It’s ironic that this now makes three consecutive entries on this blog that all relate to public misconceptions or misunderstanding of how science works.
Yesterday I blogged about a science writer’s lament about how reader comments sometimes display an inability to accept evidence.
Earlier today I posted a humorous piece from The Daily Show showing some more gaps between what science shows and what people want to believe.
And today, Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society concludes a piece about prostate cancer screening recommendations with the question, “Are we as a society prepared to pay attention to scientific evidence?” Excerpts:
“Because doctors and patients believed that screening works — wasn’t it obvious that it would? — they opposed rigorous studies, called randomized trials, that assign half the patients to get screening while the other half goes unscreened.
Despite opposition from doctors and patients, the trials finally got done, and today the harms of screening are better proved than the benefits.
…
The phenomenon of so-called experts, who do not understand basic principles of screening, making exaggerated statements is not limited to prostate cancer. It also occurs in breast and lung cancer screening. Well-designed scientific study has clearly showed that these procedures save lives, but science has also demonstrated that the procedures have limitations and risks of harm.”
Read his entire post. Brawley also has a forthcoming book, “How We Do Harm,” that will undoubtedly touch on these themes in greater detail.
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
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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.
Joshua Schneck
November 1, 2011 at 4:29 pmDr. Brawley is spot on regarding PSA testing. Which begs the question of how strong is the evidence for definitive treatment – whether surgery or radiation – for men with asymptomatic, PSA-detected, low-risk prostate cancer? That’s a question each patient must probe, consistent with his actual condition, before being talked into hasty definitive treatment.
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