Gary Schwitzer is founder and publisher of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @garyschwitzer.
Usually when something Texan tries to move into Oklahoma, there’s a great deal of skepticism. But that’s on the sports page.
On the business page of The Oklahoman, a recent health news story was treated like free advertising for a Texas company now bringing its mobile health screening services to Oklahoma. Excerpts:
Austin-based HealthYes! uses the latest equipment and techniques to screen for heart disease, stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, liver disease and osteoporosis,(said the company president).
“Our goal is to educate people to take a proactive approach to their health care,” he said. “So many people don’t get these tests because they have no symptoms.”
HealthYes! fills a niche in the preventive-care arena, he said. “There’s a real need out there.”
Another classic example of a business section failing to exercise any tough journalism on a health news story – and of a news organization failing to realize that there can be harms from screening that is done outside the boundaries of evidence.
The story only quoted the company president – who, of course, sees a “real need” and a “niche.”
But there isn’t one quote with a doctor who could raise questions about what evidence there is to support population-wide, drive-around-screening offerings for “heart disease, stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, liver disease and osteoporosis.”
If you’re scoring at home:
Free advertising 1,
Journalism 0
Or
Business Interests 1,
Consumers 0
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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.
Tom Farrell
February 22, 2010 at 3:34 pmAnd the next one up in my G. Reader, something from MedPage:
Unnecessary Tests Drive Up Cost of Healthcare
By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: February 22, 2010
More than a quarter of American healthcare dollars are spent on unnecessary tests that physicians order so they won’t get sued, according to the results of a new Gallup poll…
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/18620
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