Vice President Joe Biden announced today that he won’t be running for president in 2016 but vowed to spend his last 15 months in office working to “silence this deadly disease.”
Biden also resurrected the “Moonshot” analogy first used by M.D. Anderson to describe its vast initiative to cure cancer:
“And I believe that we need a moon shot in this country to cure cancer. It’s personal. But I know we can do this. The president and I have already been working hard on increasing funding for research and development, because there are so many breakthroughs just on the horizon in science and medicine, the things that are just about to happen. And we can make them real with an absolute national commitment to end cancer, as we know it today.”
He added that “If I could be anything, I’d have wanted to be the president who ended cancer. Because I believe it’s possible.”
On several occasions here at HealthNewsReview.org we’ve issued cautions about making such flamboyant, unsubstantiated promises when talking about cancer cures. The president of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center made a similar claim earlier this year. Steve Miles, MD, offered a caution then that applies to Biden’s claim as well. Making these types of claims “exploits fear, generates marketing stampedes that run roughshod over deliberate research and somehow manages to draw money into those who claim to not be in it for the money.” Miles is professor of Medicine and Bioethics at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics.
We hope health and political reporters don’t pile on with hype as they did when M.D. Anderson announced its cancer “Moonshot.”
Kathlyn Stone is an associate editor with HealthNewsReview.org.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Roland B. Stark
October 26, 2015 at 7:29 amYour quote from Steve Miles doesn’t succeed in capturing what’s objectionable about “cure for cancer” statements. But it is simplistic to talk about a cure for a single disease when in fact each type of cancer requires its own research and treatment.
Amy G.
October 28, 2015 at 10:32 pmI can sympathize with Mr. Biden but it’s a promise akin to George Bush’s promise to stomp out the axis of evil; both too large to cure. I agree far too many people are affected by cancer but at the same time the sad truth is that hospitals, pharmaceutical industry and cancer foundations profit off of the lack of a cure and lack of prevention. I think more money should be spent doing genetic and environmental tests/studies, while promoting prevention.
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