From the scientific standpoint of vaccine development, this may be an interesting finding. From the clinical standpoint, it is too premature to be useful. From an editorial judgment standpoint, it also seems premature.
Cervical cancer is a disease that affects millions of women and current vaccines are only effective if given to women before they become infected with HPV. Developing a vaccine that can also serve as a treatment for already infected women may prove beneficial.
Not applicable. It would be impossible to estimate costs at such a preliminary phase of the research.
Only vague suggestions that the body was able to produce T-cells. Would be helpful to know about how frequently a T cell response measured in a test tube translates into a clinically significant effect on preventing disease.
The story only stated “Most side effects of the vaccine were minimal and deemed unrelated to the treatment, the paper reported.” But what were they? And how often did they occur? Let readers judge what minimal might be.
You could argue that the findings were too preliminary to publicize at all. But given that they did, there are pretty good qualifiers of the preliminary nature of the findings up front and at the end.These results were of a Phase I clinical trial with only 18 women, and the positive results were demonstrated in test tubes – not the human body. We’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
The story did not appear to demonstrate disease mongering.
Most of the people cited in the article worked for the vaccine manufacturer currently or in the past.
No mention of alternative treatment of current cervical lesions.
This was a Phase I clinical trial so the results of this study may not produce a viable vaccine in the future. The story makes clear that a vaccine is years away from being available.
The story makes clear that a vaccine using DNA only is novel, at least in humans.
Not clear that the story relied on a press release, but it sure isn’t balanced by context from those not involved with the research.