In many ways, this release provides much of the basic information reporters would need to determine how newsworthy the findings are. Where it was published. The specific antigen being studied and for which disease. A numerical breakdown of the benefits. But nowhere does it mention that this was a study conducted in mice and that, if past experiences with vaccines for other diseases hold true, a true vaccine for humans has a narrow chance of becoming a reality.
Chlamydia is the most commonly reported sexually transmitted disease (STD) in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC says the condition is easily treated, but if left untreated, can make it difficult for a woman to become pregnant
A further complication of chlamydia is that it often carries no symptoms, so someone who is infected may not even know it. A safe and effective vaccine would certainly be of public health interest. But this research has to far to go before it will be available to the public — if ever.
Because the release is presented as if the study were conducted in humans, we would expect to see some explanation of what the vaccine might cost.
A better news release might have commented on the potential costs (and time) required for testing a new vaccine and bringing it to market.
The release mentions the antigen being studied, BD584, “was able to reduce chlamydial shedding – a symptom of C. trachomatis – by 95 per cent.” Without any context for how many people (or mice in this case) were studied, we have no way of knowing what that means.
There is no mention of harms in the release. Did any of the mice die or develop sterility or pelvic inflammatory disease?
This is the biggest omission in the release and truly surprising for a university. The study itself discusses in detail how the work was conducted in mice. And yet the release says nothing of the sort and, in fact, is set up in such a way that the strong impression is given that this study was conducted in humans. For example, the release says up high, “Researchers at the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at McMaster have developed the first widely protective vaccine against chlamydia. This is quickly followed by the first quote in the release, which says:
“Vaccine development efforts in the past three decades have been unproductive and there is no vaccine approved for use in humans,” said Bulir, who just finished his PhD in medical sciences at McMaster.
Until one read the actual study they’d have assumed that this was a human vaccine trial.
All of this makes the comments about the potential benefits for human trachoma infections even more absurd.
There is no disease mongering in the story.
The release notes that the Canadian Institutes for Health Research funded the study.
There is no other pharmacological treatment for preventing the chlamydia infection currently available so we rate this “not applicable.” However, it might have been noted that most public health experts recommend condoms for preventing this and other sexually transmitted diseases.
The release makes no mention of the fact that this vaccine is very far away from a clinical application, assuming it would even pass human trials. Instead, it talks about how easy the vaccine would be to administer and how people wouldn’t even need a lot of training to administer it.
(We imagine that administering nasal doses to mice would require some training.)
There’s no shortage of claims of novelty in the release, including in the headline. Although the release is misleading about the study cohort, it is a novel study given the absence of any available chlamdyia vaccines.
We would say that the entire release is unjustifiable given the lack of a mention of the true nature of the study. We also wonder if the investigators were given the opportunity to review the release before it went out.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
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