Remember Garrey Carruthers, TASSC Chairman?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:00:17 EDT
From:
G6024@aol.comBelow are two articles, both obtain comments from Garrey Carruthers, chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). TASSC is a not-for-profit organization that advocates the use of sound science in public policy decision making. Its members include scientists, academicians, former public officials and representatives from business and industry. Mr Carruthers is also the former Governor of New Mexico. I think everyone will find it interesting to compare Mr. Carruthers comments in the two articles. Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black. We might convince Mr. Carruthers he was jumping the gun on the Danish study and did a little "erroneous reporting himself". It appears that the TASSC would be good to have on our side.
Is interesting that the TASSC offers memberships and welcome DONATIONS. Seems like this could create a conflict of interest? Scroll down past the articles to get hyperlinks to TASSC websites.
ARTICLE ONE:
STUDY FINDS MEDICAL REPORTING ERRORS
CHICAGO, IL "A just released study "The Media and Public Health Scares" has found that media coverage of recent public health stories often fails to include important and necessary facts in order for readers to make informed decisions," said Garrey Carruthers, chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
Written by Dr. Robert Entman, Chairman of the Department of Communication at North Carolina State University, the study examined media coverage of the silicone breast implant and heart drug calcium channel blocker public health stories. According to Entman, "With both these products, the reporting tended to play up any claim of risk and play down any reassurance of safety, despite the fact that the majority of medical and scientific studies supported safety."
Entman's study found, for example, that of eight critical facts related to the calcium channel blocker story, the average news report only included 2.9. Other key findings include:
For calcium channel blockers, the coverage was actually more accurate in 1995 but deteriorated in 1996, often because reports did not repeat initial warning or caveats;
Headlines were a significant problem. Some headlines read, "Blood Pressure Drug is a Heart Attack Risk," going far beyond any study findings;
Coverage of the silicone breast implant controversy has improved since the early 1990's, but significant factual omissions remain; and
Nearly 80% of silicone breast implant stories emphasize unfounded allegations which have been disproved by scientific and medical research.
"Imagine seeing a headline, 'Blood Pressure Drug Safe.' To many editors that wouldn't seem to be news," said Entman. "Bias toward the negative seems built into the way medical reporting happens."
Joining Carruthers and Entman in releasing the TASSC commissioned study were cardiologist Dr. Brant Mittler, and neuropathologist and television commentator Dr. Peter Ostrow.
In addressing the scientific side of the calcium channel blocker controversy, Dr. Mittler noted that many patients were unnecessarily scared and said, "As more and more studies come out, especially therecent clinical trial SYST-EUR, the medical community gains more confidence that initial reports were anomalies; however, the media rarely reports the positive findings."
Mittler also cautioned that it is not just reporters who need to be careful, but researchers too. He said, "Researchers today are driven by competitive pressures to try and make news with their studies, which means they may release preliminary findings to the mainstream media before the study is ever peer-reviewed. In my opinion that is irresponsible. When the calcium channel blocker scare hit, literally thousands of patients reacted in ways which could have easily harmed their health even killed them that is the seriousness of the issue."
Dr. Ostrow, speaking of the breast implant controversy, also warned that sometimes less than credible studies find their way into the press by being presented at medical conventions where papers are accepted without first being reviewed by other scientists. "Its a disservice to the public. The press attends these conferences, so a researcher who does shoddy work on a controversial topic may obtain media exposure that gives his claim the appearance of legitimacy. The report will never be published in a reputable medical journal, but the public hears about it and believes it, so the damage has already been done."
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is a national, not-for-profit coalition of scientists and representatives from universities, independent organizations, industry and the public sector which advocates the use of sound science in public policy making.
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:56:04 -0500 (EST)
From:(USSW)
ussw@digital.netSubject: Study Finds Medical Reporting Errors
ARTICLE TWO:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy (202) 457-8586Silicone Breast Implants Not a Significant Risk Factor Danish Study Examined Association Between Implants and Connective Tissue DiseaseWashington, D.C. July 18, 1997 A new long-term study of more than 2,500 Danish women with breast implants published in the July issue of the Annals of Plastic Surgery adds to the growing body of epidemiological evidence that implants are not a cause of connective-tissue disease in women.
Equally as important, the study indicates that breast surgery of any kind may contribute to an increase in symptoms that some doctors allied with the plaintiffs' bar claim are unique to women with breast implants. This study indicates that they are not unique to implanted women.
"This study should be reassuring to women with silicone breast implants who have been needlessly alarmed by the controversy surrounding this issue," said Garrey Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC.
The study, which was conducted by the Danish Cancer Society, included four separate groups of women 1,135 who received breast implants for cosmetic purposes, 1,435 who received implants for breast reconstruction and two non-implanted control groups totaling 11,023 women who had either breast reduction or breast cancer surgery.
The study found no statistically "significant excess of definite connective-tissue disease" in any of the four groups, either for any of five individual connective-tissue disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma or lupus, nor for all the five diseases combined. Seventy percent (7 out of 10) of the implanted women and 64 percent (16 out of 25) of the non-implanted women with connective tissue disease had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, the most common connective tissue disease affecting women.Because the study only included women who received implants between 1977 and 1992, before the controversy over breast implants reached epidemic proportions, and also because diagnoses were obtained through the national Dutch Central Hospital Discharge register, the study authors conclude that the "possibility of reporting bias due to the publicity surround breast implants is unlikely in our register-based study in Denmark."
The results of this study are consistent with more than a dozen epidemiological studies on breast implants that have been conducted in recent years by such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical School, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Michigan and numerous others.
The study did find, however, a statistically significant excess in all four groups of "Muscular rheumatism, fibrositis, and myalgia," which the study referred to as "ill-defined rheumatic conditions." These are the types of vague complaints that have suggested as constituting a new or atypical disease unique to breast implants. However, the Danish study concludes that "a likely explanation of this finding would be that the excess of muscular symptoms is related to breast surgery per se, rather than to any systematic effect of silicone breast implants.
A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) found that women who receive breast implants for cosmetic purposes had higher rates of certain lifestyle risk factors such as smoking, drinking and number of sexual partners that could contribute to an increased risk of disease in those women."This study adds breast surgery itself to this list of confounding factors that must be controlled for in evaluating the risk if any of breast implants," said Garrey Carruthers.