The story is based on an early basic science study, evaluating the short-term effects of Ecstasy. But the story reports this very limited preliminary finding as if there were therapeutic meaning – even raising possible therapeutic value in the headline.
MDMA is not to be taken lightly. Yet this story had an inadequate discussion of potential harms – and never firmly established benefits. How could you, after all, in a study of 21 healthy volunteers, only some of whom took the drug in question?
No mention of costs. What would be the cost of overcoming “trouble connecting with others socially”?
What does it mean to suggest that the drug “significantly increase feelings of loving, friendliness and playfulness”?
How was this measured?
Did it occur in everyone?
The story said that the drug “might impair a person’s perceptive abilities and thus prompt risk-taking.” Is that the only known risk of taking MDMA?
There was no discussion of the limitations of drawing any conclusions from such a study in just 21 volunteers who were healthy. The conclusions are based on response to a single dose of the drug in a laboratory environment based on interactions with a research assistant and completion of questionnaires. It is a limited basic science study.
There is no discussion of whether problems connecting with others socially is a disease that must be treated. This is a major issue. First, are we talking about social awkwardness or social phobia? There is a real danger of medicalizing a non-medical problem. Second, the study was done in NORMAL VOLUNTEERS. The idea of improving peoples’ ability to connect socially is SPECULATION.
There was no truly independent source quoted. The only quote coming from anyone outside the current research team came from a researcher who also reported on MDMA research months ago.
What about the observation of someone who does not have a dog in the hunt?
There was no discussion of other alternative approaches to help people socialize.
The story states that “MDMA is part of a family of so-called “club drugs,” which are popular with some teens and young at all night dances or “raves.”
But it doesn’t tell readers anything about whether this is MDMA’s only use, and how it might be made available/distributed.
The story at least referred to an earlier study published in July on MDMA in PTSD.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which this story may have been influenced by 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