This has been a very good week for former tennis star John McEnroe. But not so good for men who may have seen him on TV.
And he was getting paid all the time by a drug company – something clearly noted on the website that McEnroe promoted – but something CBS never disclosed on the air.
CBS merely turned over the network to this drug company sponsored message – a message that has the support of the American Urological Association but that lacks the support of other respected medical organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Another terrible example of the one-sided – potentially harmful – information often disseminated on the network TV morning programs.
There was no discussion of the cost of prostate cancer screening or treatment.
Guess what? The tennis star – whose appearance was being paid for by a drug company – didn’t discuss any evidence.
There was no discussion of the harms of prostate cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force reminds men:
Potential harms from PSA screening include additional medical visits, adverse effects of prostate biopsies, anxiety, and overdiagnosis (the identification of prostate cancer that would never have caused symptoms in the patient’s lifetime, leading to unnecessary treatment and associated adverse effects). Much uncertainty surrounds which cases of prostate cancer require treatment and whether earlier detection leads to improvements in duration or quality of life.
Updated American Urological Association guidelines suggest that men start PSA screening at age 40. But updated American Cancer Society recommendations state something quite different – something not expressed in this CBS segment, namely:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not support routine testing for prostate cancer at this time. ACS does believe that health care professionals should discuss the potential benefits and limitations of prostate cancer early detection testing with men before any testing begins. This discussion should include an offer for testing with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and digital rectal exam (DRE) yearly, beginning at age 50, to men who are at average risk of prostate cancer and have at least a 10-year life expectancy.
And the US Preventive Services Task Force states:
That’s evidence – not crusading by an ex-tennis star being paid by a drug company.
CBS let the tennis star get away with saying:
(McEnroe:) "When they started this campaign they were looking for 50 year olds. … But since then they’ve talked about being tested even earlier. The American Urological Association has said 40 is the new time to go out there."
The American Urological Association may have said that but many other medical expert groups do not endorse that recommendation.
So the CBS report didn’t practice journalism – but, rather, unchallenged advocacy of a particular belief. And the network TV fear-mongering to everyone 40 and over is unacceptable.
An overwhelming "UNSATISFACTORY" score on this. The only source was the former tennis star, promoting one medical organization’s early promotion of prostate cancer screening – a recommendation not shared by other leading medical expert organizations.
The segment allowed the tennis star to promote a website – http://www.prostatecancerwatch.com/index.html – that clearly states:
GlaxoSmithKline funded and helped develop this campaign, including providing compensation to Mr. McEnroe.
That sponsorship was never disclosed on the air.
The option of not being screened – a very viable option for men – was never even discussed.
The availability of prostate cancer screening is not in question. If anything, questions about overtesting should have been discussed but weren’t.
no claims of novelty were made
In essence, CBS caved in on a huge public relations campaign promoting prostate cancer awareness without using any expert medical source for this segment. The segment refers viewers to a website – http://www.prostatecancerwatch.com – that is funded by a drug company. That was never disclosed on the air.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.
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