On the Skeptic Ink website, William London, EdD, MPH, a public health professor at California State University, Los Angeles, writes:
“On July 12, 2013, I came upon a video recording and transcript of a typical feel-good local news feature: Local doctor battles cancer through natural healing. It appeared on KGET, the NBC affiliate station in Kern County, California. Here’s the transcript (indented and italicized) with my comments interlaced:
BAKERSFIELD, CA – A local doctor is fighting a deadly cancer diagnosis through natural remedies and spiritual healing. He says he has never felt better.Dr. Boyce Dulan practiced medicine for 33 years. Twenty-two of those years he spent with the Kern County Public Health Department. Now he’s throwing his medical background out the door, focusing on natural healing to fight the battle of his life.The 72-year-old is full of life.
…But perhaps viewers would have been interested in a follow-up story to see how long Dr. Dulan maintained his healing program and avoided use of prescription medication. The only follow-up story I can find from KGET is Dr. Dulan’s obituary including a photo and brief text, but no mention of the optimistic July 12th feature story. He died on September 18th at age 72. …
In other words, on July 12th, KGET gave us an engaging feel-good story suggesting a special outcome, but never gave the follow-up needed to determine whether anything medically extraordinary actually occurred. KGET offered a story of hope and comfort in the face of devastating illness; a story supportive of popular views of natural healing and faith combined with the popular, misleading narrative of a courageous maverick doctor bucking the establishment. Nevertheless, the progression of Dr. Dulan’s cancer turned out not to be unique.
Skeptical inquirers like good stories about real people just as most people do. And many of us appreciate stories of hope. But we differ in an important way from most people: Skeptical inquirers strive to avoid confusing good storytelling with accurate, non-misleading, useful reporting that helps us to distinguish important fact from insidious fiction.”
London ends a long analysis by listing five distinct types of harms – actual or potential harms – from such stories. This ending is similar to my repeated message to journalists: that there is harm in inaccurate, imbalanced, incomplete health news stories. It is undoubtedly not intentional or malicious, but there is harm nonetheless.
I have seen dozens of such stories through the years on local TV stations.
London is co-author of the college textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions (ninth edition copyright 2013); the associate editor (since 2002) of Consumer Health Digest, the free weekly e-newsletter of Quackwatch; one of two North American editors of the journal Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies; co-host of the Quackwatch network’s Credential Watch website; a consultant to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
—————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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