This is my topic tomorrow (January 26) when I speak to the annual Research and Policy Forum of the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making in Washington, DC. (Disclosure: the Foundation supports my HealthNewsReview.org project.)
You can see the program agenda and sign up for a free webcast of the full-day event.
I’m not the only journalist on the program, as you’ll see. Lauran Neergaard of the Associated Press and Shannon Brownlee will also speak at the Forum.
I will try to show how the public discussion in this country about the benefits of certain screening tests has never recovered from the debacle surrounding the release of the US Preventive Services Task Force’s mammography recommendations in November, 2009.
As one brief reminder of the misinformation that mangled the mammography shared decision-making message, you can read the transcript of a Glenn Beck interview of Dr. Bernadine Healy of US News & World Report, or watch a video clip of the interview:
Almost every statement in this interview is misleading, incomplete or inaccurate.
I’ll also talk about how imbalanced news coverage has contributed to a confused public discussion about prostate cancer screening and lung cancer screening.
It’s not just happening on cancer topics. Last week I blogged about non-evidence-based promotion of some heart screening tests by Prevention magazine.
Such news coverage doesn’t help people. It doesn’t contribute to informed health care decisions. It may do more harm than good.
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.
AutismNewsBeat
February 5, 2011 at 3:42 pmGlen Beck is misleading? Who knew!
Healy used to be a tobacco industry consultant, hired to cast doubt on second-hand smoke studies. She is also widely quoted by anti-vaccine groups as saying the purported vaccine-autism link needs further study, and that medical science is “afraid to look” at the damage that vaccines might be causing. She is a cardiologist by training, but somehow passes herself off as an expert on epidemiology, immunology, toxicology, pediatric neurology, and other disciplines where she is not qualified to practice.
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