(first published on www.mayoclinic.com on March 13, 2001)
Earlier this month, weather made news -- first
for what was supposed to happen, and later, for what didn’t. Television weather forecasters predicted that
the Northeast would be buried by snow. Schools
closed, businesses shut down, airlines cancelled flights. But when day one of the projected blizzard
came and went with more drizzle than blizzard, other members of the media
attacked their meteorological colleagues.
The New York Daily News interviewed
embarrassed forecasters on the local and national media levels. Columnist
Richard Huff wrote:
“Weather Channel analyst
Colin Marquis said the storm was
complex, which by nature
increases the chance of error.
"I think, in general,
the Weather Channel does a pretty
good job in tempering
the hype," Marquis said. "[But]
there's that tendency
to really hit it hard if we think
it's going to be a
big deal. There's nothing wrong with
hype, if it happens.
But hyping a storm that doesn't
happen, you end up
with a little bit of egg on your face."
However, one local
station insider admitted that there's
some hysteria built
into all newscasts that may have misled
viewers. "It was
embarrassing," the source said. "[But]
television news doesn't
pull people into the show by saying
everything's okay."
Medical news is also complex, increasing the
chance of error, and is subject to hype.
But medical news coverage doesn’t undergo the same tough scrutiny as
weather news.
During the same month as the fizzled blizzard
of ‘01, medical researchers learned that a once highly-promoted experiment
to treat Parkinson’s disease had failed to prove a benefit. Worse, some who participated in the research
suffered side effects which one researcher termed “tragic, catastrophic.” Journalists had been writing about the potential
of these fetal cell implants for Parkinson’s disease for more than a decade.
But when the sobering news was reported in the March 8, 2001 edition
of the New England Journal of Medicine, some of these same media chose
not to report the negative findings, or not to feature the news with the same
flair and positioning as the earlier reports of optimism and potential.
Drug news continues to be hyped by some media
even before the Food and Drug Administration has approved a drug. This same month there were favorable news reports
of a drug being tested for chronic myelogenous leukemia. The only thing that put this drug in the news
at this time was that the drug’s manufacturer was going to request permission
for early marketing approval. This
may be interesting news to company stockholders, but to people with this form
of leukemia the news had no immediate nor even predictable impact on their
lives.
A respect for even recent history would help
journalists and consumers recall promising news about the diabetes drug, Rezulin,
and the irritable bowel syndrome drug, Lotronex, at similar stages of development.
Both were taken off the market not long after FDA approval because
of dangerous side effects. The leukemia drug in the news this month hadn’t
yet even been approved by the FDA. Eventually,
it may well be proven to be a good treatment, but, as with the winter storm
forecast, it’s best to avoid hype.
There is value in an informed public discussion
of the development of new therapies – even while they are still in development.
This discussion, however, should not be cluttered with promotion and
marketing. Too many questions need to be answered: Why is there a need for a new therapy? How is the new therapy supposed to work differently than others?
How long has it been studied? In how many people?
In how many mice? What is known
so far? And finally – always a key question – what
is not known? Careful researchers
and careful journalists always answer that last one.
With weather forecasting, a botched forecast
may only send people scampering for an umbrella, a snow blower, or a change
in plans. But with Parkinson’s disease,
diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, and leukemia, hype hurts people.
This is not a new story: treatments aren’t truly
treatments until they’re proven to treat people effectively and consistently
without harming them. That’s why trials are done, and why they are done in
stages. Does the experiment seem to work with its intended benefit?
Does the treatment work and is it safe?
Studies can’t be rushed. Just because a drug company asks for early
marketing approval doesn’t mean that patients should line up at their doctor’s
office waiting for the new pill.
Meteorologists who forecast storms that don’t
develop, even though the forecast is based on sound scientific data, are ridiculed.
Sports reporters keep track of others’ weekly football predictions.
The media criticism magazine, Brill’s
Content, publishes a political talk show “Pundit Scorecard,” tracking
predictions made against what actually happens on Capitol Hill. But medical
journalists who help promote new treatments before all the evidence is in
rarely get a critical wrist slap.
Is health less important than weather, sports,
or politics?