The lack of context in medical reporting is a key failing in many reports and this story is no exception. A great deal of research is underway in diabetes and other chronic diseases. By not placing the story in context, the uninitiated reader is left with an incorrect assumption that the approach is unique and perhaps available soon.
The results of the study reported on have not been replicated. The study was conducted in mice without an intact immune system in a laboratory model of induced diabetes. These are two significant factors to consider when thinking about the applicability of the results to humans. Further – as this was a proof of concept experiment, there was no longer term analysis to determine whether there were significant side effects associated with the treatment or whether the treatment had durability. While viral vectors may hold promise, there are considerable difficulties in the application in humans. These points could not have been emphasized enough – and were not – not when references to cures and holy grails were included.
The story clearly tried to achieve balance with some of the comments from some of the sources interviewed, but we don’t think balance was achieved.
There was no cost estimate because there has not actually been a treatment developed yet that makes use of the approach described in the research.
Framing this approach as one that could someday cure not only diabetes, but also heart disease, stroke, and ‘many other ailments’ is troubling. This extrapolation to diseases other than diabetes was not supported by the data presented in the study reported on. There is a great gulf between proof of concept in an animal model and cinical application in a single disease. Suggesting the same approach could be applied to other diseases is pure speculation that is not supported by the data in the Nature study.
There was no discussion of possible harms that might be associated with gene therapy even though there have been human deaths resulting from the use of viral vectors to alter gene expression.
The results of the study reported on have not been replicated. The study was conducted in mice without an intact immune system in a laboratory model of induced diabetes. These are two significant factors to consider when thinking about the applicability of the results to humans. Further – as this was a proof of concept experiment, there was no longer term analysis to determine whether there were significant side effects associated with the treatment or whether the treatment had durability. While viral vectors may hold promise, there are considerable difficulties in the application in humans. These points could not have been emphasized enough – and were not – not when references to cures and holy grails were included.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story did include interview material from individuals not directly connected with the study reported on. And the story did include a comment from a stem cell researcher indicating that it is likely not a quick, straight shot from these results to use in people. The other sources interviewed provided a modicum of balance.
There was no discussion of treatment options; however this story was not actually about a treatment but a highly-experimental approach in mice.
While the story was clear that this highly experimental approach in mice is currently not available for humans, it provided a wholly unrealistic estimate for its application to human disease.
Although interesting from a number of perspectives, the story is about a novel but relatively untested approach to managing diabetes in mice. The story is somewhat excessive in its language related to the potential for this approach suggesting the line of research will indeed be transferable to humans in a relatively brief period of time. While some caveats are included, we don’t think balance was achieved.
The approach described – while novel – is certainly not unique (viral vector for treatment of a chronic disease). Additional comments on the approach used by other reseachers would have added a needed balance.
Does not appear to rely 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.
You might also like