October 19th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Big Pharma, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Consumer Reports, Critical Reporting, Doctors Paid By Drug Companies, Dollars For Doctors, Gary Schwitzer, Healthcare Conflicts of Interest, HealthNewsReview.org, Medical Reporting, News Organizations, NPR, PBS, Pharmaceutical Companies Who Pay Physicians, Pharmaceutical Industry, ProPublica, Responsible Reporting, Sound Health Journalism, Troubled Doctors As Experts
1 Comment »
An historic piece of journalism was published today. Six news organizations partnered on the “Dollars for Docs” project — ProPublica, NPR, PBS’s Nightly Business Report, the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and Consumer Reports. They examined $258 million in payments by seven drug companies in 2009 and 2010 to about 18,000 healthcare practitioners nationwide for speaking, consulting, and other tasks.
This webpage can be your gateway to the project, with links to a database searchable by doctor’s name or by state, and links to the journalism partners’ efforts:
Boston Globe
“Prescription for Prestige”
The Harvard brand, unrivaled in education, is also prized by the pharmaceutical industry as a powerful tool in promoting drugs. Its allure is evident in a new analysis of all publicly reported industry payments to physicians.
Consumer Reports
“Consumers Wary of Doctors Who Take Drug-Company Dollars”
Most Americans are skeptical of financial relationships between doctors and companies, according to a new, national from the Consumer Reports National Research Center.
Chicago Tribune
“Doctors Draw Payments From Drug Companies”
Follow drug company money in Illinois, and it leads to the psychiatry department at Rush University Medical Center, a prominent headache clinic on the North Side of Chicago, a busy suburban urology practice and a psychiatric hospital accused of overmedicating kids.
PBS
“Nightly Business Report”
A doctor talks about quitting drug company money when their marketing tactics crossed the line.
NPR
“Drug Companies Hire Troubled Docs As Experts”
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
October 17th, 2010 by Peter Lipson, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Age-Related Testosterone Deficiency, CAM, Complementary And Alternative Medicine, Direct-To-Consumer Drug Advertising, Dr. Peter Lipson, Endocrine Society, Endocrinology, Evidence-Based Healthcare Decisions, Hormone Replacement Therapy, HRT For Men, Low Sex Drive, Low T, Low Testosterone, Male Sexuality, Men's Health, Pharma Advertising, Pharmaceutical Companies, Reproductive Health, SBM, Science Based Medicine, Science-Based Treatments, Sexual Health, Snake Oil, Solvay, Testosterone Deprivation, Testosterone Replacement Therapy
No Comments »
If you google “low testosterone” you’ll see lots of ads for testosterone replacement. Some are from pharmaceutical companies that sell testosterone, others from obvious snake-oil salesmen.
Both types of ads list vague sets of symptoms, encourage you to believe that they are pathologic, and want to sell you something to make you better. For example, the pharmaceutical company Solvay gives you a handy guide for speaking to your doctor, and a quiz to see if you have “low T.” The quiz asks some questions that may be useful, but also asks very general questions about your sense of well being. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
October 14th, 2010 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research, Uncategorized
Tags: Aesthetic Society, American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, ASAPS, Chris Woolston, Cosmetic Surgery, Dr. Ramona Bates, Fat Injections, Health Scams, Health Skepticism, LA Times, Stem Cell Face-Lifts, Suture For A Living
No Comments »
It’s been almost a month since the LA Times ran the article by Chris Woolston entitled The Healthy Skeptic: Stem cell face-lifts on unproven ground. It’s well written and presents a fairly balanced view. While I am a fan of stem cell research, I think the “claims” are often put ahead of the science. This is one of those times. I can’t find any decent articles to support the claims of the plastic surgeons doing “stem cell face-lifts.”
My view is echoed in the article (bold emphasis is mine):
Rubin says he’s excited about the potential of stem cells in the cosmetic field and beyond. Still, he adds, there are many unanswered questions about the cosmetic use of stem cells, and anyone who claims to have already mastered the technique is jumping the gun. As Rubin puts it, “Claims are being made that are not supported by the evidence.”
While researchers in Asia, Italy, Israel and elsewhere are reporting decent cosmetic results with injections of stem cell-enriched fat, Rubin says that nobody really knows how the stem cells themselves are behaving. He points out that fat injections alone can improve a person’s appearance, no stem cells needed.
Rubin believes it’s possible that injected stem cells could create new collagen and blood vessels — as they have been shown to do in animals studies — but such results have never been proved in humans. And, he adds, the long-term effects of the procedures are an open question.
Stem cell face-lifts could someday offer real advances, says Dr. Michael McGuire, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a clinical associate professor of surgery at UCLA. But he believes that scientists are still at least 10 years away from reliably harnessing stem cells to create new collagen and younger-looking skin. Until then, promises of a quick stem cell face-lift are a “scam,” he says.
The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) issued a statement two weeks after the article first appeared. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
October 14th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Anti-Vaccine Movement, Benefits Vs. Harms, CAM, Complementary And Alternative Medicine, Direct Harm, Dr. Steve Novella, Evidence Based Medicine, Flu Vaccine, Folk Remedies, General Medicine, Normative Beliefs, Placebo Medicine, Public Health, Risk Benefit Ratio, Risk Vs. Harm, SBM, Science and Medicine, Science Based Medicine, Science-Based Evidence, Science-Based Treatments, Unscientific Medical Methods, Unscientific Medicine
1 Comment »
Any promoter of science-based medicine often faces the question: “What’s the harm?” What is the harm if people try treatment modalities that are not based upon good science, that are anecdotal, or provide only a placebo benefit? There are generally two premises to this question. The first is that most “alternative” placebo interventions are directly harmless. The second is that direct harm is the only type worth considering. Both of these premises are wrong.
The pages of Science Based Medicine (SBM) are filled with accounts of direct harm from unscientific treatments: Argyria from colloidal silver, death from chelation therapy, infection or other complications from acupuncture, burns from ear candleing, stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation — the list goes on. You can read anecdotal accounts of such harm on the website, whatstheharm.net.
Of course, as we often point out, harm and risk is only one end of the equation — one must also consider benefit. It is the risk-benefit ratio of an intervention that is important. But generally we are talking about interventions that lack any evidence for benefit, and therefore any risk of harm is arguably unacceptable. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
October 9th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Quackery Exposed
Tags: Breast Cancer Screening, Breast Health, Chicago Tribune, Disease Mongering, Gary Schwitzer, HealthNewsReview.org, Irresponsible Medical Marketing, Luring Patients, Lynne Hildreth, Mammogram Parties, Misleading Patients, Moffitt Cancer Center, Preventive Health, Preventive Medicine, Preventive Screening, Responsible Reporting, Sound Health Journalism, Unnecessary Medical Tests, Women's Health, Women's Oncology
1 Comment »
The Chicago Tribune reports on mammogram marketing tactics being used across the U.S. — some of it apparently to “woo women back to the imaging room” after confusion over conflicting advice about breast cancer screening.
Yes, the tactics include “mammogram parties” offering chocolate fondue, massages, beauty consultations, wine, cheese, roses, and weekend-getaway spa packages. But there’s another side to this, the Tribune reports:
Simply inviting women to “mammogram parties,” could send the wrong message, said Lynne Hildreth, department administrator of women’s oncology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa. …”Mammograms are a medical test, and to treat it like a haircut overlooks that there are very real risks,” said Hildreth. “It’s not the same risk as getting hit by a car, but there’s a real risk of getting a false positive, which means a biopsy work-up, time off work, sleepless nights waiting for test results and a nagging in the back of the mind that never goes away. If we put a woman through that with no medical basis, it’s irresponsible.
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
