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.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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