Gary Schwitzer is the founder and publisher of HealthNewsReview. He has covered health care news almost exclusively since 1973. Here is his online bio. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
Although I am advancing rapidly into almost complete retirement, there are some days/weeks when I can’t refrain from pointing out some of the troubling health care news I see. This is one such week.
My local Star Tribune newspaper delivered this front page news: University of Minnesota, Mayo report COVID-fighting success with anti-aging therapy. COVID-fighting in mice, that is, which was revealed in the second paragraph:
Survival increased in mice with COVID-like illnesses when they received drugs that removed senescent cells — sometimes called “retirement” or “zombie” cells that no longer divide or grow, but persist in the body,
Mythology depicts a zombie as something you think is dead but it’s not. Zombie health care news is not dead. This story is based on interesting mouse research, but it’s still mouse research – not front page news in my view, unless you have a huge circulation in the rodent population.
Many observers are stunned that the FDA approved the drug aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease, after not one member of an FDA advisory committee voted to recommend approval. Conflicting studies did not resolve questions about evidence. The proposed cost for this low-evidence drug could bankrupt Medicare. Many news organizations have done a very good job of highlighting the problems. Yet, I still see stories like these:
Aducanumab offers Alzheimer’s patients a new lease on life
A breakthrough drug, Aducanumab
These stories reside in the depth of the daily drumbeat of dreck in health care news. Run from it; there is zombie life oozing from that dreck. It won’t die.
The Washington Post presents another of its pharma-funded “Chasing Cancer” events. This one is sponsored by AstraZeneca, in return for which the Post gives the sponsor time in the program:
A segment presented by AstraZeneca will feature their executive vice president of the oncology business unit, Dave Fredrickson, in conversation with Leigh M. Boehmer, PharmD, BCOP, chief medical officer at the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
I wrote about this Post practice last year. Excerpt:
It’s noteworthy that over the past four years, The Washington Post has hosted multiple “Chasing Cancer” online events, with support from at least five other drug companies that are active in the cancer drug market: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech, Takeda, and Tesaro.
It is not the job of journalism to partner with sponsors. Ethical concerns arise when news organizations accept sponsorship from drug companies they cover regularly.
So the zombie of conflicted health care news is also still very much alive.
And so my occasional publishing isn’t dead yet either, as long as fodder like the above fans my flames.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Why it’s time that the US National Library of Medicine added OVERDIAGNOSIS to its medical subject headings. By Steve Woloshin & Barry Kramer, who’ve been teaching us about this for years. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2854
This thread on #Gates funded pandemic reporting is worth reading
cc @garyschwitzer @DavidCallahanIP @thackerpd @natashaloder @donatopmancini @jamie_love @HansGutbrod @transparify @HAITim @deb_cohen @OSFHealth @SteveJGoodrich @diarmaidmcd @thackerpd @HealthWatchUK @YNatsis https://twitter.com/TimothyWSchwab/status/1448321233326592007
Great advice for reporters and biomedical PR folk via the @AHCJ blog and @garyschwitzer: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2021/09/elizabeth-holmes-trial-a-reminder-to-never-fall-for-the-hype/
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