This report describes the trend of some patients going overseas to get medical procedures that are not approved in the U.S. The articles focuses on one such treatment: adult stem cell treatment for advanced heart failure.
With that one exception, the article delivers a high level of public service by inviting readers’ skepticism throughout.
It notes how the clinic’s operator made outcome claims but won’t release data, how available data on U.S. clinical trials is inconclusive, and it quotes a spokesman for a research association who recommends specific factors patients considering an oversees procedure should consider.
The story reports that overseas stem cell treatment for heart failure cost one patient $13,000.
The article briefly summarizes a major journal report on stem cell treatment for heart failure that finds little risk and only a "modest benefit." Since the story is premised on the fact that little evidence supports the treatment, this is sufficient. However, given all of this, it may have been better for the story to put more emphasis on the fallacy in the statements by the company’s medical director that 75 to 80 percent of patients improve significantly, and that "We are their last resort."
The story does not describe the potential harms of getting the treatment overseas. It implies the waste of money and potential safety issues but should have included more detail.
The article makes clear that there is no high-quality scientific evidence demonstrating the treatment’s efficacy.
The article does nothing to exaggerate the danger of heart failure or the promise of the stem cell treatment.
The reporter drew on a variety of sources:
The article does not report on other treatment options for heart failure patients.
Combined with the unsubstantiated claim of 75 to 80 percent efficacy–and the comment that the overseas treatment is a "last resort"–this creates the impression that other treatments for heart failure don’t exist or are futile.
This is the article’s most serious flaw.
The story does an excellent job of describing the conditions under which adult stem cell treatments for heart failure are available both overseas and domestically.
The article reports that the treatment is in clinical trials here and about 300 people have had the procedure overseas.
There is no evidence that the story is based on a press release.
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.