A Dangerous ‘Sign of Hope’: The Emergence of Dexamethasone
The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have retracted an online article after their patient data was challenged.
As the situation with COVID-19 progresses, journalists and scientists are scrambling to find and report on the latest potential miracle drugs.
The urgency to cease panic and produce content on the virus has led some publications and journalists to hastily produce alluring headlines about medicines that have yet to be peer-reviewed or tested by scientists.
In the case of hydroxychloroquine, its development within the media has shown the potential dangers it can cause when reported too early.
Recently, the FDA has revoked the coronavirus use of the drug; however, a few months back, there were hopeful headlines.
One particular dangerous headline titled “Special Report: Doctors embrace drug touted by Tr**p for COVID-19, without the hard evidence it works” gives the illusion this is positive news of an upcoming miracle drug.
There is also an article from The Guardian with the caption “Drug taken by Tr**p being acquired in case it proves effective against coronavirus.”
Although the wording is hesitant to show assertiveness, it makes it alluring to any viewer when there were no official studies on the effects of drugs.
Tr**p’s massive endorsement of the drug also had an impact on publications as he praised it after personally taking it himself. Suddenly, this drug was seen as a real cure when in the fine lines of articles, they would include there was no evidence proving it was effective against COVID-19.
Not only did journalists jump the gun on reporting hydroxychloroquine, but also reputable medical journals.
The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), both of which are prestigious science journals, retracted an online article after their patient data was challenged.
The pressure to find any viable new medication has blinded many to publish things immediately without effectively reviewing. The repercussions of these alluring headlines and faulty articles are evident as the United States now has 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine.
Now, there is a new contender drug, a steroid called dexamethasone. It is already garnering the media’s attention with The New York Times, calling it “The first drug shown to help save severely ill coronavirus patients, according to scientists in Britain.”
If you were to read just the first paragraph, you would assume it’s certain this drug can combat the coronavirus, which can be a dangerous appeal.
However, in its entirety, the article is an excellent example of how to cautiously report on a new potential drug for the coronavirus without jumping the gun. It details the potential gains of the drug and the possible risks as it is still being evaluated.
The article contains an effective balance between showing an optimistic outlook and showing the possible realistic outcomes. It lures readers in by calling it an “unexpected sign of hope,” proving that this drug has real potential.
It then goes on to detail how it’s being used effectively in only the sickest COVID-19 patients in Britain, showing it has already been useful in combating symptoms.
The article draws back a bit on all the positive remarks with quotes from doctors who express their only hesitation is because it hasn’t been peer-reviewed.
Dr. Sam Parnia shows her elation but states, “Assuming that when it goes through peer review, it stands…” It is still a drug in the process of being approved to combat coronavirus.
It sufficiently demonstrates the fears within the medical community. The main thing that keeps this article from leaning too much on the positives is by acknowledging the messy situation of drugs being deemed miracles right off the bat.
The addition of “a series of blunders and retractions in the scientific literature” is a clear indication of the FDA retracting approval of hydroxychloroquine, which they, later on, point out in the article.
They also remind readers that there is no vaccine against the coronavirus; it’s mainly a drug that has only shown signs of potentially reducing the deaths of patients on ventilators.
The inclusion of Dr. Atul Gawande’s twitter post continues to address the retractions within the medical community by saying, “it is unacceptable to tout study results by press release without releasing the paper.”
The authors include the background history of the drug, along with the successful outcomes of previous trials. They do this constructively by reiterating that the doctors need more information on this drug at the end of the day, along with more tests and information on its side effects.
Although it seems like another breakthrough drug is being announced at first glance, the article points out various times that this is still a work in progress.
It is informative in what the new drug brings by highlighting the worries doctor have until it is fully peer-reviewed.
It’s standard for journalists and scientists to feel a sense of pressure to come out with new information — especially during a global pandemic.
However, it is also incredibly important to not put out misleading information as a means to get information out rapidly.
The best method is to inform the public of all details, explicitly warning them when it comes to new medication for the coronavirus.
The Times’ article did it correctly by taking an informative, successful approach, showing the upcoming benefits of what this new drug could do and reminding the public that more information will garner positive outcomes, this is only the beginning for this new drug.
