The recent recommendation of an FDA panel to approve an HPV vaccine has made big news around the country in many different media outlets. However, this ABC network story has several flaws. The story treats FDA approval of the vaccine as a fait accompli. Just because the panel recommended it be approved does not mean approval will be automatic or occur in the suggested time frame. The story does not mention costs, which would likely be substantial given the scope of a potential vaccination program. Nor does the story mention that the vaccine will not replace pap smears, which further adds to the cost. The story exaggerates the seriousness of HPV and cervical cancer by stating that the vaccine could save “thousands and thousands” of women (there are 3,700 deaths from cervical cancer per year – the vaccine could prevent up to 70% of them if all women are vaccinated). The story should provide some context by explaining that cervical cancer is relatively rare. Fewer than 1% of women will develop cervical cancer in their lifetime.
Furthermore, the story does not describe the available evidence and it does not mention the obvious alternative, pap smears. The story also does not provide adequate quantification of the benefits. It says that we could save “thousands and thousands of American women’s lives” and that we are on the verge of “wiping out a disease with a vaccine,” however it does not provide justification for these statements. This statement also ignores the fact that some cases of cervical cancer are caused by other types of HPV that the vaccine does not protect against.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the viewer can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. However, only one of the “experts” is a physician. The others are politicians or representatives of interest groups.
The story does not mention costs, which would likely be substantial given the scope of a potential vaccination program. Nor does the story mention that the vaccine will not replace pap smears, which further adds to the cost.
The story does not provide adequate quantification of the benefits. It says that we could save “thousands and thousands of American women’s lives” and that we are on the verge of “wiping out a disease with a vaccine,” however there is no justification provided for these statements. This statement also ignores the fact that some cases of cervical cancer are caused by other types of HPV that the vaccine does not protect against.
The story discusses the very hotly debated effect of the vaccine on sexual behavior in young people. The story accurately presents the vaccine as “very, very safe.” This does seem true based on study reports, with soreness at injection site in 80% the only harm reported.
The story does not describe the available evidence.
The story exaggerates the seriousness of HPV and cervical cancer by stating that the vaccine could save “thousands and thousands” of women. The story should provide some context by explaining that cervical cancer is relatively rare. Fewer than 1% of women will develop cervical cancer in their lifetime.
The story does quote multiple individuals, although only one of them is a physician. The others are politicians or representatives of interest groups.
The story does not mention the obvious alternative, pap smears. But, more important, the story does not mention that regular pap smears will remain necessary indefinitely.
The story treats FDA approval of the vaccine as a fait accompli. Although the FDA usually follows the panel recommendations, it does not mean approval will be automatic or occur in the suggested time frame.
The story clearly states that this vaccine is new.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the viewer can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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