John Fauber reports in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “St. Luke’s review finds almost 30% echocardiograms are misread; Better training needed to avoid false diagnoses, researchers say.”
Peggy Peck of MedPageToday.com touched off quite a discussion with her disclosure that her company was now requiring reporters to requiring reporters to inform readers whenever a press officer has listened in on an interview. This “listening in” policy has irked health/medical/science journalists for decades. The Association of Health Care Journalists blog tracks the entire discussion.
Andrew Holtz, on MDiTV.com, has a cute little video feature on studies – and stories – that report on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. If you don’t know what those are, you should watch the video.
If you’ve never read Rob Lamberts’ “Musings of a Distractible Mind” blog (which I somehow beat out for Best Medical Blog this past year), here is a great introduction. As one online commenter wrote, “Just got through my first reading of Musings of a Distractible Mind. ohmygosh, what just happened?”
Finally, three articles in the June issue of Bioethics reflect on different aspects of ghostwriting. One argues that the practice can be treated as an act of research misconduct. Another addresses how “pharmaceutical companies engage in the ghost management of the scientific literature, by controlling or shaping several crucial steps in the research, writing, and publication of scientific articles.” And the third concludes that the practice demonstrates “the manipulation of medical research for marketing purposes.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Barbara Feder Ostrov
June 23, 2010 at 4:19 pmThanks for highlighting the Bioethics ghostwriting articles, Gary. It’s nice to see that they’re not behind a paywall! Interested journalists should check out William Heisel’s excellent series of posts on pharma ghostwriting over at his Antidote blog at ReportingonHealth.org. Here’s his latest ghostwriting post; scroll down for a list of related posts. http://bit.ly/c0icDd
Barbara Feder Ostrov
Deputy Editor, ReportingonHealth.org
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