Monthly Archives: April 2017

An Ad About Risk Misses The One In Plain Sight

Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up.

At least, that’s the thought I was left with this morning when I happened to see a television advertisement touting a particular company’s abilities to apply predictive analytics to ordinary situations and avoid a potential catastrophic loss.

However, in telling the story about the company’s capabilities to reduce risk and harm, they inadvertently sent the wrong message about protecting one’s life by practicing a reasonable degree of sun safety. And that’s the message that has resonated for me throughout the day.… Continue reading →

The Task Force Shift on PSA: It Really IS A Big Deal

Sometimes it all depends on your point of view when it comes to areas of divergent opinion about the value of certain medical tests and procedures.

So it should be no surprise that the release earlier this week of the United States Preventive Services Task Force draft statement of their new updated recommendations on the use of the PSA test to screen men for prostate cancer has generated some controversy of its own.

However, this time around it’s not just the advocates or the detractors aiming their fire at the Task Force—it’s journalists and bloggers battling over how media reports and headlines portrayed the impact and ultimate meaning of that draft report (I emphasize “draft” with more on that later). The report basically took the PSA test out of Task Force purgatory by changing the prior recommendation from “don’t do it at all” to a more permissive “have a discussion and make a decision if it’s right for you.”… Continue reading →

Chewing Gum To Detect Cancer: Reporting The Hype, Diminishing The Facts

Sometimes It’s important to know the news behind the news: the comments and the cautions that don’t get into the article that the public gets to read. It’s the sort of thing that keeps me up at night: trying to convey the reality, while realizing what most people want to hear is the hope.

That’s the problem I have with a story posted on a major news network website yesterday, where I have a brief quotation that failed to capture the thoughts I tried to express at the time of the interview. The reporter had very limited time, and the information I wanted to provide was complicated. Instead of the caution I tried to convey to counter the potential “hype” about chewing gum to find cancer early, the report suggests that this is a test that will be available soon—while failing to inform how complicated it would be to achieve that goal.… Continue reading →