This story reviews research that one day (years in the future) might have direct applicability to PTSD. But at this point, any benefits for PTSD are pure speculation.
PTSD is an important problem for research. But news stories about tiny, short-term studies need to evaluate the evidence as much as they project what researchers say about the potential for their own work.
We’re never told what the drug is, much less anything about cost, either.
We’re only told “those who were given the cortisol-damping drug had a harder time recalling the more wrenching details. The higher the dose, the harder it was for them to remember.” We’re not told if that effect was seen in every one in the active arm, nor the degree of the effect, nor any data about the actual comparison with the control group.
We know nothing about the drug (never named) or its potential harms. Only its potential benefits.
There was no discussion of the limitations of a tiny, short-term study done in 33 college students. Instead, the story leaped ahead to what this could mean in the future.
In addition, the author describes effects “…memories aren’t quite as indelible as we like to think….” that aren’t described in the story and no data are presented to support the assertion. It would be helpful if the story described the potential for a lab experiment to fail when translated to real world application.
No disease mongering about PTSD, but also no discussion of the potential leap from a test in college students to what is experienced by those with PTSD.
No independent perspective is given.
No other comparison is given of what’s done for people with PTSD.
We’re never told what the drug is, much less anything about its availability.
How could we know how novel this is? The drug is never identified.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We do know that only the doctoral student/author of the paper is quoted.