Read Science and Heath News Carefully

My usual approach is to look for several examples that on first glance don’t seem to fit together and show how they all demonstrate weak behavior in some aspect of one of the dimensions. Rarely do I use a single source, but today is an exception.

This article has been circulating on social media as if it were some bold new scientific revelation. In fact, the Bona-Fide News Network site features only the headline and links directly to the article with twelve options for sharing the headline. The headline in question: “Prescription: More Broccoli, Fewer Carbs. How Some Doctors Are Looking To Food To Treat Illness,” appears on the WBUR page.

In summary, it tells of “a growing trend” among doctors to prescribe certain food choices to improve their patient’s health. But in medicine, I’d rather look at evidence than trends, so I will draw heavily from the article to highlight some of its weaknesses. (All emphasis in bold font has been added by me.)

After a story of one success where a patient improves his mental health after changing his diet, the article presents the research. Three recent studies “conclude that a molecule in vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, brussel [sic] sprouts and kale really may fight cancer. It seems to help reactivate a gene that suppresses many tumors.” In another study, women “who ate a relatively low-fat diet — rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains — had a lower risk of getting and dying from breast cancer. And in a third, tiny study, [a similar diet] seemed to improve metabolism, boosting levels of proteins that play a role in maintaining cell health and the body’s response to insulin.”

It then makes a huge leap of faith, presenting the opinion of a Dean at Tufts University, “Our food system…is absolutely the number one cause of poor health in our country.” The psychiatrist involved in the first story “thinks that the same switch in energy source [from a different diet] may help combat mental illness” and later “thinks … a strict ketogenic diet … does a better job” than some traditional cures, and “very early evidence suggests” it is effective in treating mental illness.

“In a different study at Northeastern University, researchers are using big data to better understand how individual nutrients affect the body and brain.” But this study is in its infancy and has reached no conclusions.

“Although nutritionists still quibble about the details,” they recommend “vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and some whole grains” and discourage "processed meats and other processed foods, white bread, chips and soda.” Well, that’s hardly a revelation!

The piece then circles back to conclude with the original human-interest story.

What do we learn for sure from such news? What we eat is important. Older women who reduce fat in their diet raise the odds of avoiding breast cancer. Several experts think it is true and early evidence seems to indicate that certain foods may have specific benefits, but confirmation of those benefits is a long way off. Until then we have doctors following trends and news media forced to hype this kind of vague information to meet an obligation to fill the airways 24/7.

The real lesson is that no one else will review the content critically before it gets to you. Headlines are advertising for the articles. The vague details and weasel words come later.