Lifting from a news release, the story quotes a researcher saying, "Our findings demonstrate that POPG is a potent antiviral agent both as a prophylactic and after infection has occurred." But no data are provided. And it takes six paragraphs to explain that this research was not in people but in the lab.
As the story states, "RSV is the major cause of hospitalization in young children under age 2 and is an increasingly problematic infection in adults with chronic lung disease, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems." But the story just didn’t deliver key information for those who follow this troublesome infection.
Costs weren’t discussed and we can understand why with something that is only in the pre-human testing phase.
The story simply stated, "the study showed treating infected mice with POPG dramatically reduced infection and prevented the spread of the inflammatory cells into the lungs." What does dramatically mean? Totally? Partially? Was this in all mice? Half the mice? You can easily start to see how the story doesn’t ask or answer tough questions about the evidence.
You can’t quantify the harms of something that hasn’t advanced beyond the lab and has not yet been done in humans. Of course, you can’t say much at all at this stage, which raises the question of why the story was published now in a consumer health section that is labeled, "Health & Parenting."
Waiting until the sixth paragraph to mention that this research was done in the lab is not best practice. And even then we don’t get a sense of the success rate even in the lab.
The story gives appropriate background about respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.
No independent source is interviewed in the story.
The story only states that "There is no vaccine or easy, effective treatment for RSV." Why not at least briefly mention what those treatments are and discuss their track record? And this is where we need an independent expert to help put the new research into the context of existing approaches.
Not until the sixth paragraph does the story explain that this work was done in the lab – not in people. But later, the story says that the substance in question "is already used in other treatments and has been safely given to millions of premature infants to protect their lungs." So is that a substance that doctors would use (have used?) off-label? This is not at all clear.
The story states, "Researchers say that until now, the function of POPG has been unclear."
The only quote is attributed to a news release. Why didn’t WebMD call the researcher for an interview?
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