Pharmaceutical company transparency, journalist investigation, important in vaccine news

The chairman and CEO of Pfizer made the announcement at A. Pfizer Company News Release: “Today is a great day for science and humanity.” In that PR news release – but only in that format – Pfizer announced preliminary results of a “vaccine efficacy rate above 0% in 90 days at 7 days of the second vaccine”.

We all know that – what Pfizer says about its own vaccine. Data not published or publicly published – only% 0% number.

Regarding security, Pfizer said in a news release that “no serious security concerns have been identified.” Because no raw data has been released, we do not know how “serious” was defined.

Pfizer projected: “We look forward to sharing more efficacy and safety data generated from thousands of participants in the coming weeks.”

In the opening story, STAT did a good job of covering precautions and limitations. Excerpts:

“The main information about the vaccine is not yet available. It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post.

Nor is there any information that it prevents people from carrying the virus or that Covid 1, SARS-Cov-2, without symptoms.

“If that headline really does hold numbers, it’s big. It’s much better than I expected and it will make a big difference,” said Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health. Yes, and researchers need to observe the full results, he said, adding that side effects are a thing to be observed, as even if there are no serious long-term complications, people who are feeling sick for a day or two may be reluctant to be vaccinated.

The story of how the data is analyzed does not seem to contain a small amount of drama. Pfizer made the decisions based on the opportunity to help fight both epidemics and demonstrate its research, which would be the first study of the covid vaccine to produce data.

The New York Times reported:

Pfizer … only sparse details from its clinical trial were released.

Independent scientists have warned against hyping up preliminary results before compiling long-term safety and efficacy data. And no one knows how long vaccine protection will last.

(A senior Pfizer VP) tried to keep the company away from Operation Warp Speed ​​and presidential politics, noting that unlike other vaccine front-runners, the company did not take any federal money to pay for research and development.

Vox was also clear to include important warnings with the limitations of a Twitter post:

The level of scrutiny is particularly important with the first out-of-depth news story. Not everyone met that standard.

When BuzzFeed headlined, “Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective, according to preliminary data, “Journalist Paul Thacker suggested repairing the headline – “Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective, according to incomplete data that are not recognized by independent experts.” The story uses the phrase “extremely promising” twice. Strunk And White, in Elements of styleSuggested removing unnecessary words. “Extreme” is unnecessary. And “hopeful” seems to be my longing Seven words you should not use in medical news.

CNN had no independent perspective In its first story.

Fox News overpromised, Mentioning: “The FOX business takes on the main investment points investors and consumers should know.” But there was no key data released – only a 90% effective Pfizer announcement.

Of course, the second wave is responding to Pfizer stock and similarly to the Pfizer PR news release in the stock market.

Scientist James Heathers tweeted:

Just last week, Professor Jennifer Miller, Joseph Ross and Michelle Mello published on STAT,Much more transparency is required for COVID-19 vaccine tests“Their concluding line: ‘Transparency helps build confidence in this achievement.’ You judge whether today’s Pfizer PR news release meets those trust and transparency standards.”

Leave a Comment