Gary Schwitzer is the Publisher and founder of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @garyschwitzer.
The CBS Morning News packed so much hyperbolic punch into one piece, it was breathtaking. They promoted the piece as “only seen on CBS This Morning,” and thank goodness for that.
Keep in mind that the story admitted that the compound hasn’t been tested in humans yet. In that context, let these claims soak in:
It is important for journalists to track research progress in the midst of the opioid crisis. But journalists who don’t report on these issues full-time should not be allowed by their editors and managers to run up to the winding stream of science, dip their toes in, and then run back and file a breakthrough story with no regard for the downstream work of science to get from here to there with such wild claims. The decades-long boulevard of broken dreams of past attempts to develop painkiller alternatives cannot be forgotten. Many looked great early in the research. The mechanism made sense, building on what’s known about pain pathways. Some continued to look terrific in animal research. And then the human trials delivered the bad news.
“It could be five years or so before the drug makes it through clinical trials to see if they confirm its claims.” So this story was free publicity five years too early.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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