The media get away with shoddy reporting -- perhaps because the public doesn't demand better. Today, Reuters reports that the FDA is concerned about a possible gallstone link to Roche's weight loss drug, Xenical. Clearly, the headline writer who wrote "Weight-loss Drug May Be Linked to Gallstones" hasn't read our report Good Stories, Bad Science: A Guide for Journalists to the Health Claims of "Consumer Activist" Groups.
While the Reuters report did indeed state that the "FDA said thirty-seven cases of gallstones in Xenical patients were reported between April 1999 and December 2006," that is only a small piece of the information required before implying some "link" between Xenical and gallstones. The FDA isn't an activist group, like the ones we warned about in our report, but Reuters should still know to read even the FDA's neutral announcement with less alarm and more (or indeed any) context.
How is a reader to know whether thirty-seven reported cases of gallstones in Xenical patients over almost seven years is a problem? How many people took the drug over that period of time? And what is the background rate of gallstones in the overall population? More precisely, since gallstones are associated with obesity, what is the background rate of gallstones in the population likely to be prescribed Xenical?
And of course, the folks at Reuters haven't read the ACSH report that Kevin Trudeau doesn't want you to know about, Weighing Benefits and Risks in Pharmaceutical Use: A Consumer's Guide. It might have prompted the reporter to ask how many overall cases of obesity-related gallstones were prevented by the effective use of Xenical. It's possible that while the drug might have caused thirty-seven cases, it prevented hundreds of other cases -- but you'd never guess that from the headline or article.
Now , neither I -- nor the FDA at this point -- is suggesting that there is an increased risk of gallstones from Xenical. But a reasonably prudent reader without a strong science background might now think that Xenical does present gallstone risks. The article simply leaves out the crucial context that the public needs and deserves.
Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
See ACSH's full report and consumer brochure on the benefits and risks of pharmaceuticals.
