See the Center for Health Media and Policy blog post about something that bugged them in last night’s “The Biggest Loser” TV program. Excerpt:
“What no one missed this week was the constant and prominent placement for Ford and their “Warriors in Pink” promotion, benefiting Susan G. Komen, the breast cancer fundraising juggernaut.
This included an infomercial within the show starring the host and two trainers urging viewers to complete monthly breast self-exams, a practice which results in more biopsies but no fewer cases of cancer.
Even on Komen’s own site, the considerable problems with the test are acknowledged.
So why are the three stars of The Biggest Loser telling millions of women to do the test? As a transition to a commercial for Ford, of course. Viewers should do a useless breast self-exam and then go buy a charity t-shirt from the Ford website. It’s just another example of the show’s shallow treatment of an important subject.”
This image came from Ford’s website:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
Comments (12)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ken Leebow
November 24, 2010 at 12:52 pmThis is a very shallow show. Of course, it is very heavily edited, however, people who are that overweight should not be doing brutal exercises as shown.
While it might make for good TV, it makes for horrible advice to the viewer.
Ken Leebow
http://www.HighSatiety.net
And during this time of thanks, Gary, thank you for all the good information.
Dr. Brooks
November 30, 2010 at 12:37 pmGary,
You are spot on. I cannot believe how much praise this show and theses hosts receive. They are doing debatable work at best.
Kathleen
December 20, 2010 at 1:08 pmUmmm, sorry, but I’d be dead right now if I didn’t do breast exams, which found a locally advanced cancer that was completely missed on mammogram (even on the diagnostic mammogram performed AFTER I found it).
Don’t confuse population statistics with individual outcomes. Women should decide for themselves which risk they would rather take — unnecessary biopsy or missing a life threatening cancer. The majority of breast cancers in pre-menopausal women are found by the patient, not a mammogram.
Gary Schwitzer
December 20, 2010 at 2:20 pmKathleen,
The point you made – “Women should decide for themselves which risk they would rather take” – seems to be the very point the Center for Health Media & Policy was making. Women should decide based on complete and balanced information, not on an infomercial that urges viewers to do something. They called it a “shallow treatment of an important subject.”
This is an important decision for women to make based on being well-informed.
emmy
February 5, 2012 at 3:33 pmThe point of the monthly breast exam is to find cancers at an earlier stage, not to prevent cancers. It is ludicrous to judge the effectiveness of the exams on the basis of prevention.
Gary Schwitzer
February 6, 2012 at 10:26 amEmmy,
Thanks for your note. Not sure what you’re referring to. Prevention was never mentioned.
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