This story reports on a wide range of new cancer treatments that fall under the general category of immunotherapy. These therapies use the body’s own immune system to selectively attack cancer cells. The concept of immunotherapy is not a new one, but it is a growing research area that has yet to live up to its hype. This story attempts to outline the controversies surrounding this field, but is flawed in several ways.
The story claims that many immunotherapies are almost ready to go up for FDA approval, but this is not sufficient information on availability. The story should have made it clear that these therapies are currently only available through clinical trials. Furthermore, the story should have cautioned the reader that these therapies would only be appropriate after first-line treatments have failed (except in certain rare cases).
Although the story mentions several clinical trials, the story does not give the reader enough information on the strength of the available evidence from any of the trials. Furthermore, the story does not quantify the benefits of immunotherapy. The story also does not mention costs, which are likely to be very high.
The story does provide some balance in perspective by quoting two MD Anderson researchers as well as a scientist at the NCI, who cautions the reader about “making claims before the real data’s in.”
The story does not mention costs, which are likely to be very high.
The story does not quantify the benefits of immunotherapy.
The story claims that “immunotherapy’s great appeal is its nontoxicity” and that a patient has had no side effects. This is not enough information on the harms of treatment.
Although the story mentions several clinical trials, the story does not give the reader enough information on the strength of the available evidence from any of the trials.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes two MD Anderson researchers as well as a scientist at the NCI, who provides much needed balance at the end of the story.
The story mentions chemotherapy and radiation as alternatives.
The story claims that many immunotherapies are almost ready to go up for FDA approval. This is not sufficient information on availability. The story should have made it clear that these therapies are currently only available through clinical trials. Furthermore, the story should have cautioned the reader that these therapies would only be appropriate after first-line treatments have failed (except in certain rare cases).
The story clearly states that the idea of immunotherapy has been around for a long time but that recently the field has been burgeoning with new approaches.
There is no way to know whether the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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