(no title)
dewitt | 1 year ago
I respectfully disagree. The NYT paid the author, Gina Kolata, to research and write the story, which contains more details than just the press release alone, then used their platform to made the news widely available and thus helped people like me discover it.
As cynical as one may be about the state of contemporary journalism, I'd say that short articles like this are still something good that comes out of newspapers in 2025, and I hope it doesn't go away just yet.
benrapscallion|1 year ago
[1] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pain-comes-territo...
exabrial|1 year ago
If this is what you're referring to, note the article is talking about the side effects.
Not trying to say I'm for/against the drug, just wanted to point a possible incorrect conclusion.
cbhl|1 year ago
$465 USD for a 15-day supply definitely pricey -- but options for people who weren't well-served by Purdue Pharma / OxyContin seem good, especially if the mechanism of action is different.
giarc|1 year ago
owlninja|1 year ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/health/fda-journavx-suzet...
whamlastxmas|1 year ago
Dalewyn|1 year ago
Today when anyone can get information straight from the source instantly, we do not need these middlemen. There is no reason for this to be an NYT link, nor any other middleman link.
The less players there are in the game of telephone the more accurate the information will be.
thomassmith65|1 year ago
If there's a news item involving Brazilian law, or a new Aluminum alloy, or a newly identified virus, then I likely wouldn't understand the raw data.
Middlemen are valuable to the extent either that they are knowledgeable about a topic, or have the resources to consult someone knowledgeable.
none4methx|1 year ago