This story appeared in my local paper today: “The first attempt at gene therapy for Alzheimer’s patients appeared to significantly delay worsening of the disease in a few people who have tested it so far. Scientists took skin cells from eight patients in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and modified the genes to secrete a protein found in healthy brains called nerve growth factors or NGF. They then implanted the NGF-producing skin cells directly onto Alzheimer’s-injured spots. Six patients were tracked for almost two years. Tests found their rate of cognitive decline slowed by 36 percent to 51 percent, better than is usually seen with medication.”
How do I criticize thee? Let me counts the ways.
1. This brief omitted the critical cautionary second sentence of the original AP story: “Far more research is needed to see if the experimental treatment, which requires a form of brain surgery, really helps.”
2. It omitted the following cautionary quote from the original AP story: “These results need to be interpreted with cautious optimism,” said William Thies of the Alzheimer’s Association. With so few patients in the study, “it’s really impossible to tell whether the benefit was due to the treatment or natural fluctuation in symptoms,” he said.
3. It omitted the following cautionary quote from a researcher involved in the work: “It’s cautious optimism with a big C. It can’t be a cure, obviously … but maybe it’ll do something.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Marilyn Meinke-Murphy
April 27, 2005 at 8:50 amThere’s at least one other significant flaw to the story, not to mention the study itself, IF the orginal AP article contained a correct and complete telling of the research:
Where is the control?
And that’s only the beginning of a long list of questions that should be asked about the research itself…not to metion the reporting.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like