The problem is further aggravated by the fact that a medical "breakthrough"
one day is often retracted the next.
Try looking up the current status of Echinacea as a preventive of the
common cold. I believe that the latest conclusion is that it may help. Last
week, it didn't.
Another example: countless women used to take hormone replacement at
menopause to ease the flushing and other side effects of estrogen
deprivation. Suddenly, it's the wrong thing to do!
Vioxx and Celebrex were once considered to be safe and effective
medications with which to control your aches and pains. It now turns out
that they can cause heart attacks.
We used to tell our patients to take vitamin E to prevent heart attacks;
now we've learned that it's associated with an increased overall mortality.
Grapefruit juice is delicious and healthy, but you're now told to avoid
it if you're taking any one of a host of medications.
So laymen often don't know whom or what to believe. Who can blame them?
Most people give priority to comments and advice from "professionals," many of
whom are in the business of disseminating medical information. This includes
science reporters with no training in medicine. This also includes physicians
whose careers are devoted to the media. They do not practice medicine, they do
not see patients, and they do not treat the sick. But their medical degrees
give them a fairly good understanding of the medical news and they are able to
discuss it with more authority than can a lay science reporter. Then, there is
the category into which I fall: doctors who practice medicine, who deal every
day with the problems of the sick, and who are usually able to understand claims
made for certain products based on personal experience.
But just as there is a crisis in the delivery of healthcare in this country,
news coverage of medicine - regardless of who is providing it - is becoming
increasingly suspect. Readers and viewers worry that some doctors are promoting
rather than just informing. They also wonder whether the increasing
commercialization of scientific research is interfering with fair and accurate
dissemination of medical news: are the benefits of a particular breakthrough
being overstated and its potential harm downplayed? There is also a growing
concern about the ties between industry and science, and between a reporter and
the magazine or TV station for which he or she works. There is ample
justification for these concerns.
The truth is that shares in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies rise and
fall in response to positive and negative media stories. Some researchers may
try to attract pharmaceutical investors by promoting stories about their
products before they publish their work in scientific journals. Enthusiastic
reporting of medical research findings, however preliminary, can be big business
for everyone concerned - the manufacturer, the TV station, and sometimes the
reporter. That's why ties between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are
the subject of ongoing review by the American Medical Association (AMA).
The cardinal rule for anyone engaged in reporting medical news is to
scrupulously avoid any commercial influences or relationships. I have never
received a penny for endorsing any medical product. I have never been told by
Parade magazine (where I am the Health Editor) or by Fox Cable News Network
(where I host the show Housecall every Sunday morning) what to and what not to
say. The content of my contributions is never determined by my employer's
commitment to an advertiser. Walgreens sponsors my TV show, but I never refer
to them or hear from them.
