December 1, 2017
HIV ‘cure’ based on one patient? Here’s what you need to know
Kevin Lomangino is the managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @KLomangino.
“Cure” is one of the seven words we think you should avoid in health care journalism.
Stories from The Guardian and other news outlets demonstrate why this term shouldn’t be thrown around carelessly.
Their blaring headlines today raise hope that a cancer drug could “cure” HIV infection — a global scourge affecting millions.
But this potential cure is based on results from just a single man whose reservoir of dormant HIV-infected cells went down after treatment with the cancer drug nivolumab.
Further down in the story we learn that this man has only been followed for about four months, and there’s no telling if his reservoir of infected cells might increase again.
We also learn that a second man with HIV saw no benefit from the drug.
Then the only quoted source who’s not affiliated with the study says that “talks of cure are premature.”
One thing we don’t learn from The Guardian story is this: three out of the seven study authors have received payments from Bristol Myers Squibb, which makes nivolumab.
Today is World AIDS Day, a day when the global community is urged to show support for people living with HIV.
Hyped headlines touting a possible cure based on one patient aren’t supportive of patients at all. They tease false hope that ultimately can hurt the people who are suffering.
Let’s be clear: this was an intriguing and possibly important observation about one man’s lab test results — the headlines should have stuck to that.
There will be plenty of time to praise a “cure” — if that’s what it turns out to be — once the evidence is in.
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.
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