CBS put a crawl under this story reading "Stem cells to build better bones." And then failed to mention stem cells even one time in the story.
That’s one indication of how off-base this segment was.
Instead of data, the segment gushed calling it "godsend…really exciting…very important…could be lifesaving."
A huge oversight. One other news account reported that the drug costs $800 a month. How could this NOT be part of the story?
None. And segments tend to give the impression that the benefits are universal for anyone taking the drug. Instead of data, the segment gushed calling it "godsend…really exciting…very important…could be lifesaving."
No discussion of harms. Not even a mention that the drug needs to be given by injection.
None. Nada. Zip. Just a before-and-after image of one case.
The medical correspondent notes that the risk of death can be as high as 1 in 4 within a year post major bone fracture. There is no evidence that the use of Forteo reduces this risk and the definition of a major bone fracture was not provided. The implication is that there are a lot of major bone fractures in the elderly due to falls, and the use of Forteo could reduce the unsubstantiated risk of death of 1 in 4.
Since only a physician-correspondent appeared on the set, citing no evidence and no sources, we don’t know the source of the information.
No other treatment options for bone healing were discussed.
Story explains the drug Forteo was approved by the FDA for use in osteoporosis in 2002 but gives no idea how widely it’s used for bone healing. The story is based on a preliminary report involving 145 patients with poorly healing bone fractures. Based on the results of this small study, a larger and presumably more confirmatory study is in the planning stages. But you wouldn’t know that from the story.
There is no mention of the fact that the drug is being used "off label," an important consideration. The use of Forteo (actually a synthetic version of parathyroid hormone) in fracture healing has been studied for a number of years. Most of the work has been in animals.
We can’t be sure if the segment relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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