Dude! Two medical stories defy ‘rules’ in science journalism. One’s gnarly to the max, other’s a wipeout.

   Here're some rules of the first metacarpal on what a diligent medical reporter ought to do when faced with reports of cure: Glaze one's eyes at a study with just one data point; say whoa! if outside experts are all leery; Think again if it involves amateur treatment under utterly uncontrolled circumstances; Ditto if it cannot even describe what it was about the treatment that did the trick – if anything did. Oh, another reason to pause: Even if the so-called treatment worked nobody else is ever likely to try it.

   Such alarm bells ought be taken seriously. That is unless there are extenuating circumstances. Covered with froth? Even better. In the right hands, with the right caveats, almost anything can past muster. What's the self-canceling rule? Rules are made to be broken.

  Here's one that breaks rules and soars.

• Live Science – Bahar Gholipour: Surfer Treats His Own Eye Problem With Giant Wave ; Where one not only meets a  somewhat elderly and gonzo surfer but also learns an obscure medical term: pterygium. Which is the same as surfer's eye. Never heard of that version either till today. I googled images of it. One example looked like a tiny wave of yucky scar tissue breaking on the cornea. The one above, an SF Chronicle shot of a Mavericks wave, is prettier.

 The grace of Gholipour's news judgment is confirmation that big-wave surfers are just as cool under pressure and as crazy brave and sure of foot but still, you know, nuts as most of us regular people think they are. Especially when watching videos of these boardslingers sliding down 50 foot waves at the Mavericks Invitational when the winds blow at the right angle and a distant storm aims its long-period swells just-so toward the San Mateo coastline to summon big wave riders in a twinkling from nearly everywhere:

  One hopes nobody else with this eye condition or for any other reason tries this, which implies ANOTHER breach of standard responsible medical journalism. Don't tempt readers to unwittingly hose themselves apart. The treatment is akin to a fire hydrant aimed into the eye. Bits of flesh, it is claimed, flew off. Fortunately, all seem to have been either lesion or membranes that healed soon. Man, a power-wash like that could un-socket a whole eye, couldn't it?

   The formal report on this is in the British Medical Journal. I could find no other media account.

   But wait, there's more:

• News-Medical.net/ MedInsight Research Institute: New report reveals potential breakthrough in pterygium treatment ; Hmmm. No listing of a journal where this case was reported. And it is just one case. The treatment is an off-label drug, one recommended as an anti-thrombotic. The doctor involved runs an institute (and the story appears to be his institute's press release pretty much verbatim) devoted to finding off-label, but efficacious, 're-purposes' for drugs. No outside authorities show up to comment on the treatment. News-Medical.net is a UK outfit, seems to have a large and savvy staff but hardly a reporter on it (its About Us staff list describes it). Odds are that no standard media outlet shall pick this news up. Being diligent in seeking other pterygium news, I provide it anyway.

  So there's a lesson of sorts. Two stories for the same condition, both flawed by a next-to-zero sample size to reflect treatment performance and other shortcomings. Who cares about the second one. After all, unlike our first and the winner today,  IT HAS NO SURFERS DOING CRAZY SELF-TREATMENT MEDICAL STUFF WHILE CRAZILY RACING DOWN GIANT WAVES.