A View on the News

A new study conducted by University of Minnesota and St. Louis University doctors that brought them to teh conclusion that duct tape does not get rid of warts. During the study, they used a control group that used moleskin on individuals' warts. The second group used a moleskin pad, as well, but put a underlayer of clear duct tape. It turns out that 3/4 of the duct-taped warts that had disappeared came back within six months. In the control group, 1/3 returned. However, the researchers mistakenly thought that clear and gray duct tape had the same adhesive, when it turns out they don't (Gray tape's is rubber based while clear's is acrylic).

The first article I read is from the Toronto Star and was written on March 20. The story has many news values associated with it that the reporter shows through the article. First off, this event is certainly timely, seeing as the study was just released. It definitely has an impact - warts are common - but this article doesn't exactly show the imapct. However, it does say this:

**A study by University of Minnesota and St. Louis University doctors says that, despite claims to the contrary, duct tape does not vanquish the common wart.**

This shows that the popular belief was the contrary, which shows some impact and mostly conflict because of the two different opinions. Also because the researchers used clear tape instead of gray, that created conflict as well; perhaps the study wasn't done right..? Regarding the supplemental trends, this story definitely is helpful - it is consumer/health related; therefore, people (especially those with warts) can learn from it and apply it in their own lives. This article even touches on what the researchers think the public will do with this info:

**"I don't think that those of us who have used duct tape in the past few years will stop using it because of this (study)," said Dr. Neil Shear, head of dermatology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. "I think we will say ... `We have no idea if this works or not, or how it works, but it has been reported to help some people. It's not a big expense. It doesn't hurt a lot. What's the harm in trying?' "**

This shows how it relates to the public, but also the credibility of the research itself. The individuals conducting the research don't sound extremely confident in it - they aren't convinced that people will take this seriously because they may have made a few mistakes (with the different types of tape). I wouldn't consider this story to be necessary; however, it does show at least some importance. For those who have warts, it is extremely important to know what the options are, how to remove them and what works.

This article can be found here: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/193780

The second article is from the Star Tribune. This article seems to go into more detail; therefore, it has more new values incorporated into it. The article shows that the topic is recent by clairifying that the study was "a study in March's Archives of Dermatology." The topic definitely has an impact, because so many people have warts; however, the article doesn't show that very clearly. There is a quote from a doctor, talking about patients:

**"I have plenty of patients come in having tried duct tape. That's why they come in, because it didn't work," Paller said.**

This shows that there are definitely an abundance of people out there, according to this doctor, that have this problem. This quote also shows someone else, other than the researchers supporting the study's findings. Although the article also mentions the grey/clear tape debate, this quote gives the article balance and fairness. The article shows conflict, due to this debate, as well:

**This time, a study among adults found duct tape helped only 21 percent of the time and was no more better than moleskin, a cotton-tape bandage. But researchers used transparent duct tape so patients and doctors would not be able to guess which bandages contained duct tape. Only later did they learn that the transparent variety does not contain rubber, unlike the gray duct tape that appeared to be effective in the 2002 study.**

The article shows necessity in the same way, or at least some importance. Helpfulness is big in this article too, for it is health related and even gives some advice on what else works for removing warts:

**What works: Over-the-counter topical treatments containing salicylic acid sometimes work. Doctors use laser therapy or liquid nitrogen against an unyielding wart, or in extreme cases a prescription cream or a virus-fighting injection. Warts usually clear up on their own in about two years, Paller said.**

This article can be found here: http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1066089.html

I think the second article does a better job of explaining warts in a simple way so the reader will understand without being a specialist in science and/or medicine. I also think that the story was way more balanced than the first. It was ironic, how both articles are about this new find, however the researchers themselves don't seem extremely confident in their findings. I'm not sure if that is the reporters' fault for not writing balanced articles or the researchers' fault for speaking up and standing up for their research. Seeing as both articles contain quotes from the researhcers that aren't especially optimistic about their findings, I would guess that it was them who don't believe in their research - not the reporters.