At this point, just about 12 hours after the study was released, I find more than 140 stories online on the misleading “thick thighs protect against heart disease” theme promoted by a BMJ news release. Nary a mention in any of these about association versus causation – or about how an observational study like this has profound limitations. Ah, but they love the “thunder thighs” headlines! That’s all that matters. To hell with public understanding.
Keep reading if you want to see some of the headline examples from around the world.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.
Bob Babinski
September 4, 2009 at 10:22 amI just wanted to let you know that I discovered your blog in the summer and am really enjoying it. Thoughtful and provocative.
While I have a general interest in heath issues, I’m also a part-time instruction at Concordia University’s Journalism School (Montreal) and am in the process of getting more familiar with the blog world.
Ghostwriting is getting a lot of play up here because one of the city’s top researchers was found to have taken favors from a pharmaceutical in writing a paper connected to HRT.
I found a very interesting blog post that you might be interested in (it also appeared as an op-ed in the Montreal Gazette).
http://katejohnsonmednews.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/what-is-medical-ghostwriting-and-can-it-tarnish-professional-editing-don't-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater/
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