It took The Daily Telegraph of the UK nearly 200 words and 8 sentences to get around to explaining that the headline above pertained to a study conducted in mice.
And when the story did get around to it, here’s how it was reported:
“Although the study was conducted in mice, researchers are confident it would work in humans and are hopeful that human trials will begin soon.
“This helps your own immune system fight off the cancer better. The good guys win. And it seems to work on all cancers,” said (the) study co-leader.”
It’s difficult to play the cheerleader role any stronger than that.
Even though human trials haven’t even begun, researchers are confident it will work. Hey, why even bother with the trials then?
And the researcher quote makes a direct reference to helping “your own immune system fight off the cancer better.” Your immune system. Not the mice in the study. Yours.
And to top it all off, they let the researcher get away – unchallenged – with making claims of efficacy against ALL cancers.
Amazing.
If you didn’t see my post from a few days ago about the BMJ piece, “How predictive and productive is animal research?“, this would be a good time to read it to become re-grounded in the reality of how far is the leap between most animal research and most human applications.
Read the reader comments left online at the end of the Telegraph story for evidence of how people are being turned off by this kind of journalism. We’re not giving them what they need when we shovel this kind of stuff at them daily. Examples of reader sentiment:
Have some consideration you rat-bag headline seekers!”
———————
Follow us 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.
Brian Hanley
June 12, 2014 at 11:14 pmThere is a current human clinical trial. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02100852 If you look again, the top of the article discusses a human clinical trial. The mouse model work is for other cancers.
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/118/13/3603?variant=short&sso-checked=1 There is clinical work published back in 2011.
The correct interpretation of that article is that the mouse work was necessary to support new clinical trials for other cancers. When an IND application is made, animal study work is required to support the application. The application for this delta inhibitor is strong for human safety, because trials have already been successful. But prior to this mouse work there was nothing that could be pointed to saying that this drug would work for something besides leukemia. In this case your cynicism is not correct.
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