This article is one-sided in claims about the benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) while dismissing current evidence and quoting only doctors who are advocates about using HRT. The article demonstrates examples of disease mongering language and lacks any quotes from doctors who disagree with the two doctors quoted – quotes/doctors that wouldn’t be difficult to find.
It also contains several inaccuracies:
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was not designed to study HRT in women with menopausal symptoms, but, rather, to see if HRT had benefits – mainly for reducing risk of heart disease as a preventive approach for all menopausal women. The finding of increased cardiovascular risk was the big news of the WHI. However, later analyses of the same data, looking at younger menopausal women, have shown that heart risks do not apply to this subset of women.
Although some women may benefit from using HRT, these benefits should be framed with appropriate evidence from peer-reviewed sources and any discussion of HRT should also include a balanced discussion of risks.
There is no discussion of costs in the article.
Vague references to potential benefits of HRT with statements such as:
“(Drs) Johnson, Firouzbakht and other experts will tell you that hormone therapy protects against heart disease, a much more common killer of women than breast cancer, as well as against dementia, colon cancer, osteoporosis and other health issues.”
First, who are these “other experts” and where are the appropriate references for these claims?
Second, re-analysis of the data from the Women’s Health Initiative study shows:
The article states that conclusions of the Women’s Health Initiative have been discredited by subsequent studies but fails to state any of these studies or acknowledge potential side effects of HRT. The article instead points out some of the limitations of the Women’s Health Initiative, but we don’t think “discredit” is appropriate in this case. It was further analysis of the WHI data – not new studies – that showed that risks are different in the younger postmenopausal women (women in their 50s) compared with the older population.
The article contains quotes from two doctors who are very pro-HRT (one published a book about HRT), but the article itself only presents anecdotes and provides no references to actual studies showing benefits of HRT.
The article presents several examples of disease mongering language as applied to menopause:
” It’s not a death sentence or a dependence…”
” You don’t have to suffer..”
” treatment can enable and boost a woman’s overall day-to-day existence”
” Too many women have been taught to accept suffering in this stage of life”
There was clear imbalance in the story. The article only presents quotes from two doctors who were supportive of HRT. It also failed to identify sources for some of the claims in the article.
The article was only focused on HRT and did not discuss any alternatives.
HRT is available from your doctor, but at the end of the article, there is a statement that Dr Firouzbakht “prescribes pharmaceutical hormones and also works with a pharmacy she trusts to develop bio-identical hormone combinations for some patients. Such custom compounds are not FDA-approved.” The article goes on to state:
“It doesn’t matter what formulation of the hormones you are using, it’s the surveillance of it all that is very important,” Firouzbakht says.
These statements are confusing about the actual availability of HRT and hormones and dismisses the importance of FDA approval.
There is nothing novel about the approaches described in the story.
We don’t see any evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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 (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
George
April 9, 2012 at 11:40 pmThanks for reminding me why I cancelled my subscription to this paper a couple of years ago.
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