NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
She saw 
So look what she did: she posted a comment on the KNBC website (seen at left), calling the story “false hope” and posting our ten HealthNewsReview.org criteria right on the KNBC website! She was clearly listening when I told the multitude at the meeting in DC: imagine what would happen if all of you and all of your breast cancer advocate colleagues back home did this!
Just like Howard Beale in the movie, “Network,” she got out of her chair, went over to the window (her computer in this case) and yelled, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” 
Comments (18)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Stephany
May 28, 2010 at 8:28 amFantastic! If everyone asked these questions for all medical topics, and drug treatments such as Vioxx, Avandia, Seroquel, Zyprexa to name a few. This is how I basically think, great story!
Stephanie
May 28, 2010 at 10:26 amWow, thanks for sharing this. Congratulations on making such an impact on this person to take a stand against poor health reporting. We definitely need more Sandras in the world. I mean, seriously, this story is garbage. Here are my additional questions:
What kind of breast cancer did this woman have?
What stage was it (small doesn’t mean everything)?
What about the others in enrolled in the trial? Are we really supposed to believe that tumors can now just “melt” away as insinuated by this totally imbalanced article?
As a health communicator, I, of course do not. But the audience for this article is the average person. Sandra is right in pointing out that this article offers false hope for women.
I am pro-clinical trials, especially for breast cancer. But, let’s not make news out of nothing, or at least be honest about a study’s limitations.
Stephanie
Wellescent Health Blog
May 28, 2010 at 11:45 amHyped reporting is an unfortunate side effect of trying to hold eyeballs and excite people about health research despite the reality that such research involves slow progress in most situations. Though it is important to bring people the news about intriguing research, the need for a balanced approach with grounding in the current reality is a must.
Marilyn Mann
May 30, 2010 at 3:56 pmGood work Sandra!
Henry
June 1, 2010 at 8:39 amGreat set of questions for any supposed new “breakthrough” in medicine. I copied them down, but there were only nine listed by Sandra Spivey. What is the tenth one? Thanks.
Henry
Gary Schwitzer
June 1, 2010 at 2:16 pm* What’s the total cost?
* How often do benefits occur?
* How often do harms occur?
* How strong is the evidence?
* Is this condition exaggerated?
* Are there alternative options?
* Is this really a new approach?
* Is it available to me?
* Who’s promoting this?
* Do they have a conflict of interest?
Ruth
June 1, 2010 at 5:24 pmHi Gary, I’m not sure if you’ve mentioned this before in your blog, but bad medical reporting/journalism in the States affects other countries as well. A few days ago I was watching this tv report in Australia about some new breast cancer vaccine. It was obvious that the footage and material was not original (as it is with a lot of medical news here) and the way it was used did not even address any of the 10 important questions.
It is frustrating to watch ‘news’ like these, and more so that it is absorbed without much thought about the validity of its claims… ( i could go on and on about this…)
Sandra
June 1, 2010 at 9:01 pmThanks for blogging about my feedback to NBC Los Angeles. I think it may have made an impact. Today’s TV report about breast cancer vaccines by the same reporter addressed more of the questions from Healthnewsreview.org
They showed videos of mice (although these appeared to be pet shop mice and not the kind used in research) and reinforced that it was only used in mice so far. They even gave a timeframe for potential availability.
Nothing on cost or who is promoting it. But progress.
Eta Brand
June 4, 2010 at 7:54 pmI am a university trained naturopath and public health graduate in Australia. I work with many cancer patients in my clinic. Some using conventional treatments and CAM approaches, some only using CAM approaches. I use evidence based information wherever possible to minimise harm. I believe harm is caused to patients and their carers when the media inappropriately promote treatments.
There should be penalties to this kind of reporting. In Australia the same media reporting problems abound. Lots of hollow promises, breakthroughs every other day. How do we find a way to bring some controls into the media? Not sure there is a simple answer.
This week I present to a group of cancer patients in my local area on ‘Preserving Quality of Life’.
What journalists may not know is that honest reporting may actually enhance rather than detract from the stress of a life threatening diagnosis. When will journalists begin to understand the true ramifications of their work in relation to cancer patients? I hope sooner rather than later!
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