It’s really refreshing to see a local newspaper localize a national story and to do so in a responsible way. Sure, the story led with its personal anecdote. But the personal trials of being in a trial came through in that anecdote. And sure, there were company predictions of how quickly this might be approved and on the market (something we think could have been handled better). But there wasn’t hype.
After a week’s worth of news out of the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, and some published concerns about how that news was covered by bigger national news organizations, it was good to see this local paper’s measured efforts.
No discussion of costs. Is this OK because this is still experimental? We don’t think so, not when the drug company is allowed to project possible approval within a year. Much better to say, as a Wall Street Journal story did, that the company said it was too early to set pricing. But to ignore costs entirely is a mistake in our view.
good job providing absolute benefit data from the trial.
Good job on harms as well – "Serious side effects also became clear. Nearly two-thirds of patients on ipilimumab experienced side effects caused by over-active immunity, such as severe itching, intestinal irritation and diarrhea. Researchers linked 14 deaths to the study drugs, half caused by immune-system reactions."
Good job explaining the nationwide study and the local participation.
Story quoted one independent source in addition to one of the study co-authors.
The story explained that "Other drug companies are at work on competing versions of the immune-enhancing antibody therapy."
It’s clear from the story that the approach is experimental. The story also states:
Minor quibble: perhaps the story should have reminded readers that a drug company’s timetable predictions may not be the most reliable.
For local readers it explained:
The relative novelty of the approach is clear in the story – "one of the first antibody-based therapies that use the body’s immune defenses to destroy cancer cells" and "Drug companies are racing to develop competing versions of the immune-enhancing therapy, an antibody produced through genetic engineering."
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news 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