No costs are discussed. But we can understand that since the story is based on an early phase of research – so early that the question might be about its newsworthiness.
No potential harms are discussed, nor is it mentioned that the safety profile in humans has yet to be established. The article would have done well to continue the Dr. Eck quote from the press release to include his acknowledgment that "we still have much to learn about their potential liabilities," referring to this new class of compounds.
The "hope" that the compound will have fewer harms than currently available drugs appears to be based largely on in vitro data.
The article provides no evaluation of the evidence beyond what was in the press release, which itself downplays the fact that the evidence is not from humans.
The article presents accurate data on lung cancer mortality and NSCLC from the American Cancer Society.
No independent source is cited besides the ACS statistics on lung cancer. Any story that allows a researcher to make bold claims such as that this research "will lead to an effective treatment for the thousands of non-small cell lung cancer patients worldwide" demands an independent perspective.
The article mentions that the compound is being developed for NSCLCs that are resistant to 2 other drugs. However, it does not mention whether those 2 drugs are the only available treatment approaches for patients who might conceivably receive the new compound.
Not until the very end of the article do we learn that the dramatic results against NSCLC tumors occurred in mice, not human beings. In fact, it never states the setting for any results — an important point because the article fails to reveal that some results, such as the compound’s apparent ability to spare normal tissues, were achieved in cell lines, not even in mice, according to the press release and article published in Nature. Therefore, most of the article is misleading .
Read the pivotal sentence below. Without any mention of animals preceding it, how could we not assume that the lungs, cancers, and powerful treatment effects were in humans?
This sentence, if not the article’s title, should have been qualified with the word "animal," "mouse," or even "murine."
The article provides almost no caveats about the preliminary nature of these results, nor the limitations of extrapolating to humans any data obtained from cell lines and animals. While the article does contain two statements, essentially quoting the press release, about what lies ahead following these early data, both sentences contain a "but" followed by the investigators’ optimism.
The article describes the novelty of the compound.
Besides the final paragraph on epidemiology, the article appears to rely entirely on the Dana Farber press release. Much of the language was taken verbatim. One researcher’s quote is identical to one in the news release, yet there is no attribution, making it appear as though WebMD interviewed the researcher.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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