This article presents interesting scientific work that has resulted in regeneration of the Spanish flu virus of 1918-1919 and two approaches that were successful in producing a 100% effective immune response in mice challenged with the regenerated flu virus.
Although this story did mention that the study results were 'proof of concept', this may not be a familiar notion for most readers and the story was not explicit that the vaccines developed afforded protection from this particular flu to mice and may or may not have direct translation to humans. In fact, the study mentioned that the method of immunization is far less effective in humans than in the mouse model studied. The story confuses species when it says, "Now, working with mice, scientists have shown that a vaccine can prompt the body's natural defenses to mount an attack on the virus–and that bodes well for future efforts to fight dangerous flu strains." (Emphasis added.)
The article neglected to point out that existing antiviral drugs have shown to be of benefit in the mouse model for at least some forms of the Spanish Flu virus (genetically engineered). The article suggests that we are defenseless and while that may be true, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
There was no estimate of costs for this treatment; however the study reported on work that was proof of concept and it is understandable that costs would not be discussed in such a story.
The story mentioned that the two vaccines protected the exposed mice from infection, but failed to mention that research found that the protection resulted in 100% survival in vaccinated mice in comparison with 100% mortality for the mice that were not vaccinated.
However – once again – the story did not clarify that the treatment has not been shown to be safe or effective in humans.
From the journal article it is actually very difficult to determine if there were any toxicities noted in the research, however it does appear that all of the immunized animals survived. But the journalist could have clarified this.
Although this story did mention that the study results were 'proof of concept', this may not be a familiar notion for most readers and the story was not explicit that the vaccines developed afforded protection from this particular flu to mice and may or may not have direct translation to humans. In fact, the study mentioned that the method of immunization is far less effective in humans than in the mouse model studied. The story confuses species when it says, "Now, working with mice, scientists have shown that a vaccine can prompt the body's natural defenses to mount an attack on the virus–and that bodes well for future efforts to fight dangerous flu strains." (Emphasis added.)
This story did explain the virulence of the Spanish flu virus from 1918-1919 and that this particular Spanish flu strain has not been seen since until 2001 when it was constructed in the laboratory. A researcher hypothesized that an equally virulent flu could kill as many as 100 million people worldwide. The story was good to point out that this particular approach has relevance to individuals working in a laboratory setting where they might have exposure to this flu, as opposed to the population at large.
One scientist, who was said to not be involved in the study, was briefly quoted about the potential importance of this scientific observation.
This story did not mention any of the FDA-approved antiviral medications that are currently available. The fact that current antiviral medications have shown activity against this virus and that this method of immunization may be less desirable in humans provided the reader with something less than full context.
The story was less than clear that the vaccines were developed in and shown to be effective for mice. There was no mention that the vaccines have not been assessed for benefit or harms to humans.
This story correctly report on the novel result that scientists have created vaccines against the catastrophic Spanish flu but should have noted that the method of immunization is not as effective for humans as for mice.
This story did not appear to be based solely or largely on a press release.
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