The results of this study are reassuring from the view that they indicate that the levels of thimerosal which had previously been used in vaccines do not play a role in the development of autism.
The story was about thimerosal being reduced or eliminated from vaccines, so cost is not an issue in this context.
The benefit of the pediatric vaccines was not the central issue of the story but rather the risks associated with their use.
The study was intended to determine if a causal relationship could be attributed to the use of thimerosal in pediatric vaccines. As such the theoretical harms of the vaccine are described correctly. However, an important element missing in the story is the downside of not immunizing children. The story would have been enhanced with a brief comment about the negative impact of avoiding immunization (including the use of influenza vaccine).
The story correctly describes the study design and the relative uniqueness of the methods used. The conclusions of the study are appropriately noted in the report.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Two individuals with expertise in vaccines and with no connection to this study were interviewed as part of this story.
The story provided little or no information about decisions beyond simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ concerning vaccination.
This story reported on a study of two vaccines against the same disease with different levels of thimerosal. So, for example, are there ever choices to be made about levels of other preservatives in vaccines? The story did not provide information about the benefits or harms associated with vaccination in general.
The story was about a study that compared outcomes in youngsters who had received vaccines with different levels of thimerosal. The story correctly points out that since 2001, thimerosal has not been used as a preservative in pediatric vaccines in the US other than flu vccine.
The story was about two vaccines for whooping cough with different levels of the preservative thimerosal. The story also reported that the preservative thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines in the US. Therefore, this story is about a treatment that is not available.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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