Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Sun corrects '£32 loaf of bread' story

On 19 and 20 July, several newspapers reported that the NHS was purchasing gluten-free bread for £32.27 per loaf. The Mail, Mirror, Express, Sun and Telegraph all carried the story. It appeared that none of the journalists bothered to check the facts - if they had, they would have found the cost for a single loaf was closer to £2.82.

To its credit, the Express ran its correction the day after it published the original.

Yesterday - two months later - the Sun finally published its correction:


Price of coeliac loaf is £2.82
We reported on July 19 that the NHS paid £32.27 per loaf of non-gluten bread, given on prescription to sufferers of coeliac disease. In fact, the cost per loaf is around £2.82, £32 being for an average prescription of several loaves. We are happy to make this clear.

At the time of writing, this does not appear on the Sun's website. The original article and the accompanying editorial, are both still on there, however. Neither has had the correction added.

The correction ran on page six of yesterday's paper whereas the original article appeared on page nine. But compare the prominence of the original:


with the size of the correction:


Yes, it's the smallest headline and shortest article on that page.

Given that the story was proved to be wrong within a day of its publication, it's not clear why it took the Sun two months to correct it.

It's also unclear when the Mirror, Mail and Telegraph will correct their versions - all of which remain live.

Monday, 18 October 2010

Chocolate liqueurs

I mentioned this on Twitter earlier today, but felt it needed more coverage.

The Sun has an article in which is says that young people can get drunk for half he price of a chocolate bar.

According to the Press Association, the report comes from a group known as "Core Cities". Unfortunately, the report itself doesn't appear to be on their website.*

Leaving this aside, the Sun's article - and, to be fair, those in other newspapers - is misleading for one simple reason: it completely ignores the fact that there is an age limit on buying alcohol.

When it comes to children, you can't just compare chocolate and alcohol on a simple unit price as it does - one is freely available for children to buy, one isn't.

If the Sun is going to complain about underage drinking, it needs to have a go at how they get access to booze.

* If anyone does have a copy of the report, I'd be grateful if you could leave a comment.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

How to Respond to Media Myths

This is a cross-post on The Sun - Tabloid Lies, Express Watch and Mail Watch.

When you read the Sun, Daily Mail and the Express over a long-enough period of time, you start to notice a few things.

One thing that crops up regularly are hysterical ranting posts over a few small topics, including the following:
We've noticed that a lot of these scare stories could be stopped by a little research, which we accept that pressed-for-time tabloid journalists, for whatever reason, are unable to do.

Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation, we've decided to help them out by listing great sources of information, thereby saving them valuable time:
There are also a variety of websites which can be used for any "Bloody Foreigners! Coming over 'ere! Takin' our jobs! Takin' our wimmin!" stories*:
There are also more general fact-checking sites**:
Of course, any and all of these lists could also be used by anyone else who wants to know more about the articles which the Sun, Daily Mail and/or the Express publish.

If anyone has any other suggestions as what other sources our tabloid journalists could use, just leave them in the comments.

* Thanks to Tabloid Watch for these particular links
** Thanks to Bloggerheads for these suggestions

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Drinking booze "aids body"

Today's Sun has an article which gives the impression that drinking alcohol makes you healthier.

It appears to be referring to an article in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition called "Relationship between alcohol intake, health and social status and cardiovascular risk factors in the urban Paris-Ile-De-France Cohort: is the cardioprotective action of alcohol a myth?"

From the Abstract of the paper it appears that it isn't quite as clear-cut as the Sun makes out. The Results part states
Alcohol intake was strongly associated with plasma high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol in both sexes ... moderate and low drinkers displayed better health status than did never drinkers. Importantly, few factors were causally related to alcohol intake.
The Conclusion goes on to state
[M]oderate alcohol consumption may represent a marker of higher social level, superior health status and lower [cardiovascular] risk.
As you can see, the paper does not make a causal link as the article suggests.

Unfortunately the main body of the article is behind a pay-wall and so I do not have access to it. If anyone has access to it, and is willing to provide a copy, I would be very grateful if you could leave a comment.

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Big Fat Lies

Two weeks ago there was an article in the Sun which was basically a promotion for a book called "Big Fat Lies: Is Your Government Making You Fat".

Apparently some ex-city lawyer is taking on Big Govt, Big Shop and Big Food by showing how only she knows the Truth (TM) about what we should and shouldn't eat.

To be fair to the Sun, it quotes a Dietician (someone who is qualified and registered to speak on the issue) who states that the author is "cherry-picking" data as well as quoting the FSA's Chief Scientist who bluntly states "She has her own website selling a weight-loss programme based on her theory." and also labels it a "fad diet".

On the face of it, I'm leaning towards the book being a load of rubbish. However, I would like to be able to review the book to see who is correct, but do not have a copy. Is there anyone out there who does? If so, would you be willing to send me one? If not, does anyone have any reviews of it? I can't seem to find anything!

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Repetitive Sex Injury

Last week there was an article in the Sun which states that too much sex can cause carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Sun referred to an article in a medical journal called Medical Hypotheses. Unfortunately, the journal journal isn't one which is peer-reviewed and so anything can be published in it, including articles by AIDS denalists.

The Sun doesn't link to the article in question – nor is it even named – but it appears to be the one entitled "The role of sexual intercourse in the etiology of carpal tunnel syndrome".

Unfortunately, I am unable to obtain the full article, but the journal in which it is published, says a lot about its credibility.

UPDATE: Via the comments, I have been emailed me a PDF copy of the article in question. After looking through the article, I don't see anything which causes me to change my views on the credibility of the article. In my view, if there was something there, it would have been published in a more-credible journal...

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Cat Girl

Today's Sun has an article about a Chinese girl* who they say has baffled doctors by becoming covered with body hair.

I think that the likely explanation is that she's suffering from Hirsutism, although it is a symptom of something else, including the following:
In any event, there's a good chance of her condition being explained.

* I don't think that the picture that is used of one of her...

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Touched by the hand of Allah

Monday's Sun had an article which claims that some kiddie in southern Russia has had verses of the Qur`an appear on his skin.

At first glance you could mistake it for an Islamic version of Stigmata, but the people over on the Bad Science Forum suggest that it could be dermographia: scratching writing on the skin which leads to rashes.

They also suggest that the marks would disappear if the child was taken into care and the doctors should look into who's taking care of the child during the times that the lesions appear, so possibly implying Münchausen syndrome by proxy.

Monday, 17 August 2009

Wi-fi Stress makes you ill, follow-up

A few weeks ago I put up an article about some guy who claimed to suffer from Electromagnetic Hypersensitity.

I wasn't convinced to say the least...

It now turns out that I was right to be sceptical: a systematic review has just been published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics. In summary, it doesn't exist.

(via @Krelnik)

Tunisian duodecaplets

Today's Sun has an article which claims that a Tunisian woman is pregnant with 12 kids.

Leaving aside the complete lack of detail in the story: it quotes "local reports", no names are provided and is nothing more than a mishmash of heresay and rumours, there are reasons to doubt it on a scientific basis, which are alluded to in the article.

It would be an extraordinary event: the odds on it occurring are in the region of 1:80^11, i.e. it would happen once every 80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80 times, so once in every 858,993,459,200,000,000,000 live births.

Assuming that she actually is pregnant with 12 foetuses, it's very unlikely that she will give birth to such a high number. The record number for a multiple birth is 9 babies, which according to Wikipedia, has been achieved on three separate occasions.

In any event, as with all multiple births, there are numerous risks, of which the obvious ones are low birth-weight and premature delivery, the risks of which will increase the more babies there are.

UPDATE (19/08/09): According to the Torygraph, it's fake. The "mother" has refused medical tests and gone into hiding.

UPDATE (20/08/09): The Sun now admits it's a fraud.

Friday, 24 July 2009

Wi-fi Stress makes you ill

With the country seemingly doomed due to pig flu, the Sun turns its gaze to another pressing and urgent medical condition which is on the verge of wiping us all out: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

It has an article about some DJ who claims that his life has been ruined due to wi-fi singals. He claims that whenever he goes somewhere that has wi-fi he gets headaches and feels dizzy. He also says that there is "anecdotal evidence", i.e. a friend of a friend, of it affecting people. However, I could say that a friend-of-a-friend suffers from being exposed to massive radiation whenever he uses a cash machine from the display screen, but nobody would give this any credence. It's simply a story, not data.

The problem is, from what he says it appears that he knows in advance whether or not a place has wi-fi. As anyone who has conducted medical trials knows this leads to serious problems with blinding: he expects certain things to happen and those things do in fact happen, but it could be due to something completely different to what he claims or due to a subconscious belief that wi-fi makes him ill, which would then cause his symptoms (a psychosomatic illness).

I suggest that people look at the Wikipedia article on the subject. It demolishes the claims using actual peer-reviewed evidence and systematic reviews (effectively taking numerous small studies and using various statistical techniques to combine them into one big study) to show that there is no evidence that the condition actual exists. This is probably why it's listed on Wikipedia's "List of topics characterised as pseudoscience". I would also recommend the episode of the Skeptoid podcast about this area as a good debunking of the claims.

On the plus side the Sun does state there is "no hard evidence that wi-fi is dangerous to your health", but it then goes on to give scare stories about teachers wanting wi-fi banned in schools and the German government telling people not to use it. The Sun also has a small comment from one of their doctors, which although not supportive, doesn't state that it is rubbish.

It is entirely possible that the guy's lifestyle - he's described as a top DJ who plays in major clubs in Ibiza - has caused a stress reaction and so leading to his symptoms which he attributes to wi-fi signals.

I don't know how old the guy is, but from his picture I'd say that he's at least in his 40s. I'd recommend that he takes a more relaxed approach, for example, by spending more time in his Cornwall cottage. He needs to realise he's getting old and his body won't be able to handle as much as it used to. If he does, then it's likely that his symptoms will resolve without the need to go to such extremes as to fence himself off from modern forms of communication.

[Disclosure: article researched from my laptop using wi-fi]

UPDATE (28-07-09): Just found this (via Mashable who reported it today) in the Telegraph which goes into further details as to why it's false, using the frequency of the radiowaves that are emitted.

UPDATE (29-07-09): The Sun's article has also reached Ars Technica. Their coverage isn't favourable to say the least...

Of course, a comment on Fark.com shows it in simple language that surely even the Sun could understand:


I'll let you know if I see any other coverage.

Thursday, 9 July 2009

The Easter Island Wonder Drug

I was going to take apart this article about an alleged "wonder drug" that increases your lifespan by "decades".

However, MacGuffin over at Tabloid Watch, has done a similar thing with the Daily Express's coverage.

As far as I can tell, the only difference in the two papers' coverage is the name of who wrote the article and so I recommend that you go there instead.

Monday, 6 July 2009

Lottery win is bad for you. Here's Saturday's numbers

Monday's Sun had an article stating that winning the lottery is good for your mental health, but bad for your physical health.

As far as I can see, it relates to this working paper (dated March '09) (PDF) (via the New York Times's Economix blog) [I'm currently unable to find a more recent version].

After reading the paper, it does appear that the Sun is mainly correct in how it reports the study, even though it doesn't mention that winning the Lottery has no significant effect on a person's general health status (para 5.1, p. 15).

I do however, have two main issues:
  • It names people whose lives have become "tragic" due to winning it. Leaving aside potential invasions of privacy that may cause, this implies that the paper also mentions them, even though it doesn't: the data is based on people's self-reported health from before their win and after it and a comparison is done (p. 6-11);
  • It states that they suffer from long-term health problems, implying that winning the Lottery causes them, even though the paper states that winning it has no effect on these (para 5.3, p. 17)
Of course, there's also the fact that if the lottery really is damaging to public health, should the Sun really be providing the latest lottery numbers in the next paragraph?

Saturday, 4 July 2009

The BMI Calculator

I've noticed that the Sun now has a body-mass index calculator (BMI) on its Health & Diet page.

If you're not aware, BMI is used as a guide to whether someone should be classed as overweight, by taking the ratio of their mass to the square of their height.

The problem is that the Sun simply advertises it as follows:
Overweight? See our BMI calculator
It implies that it an absolute measurement, but Wikipedia shows that it isn't what it's designed for:
BMI has become controversial because many people, including physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose. It is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition.
The Sun doesn't bother to say that if, for example, you're a body builder then it would be a waste of time using it (because muscle has a greater mass than fat, which would warp the results), nor does it state that it is simply a guide for an average person. In any event, the Sun doesn't give any explanation as to what BMI does until you type in your details:
For Adults:

Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

For children, see BMI charts
For the record, my BMI is 21.6, which is in the middle of the "Average" range.

What is odd is the way the Sun goes about calculating BMI: they ask for your height in feet and inches - no metric option is available - and it asks for your weight in lbs. Does anyone actually weigh themselves in lbs in the UK? I was expecting stones and possibly kg.

While I appreciate the Sun's attempts, it could have done a lot better with a minimal amount of effort.

Sunday, 14 June 2009

Dr. Keith vs Medicine

Last week the Sun had an article from it's medical "expert" Dr. Keith.

In it he complains about how medical conditions are being "re-branded", giving the impression of "ITSJUSTPOLITICALCORRECTNESSGAWNMAAAAAADDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!" For a GP this is an odd article to write, particularly as the ones he lists appear to be simply being given more accurate terms:
Acute coronory syndrome (ACS):

It used to be called a heart attack.
Not quite, because it also covers angina, i.e. not a heart attack, but a lack of blood to the heart muscle due to a spasm, not a lack of blood due to a build up of fat.
Erectile dysfunction (ED):

That’s impotence, in old money.
It is a correct description of the symptoms.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD):

Originally, it was emphysema. Then chronic bronchitis. Then chronic obstructive airways disease. And finally COPD.
Nope, these are different conditions, hence different names, which have been given an overall term.
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD):

Old name: Heartburn. People used to worry that it might have something to do with their heart. It doesn’t.

It’s caused by acid flowing up (the "reflux") from the stomach ("gastro") into the gullet ("oesophageal").
Fair enough, that's a sensible reason for re-naming it. However, this doesn't fit in with the rest of the article!
Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)

Previously known as prostatism, it describes plumbing problems common in older blokes: Going often, especially at night, with a poor stream and a lot of dribbling afterwards.

It was assumed this is caused by prostate trouble – hence “prostatism”.

And sometimes it is. But there are other possibilities, such as stones or a twitchy bladder.

So LUTS may be a bit of a mouthful but it’s more accurate.
Again, you're arguing against your own article!
Cerebrovascular event (CVE):

To you and me, a stroke. I’ve no idea why medics decided "stroke" wasn’t good enough.

They probably wanted to sound clever. But don’t faff around when you go weak down one side – just call an ambulance.
Presumably it was re-named because, once again, it gives a description of the symptoms! After all, "cerebro" relates to the brain and "vascular" relates to blood.

Monday, 27 April 2009

Pig flu is here!

Good to see that the Sun is keeping things fully in perspective regarding swine flu:

No advice yet on whether we're all doomed and whether we should be abandoning the country to live on the Isle of Man, but it shouldn't be too long now.

Monday, 13 April 2009

It's not a matter of life and death, it's more important than that

Here's a pointless article even for the Sun: they're fear-mongering about the prospects of the England football team!

Last week Wayne and Colleen Rooney said that they're due to have a child in October. The Sun says that her due date means that Rooney may miss the "vital" Ukraine-England World Cup qualifier on 10th October because if still pregnant Colleen would be at 41 weeks and so may need to be induced.

There are three main things wrong with this article:
  • Firstly, the Sun should be ashamed to even suggest that they should put a football game ahead of the health of both Colleen and the baby;
  • Secondly, the majority of women give birth at 40 weeks, which in this case would be the week before the game;
  • Thirdly, the game will be England's 9th out of 10 qualifiers. In case you're not aware, in the European section of the World Cup (Group 6) so far England have won their first 5 games, with a total of 15 points, are 5 points clear and at the very worst need 25 points to qualify. Their next two games are against the two weakest teams in the group - Kazakhstan and Andorra - and it is pretty certain that England will win both of these which will give them 21 points. Therefore, aside from the fact that the article implies England are a one-man team and they will fall apart if Rooney isn't playing, it is likely that he may not even need to be selected because they may have already qualified!

Tuesday, 23 December 2008

Wii don't believe you

The Sun:
TEN people a week in Britain are hospitalised from playing Wii games.

The growing toll has prompted NHS doctors to warn of the dangers.

Wii-itis sufferers usually have excruciating pain in the right shoulder or knee.

A rheumatology consultant said: “Most are admitted after playing the tennis and running games which involve sudden movements and violent tendon stretching.”

Dr Dev Mukerjee, of Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, Essex, said: “There has been a 100 per cent increase in patients complaining of Wii-itis.


Spong:
We said we found all this difficult to believe and were going to ask the good doctor for the facts. We did, and Dr Mukerjee has kindly responded with the following.

"I have seen a few injuries related to patients using the Wii.

"I do NOT think its anything to do with the Wii itself, but rather the player over using the device.
There is no epidemic- I used to see 3 or 4 injuries and over the last few months there have been 7 to 10.

"The quote about 10 people admitted to hospital is INCORRECT. 10 people have been seen recently in hospital clinics is the fact.

"Broomfield (hospital) doesn't keep specific Wii stats, but we do have soft tissue rheumatism stats under which this type of injury belongs, and we haven't seen a great rise."

Health & science Editor Emma Morton used to be so full of praise for the Wii too.

Thursday, 11 December 2008

The Sun supports teenage pregnancy

There's an article in today's Sun about the fact that Manchester City Council are handing out condoms to under-16s. The aim is to lower its extremely high teenage pregnancy rate and by doing so the various associated negative outcomes.

The Sun condemns them for doing so - it must think that abstinence is the way forward - and in support of its position quotes the "Campaign for Real Education", which appears to be a right-wing group simply intent on complaining about anything that happens which improves teaching methods.

It also complains about the fact that parents won't be told when their kids are given contraception - which is perfectly reasonable on confidentiality and health grounds, given that this has been the main area of complaint in the past - but concedes the fact that they were consulted before the scheme started. Therefore the parents must support it.

In any event, I support the council's actions, as they have been shown to reduce the levels of teenage pregnancy which is a good thing. The Sun should not be condemning them for doing this, but supporting them, unless it wants people to grow up in poverty which leads to lower prospects and higher crime rates.