I will give the NBC Today Show some credit for trying to address the issue of too much cancer screening and the overtreatment that results.
Matt Lauer acknowledged that the segment would counter much of what the program had told viewers over the past 10 years or so. What he didn’t say is that the questions about cancer screening are NOT new and that the Today Show had actually misinformed viewers in many of their earlier messages.
But despite the good effort, today’s program was given too little time, was too loosely organized, and probably left viewers horribly confused.
Thank goodness they had one of the best evidence-based minds on the set to address the topic – Dartmouth’s Dr. Gil Welch.
[2017 Update: This video is no longer available but the the transcript is available HERE ]
Lauer half-promised there would be more segments in the future on this topic. I hope they live up to that.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
IIll and Uninsured in Illinois
March 14, 2009 at 1:29 amThere’s an overall health-policy question — does screening save more lives than not screening? And then there’s an individual question — will early detection save _my_ life?
This segment didn’t address the differences very well. And the trouble with the health-policy view is that it treats statistics, not people.
The Publisher
March 14, 2009 at 9:52 amIll and Uninsured,
I agree with you. And that is why it is unfortunate that Dr. Welch wasn’t given more time to address what is really his usual stump speech – that informed shared decision-making is the key.
He would not say that no one should be screened nor that everyone should be screened. These decisions require that informed consumers weigh the tradeoffs and make an informed decision along with their caregivers.
It’s difficult to explain nuance in a 5 minute segment. The Today Show should have devoted at least an entire half hour to the topic. And why not? They’re on for several hours every morning.
The Publisher
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like