On the 5th January, 2015, Nature Medicine published an article, "Intestinal FXR agonism promotes adipose tissue browning and reduces obesity and insulin resistance" (abstract). The article refers to "the bile acid (BA) sensor farnesoid X receptor (FXR)".
Widly exciting? Just wait.
On the same day the Salk Institute issued a press release:
Plainly nearly all the writers used the press release as an authority, because of the use of 'farensoid' (sic).
What are the 'real' facts? The farnesoid X receptor (FXR), NR1H4, is a bile acid–activated transcription factor, a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily, and we've known about it for more than 20 years. Had anybody digested at least the abstract of the Nature Medicine publication, they might have proceeded to check further.
In all this murk, who reported on this "more effective diet pill" and made reference to the farnesoid X receptor'?
3 results? Only 3?
Principally among the results, I see Ian Sample at the Guardian. So, for my 2015 New Year resolution, I undertake never again to refer to the 'Grauniad'. Hats off 🙂
This is not about diet pills or bioscience, it is about how information, misinformation and disinformation are communicable diseases. And with communicable diseases, it is important to trace them back to their source. Should you trust a government press release, a newspaper article or an item on television news, or should you search for the source of the infection? Perhaps farensoid/farnesoid is of little import, but it demonstrates the present culture of meta-news, the endless recycling of what somebody else has written, with little or no further investigation, checking or contribution.
Incidentally, I leave you, dear reader, to decide whether Salk's "Salk scientists made a more effective diet pill" subhead is an accurate account of the research reported in Nature Medicine.
Next, reputable and trusted 😉 newspapers around the world duly reported the miracle pill, presumably relying on the news release as a primary source. Here are the Google search results -"Imaginary meal" tricks the body into losing weight
Salk scientists made a more effective diet pill
"... Evans’ laboratory has spent nearly two decades studying the farensoid X receptor (FXR) ... "
Plainly nearly all the writers used the press release as an authority, because of the use of 'farensoid' (sic).
What are the 'real' facts? The farnesoid X receptor (FXR), NR1H4, is a bile acid–activated transcription factor, a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily, and we've known about it for more than 20 years. Had anybody digested at least the abstract of the Nature Medicine publication, they might have proceeded to check further.
In all this murk, who reported on this "more effective diet pill" and made reference to the farnesoid X receptor'?
3 results? Only 3?
Principally among the results, I see Ian Sample at the Guardian. So, for my 2015 New Year resolution, I undertake never again to refer to the 'Grauniad'. Hats off 🙂
This is not about diet pills or bioscience, it is about how information, misinformation and disinformation are communicable diseases. And with communicable diseases, it is important to trace them back to their source. Should you trust a government press release, a newspaper article or an item on television news, or should you search for the source of the infection? Perhaps farensoid/farnesoid is of little import, but it demonstrates the present culture of meta-news, the endless recycling of what somebody else has written, with little or no further investigation, checking or contribution.
Incidentally, I leave you, dear reader, to decide whether Salk's "Salk scientists made a more effective diet pill" subhead is an accurate account of the research reported in Nature Medicine.