Kevin Lomangino is the managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @klomangino.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been relentless and creative in its public relations campaign to support the 21st Century Cures Act — the draft legislation that would allow device approvals on the basis of anecdotal experience rather than clinical trials.
As veteran reporter and HealthNewsReview.org contributor Trudy Lieberman has pointed out, the Committee has emptied the public relations bag of tricks in support of the bill, using blog posts, recycled op-eds, and stories of sick kids whom the Committee claims would benefit from the legislation. They haven’t said much about how the bill would represent a windfall for their supporters in the drug and device industries or potentially allow inadequately tested products on the market.
Now the Committee may be hoping to catch some reflected glory from the Ice Bucket Challenge “breakthrough” story that’s gone viral over the past week. An Energy and Commerce committee news release that’s headlined “#CURESNOW DISCOVERY ALERT” gives readers the broad outlines of a “major discovery” in ALS genetics that “represents a major step toward eradicating the disease once and for all.”
Apparently they didn’t hear that some experts are pouring cold water on the idea that this represents anything close to a “breakthrough.” And that this “major step toward eradicating the disease” might only apply to 3% of ALS patients.
The committee’s release is mainly a summary of a Medical News Today story, which is itself in large part a rehash of an ALS Association news release that hypes a study published in Nature Genetics.
At nearly every turn in this polluted news stream, the modest advance reported by the researchers has been blown far out of proportion to its significance to serve different agendas. And one can make an educated guess as to the forces that are driving the exaggeration.
As we’ve asked many times before: Who’s looking out for patients, their families, and other consumers who ultimately drink the water from this polluted stream?
I searched in vain for any “news” related to the Cures Act that would warrant a public release by the government committee. The document seems to be nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on the positive feelings generated by the Ice Bucket “breakthrough” story and channel them to the legislation’s advantage.
Are the Committee’s efforts succeeding?
Trudy Lieberman, who’s been following the progress of the Cures Act closely, had this to say about the bill’s progress:
The Energy & Commerce Committee doesn’t miss a trick when it comes to keeping the idea of breakthroughs, even bogus ones, alive and well in the news media. But it appears that the Committee is struggling to get their bill approved in the Senate and on Obama’s desk by the end of the year. And these sensational stories about an ALS “breakthrough” have given the committee another chance to keep the notion of the Cures Act alive in a crowded news market.
She added that it’s strange to see a government committee, which should be acting as a watchdog to prevent misinformation from reaching the consumer, acting the role of carnival barker to promote a questionable story.
“It begs the question” she said, “Is this another example of the Energy & Commerce Committee trying to lend a hand to the pharmaceutical industry?”
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