Well, there's a certain human component to reading the article and giving a more honest summary of it ...
How about one where you see a list of links to articles with their original title, and then users of the site will read them and then submit better titles that you can read first?
Rather, you need to Make America Great Again and make sure it has a proper European-style social net so that News Editors and Journalists don't need to use click-bait headlines to put dinner on the table.
"Effective novel treatment has benefits for one patient" is a less interesting story than "Effective novel treatment has unexpected drawbacks for one patient". Benefits are exactly what every reader expects from an effective treatment.
Actually thought that one of the more interesting aspects of this story is the pure amount of opposing forces that the author went through, even to the point that he seemed non-committal on whether going through the therapy was a net benefit or negative. This is one of those articles where the meaning & feeling of it could never be expressed in a one-sentence title :-).
I believe the implication is that the original title is click-bait. I don't think that's the case. The article is a discussion of the unintended consequences of curing autism. The author, and I imagine most readers, assume that curing autism is an all around good thing and would enhance one's life. The author's experiences contradict that, and that's what the article is trying to communicate. So the title is appropriate for the content. "An experimental autism treatment gave me my son back" is heartwarming, for sure, but a completely expected outcome and contradicts the conclusion intended by the author. I was much more satisfied to have my assumptions challenged by the article, than to have my assumptions reinforced.
> Negative is obviously more dramatic than positive.
I agree in the general case, but not everywhere. Shit like "Scientist cures cancer!" is equally dramatic and clickbaity in spite of being hugely positive.
