The HealthDay story covers a study presented at a recent conferenceand appropriately states that “conclusions should be viewed as preliminary.” However, there were some problems with the article:
The story highlights the difficulty in covering presentations from academic conferences, especially since a peer-reviewed, published journal article is not yet available for background and reference. Although this was a short story, it could have been much more thorough with a short comment from the principal investigator and also from an independent source.
The costs of over-the-counter drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen are not in question.
The only benefit mentioned in the story was the “roughly 30 percent lower rate of death from colorectal cancer,” as stated in the press release, but 30 percent of what?
There was no mention of potential harms of prolonged aspirin use, such as stomach bleeding and gastrointestinal ulcers.
While the article does caution that the study does not “prove a cause-and-effect,” it should have expanded on that statement and explained the limitations of the study. The story does not mention if other variables were accounted for, or if the researchers found any other correlations in their study, which seems likely. However, it does point out that the study “data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
There is no disease-mongering, but the story did not provide any context or epidemiology on colorectal cancer.
There were no independent sources cited from outside the study. The only comment came from a doctoral student at the University of Washington.
The story failed to detail any existing alternatives for colorectal cancer, such as targeted drug therapies for people with advanced colon cancer.
Aspirin and ibuprofen are widely available in US pharmacies.
Aspirin is not a new drug.
The story clearly was based on a press release by the American Association for Cancer Research. Similar language and the same quotations were used. In fact, the press release was a bit more thorough than the actual HealthDay article. There was not any evidence of original reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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