In its September issue, Prevention magazine – in its “Need to Know: Medical Breakthroughs” section – has this headline:
The brief story that follows trumpets one study in five mice, and then reveals that human trials are expected to begin in early 2014. Begin, not wrap up. Yet Prevention already calls it a “silver bullet.”
Here are some definitions I found for the term “silver bullet”:
I don’t know what definition Prevention had in mind when it headlined this “breakthrough.” But I do know that 4 months followup in five mice does not translate immediately to a fail-safe, infallible, or simple remedy for a human.
I found something on Stanford’s website which I believe relates to the work Prevention hyped. (I can only guess since the magazine didn’t cite a reference, nor any researchers’ names.) There is no hype in the Stanford article. In fact, it paints a sobering picture of how huge is the leap from mouse to human applicability. Excerpt:
“Unfortunately, the process of preparing for human clinical trials is long. The initial experiments were done in animals and the animal versions of anti-CD47 antibody cannot be used in humans. So researchers first have to create a “humanized” antibody to CD47, then the production of antibody must be scaled up in a sterile facility of the kind that is used to create other pharmaceutical products. Finally, clinical trials must be designed so that the data they generate will produce a valid scientific result, and the trials must be approved by regulatory officials.
All of this takes time.”
So, no human cancer breakthrough yet. No silver bullet yet. Breathe deeply and move on carefully to the next “need to know” piece.
————
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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