This is an informative summary on the results of the trial of the vaccine against the bird flu stockpiled by the U.S. government as a first step toward a preventative measure against a virulent though not yet highly contagious flu among humans.
This article did a good job of summarizing the results of the current study – that 54% of those getting the highest dose appeared to mount an immune response to this strain of flu as compared with 75-90% of those receiving typical winter-flu vaccine having a similar immune response (and at a dose that is 12 times lower than that needed to attain this level of immunity with bird-flu).
In presenting the lack of harms associated with even the high doses of antigen needed to trigger the desired immune response, the article included an important caveat about elderly individuals typically faring worse than the healthy young people tested.
Good use of multiple sources.
Costs were not mentioned, but since the story is about an early vaccine trial (one that showed the vaccine to have less than desirable effectiveness), we think cost is not applicable in this case.
The benefit of treatment, immune responsiveness to bird flu, was accurately reported as occurring in 54% of those receiving the highest dose of the vaccine administered.
In presenting the lack of harms associated with even the high doses of antigen needed to trigger the desired immune response, the article included an important caveat about elderly individuals typically faring worse than the healthy young people tested.
This article did a good job of summarizing the results of the current study – that 54% of those getting the highest dose appeared to mount an immune response to this strain of flu as compared with 75-90% of those receiving typical winter-flu vaccine having a similar immune response (and at a dose that is 12 times lower than that needed to attain this level of immunity with bird-flu).
In some ways this story avoided a hysterical tone when discussing a possible bird flu pandemic. But it did include a picture of workers in hazmat suits and if offered the calculation that with the current iteration of vaccine it would be possible to fully immunize a mere 1.25% of the population when a portion of that population has never been vaccinated against the flu. This threw off the otherwise well-maintained balance of the report on this potential public health issue.
Quotes from an accompanying editorial, a member of the panel monitoring the vaccine’s safety and the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease of the National Institutes of Health augment the information presented in the article in the New England Journal of Medicine upon which the story was based.
The article mentions ongoing studies with the goal of improving the vaccine so that protection against bird flu could be accomplished with loser doses.
This article reported on what it terms ‘the first human testing’ of vaccine against the bird flu. While mentioning other studies underway, and not explicitly stating that this vaccine is not currently available to the public, a thread throughout the piece made it clear that vaccine against this strain of flu was still a work in progress.
This article reported on the efficacy of the first vaccine against the bird flu which has been added to the nation’s vaccine stockpile.
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
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