Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss cost, but the story was clear that is a drug that has been slowed in its path to marketing approval so that is understandable. The story adequately reported on the potential benefits. It just didn’t provide the context we applauded in the LA Times story. But it did state: This story – while not quantifying harms – did a better job in discussing harms than the LA Times story, so we’ll give it a satisfactory score. It reported: You have to read the LA Times’ story in order to see how much better a job it did than this CNN.com story in evaluating the evidence. The Times stated: By comparison, CNN.com called it “significant promise” and “a new report.”  We think the Times’ analysis was far more helpful for readers. No disease mongering in the story. The story turned to “Dr. Melina Jampolis,  CNNHealth’s physician nutrition expert, who is not connected with the study.”  We wish the story had given us some background on her expertise. It also stated that “The study was funded by the pharmaceutical company Vivus.” Adequate. The story stated: The story stated that Qnexa was not approved: “The Food and Drug Administration denied the request, asking for more safety data from the company before moving forward.” Again, in comparison with the LA Times’ reporting, we must give the CNN.com story an unsatisfactory score because of how it treated as “new” something that really wasn’t. The story did not rely solely on a news release.
Study: Weight-loss combo pill shows promise