Gary Schwitzer is the founder of HealthNewsReview.org and has been its publisher for 14 years. He has been a health care journalist for 47 years. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
I’m flying solo while trying to catch up on today’s news on preliminary announcement of trial results of the drug dexamethasone for COVID-19 patients.
What follows is a series of tweets in response to what the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, and some smart physicians on Twitter have written. Among the key points:
This thread began when an old friend, a Minneapolis journalist, asked me to weigh in on CNN’s report about the drug trial.
Appropriately, 2nd graf stresses “Their findings are preliminary, still being compiled and have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.” But smart folks are calling top line results impressive. Old, cheap drug – testament to repurposing AND to randomized clinical trials. https://t.co/nkxpnoYC9X
— Gary Schwitzer (@garyschwitzer) June 16, 2020
It will be great news if dexamethasone, a cheap steroid, really does cut deaths by 1/3 in ventilated patients with COVID19, but after all the retractions and walk backs, it is unacceptable to tout study results by press release without releasing the paper. https://t.co/ZP5GVMUCW3
— Atul Gawande (@Atul_Gawande) June 16, 2020
Summary statement:
The data released on dexamethasone for covid-19 via press release show an enormous effect size among intubated patients.
This will either turn out to be:
A) Huge news.
B) Huge disappointment.I hope it’s the first option!
We’ll know when we see the data!
— Jeremy Faust MD MS (@jeremyfaust) June 16, 2020
Seems like if there was ever time for a preprint, this is it. Nice job on your story. Bach’s input raising possible questions about applicability in US is noteworthy. https://t.co/xvn4ElqrmL
— Gary Schwitzer (@garyschwitzer) June 16, 2020
Quoting Boris Johnson as your only ‘independent’ perspective on the dexamethasone story is not ideal. Also no mention that this is not yet peer reviewed. https://t.co/ClPUzmTzUH
— Gary Schwitzer (@garyschwitzer) June 16, 2020
.@nytimes piece on dexamethasone ends with ?s from those pushing for data to be published. What was patient severity? What were side effects, neurological outcomes? “No clue!” wrote @jeremyfausthttps://t.co/kWJFyNm372
— Gary Schwitzer (@garyschwitzer) June 16, 2020
Science by press release is just promises with numbers sprinkled on it. GIVE. US. THE. GODDAMN. PAPER.
(Thank God this exists so I don’t have to write something similar which is both worse and ruder. @angie_rasmussen for PM.) https://t.co/DkgnJmilLX
— ?James Heathers ? (@jamesheathers) June 16, 2020
How is it that dexamethasone…
…a drug that has been tried for every disease, just about
…that works decently for some things, and not at all in others,
…somehow hits its first grand slam EVER,
…with an illness that has so greatly eluded our best efforts to treat it?
— Jeremy Faust MD MS (@jeremyfaust) June 16, 2020
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