February 27, 2006

Newspaper miracles

Mac just mailed me to highlight this extract from Ben Goldacre's piece on bad science reporting in Saturday's Guardian.
British newspapers just cannot help themselves, they have to run stories which say that miracle cures work, regardless of the evidence. In January, the journal Cancer (cheery) ran a paper on the survival of patients with proven, very bad, lung cancer, who had been given palliative radiotherapy, not to cure, but just to ease the symptoms a little: they found, perhaps unexpectedly, that about 1% survived for five years, when you'd have thought all would be dead by then. That's what they found.

The study also, briefly, at the end, said this [emphasis added]: "This is a very small proportion, but lung cancer is a very common malignancy. It is important that the frequency of this phenomenon should be appreciated, so that claims of apparent cure by novel treatment strategies, or even by unconventional medicine or faith healing, can be seen in an appropriate context."

In the Independent newspaper, this research paper became: "MIRACLE CURES SHOWN TO WORK: Doctors have found statistical evidence that alternative treatments such as special diets, herbal potions and faith healing can cure apparently terminal illness, but they remain unsure about the reasons." No. I have no idea either.
Heh.

UPDATE
I've been trying to track down the Independent article Goldacre refers to - I was just interested to see the context. Strangely, a Google search for "MIRACLE CURES SHOWN TO WORK" points to the Independent's news section but I can't find the article in question.