This story clearly distinguishes between infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) – which Merck’s new Gardasil vaccine aims to prevent – and the development of cervical cancer, prevention of which is the ultimate goal of the vaccine.
However, it fails to explain a few things about the vaccine and its target, such as how many women are infected with the cancer-causing HPV strains, how many women develop cervical cancer, and perhaps most importantly, what researchers know about how well this new vaccine works to prevent cancer or precancerous changes in the cervix. Hearing more about this from an independent expert, rather than from two Merck representatives, would have provided some balance.
While it states that cervical cancer is a leading cancer killer in developing countries, the article doesn’t address the potential cost of the vaccine in those areas (or in the US).
There is no mention of the projected cost of the new vaccine. This information may not be available at this time, but an expert could have given an educated estimate.
As noted above, the article does not provide numbers of women who were protected from HPV infection in trials of the vaccine.
The story notes some questions raised by the FDA about the vaccine’s safety–but gives the last word on the concerns to the Merck spokesman, who downplayed their significance. In addition, the number of birth abnormalities was lower in the vaccine group, but it is reported as if it were higher (“less favorable showing”) and due to chance.
The article states that the vaccine was “extremely effective” against the targeted HPV strains, but doesn’t note how many infections it prevented. It also does not mention what, if anything, is known about whether the vaccine does lower the risk of cervical cancer.
The article appropriately focuses on the target of the vaccine, the HPV virus, rather than on cervical cancer (many cases of which are linked to infection with the virus).
Individuals representing Merck are identified in the story, and an FDA briefing document is described as the source of some information. However, there is no comment from independent medical experts.
There is no mention of other methods for reducing the risk of HPV infection or cervical cancer.
The story makes it clear that the vaccine is not yet available and explains that FDA advisory panel recommendations are usually, but not always, followed.
The article notes that the vaccine under review would be the first of its kind.
Does not appear to have relied solely on a press release; however, the article quotes two Merck staffers.
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