Whether to vaccinate all young women against human papillomavirus (HPV) remains controversial. A study published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association is the first to report data on harms of the vaccine from large groups of vaccinated women. The results were somewhat surprising in the numbers of adverse events, although the design of the reporting system makes it hard to know whether all of the harms are indeed caused by the vaccine.
Experts disagree on the importance of the new data. Some argue that any amount of risk is too high given that currently available cervical cancer screening methods are so effective and inexpensive. Others point out that the risks are in line with other established vaccines. Regardless, it is clear that physicians and patients should be aware of the risks and make a decision about vaccination depending on their own feelings about the pluses and minuses of vaccination.
This story, in a short amount of time, does a good job of describing this controversy and educating consumers about the issue. It quotes multiple sources with important differences of opinion, although the comment from the OB/GYN about not wanting his daughter vaccinated was a somewhat troublesome anecdote. We’d rather hear from a pediatrics professional group. The story could have been improved by describing the cost of the vaccine, which is $120 per shot or $360 for the series of three, not including physician fees.
The story does not mention the cost of the vaccine, which is $120 per shot or $360 for the series of three, not including physician fees. These costs may not be covered by medical insurance.
The news angle was the report on Gardasil’s safety, so it’s understandable that the story didn’t discuss potential benefits. This criterion is N/A in this case.
The story adequately describes the harms of the vaccine.
The story adequately describes the current study. The story could have described some of the limitations of relying on an adverse event reporting system.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of cervical cancer. It is very helpful when a story cites both the incidence of new cases of a cancer and the annual deaths from that cancer in the US, with a source cited (as this story did).
The story quotes multiple experts who provide valuable perspective. However, the comment from the OB/GYN about not wanting his daughter vaccinated was troublesome because, as with a patient story, it is anecdotal. We don’t know who are the doctors he knows. Do they take care of adolescents who are the candidates for this vaccine? Why not get a reaction from a pediatrics professional group?
The story mentions other methods for preventing cervical cancer, including pap smears and regular check-ups.
The piece made it quite clear HPV vaccine has been widely available.
The story adequately describes that the idea of vaccination for HPV is relatively new.
Because the story quoted multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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