc, from Massachusetts General Hospital, said: “It should be emphasised that we are not recommending rapamycin as an anti-ageing medicine at this point. Safer versions would have to be developed for such purpose."

Today, there's a new 'wonder pill' for the Express to get over-excited about - and this one claims to be as good as eating five portions of fruit and veg a day. It's Jo Willey bringing us the 'good news' again:

A new pill containing all the goodness of the recommended five-a-day portions of fruit and veg could change the eating habits of millions.

The makers claim each capsule is packed with the vitamins and essential ­nutrients of a kilo of fresh produce.

According to Wikipedia, this product has been around since 1993, so although it only went on sale in the UK yesterday, it's not clear why the Express refers to it as a 'new pill'.

And including the words 'the makers claim' in the second sentence of the article gives the game away: this isn't a premature report about some research on mice. This is an actual product and the Express is doing its best to sell it to its readers:

Each capsule of the supplement Juice Plus+ contains 17 different fruits, vegetables and grains that are juiced and then made into a powder using a special drying process which does not damage the micronutrients.

This isn't front page news. It's a 556-word advert which even includes the crucial information that:

The pills cost £24.75 for a month’s supply and users are supposed to take four a day.

The Daily Mail's Claire Bates received the same press release as Willey. Her article contains several of the same points, mentions the same people who have endorsed it, and includes the same quotes from the UK distributor. The Mail helpfully provides a list of ingredients and RDA information and adds:

A month's supply costs £35.50 and a minimum order is four months.

It's not clear why the two papers have different prices, but it hardly matters.

The Mail does, eventually, recognise there are doubts about the product:

The company points to 16 clinical studies that found the pill supported the immune system, boosted heart health and effectively increased antioxidant nutrients in the body.

However, although the research was published in peer-review journals, most of it was funded by the manufacturer. The company say such sponsored projects are normal practice in the industry.

This claim is also made on Wikipedia, where it is stated (with references, removed from the following extract) that:

Of the published peer-reviewed studies on Juice Plus products, the majority were funded and/or authored by the manufacturer, Natural Alternatives International (NAI);or the main distributor, NSA.; two were funded by individual Juice Plus distributors; and one was conducted independently.

The Mail continues:

Scientists at the University of California Berkeley have also shed doubt on the glowing testimonials for the product.

They said it was impossible to deliver' nutrients of five servings of fruits in several capsules weighing 850mg.

They added in their Wellness Guide to Dietary Supplements: 'No capsules can substitute for fruits and vegetables, which contain the best balance of nutrients and phytochemicals.'

'You cannot "concentrate" significant amounts of them in a capsule.'

They warned that the supplement was distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme that gave it an exaggerated value and cost.

In the final three sentences, the Express finally mentions these doubts, quoting nutritionist Angela Dowden, who says:

"I would be dubious of anything claiming to give you your five-a-day in a pill...though this might be a tempting shortcut, it’s not one I would rely on."

Yet this comes at the end of the extended advert, after the supplement has already been called a 'wonder pill' and a 'sensation'.

And this is the front page lead news story of, in its own words, the 'World's Greatest Newspaper'.

Cake: it doesn't cure dementia

Yesterday's Daily Express carried the surprising headline:


Yes, really. Cake 'cure' for dementia.

Here's the paper's health correspondent Jo Willey:

Scientists are hailing an everyday cooking spice as a possible cure for Alzheimer’s – after finding clues in the Bible.

They say cinnamon, used in everything from cakes to curries, could be the “holy grail” in slowing or even eradicating dementia in patients.

An extract in cinnamon bark called CEppt was given in ­liquid form to mice and fruit flies bred with Alzheimer’s. After four months, the diseased creatures were said to have shown “remarkably” normal “activity levels and longevity”.

So it's not actually a 'cake cure' and as it has not been tested on humans, it may not be a cure at all.

At the end of the article, there's a tell-tale quote from the Alzheimer's Society:

“Although these results look promising in mice and fruit flies, it’s too soon to know what effect it would have in people.

“We wouldn’t recommend stocking up on cinnamon doughnuts just yet. The amount needed to have any hope would far exceed that in an everyday diet.”

Another statement from the Society reiterated this point:

However people shouldn't rush out to buy this popular spice. This research is in the early stages and looked at mice not humans. We are therefore a long way from using cinnamon in the fight against Alzheimer's.

NHS Behind the Headlines has more:

It is important to note that this was an animal study and its findings may not apply to humans. Also, these experiments used a cinnamon extract rather than cinnamon itself, and it is not clear whether eating cinnamon would have the same effect. It is also unclear how much cinnamon it would be necessary to eat to have an effect, and there are chemicals in cinnamon bark that may have harmful effects if eaten in large quantities.

This is preliminary research and more investigation is needed to determine whether this extract is safe and works in humans. It is much too early to claim that this extract could be the “holy grail” for slowing or eradicating Alzheimer’s disease.

And:

The Daily Express overstated the findings of this study. Stating that a “Cake cure for dementia” has been discovered is premature as this study examined the impact of a specific extract derived from cinnamon, not cake, in animal models of dementia rather than in humans.

Express reveals weight-loss 'secret': don't eat lots of crisps

Today's Daily Express front page claims to reveal the 'secret' to easy weight loss:


The article, by Jo Willey, is based on some research - as so many Express articles are. It says:

A simple way for people to stay slim without counting the calories has been discovered.

Newly discovered secrets to easy weight loss. What are they?

the best way to stay a healthy weight is eat nutritious and filling foods of good quality

And:

people watching their weight need to cut out fizzy, sugar-sweetened drinks

And:

they should eat a lot more “natural” foods, such as fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and yogurt, while avoiding anything processed.

And:

Bigger daily portions of certain foods were linked to the largest weight gains over each four-year term. Crisps lead to a 1.69lb gain every term and sugar-sweetened drinks an additional 1lb.

And:

But other foods gave less weight gain even when their consumption was increased.

Vegetables saw a loss of 0.22lb per four years, whole grains a loss of 0.37lb, fruits 0.49lb, nuts 0.57lb and yogurt 0.82lb.

And:

Exercise reduced weight, while alcohol added it at the rate of 0.41lb.

So those just-discovered secrets are: consuming lots of alcohol, fizzy drinks, crisps and processed food makes you gain weight, while fruit, vegetables, nuts and exercise makes you lose weight.

Thanks, Daily Express, for revealing those secrets 'just in time for summer'.

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.

The Express and statins

Today's Express has yet another 'miracle cure' headline on its front page:



Statins have been around for years so it's not clear what is 'new' about them.

And to call them a 'wonder drug' may surprise Express readers who remember this front page from 21 May:


A wonder drug that can be a risk to health? Apparently so.

Indeed, the Express' coverage of statins has fluctuated between those two extremes for several years.

They're good:


Then, maybe, they're not:


A week later they're good again:


But still, maybe you should learn:


Just in case:


But the next day:


Which is good news, until:


And:


And the 'agonising side-effects' mentioned here:


But soon after that, news that even healthy people may get prescribed statins:


Eventhough:


And:


They can cause 'cataracts, liver damage and kidney failure'?

But they're not that much of a 'health risk' because:


And then the reassuring news that:


Whoever said they did? They may also give:


And last month, the Express claimed, statins were partly responsible for:


It may seem all very confusing that one newspaper can go from 'health scares' to 'miracle cures' about the same drug so often (they also do it with aspirin).

Good job the Express has a handy guide:


Yes, it is 'impossible to know what to believe.'

Yes, conflicting advice can cause 'confusion' and 'make it difficult to judge what's safe and what isn't.'

The Express' coverage doesn't make it any easier.