I wrote about this theme in today’s weekly email digest that not all of you receive, so I wanted to recapture the theme here. (You can sign up to receive these weekly emails here; they include links to everything posted on the site in the previous week. Here’s an example of what the emails look like. )
Last week I blogged about a science journalist’s musings about a cartoon that conveyed the message that the public’s unrealistic expectations about science matter.
That is a major theme of our project: trying to improve news stories that raise unrealistic expectations about health care – news that may promote undue demand of unproven ideas that may, in the end, cause more harm than good.
Think about unrealistic expectations and think about the possible cumulative impact of stories like these from the past week:
A story saying a new drug for advanced breast cancer “shows promise” when, in fact, it shrunk one breast tumor out of 97 women studied!
A story proclaiming that overactive bladder may be the “next frontier” for Botox. It’s a story that interviews the drugmaker’s CEO but no medical expert. Botox doesn’t need any more free advertising from journalists. That’s an overactive disease that needs treatment.
A story about a new “painless” test for prostate cancer. Unless it required catheterization, a urine test is usually painfree! This is hype. A competing story on the same study said the urine test may be better than a blood test – inaccurate, completely missing the gist of the research.
A story on DHA omega-3 supplements to prevent babies’ colds in which even the lead researcher said the results were not dramatic. So why is this news? Coincidentally (or is it?) we reviewed another story on another claim for DHA last week. Look here to see how that second story was already used as a springboard for marketing by one company.
A story delivering what it called an “Important health tip for the summer: Drink more wine! ” as protection against harmful sunburns. You might need a drink after reading how the story failed to evaluate the evidence. This is the kind of daily drumbeat of meaningless health news that turns people numb to the stuff that really matters.
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.
Comments are closed.
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