‘Diabetes drug tied to increased cancer prevalence’ read the headline on a story last week from the worldwide giant Reuters news service. Though the headline was generic the drug was not. The story was about the drug Avandia.

The ambiguous headline did not do justice to the dramatically increased cancer risk noted in the study involving almost 9,000 diabetics using Avandia. The story itself also downplayed the serious nature of the findings.

A 59 per cent increased risk of cancer incidence was associated with Avandia usage among diabetics. The increase was almost double among women.

That sounds serious.

Meanwhile on the same day as the above noted story, ‘Vitamin C useless for preventing or treating colds’ was the bold headline on another story from the same Reuters news service.

However, the very first paragraph of that story noted about people exposed to cold temperatures that “vitamin C may markedly reduce their risk of catching a cold.”

The bold headline and the opening paragraph present a serious contradiction.

The bias of the media is a serious pharmaceutical bias.

By the way, isn’t it during the cold of late autumn, winter and early spring that “a cold” is most often experienced? Could that be why this common malady of sniffling, sneezing and coughing is called “a cold” and not “a warm” or “a hot”?

The second article noted a 50 per cent decrease in colds among those taking part in sub-arctic exercises. Does that sound “useless”?

A serious media bias against nutrient usage is as evident as is a serious media bias for pharmaceuticals.

The “news”/propaganda story on Avandia’s seriously increased risk for cancer incidence concluded, “Our data do not provide strong evidence to change practice at this time” but rather to “require further investigation before clinical decisions should be changed.”

The story on vitamin C with facts in evidence of positive benefit concluded, “More trials testing vitamin C as a possible treatment for the common cold are needed.”

According to reporting by Reuters one should not stop taking a drug discovered to have a high increased incidence of cancer risk until “further investigation” but one should not start taking a commonly used nutrient that has shown evidence of benefit without additional “trials”.

Indeed, the bias of the media is seriously pro-pharmaceutical as well as seriously anti-nutrition.