The story doesn’t really explain the differences between the standard and experimental therapies in the small trial.
Most significantly, it doesn’t tell us about the $150,000 annual price tag for each patient.
When the stakes are this high, it’s critical that news stories give a clear picture of the proven benefits, limitations of the evidence, potential side effects, and costs.
Still, we would have liked to see comment from an independent source on how this news might be misconstrued, especially by readers worried about their own risk for developing the disease.
A study shows that the severity of the side effects of the vaccine were much more intense than what the Times implies.
There was no way to know if anyone was actually choosing to use marijuana instead of opioids.
This was amplified by the lack of specific data on benefits for patients, and the only expert quoted has a conflict of interest that wasn’t disclosed.
To its credit, the story does discuss the rather expensive costs of the tests and quotes various sources.
However, it did wisely mention concerns about privacy and data security.
To its credit, the story makes clear that Roche is going public with such incomplete and at best data-free pronouncements about incremental results in a “bid to catch up” to competitors’ better known immunotherapies.