I’m just amazed.
The headline is WRONG. It DIDN’T block HIV. The H in HIV stands for “Human.” This was research on SIV – S is for Simian – so we’re talking about a virus in monkeys.
I am not anti-science. And I’m certainly all in favor of educating people about advances in research. But there is a weight and an emphasis given to this kind of placement. And so, even though the story has caveats, they are overwhelmed by the enthusiasm, the pull quote, the breakthrough language.
5 monkeys followed for two weeks, one of whom did, indeed, become infected when you follow it out for five months.
Interesting? Yes.
Important? Yes.
Page one breakthrough? Not in my book.
And let’s go down the boulevard of broken dreams of hope that didn’t pan out – a headline one year ago – “Anti-AIDS gel disappoints, researchers say.”
The leap from animal research to human efficacy is huge. It can’t be stated often enough.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Sara
March 5, 2009 at 10:03 amNothing like a dubious leap of logic in a boldface headline! Thanks for drawing attention to this.
Eskimo
March 5, 2009 at 4:41 pmLuckily Health News Review doesn’t rate British newspapers. There’s a dubious “breakthrough” every other day!
For comparison, we can look at Jon Cohen’s writeup of the recent HIV/AIDS meeting in Science:
“Unlike in years past, there was hardly a peep about new anti-HIV drugs and no major surprises surfaced about existing treatment or prevention strategies.”
Bill Gleason
March 5, 2009 at 8:28 pmSadly, even our CEO at the U of M used the occasion of his State of the University address today to brag about this.
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