My thanks to The Daily Beast for publishing my commentary this week.
The following is a modified version.

This week the Wall Street Journal published a big splash, "CT Scans Gain Favor as Option for Colonoscopy." But in this 1,300-word article, there isn't one mention of the recent statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

"that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography”

and that

"there is potential for both benefit and harm. Potential harms arise from additional diagnostic testing and procedures for lesions found incidentally, which may have no clinical significance. This additional testing also has the potential to burden the patient and adversely impact the health system."

The USPSTF is often considered the “gold standard” on preventive health recommendations.

Its new statement on colon cancer screening was issued just 3 weeks ago, so it isn't like it gathered dust or is outdated.

And it's written by independent experts from various fields with no skin in the game - not by radiologists or gastroenterologists or by any interest group.

Insufficient evidence. Harms may occur. Newer isn't always better. Why isn't that part of the story?

Yet it keeps happening.

On this site, we recently reviewed another similarly cheerleading one-sided story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Earlier this month, the CBS Early Show let actress-singer Olivia Newton-John appear on their program to promote a commercial product without a balanced review of the evidence.

In fact, the anchor led in to the relevant part of the interview by prompting the celebrity, “Tell us about your crusade.”

(Newton-John:) “I’d like to introduce the Liv Aid, which is a Breast Self Examination kit to encourage women to do regular breast self-examination, because early detection is key.”

Newton-John went on to remind viewers that she found a lump during breast self-exam 16 years ago. She said she was working with the Curves chain to try to get these LivAid kits to one million women.

But a recent review of the scientific literature by the Cochrane Collaboration stated:

"Data from two large trials do not suggest a beneficial effect of screening by breast self-examination but do suggest increased harm in terms of increased numbers of benign lesions identified and an increased number of biopsies performed. At present, screening by breast self-examination or physical examination cannot be recommended."

There was never a mention of this in the CBS program - only free airtime for a "crusade" - and a commercial one at that.

The month before that, the same CBS program gave an incomplete view of breast self-exam using physician-"reporter" Dr. Holly Phillips from WCBS-TV in New York to do a followup on actress Christina Applegate's diagnosis of breast cancer.

Last month all three big TV networks and their anchors loaned their support for an advocacy cause in the StandUpToCancer telethon.

On the telethon, "Everybody Loves Raymond" star Brad Garrett - in a highly promoted move - appeared to fake having a digital rectal exam on the air. Meantime, the program pronounced that every man over age 50 should have an annual prostate exam. The program urged viewers to "Push Your Dad To Get a Prostate Exam," and used this cartoon on its
website.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force states:

 "The USPSTF concludes that for men younger than age 75 years, the benefits of screening for prostate cancer are uncertain and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined."

We've tracked incomplete stories on screening on NBC, on CNN, in the New York Daily News, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and in other news outlets.

You want to talk about health policy and health care reform? This is not a bad place to start. It doesn’t require wonkish jargon. A few simple reminders could guide journalists and the public:

• Newer isn’t always better.
• More isn’t always better.
• Screening doesn’t make sense for everyone.
• Many screening tests do good; many also do harm.

Such stories stoke the fears of the “worried well.” They raise undue demand for unproven technologies. They raise unrealistic expectations of what screening – and health care – can achieve.

And they overlook evidence, harms and costs.

Trudy Lieberman wrote a column for the Columbia Journalism Review asking if journalists deserve some of the blame for the high cost of health care when they write stories like this.

We spend more on health care than any other country on the globe, yet we have outcomes for some conditions that are worse than in developing countries. And we still have more than 40-million neighbors who are uninsured.

That might be a better reference point for a discussion on health care reform and health policy than what we get from stories that make us all think that we should be screened because we all have
something silent lurking inside us that should be found and treated.

I'm pleased to be able to contribute a piece for The Daily Beast on the rash of stories that fail to tell the whole story about screening tests.

I write in that piece:

"A few simple reminders could guide journalists and the public:

* Newer isn't always better.
* More isn't always better.
* Screening doesn't make sense for everyone.
* Many screening tests do good; many also do harm.

Such stories stoke the fears of the "worried well." They raise undue demand for unproven technologies. They raise unrealistic expectations of what screening--and health care--can achieve.

And they overlook evidence, harms and costs.

Trudy Lieberman wrote a column for the Columbia Journalism Review asking if journalists deserve some of the blame for the high cost of health care when they write stories like this.

We spend more on health care than any other country on the globe, yet we have outcomes for some conditions that are worse than developing countries. And we still have more than 40-million neighbors who are uninsured.

That might be a better reference point for a discussion on health care reform and health policy than what we get from stories that make us all think that we should be screened because we all have something silent lurking inside us that should be found and treated."

Trudy Lieberman, in Columbia Journalism Review, describes what the magazine calls ineptitude by CNN and Dr. Sanjay Gupta in coverage of health policy news. Excerpt:

"Gupta's attempt to explain John McCain's health plan offered a confusing and ultimately misleading picture of how the candidate's proposals might work. McCain, you may recall, has proposed giving every family a $5,000 tax credit and every individual a $2,500 credit to help buy insurance policies in the commercial market. So it was reasonable for Gupta's show to ask: How far will five grand really get you? Too bad it didn't answer the question.

Gupta began by citing a study done a couple of years ago by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the insurance industry trade association. Gupta was wrong at the outset when he called AHIP "the largest provider of health insurance." AHIP is a lobbying organization for its insurance company members. It does not--does not--provide health insurance. Gupta said AHIP had found that the average family's premium was $5,799; he didn't say that the data had been collected two years ago, and he didn't explain that any study done by an insurance trade association is necessarily of limited value. (In fact, no organization has adequately studied the so-called individual market, where McCain wants people to buy their policies with his tax credit.) The take-away for viewers, though, was that a family could buy a policy for the amount offered by McCain's tax credit.

I asked a neutral insurance expert, Paul Fronstin, who directs research for EBRI, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, to translate Gupta's wonk talk. Fronstin said Gupta "gives a gross oversimplification."

Instead of all the red-white-and-blue sets and the computer games, CNN should have invested in someone who could explain the issues that are of such importance to voters."

Within the past two weeks, ABC and NBC have had forgettable health stories, reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org.

ABC's Good Morning America had a segment on "detox diets." The review summary of that story:

"A waste of air time. More like free advertising than anything you could describe as journalism. Anecdote, not evidence. No independent expert interviewed. No harms or costs discussed. Awful."

The NBC Today Show had a segment on vitamin D deficiencies.The review summary stated:

"This segment didn't tell viewers who had made the new recommendation, how the conclusion had been reached, how great the danger was, or how much benefit they might hope to gain."

I don't know why I don't go into business for myself. It would be so easy to promote one's product or idea through today's unquestioning free-for-all, free-advertising that we call TV health news.

The Wall Street Journal today has a big splash, "CT Scans Gain Favor as Option for Colonoscopy." But in this 1,300-word article, there isn't one mention of the recent statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force "that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography" and that "there is potential for both benefit and harm. Potential harms arise from additional diagnostic testing and procedures for lesions found incidentally, which may have no clinical significance. This additional testing also has the potential to burden the patient and adversely impact the health system."

This insistence by journalists to trumpet new technologies and their refusal to acknowledge an independent, evidence-based conclusion is very troubling.

I just don't get it.

The USPSTF statement was issued just 3 weeks ago, so it isn't like it gathered dust or is outdated.

And it's written by independent experts from various fields with no skin in the game - not by radiologists or gastroenterologists or by any interest group.

Evidence insufficient. Harms may occur. Newer isn't always better. Why isn't that part of the story?

The Integrity in Science Watch project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in this week's e-newsletter, has two different but related "jeers" for failure to disclose conflicts in two different health journalism efforts. Their posting:

Jeer to the National Press Foundation for an omission on its agenda for the Oct. 23 forum for journalists on “The New Understanding of Pain,� which was funded in part by the unit of Johnson & Johnson that makes pain medications. The agenda does not disclose that presenters Howard Heit of Georgetown Medical School and Aaron Gilson of the University of Wisconsin have consulted for Purdue Pharma, maker of the controversial pain medication OxyContin, and other manufacturers of pain medications.

Jeer to Erik Eckholm and Olga Pierce of the New York Times for failing to disclose in an August 15, 2008 article on methadone risks that Howard Heit of Georgetown Medical School, who is quoted warning about those risks, has served as a consultant for Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, a rival drug.

The CBS Early Show let actress-singer Olivia Newton-John appear on their program this week to promote a commercial product without a balanced review of the evidence.

In fact, the anchor led in to the relevant part of the interview by prompting the celebrity, “Tell us about your crusade.�

(Newton-John:) “I’d like to introduce the Liv Aid, which is a Breast Self Examination kit to encourage women to do regular breast self-examination, because early detection is key.�

Newton-John went on to remind viewers that she found a lump during breast self-exam 16 years ago. She said she was working with the Curves chain to try to get these LivAid kits to one million women.

But a recent review of the scientific literature by the Cochrane Collaboration stated:

"Data from two large trials do not suggest a beneficial effect of screening by breast self-examination but do suggest increased harm in terms of increased numbers of benign lesions identified and an increased number of biopsies performed. At present, screening by breast self-examination or physical examination cannot be recommended."

There was never a mention of this in the CBS program - only free airtime for a "crusade" - and a commercial one at that.

Shame on CBS for providing one-sided, incomplete information to its viewers.

Phil Galewitz, health writer for the Palm Beach Post, in the current issue of HealthBeat, the newsletter of the Association of Health Care Journalists:

"It used to be, in journalism, your goal was to c omplete a major investigative project or win a major statewide or national award. Today, journalists like me are worried about just surviving."

As editor of HealthBeat, Galewitz tracks cutbacks on the health beat across the country. He writes that The Miami Herald and The Rocky Mountain News no longer have fulltime health writers.