Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society joins his colleague, Dr. Otis Brawley, in writing about his concerns about news coverage of the big American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. Lichtenfeld cites a specific example, and drills down in more detail:
“Most of the media hypes the study which demonstrated improvement in treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with a targeted therapy drug and ignore the concerns. What appeared to be a very positive study in an abstract may not have been so positive after all.
Patients, families and their physicians are now under the impression that a new advance has been made in this deadly disease, when that may not be the case. The positive press releases and news conferences were not balanced. Most of the media ignored the expert who raised legitimate concerns and cautions. But that information was only available to those who waited for the study to be presented and were in the audience at the time.
Hopes have been falsely raised, when some caution is needed and appropriate.
…
More importantly, patients, families and friends are going to be wondering how a study that received such a positive response in the press could possibly not be the hope they had been waiting for, and had learned about through the media reports.Sometimes, it all comes down to getting the right understanding of what a research study really says and how that relates to its true impact. And sometimes it’s the story behind the story that you don’t see addressed in enthusiastic media reports, as is the case with this particular trial.
My sense of this particular trial is “stay tuned.” There is surely going to be more discussion of this study in the months and years ahead.
And always remember that hope sells. Tempered hope doesn’t. Failure of hope rarely gets reported. That would be (unfortunately) too brutally honest.
Sometimes, it is as simple as that.”
It is so important that these ACS officials are speaking up and writing about these issues. For many years, you would not have heard such comments from anyone at the ACS. But Brawley and Lichtenfeld are seeing things through the same prism that we see things through every day in our review of health news coverage – some excellent, but far too many unacceptably naive, fawning, cheerleading “churnalism” that may do more harm than good.
That’s what news organizations need to grasp: there can be harm caused by superficial reporting – as both Brawley and Lichtenfeld adroitly point out.
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.
rhana bazzini
June 9, 2010 at 3:34 pmMy oh, my, what a Pandora’s box we open with this topic!
It’s definitely a “devil is in the details” moment. Who gets financing for what studies and how are those studies conducted. Medicine, especially anything connected with cancer,is the new “sexy” topic.
Anyone who can separate the popular from the deserving has earned a Nobel.
I blame not the participants, MDs, patients, techs, etc., I fear it’s the system that has been corrupted.
Good night and good luck as ERM would say. ( a test for how old anyone who read this is :-)
@Drsteventucker
June 10, 2010 at 12:18 amBoth reports from Dr’s Brawley & Lichtenfeld are “spot on”. And similar to Rhana (above) I do not blame the doctors, scientists, or even the media teams at academic centers and industry. The blame squarely falls on the press, the media. They certainly do not seem to question their sources. Do the media teams at BP get a similar pass? How about the media reports from Fannie and Freddie or Goldman?
The goal of most of these companies is to satisfy their shareholders and to create value in the medical marketplace. They can spin the report any way they want but it is up to the reporters (and the publishers) to question such releases and summaries.
I was always taught their were only 3 goals in clinical research. Live longer, liver better, or save money. Perhaps reporters and publishers should stick to simple questions.
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