November 11, 2014

Pitt urologist peaved by prostate CA ads in NY Times & New Yorker

Posted By

Tags

Benjamin Davies, cancer, Cyberknife, direct-to-consumer medical device marketing, false advertising, Forbes, hospital advertising, medical device marketing

Pitt urologist Benjamin Davies writes on a Forbes blog, “Prostate Cancer Advertising: Lies And The Damn Lies (Part 1).”

He criticizes ads in the Sunday New York Times Magazine and in The New Yorker from last weekend. He writes:

I have a rating system for prostate cancer advertisements based on two self-evident tenets. First, cancer advertising should be scrupulously true and evidence based. Second, cancer patients are uniquely vulnerable to “hopeful” advertising (or “hopeium”) since often they face devastating odds of survival. We should all – collectively – shun advertisers that take advantage of these patients. I have no gripe with advertising your cancer care – just be horribly honest.

Prostate Cancer Advertising Scoring System

A – True statements

B – True statements with shades of hopeium

C – True statements with obvious hopeium

D– deceptive statements and good copy

F– deceptive statements and bad copy

The NY Times Magazine ad in question was placed by Winthrop University’s NYCyberknife Center. When the ad stated, “CyberKnife is the biggest advance in prostate cancer treatment in a decade,” Davies called it “one of the most egregious examples of poor copy and obvious deceptive statements.

Please note: I have written about Cyberknife claims many times – some in news stories (good and bad) and some in ads. The link takes you to search results showing 12 pieces I’ve written touching on Cytberknife in recent years.

The ad in The New Yorker that caught Davies’ eye – and wrath – was for Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

After noting that CTCA “has been taken to task numerous times by the FDA and the FTC for false advertising,” Davies writes:

“Eating a balanced (organic?) diet after your prostate cancer surgery has no effect on your cancer outcome. None. Suggesting it is part of ”the plan” insinuates it will. It will not.”

Starting in early 2015, this project plans to expand its scrutiny of media messages to look at more public relations, advertising and marketing messages in addition to news stories. We plan to use standardized criteria to evaluate health care-related news releases. It’s all part of the tsunami of media messages about health and health care that washes over the American public every day.

ADDENDUM on November 12: Dr. Davies posted a response from Winthrop University physicians.

————————–
Tweet

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.

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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.