Does "Manopause" really warrant a TIME cover story?

Trying to improve the public dialogue about health care Manopause cover story?  Really, TIME magazine?   It wasn't a bad story.  In fact, it was interesting and well told.  But did it evaluate the evidence?  Or just hide behind  calling the science "foggy"?  Guilty of the tyranny of the anecdote? Inadequate discussion of disease-mongering and over treatment? Did it advance the discussion? These and some other constructive criticisms, outlined on our blog. On Twitter we asked Reuters:  when a pharma exec says "no one should draw any conclusions" from a study about his drug, why do you report "drug may cut heart risk, trial hints"? Has cheerleading come to this?  "Husten, we have a problem," may have gone through journalist Larry Husten's mind as he read an invitation from a PR firm representing a cholesterol drug manufacturer.  We wrote about it as one example of what the public doesn't see about pharma trying to buy influence.  I don't think the issues and the questions surrounding the proliferation of robotic surgical systems gets enough attention.  Recently we saw several noteworthy items: Sit back and watch urologists duke it out over robotic surgery claims. A bit of an online kerfuffle over claims about a robotic surgery study, an associated news release, and what the American Urological Association tweeted about this stuff.  Inside baseball, but fun to watch. In one of my periodic robotic roundups, I linked to lots of news:  * A Forbes debate about the role of robotic surgery.  * The robotic invasion of Canada * Rush to robotic surgery outpaces medical evidence * Study shows robotic surgery holds no major advantage for bladder cancer patients * Keeping Up With the Joneses - robots in the medical arms race.    For the 6th time, I criticized The BMJ for its news releases about observational studies.  For the second time, I'm told I'm being heard.  A staff member responsible for The BMJ's news releases commented that we were correct, but she wondered if we were picking on them.  No, we welcome any nominations for similarly-flawed news releases.     Dr. Richard Lehman's always brilliant journal reviews on a blog on The BMJ website recently touched on:    * another example of how surrogate outcomes don't tell the whole story - this time on a cholesterol study   * how a breast cancer trial's conclusion is "just about true."  Is that good enough?      Finally, I draw your attention to a two-part special on problems in the clinical trials industry, published in the online magazine, Matter:  * "The Best-Selling, Billion-Dollar Pills Tested on Homeless People: How the destitute and the mentally ill are being used as human lab rats," by Carl Elliott.  * "Why Are Dope-Addicted, Disgraced Doctors Running Our Drug Trials?" by Peter Aldhous.  Gary Schwitzer                      Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org   Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Minnesota School of Public Health                                                                  This project is currently operating without funding.     Email: feedback@healthnewsreview.org or use this Contact Us form

Forward this email This email was sent to kostikblog@ukr.net by feedback@healthnewsreview.org |   Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. HealthNewsReview.org | PO Box 16476 | Saint Paul | MN | 55116