California Healthline lists “Three of the most over-hyped health care reform stories of 2013.”
The BMJ has begun its Christmas 2013 articles. This week, they offered:
TIME listed its “Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs” of the year. Listing the overhyped “newborn functionally cured of HIV” story as the #1 breakthrough is a reach, as we and many others noted when the announcement was made in March.
Buzzfeed compiles “All The Things That Cured Cancer in 2013.” It’s an amazing display of screenshots from The Daily Mail Online:
Buzzfeed also posted “17 Ridiculous Daily Mail Headlines,” several of which were health care related:
I have begun work on my 4th annual year-ender on health care PR crap I receive. For the past three years, it has been one of my most popular posts with our readers. It seems to be a perfect way to top off another year of hype, overstatement, under-disclosure, emphasizing/exaggerating benefits while ignoring/minimizing harms, and generally adding to the tsunami of health care misinformation that washes over the public every day of every year. I promise not to disappoint Stay tuned for this post sometime next week.
——————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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