Veteran science journalist Boyce Rensberger wrote under that headline on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:
“A search for “breast cancer” in Google News yielded the following stories published in the past few days, listed here by their headlines:
–Mammograms cut risk of breast cancer death by half
–Study faults partial radiation for breast cancer
–Diabetes, obesity after 60 may up breast cancer risk
–Study supports mammograms for women in their 40s
–Pfizer jury awards $72 million after finding Prempro caused breast cancer
–Breast cancer planner helps in treatment and recovery
–Federal Breast Density Inform solution sought (informing women about their breast density which can mask tumors)
–Family history not a factor in rates of invasive disease, nodal development
You get the idea. All kinds of claims and counterclaims are pretty much always flying. Some stories were okay. Almost none gave significant background or context. A few medical writers were gulled into parroting thin claims as conclusive findings.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
J.daniel Flaysakier
December 8, 2011 at 7:43 amI am attending the SABCS meeting. There are a lot of ‘weak studies’ with non significant outcomes or questionable design. But once they are presented in press conferences they lose their original sin, no discussion and immediately.online. One of the main news agency, Agence France Presse is not even here but works from press releases. One of the studies which was highly criticized during the sessions has become a ‘New standard of care’ Pity !
Gregory Dennis
December 14, 2011 at 10:36 amBoyce and Daniel make excellent points. Nowhere is this problem more obvious than in reporting on breast cancer. For example, a report out of the San Antonio conference about a study on breast brachytherapy – covering an antiquated form of the therapy used before several, notably more effective methods were even available to patients – has caused tremendous concern and even panic among women who received brachytherapy.
We put together a teleconference yesterday featuring for top physicians who are experts in breast brachytherapy. The call was organized at the researchers’ request because they wanted to get the word out about problems with this study. (Disclosure: my firm represents a maker of a form of breast brachytherapy – but note that it was competing forms of breast brachytherapy, , not my clients’, that were highlighted by the doctors in their comments on yesterday’s teleconference.)
More background at http://dowlingdennis.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/problems-with-new-breast-cancer-radiation-study.
Gregory Dennis
December 14, 2011 at 10:36 amBoyce and Daniel make excellent points. Nowhere is this problem more obvious than in reporting on breast cancer. For example, a report out of the San Antonio conference about a study on breast brachytherapy – covering an antiquated form of the therapy used before several, notably more effective methods were even available to patients – has caused tremendous concern and even panic among women who received brachytherapy.
We put together a teleconference yesterday featuring for top physicians who are experts in breast brachytherapy. The call was organized at the researchers’ request because they wanted to get the word out about problems with this study. (Disclosure: my firm represents a maker of a form of breast brachytherapy – but note that it was competing forms of breast brachytherapy, , not my clients’, that were highlighted by the doctors in their comments on yesterday’s teleconference.)
More background at http://dowlingdennis.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/problems-with-new-breast-cancer-radiation-study.
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