Posted by Gary Schwitzer in Screening
A national spokesperson for the ACS CAN office confirmed late today that the “Screening is Seeing” ad that I criticized on this blog yesterday has now been pulled.
The spokesperson said, “It would be unfortunate if, in trying to raise awareness about this critical issue, a brief, powerful message in the ad became the story rather than the issue itself.”
It has become clear to me within the last 24 hours that the ad was not universally embraced within the American Cancer Society and that there was significant agreement with the stance I took in criticizing the ad.
More to come on this as it becomes available.
Roshan,
Thanks for sharing your opinion, which I respect.
But it wouldn’t take much for an ad to clarify WHICH screening it was referring to. I wasn’t looking for “scientific complexity” as you say. I was looking for clarity and specificity. It doesn’t require a peer-reviewed journal article to do that.
In the eyes of some authorities at the American Cancer Society, the criticism that I leveled was worthy of some action, given that they pulled the ad. If one little blogger made criticisms that didn’t resonate, didn’t hit home, weren’t on the money, would the powerful agency have pulled its ad?
I think not.
I expect this type of behavior from big pharma, not the ACS. I cringe every time I hear sports radio personalities reading ads from urology groups telling men to “step up to the plate” and be screened for prostate cancer! This is dangerous stuff!
Disclaimer: I welcome comments but will delete those with any kind of product pitch, profanity, personal attacks or those from anyone who doesn’t list what appears to be an actual e-mail address. I will also end any thread of comments that are repetitive. Because I moderate comments, I can’t keep reacting to repeatedly inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it.
Overall, this was an easy-to-follow summary. But there was a clear difference between this and a competing Boston Globe story, which did a better job offering context and analysis.
This Boston Globe blog post gave its audience a more thorough understanding of an emerging approach to virtual colonoscopy than the Wall Street Journal.
Longer, but overall not any better, than the coverage from the competing LA Times story. Not thorough enough to explain what this preliminary research actually means for readers–which is not much at this point.
We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share youre-mail address with any third parties.
For site updates and news from Gary, find us on Twitter:
HealthNewsReview: @HealthNewsRevu
Gary Schwitzer: @garyschwitzer
Copyright © 2012 Health News Review
Roshan posted on August 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Knowing CAN is an advocacy arm of ACS, I understand why CAN would want to forcefully advocate for an issue that it strongly supports. The objective of this ad was to make a point, convey a message succinctly coinciding with the 20th anniversary of this CDC sponsored program.
It is perhaps unrealistic for HealthNewsNews and Prof. Schwitzer to expect that level of scientific complexity be carried by an ad.
After all, it is an ad not a peer-reviewed article.