In either case, we question the newsworthiness of a Phase I study in 18 women. At least the Philadelphia story had the local angle. Are we going to start reporting on all Phase i lab results with samples sizes this small?
We usually think of vaccines to prevent diseases, not treat them. That’s the premise behind existing cervical cancer vaccines, which prevent infection with HPV strains known to cause cancer. It’s interesting to hear that a vaccine that might treat established HPV infection is under study. But the reader needs to understand that there are many steps between a preliminary laboratory result and a clinically useful vaccine.
Not applicable; too early in development process to discuss costs.
The story didn’t quantify the benefits of the vaccine in the first clinical trial.
The story states “The researchers did not observe any side effects.” But the Philadelphia Inquirer reported: “Most side effects of the vaccine were minimal and deemed unrelated to the treatment, the paper reported.”
The story pointed out the study for which the paper was based was not a randomized clinical trial and the small sample size made it hard to draw any definite conclusions.
The story did not appear to commit disease mongering.
The story did provide a quote from an independent researcher who was not involved with the current research (and does not appear to be affiliated with the vaccine manufacturer).
There was some discussion of alternative approaches – Gardasil and Cervarix.
They did briefly discuss future clinical trials and did not try to estimate when a vaccine would be available.
The story was clear that the novel part is development of a vaccine using DNA only.
The story does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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