Furthermore, I absolutely despise how most press/bloggers routinely neglect to add citation data to articles. Without citation, this article means nothing. Th

Furthermore, I absolutely despise how most press/bloggers routinely neglect to add citation data to articles. Without citation, this article means nothing. They could be making up the results for all I know. Where is their primary source? Nothing makes my blood boil quite like seeing unsupported scientific articles. This version of the article is more informative, but still lacking citations: http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDOD-24ab59 http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDOD-24ab59 Ahh, so we learn that this vaccine will called NeuVax and is being pursued as a partnership between the military and Galena Biopharmaceuticals. Digging around, we turn up this letter from 2008: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/Fulltext/2008/06250/Breast_Cancer__HER_2_neu_Peptide_Vaccine_Shown_to.20.aspx http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/Fulltext/2008/06250/B... That article has some inline citations, but it was written while the primary literature was still ePub'ed ahead of print. So lets go to the clinical trial page for the new 2011 study: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01479244 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01479244 This gives us enough information to find the previous phase I trials: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00841399 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00841399 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00854789 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00854789 Which lists major publications that came from the trials at the bottom. Skimming through those, we can find this paper: "Combined clinical trial results of a HER2/neu (E75) vaccine for the prevention of recurrence in high-risk breast cancer patients: U.S. Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-01 and I-02." Got it! There are other publications there, but this is the major summarization of the phase I trials and a good overview. (EDIT: From busyant's comment, it looks like the Phase II data is unpublished: http://investors.galenabiopharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=620971 http://investors.galenabiopharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?Relea...). This took maybe 15 minutes for me to find, and would have been easier if the journalist had just asked the guy he was interviewing what paper to cite. Basically, I'm saying this article sucked and most scientific journalists suck even more. Quit being so damn sloppy and do your job.