Natasha Singer’s story looks at ads for cancer centers that tout high cure rates and low risk but no evidence to back that up. Testimonials rule the message. She writes:
“In medical science, such anecdotal data would not be considered statistically valid. But ads for nonprofit medical centers are not held to scientific standards of evidence.
….If a drug maker ran an ad for a cancer medicine, Food and Drug Administration regulations would require the company to be able to support any superiority claims with substantial evidence from rigorous clinical studies.
But federal agencies cannot limit the ad claims made by nonprofit medical centers about their ability to cure people of diseases like cancer, according to the government’s main ad regulator, the Federal Trade Commission.
Cancer experts interviewed for this article say there are no comprehensive statistics showing that any one elite medical center has better overall cancer success rates than its competitors. “
It’s an important story. Read the whole thing at the link above. And don’t miss the great use of multimedia – with radio, TV and print ads included in the online story in the left margin.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Paul Cornfield
December 22, 2009 at 5:50 pmContrary to some notions, good researched articles still fetch in reviewers like me. You paraded broad understanding of the theme matter and my views are now complete after reading your post. Please sustain up the effective work and i will subscribe to your rss feed to be enlightened of any future postings.
Gregory D. Pawelski
December 23, 2009 at 11:51 pmNCI-designated cancer centers are a very large business which act as a base of power for academic clinical oncologists who’ve had control of clinical cancer research since the time Nixon first declared war on cancer.
Over the past couple of years, if you watched TV with any regularity, it would have been difficult to miss the direct to consumer advertising that touted the benefits of some drugs over others, especially for patients undergoing treatment for cancer.
Even to the point that buses covered with “shrink wrapped” advertising being strategically placed outside major cancer centers for patients and their families to see (EPO anyone?).
CDM coordinators services
December 22, 2010 at 8:36 amI found your blog by accident, and I am very glad i did because i find it really interesting and it gives you something to think about.
I think this type of advertisements shouldn’t be allowed by the Federal Trade Commission, as it said in the article it could make cancer patients want to move to a different hospital because he thinks is going to receive a better treatment and eventually be cured. I know that nowadays everything needs marketing, internet, public awareness, money…but there are certain things that should step aside, like in this case the Hospitals. We cannot allow certain people play with real people hopes, specifically when they are suffering.
James Martin
May 1, 2011 at 2:03 pmNice job NYT for giving coverage to this topic.
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