This is a very confusing piece that does not paint a cohesive story about the specific research being discussed (12 monkeys injected with pig islet cells for 6 months). There is no information about the type of diabetes for which the treatment might be of benefit (Type I or insulin-dependent diabetes). The only mention of the research stimulating the report is that researchers have achieved reversal of diabetes in monkeys using pig islet transplants. There is no attempt to explain what reversing diabetes in monkeys using pig cells means; what it may mean in terms of treatment for people with insulin dependent diabetes (other than using the terms “cure” and “breakthrough” in the lead); or how such treatment would compare to those currently available.
No estimate of costs is provided.
Experimental treatment in animals is cast as a possible diabetes cure. This is an optimistic interpretation of a study in 12 monkeys for only 6 months.
No potential harms discussed. The story didn’t mention that some of the monkeys rejected the pig islet cells.
No information is provided about the experiments other than that there are some monkeys that have experienced reversal of their diabetes after transplantation of pig islet cells.
This piece provides no background information on diabetes. No mention of prevalence or incidence. But it does frame the discussion around “millions of diabetics” when it says there aren’t enough donor organs. But even the University’s news release framed this only in terms of “the tens of thousands of people with difficult-to-manage diabetes.” Not millions.
The investigator who just authored a journal article is interviewed but the story included no input from any other experts in the area of xenotranplantation or diabetes.
There is only brief mention of insulin injections and of human islet cell transplants. But the story doesn’t mention other options for insulin-independent diabetes, including pancreas transplant, inhaled insulin, drugs to control blood sugar, and lifestyle changes.
The last line mentions that this experiment might be ready for human trials in 3 years. The story doesn’t mention, though, that the FDA has not approved the use of pig islet cells to treat diabetes. There is also no basis given for the estimate of 3 years. As we know, the statement could just as accurately be made, “The experiment may not be ready for human trials within 3 years.”
A time frame of three years is reported as an estimate for when this experiment might first be tested in people. However no basis was given for that projection, other than the investigator’s own prediction.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely 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