The AP reports that a group opposing the current health care reform legislation has “outraged” Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, who recently lost both parents to cancer.
The ad reflects on the US Preventive Services Task Force’s breast cancer screening recommendations from last November. Among the distortions in the ad are its claims that the “government panel that didn’t include cancer specialists says women shouldn’t get mammograms until age 50. … If government takes over health care, recommendations like these could become the law for all kind of diseases.”
That isn’t what the task force said. And the big government takeover theme is classic rhetorical fear-mongering.
More from the AP:
“Dahlkemper called for the ad to be pulled. But its sponsor, Americans for Prosperity, has refused.
…
“In the past month, I’ve lost both my parents to cancer,” she said in a statement. “It’s truly disgraceful for outside groups to then attack me for not being tough enough on cancer.”
…
The nonpartisan group Factcheck.org denounced the ad for its “sheer number of falsehoods.” Politifact, another independent group, gave the ad its lowest rating for truthfulness and accuracy: “Pants on Fire.”
AP reports that Dahlkemper was targeted in an ad campaign that is being echoed throughout 18 Democratic districts.
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.
Comments are closed.
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