Firstly, the study states ““Of the 147 patients who had completed enough treatment to be classified” which suggests there was a number of patients who did not complete treatment”. So, the way I read it is that the initial sample was very small and there may have been a significant number of patients who did not complete treatment for whatever reason. Secondly, doesn’t the Telegraph article classify as misinformation albeit not intentional? If so, then surely the fact checkers should be all over articles of this nature. I know from my work in pain management that an overemphasis on the efficacy of interventions can lead to some very negative consequences, including reinforcing a sense of hopelessness and the potential blaming of those trying to help. I’ve now got to the stage where I think that the constant pushing of new, improved “miracle” medications without sufficient scrutiny is both raising unfulfilled expectations and actively damaging health care provision. Okay…rant over (for now).
"Getting the facts right in modern day journalism doesn't seem part of the job".
The problem is that any science/medical journalist who did get their facts right, ie by checking sources, reading round the matter whilst applying even a modicum of critical thought wouldn't have a job for very long.
Even before Clown World began 4 years ago they were often just useful idiots for pharma.
I've lost count of the number of wonder drugs, miracle medical breakthroughs, and the human genome being cracked which would lead to a cure for, well, every disease known to man.
Gene tec has been the new kid on the block for a couple of decades now but precisely what has it done save create fortunes for the likes of you know who. - not forgetting mmRNA.
It's a bit complicated innit, especially when the genetic engineers appear to know the square root of F all about precisely how the immune system actually works.
No matter though - step forward AI which is the new saviour of mankind for matters medical. I read it somewhere.
It must be true, our science correspondents say so.
I can’t read behind the paywall so I don’t know the journalist’s personal journey with alcohol. However, Alcoholism can be such a devastatingly destructive addiction that by the time we are reaching for drugs like naltrexone, acamprosate and disulfaram things are usually pretty serious. Here even when the potential benefits are small, the balance of risks may well favour a closely monitored trial for selected patients, with the support of alcohol services such as they exist. By this point unless there is a specific contraindication it is often worth trying anything that may help, though I do think that can also lead us to not sufficiently scrutinise the evidence for risks of an intervention. Increasingly I see baclofen prescribed off license in alcohol use disorder even though I suspect it may also be (ab)used to augment euphoria for some addicted people.
So for me it isn’t necessarily the judicious use of such drugs on a case by case basis that is the issue, it is the media overselling their benefits and misleading the public as to their potential role.
Besides which, doesn’t she know Ozempic is the latest magic drug for addiction, not naltrexone? That’s old news!
I’m aware of a number of supplements coming to market in the next few years to help people with alcohol intolerance. They are based on an enzyme-stabilizing technology that delivers enzymes to the stomach in order to break down toxic aldehyde. The mechanism is inspired by enzymes used for lactose intolerance.
Here’s one that is being developed for the Asian market
Firstly, the study states ““Of the 147 patients who had completed enough treatment to be classified” which suggests there was a number of patients who did not complete treatment”. So, the way I read it is that the initial sample was very small and there may have been a significant number of patients who did not complete treatment for whatever reason. Secondly, doesn’t the Telegraph article classify as misinformation albeit not intentional? If so, then surely the fact checkers should be all over articles of this nature. I know from my work in pain management that an overemphasis on the efficacy of interventions can lead to some very negative consequences, including reinforcing a sense of hopelessness and the potential blaming of those trying to help. I’ve now got to the stage where I think that the constant pushing of new, improved “miracle” medications without sufficient scrutiny is both raising unfulfilled expectations and actively damaging health care provision. Okay…rant over (for now).
"Getting the facts right in modern day journalism doesn't seem part of the job".
The problem is that any science/medical journalist who did get their facts right, ie by checking sources, reading round the matter whilst applying even a modicum of critical thought wouldn't have a job for very long.
Even before Clown World began 4 years ago they were often just useful idiots for pharma.
I've lost count of the number of wonder drugs, miracle medical breakthroughs, and the human genome being cracked which would lead to a cure for, well, every disease known to man.
Gene tec has been the new kid on the block for a couple of decades now but precisely what has it done save create fortunes for the likes of you know who. - not forgetting mmRNA.
It's a bit complicated innit, especially when the genetic engineers appear to know the square root of F all about precisely how the immune system actually works.
No matter though - step forward AI which is the new saviour of mankind for matters medical. I read it somewhere.
It must be true, our science correspondents say so.
Well said 👏
I can’t read behind the paywall so I don’t know the journalist’s personal journey with alcohol. However, Alcoholism can be such a devastatingly destructive addiction that by the time we are reaching for drugs like naltrexone, acamprosate and disulfaram things are usually pretty serious. Here even when the potential benefits are small, the balance of risks may well favour a closely monitored trial for selected patients, with the support of alcohol services such as they exist. By this point unless there is a specific contraindication it is often worth trying anything that may help, though I do think that can also lead us to not sufficiently scrutinise the evidence for risks of an intervention. Increasingly I see baclofen prescribed off license in alcohol use disorder even though I suspect it may also be (ab)used to augment euphoria for some addicted people.
So for me it isn’t necessarily the judicious use of such drugs on a case by case basis that is the issue, it is the media overselling their benefits and misleading the public as to their potential role.
Besides which, doesn’t she know Ozempic is the latest magic drug for addiction, not naltrexone? That’s old news!
I didn't get a paywall when I clicked on the link at the start of the piece and I am not subscribed.
I’m aware of a number of supplements coming to market in the next few years to help people with alcohol intolerance. They are based on an enzyme-stabilizing technology that delivers enzymes to the stomach in order to break down toxic aldehyde. The mechanism is inspired by enzymes used for lactose intolerance.
Here’s one that is being developed for the Asian market
https://www.alcolase.com/our-supplement
Does that mean we can all just carry on drinking without a care in the world? Ooh cheers 🥂
That’s not the intention but I fear it may be used like that.