This story presents the early findings of an animal experiment that showed fear memories were erased by degrading an extracellular matrix surrounding specific nerve cells in the brain. However, it failed to remind the readers that animal studies do not necessarily guarantee that the same results will be seen in humans. Even though the research is intriguing and the news story may be tongue-in-cheek, the implication that it will be available and beneficial to humans is misleading to consumers.
Researchers have only tested chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) on animals and it’s understandable that costs would not be discussed at this point.
While the story mentions that “bad memories had been erased” in the mice, it does not provide any data or any indication of how fear manifests in a mouse. Furthermore, the story should have made it clear that is it not known if this same effect would be seen in humans.
No adverse effects were reported in the research; however, the story briefly mentions the ethical and medical concerns that may be associated with a drug that erases memory.
The story provided a cursory explanation of the methodology, but failed to provide any specifics, including how the researchers measured fear in the mice. This story also fails to include the caveat that animal research does not necessarily translate to humans.
The story begins: "Want to forget about that painful breakup? Wish you could put some troubling childhood memories out of your mind? Someday soon, it might be as easy as popping a pill." While it goes on to discuss post-traumatic disorder – a serious memory issue – the story leads by framing the memory of painful breakups as something that is a disease that should be treated. That’s disease mongering.
This story provided comments from two independent sources, including a neurologist and a neuroscientist; however, they contributed only hypothetical statements. Perhaps commentary from someone in the mental health profession would have been useful. Additionally, the story may have also mentioned that this research took place in an institute associated with the pharmaceutical company, Novartis.
This story does not discuss current psychological practices to treat fear and anxiety disorders or how this new research might be relevant.
The story makes it clear that this “mind-cleansing” drug is not available.
The story makes it clear this would be a novel approach.
This story does not rely on a press release, but it is largely based on a piece in the London Daily Mail. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the original story may have relied on a news 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