The DTC (direct to consumer) National Conference (“The Forum for DTC Thought Leaders”) invited tough-talking, straight-shooting bioethicist Carl Elliott to speak this year.
Then, at least according to this account, some didn’t like “the feeling” that he imparted. Scroll down to “Day One – Afternoon.” If you didn’t want to hear that “everything is broken – our government, our healthcare system, and the clinical trials side of the industry,” then maybe Elliott was not the guy to invite.
Health care journalists who haven’t had the opportunity to meet Elliott can do so this weekend at the Association of Health Care Journalists conference in Philadelphia, where he’ll be on a panel, “Clinical trials: Intersection of ethical, practical and financial.” Hint: If you don’t want to hear what’s broken, don’t come.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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.
Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog
April 21, 2011 at 11:41 amPfizer’s $100,000 Fellowships in Bioethics – a bioethicist’s view
On his bioethics seminar’s “Fear and Loathing in Bioethics” blog, Dr. Carl Elliott has commented on – first – the announcement of applications for $100,000 Pfizer Fellowships in Bioethics. This is a screenshot from the Fear & Loathing blog: And…
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