MSNBC commits an egregious example of disease-mongering in a piece they headlined:
What is so egregious? Let us count the ways:
They pass along a plastic surgeon’s news release about his treatment for a condition he calls “runner’s face”.
So it is a promotion for his treatment for a condition he has named. This is what is called “advertising” – not “journalism.”
They provide no data.
They describe the “horrors” of the condition.
The writer discloses that “I ran my first marathon in June, and I definitely did get that hollow-cheek look described in the release.” So I suppose that’s all the reason readers need to find this important.
They provide no information on the harms of the proposed treatment, nor on the costs.
Excerpts of the story:
Runners, beware. A New Jersey cosmetic surgeon has pinpointed something more nefarious than shin splints, stress fractures and even dead butt syndrome: “runner’s face.”
… that skinny, Skeletor-esque look some dedicated runners may unwittingly develop, as they’re likely distracted with all the miles they have to cover to prepare for their next race. (The cosmetic surgeon) describes the horrors thusly, in a press release issued today:
Runner’s face generally occurs in both men and women ages 40+ who exercise to improve their body, and in doing so end up with a skeletal and bony face. When exercising, an athlete burns off fat beneath the layers of his/her skin. The marked loss of fatty tissue results in a loss of volume which leads to a prominent appearance of the bones, accelerated development of skin laxity and deepening of wrinkles. Though you may look like a 20-year-old from the neck down–your face will easily give away your age.
(He) suggests a Botox-Restylane (or other injectable filler) combo, which will smooth wrinkles and plump that gaunt face right back up.
Let me ask you this: if insurance DOES cover this (something not disclosed in the story, either) and if you’re in the same insurance pool with a runner who bites on this Botox hollow-cheeked horror fix, do you want your premiums going up as the result of utilization of this health care intervention?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
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/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.
Bix
October 17, 2011 at 5:34 amBoy, if this isn’t an advertisement, I don’t know what is.
Walter Lipman
October 17, 2011 at 9:59 amI wonder what procedures this doctor performed upon, say, the booking producer (or a friend, relative, etc)at MSNBC? People don’t get placed as “harmless” filler on television programs by random chance. I’m pretty sure that, if one were to waste their time drilling deeper into this–the apotheosis of the “non-story”–the inevitable findings would turn out rotten.
Instead of Botox, perhaps external application of the Duco Plastic Body Compound I routinely applied to my ever-rusting 1966 Volvo could be used as an alternative, taking medical insurance out of the loop?
Chris (UK)
October 17, 2011 at 10:05 amGood grief!!!
“When exercising, an athlete burns off fat beneath the layers of his/her skin.”
So, this “runner’s face” (if it exists), is actually an indication of a good thing – loss of fat?
For all the problems over here with our National Health Service (and it’s certainly not perfect), I’d rather have it than a system where quacks can invent a syndrome!
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