This story reports on an announcement that a drug company has had some success with a vaccine that protects against the virus H5N1, better known as the avian or bird flu. News reports about an impending bird flu pandemic have been disturbing and reports about the development of a vaccine is big news. However, this story is flawed in several ways.
Although the story mentions a clinical trial, it does not provide enough information about the design of this study or of other ongoing trials for the reader to understand the strength of the existing evidence.
The story only quotes representatives from the drug company. The story should have quoted other, independent researchers or clinicians who could have provided additional perspectives.
The story does mention that the shot would cost between 4 and 7 euros, but it should have commented on the greater societal costs of implementing such a vaccination program. The story does not engage in disease mongering. However, the story should have mentioned that the predictions of a global pandemic have not been realized.
Most importantly, although the story says that the vaccine achieved an 80% protection rate, this is not sufficient information on the benefits of the vaccine. This protection rate assumes that the strain the vaccine protects against is the same strain that would be seen in a pandemic flu outbreak. It is still not clear how well the vaccine would work in the “real world” given that viruses mutate easily.
The story does mention that the shot would cost between 4 and 7 euros. The story should have commented on the greater societal costs of implementing such a vaccination program.
Although the story says that the vaccine achieved an 80% protection rate, this is not sufficient information on the benefits of the vaccine. This protection rate assumes that the strain the vaccine protects against is the same strain that would be seen in a pandemic flu outbreak. It is still not clear how well the vaccine would work in the “real world” given that viruses mutate easily.
The story does not mention any potentional harms of the vaccine.
Although the story mentions a clinical trial, it does not provide enough information about the design of this study or of other ongoing trials for the reader to understand the strength of the existing evidence.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. However, the story should have mentioned that the predictions of a global pandemic have not been realized.
The story only quotes representatives from the drug company. The story should have quoted other, independent researchers or clinicians who could have provided additional perspectives.
The story does not mention any alternatives.
The story makes it clear that Glaxo expects to submit the vaccine for FDA approval in the future.
The story clearly states that this is a new vaccine.
Although there is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, all of the content it contains is from the drug company.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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