It is not with any relish that HealthNewsReview.org publishes its worst review ever of a New York Times story.
Summary of our review:
“This story about a drug company’s announcement of positive study results fails readers in every important way.
It portrays a “decisive” clinicial trial that shows a first-of-its-kind prostate cancer drug “prolonged the lives of men.” It spins the tale of a determined company rewarded for its persistence against a slow-witted bureaucracy, whose earlier inaction led to the loss of “a lot of good men.” It presents testimony of a cancer-stricken patient “looking into the abyss,” seeking only “a chance.” It anticipates the drug’s approval, and documents Wall Street’s instant validation of the study findings.
Not until paragraph eight does the story state that the company has not released the results, that the findings will not be discussed in public for two weeks, and that even then they will not have been peer-reviewed or published. It does not say that the results of this medical study were announced in a conference call to investors.
It recklessly, even perversely, suggests that the FDA’s earlier inaction, combined with patient protests and what are now claimed to be positive results, constitute proof of efficacy.
It’s hard to imagine why a story would delay and omit key information, imply efficacy had been demonstrated in the absense of evidence, or fail to balance all the positive views with those of a skeptic, or at least someone who urges prudence until the data are made public.
It is true that this story was originally published in the paper’s business section. But all journalists share a common responsibility to the public when writing stories about diseases and treatments. In today’s media environment, where a story’s readers usually encounter it out of context of a “section,” few readers will be “savvy” enough, if that is the word, to bring lower expectations of accuracy, balance and fairness to a story about what a drug can do for a deadly disease merely because it was originally written for the “business” section.
It’s painful to imagine how families affected by advanced prostate cancer may respond to this article, and then to what they will subsequently learn. Even investors are badly served by such an unbalanced, incomplete story.
In any case, it is distressing to see such credulous, feeble, negligent journalism published anywhere in the New York Times.”
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.
Doug McKenzie
April 17, 2009 at 10:41 pmReaders, please check out this site for the other side of the story. (Gary, no profanity, nothing obnoxious, no product pitches).
http://caretolive.com/
Megan
April 18, 2009 at 12:16 amIt just blows my mind that the full case study is not given to everyone. If they have found something of this value it should make mainstream media with proof and side effects given. We wonder why the world is going bad.
Dan
April 18, 2009 at 10:34 pmAgree with your assessment of the NYT Provenge pience.
Advanced prostate cancer patients are terminally ill. As such, most will try anything for relief or delay in the progression of their chronic disease.
As a pharmaceutical critic, and a holder of no shares from no one, Provenge is the first immunotherapy biologic treatment for advanced prostate cancer.
Before this treatment option, chemotherapy was the only option available for such patients.
Many such patients refused this treatment due to the brutal side effects of chemotherapy.
Provenge therapy consists of three injections in a month and a half.
The efficacy of provenge was proven, and shown to the FDA, in 2007. The FDA panel recommended the approval of Provenge, and upon their own volition, placed Provenge on a fast track status with the FDA in 2007.
Soon afterwards, the FDA, with it’s commissioner at the time a prostate cancer survivor himself, rejected the approval of provenge due to ‘lack of data’.
Conflicts of interest with the FDA and others have been suggested and illustrated by others.
My point is that, aside from flawed reporting as you have illustrated well here, there is much more that needs to be done to improve at least this element of our health care system.
DrV
April 19, 2009 at 1:21 pmWhy is it ‘not with any relish’ that you support this? The quality and bias of reporting at the NYT has been deteriorating for some time. Kudos for covering all sides but the ‘relish’ comment is puzzling.
The Publisher
April 19, 2009 at 1:32 pmDr V,
Thanks for your note.
I don’t enjoy seeing shoddy journalism. I would relish highlighting truly outstanding work – as I try to do on this site when I see it.
There shouldn’t be anything puzzling about that.
In this time of much-needed health care reform, we can’t afford stories like this.
The Publisher
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