Most Media Coverage of Drugs Highly Biased

[Guest guest]

Another interesting article from Dr. Mercola's website.

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

Most Media Coverage of Drugs Highly Biased

 

A study of how the mainstream mass media covers health found that

many news stories on drugs fail to report side effects or

researchers' financial ties to the companies that make the

medications. The researchers looked at 207 newspaper and TV stories

from 1994 to 1998 on three drugs: aspirin; Zocor, a cholesterol-

lowering drug; and Fosamax, an osteoporosis drug.

 

In the 170 stories that cited experts or scientific studies, half

included at least one expert or study with financial ties to the

drug's manufacturer. Of those, only 40 percent reported the

potential conflict of interest. The study also found that fewer than

half the news stories reported the drugs' side effects and only 30

percent noted their cost.

 

This report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine,

whose incoming editor has been charged by the FDA for an apparent

conflict of interest involving a drug company. He has admitted that

he may have made a mistake last year when he praised a new asthma

drug made by a company that had hired him to evaluate studies about

the medication.

 

Additionally, forty percent of the stories studied did not report

the numbers behind the claims of medical benefits. Also, 83 percent

of the studies reported only the relative benefit, 2 percent

reported only the absolute benefit, and only 15 percent reported

both.

 

For example, many 1996 stories about a Fosamax study said the drug

would cut an osteoporosis patient's risk of a broken hip in half -

the relative benefit. But most failed to include the absolute

reduction in risk, from a 2 percent chance of a hip fracture to 1

percent.

 

Reporting only the relative benefit is an approach that has been

shown to increase the enthusiasm of doctors and patients for long-

term preventive treatments and that could be viewed as potentially

misleading. In addition, while most of the top medical journals

require researchers to report their financial ties to drug

companies, some studies do not include the information because a

researcher fails to disclose it.

 

New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1668-1671.

 

COMMENT: Here we have it again. NEJM comes up with two winner

articles documenting the incredible influence that the drug

companies have on the media. With their new editor coming in my

guess is that we will not see these types of articles published

again in the near future.

 

Fortunately, you don't have to be fooled. That is the purpose of

this newsletter, to give you the truth behind the health news you

see on TV or read in the paper or periodicals. I have access to the

same wire feeds that the news media does, but no drug company is

funding me to influence what I have to say. If you feel that this

service is helpful and would like to help your friends and relatives

receive the truth behind the headlines you can encourage them to

to the newsletter by clicking on the button below. My goal

is to have this news reach as many people as possible. If a

significant mass of people understand the truth we will be able to

change the way health care is done in this country. I believe the

goal is achievable as the Internet levels the playing field. It will

happen eventually, but you can facilitate that process by helping to

spread the word.

 

www.mercola.com