This segment barely scratched the surface of reporting on animal research on an injectable drug approach to weight loss.
It failed to:
To make the leap that this is a "promising new drug that could ultimately impact how to control obesity and diabetes" is simply unfounded.
No estimate of costs – which may be understandable given the early phase of research. But if the drug contains the active ingredients of two drugs already in use – and if it would be a weekly injection – couldn’t some projection of these costs have been made based on what’s known about the two existing drugs’ prices and the cost of a weekly visit to the doctor?
All we were told was that "A single injection of this drug decreased the rodents’ body weight by a quarter and fat mass by 42 percent after just one week." But a quarter of what? 42% of what? What were the longer term results? Anyone can deliver anecdotes about weight loss results in a week.
Potential harms were waved away with this exchange:
(Robin Roberts:) "there’s been no adverse effects, right?
(David Muir:) Not yet.
None? What’s the track record of Byetta and Glucagon? Drawing conclusions about side effects in rodent models as if they are applicable to humans is absurd. All drugs have side effects.
The limitations of animal research- and the enormity of the leap from mice to men – were important factors that received no attention.
No overt disease mongering. But hype for the drug, framing it as if it is for the "millions who want to lose weight." A hesitant satisfactory score on this criterion.
Two people were interviewed but we weren’t told what their connection was to the research, what their expertise was, etc.
The story simply stated, "Despite the introduction of the weight loss pill Alli in 2007, surgical interventions like gastric bypass remain the closest thing to an obesity cure. Experts say this new drug mimics the action of that surgery and that this drug shows we’ve made enormous progress in understanding obesity." That’s totally insufficienct context for all of the treatment options for obesity. And equating the drug to a surgical approach is puzzling.
Confusing terms used – at one time saying "science is about to help you out" but at another point it said it was "years away from human trials" and "10 years out." Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The segment made no attempt to put this research into the context of other weight loss research.
Two different sources were interviewed, so the segment did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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