|
June Russell's Health Facts
Caveats: Deceptive Reporting about Supplements
[Related Links]
Journalism is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. For example, there was a news magazine segment on alternative cancer treatments, and it began with the revelation that 2 out of 3 cancer patients will try "unproven" treatment. Chris Wallace from ABC's "Primetime" news magazine did not have much in the way of balanced reporting, as the show highlighted three clinics which offered a variety of alternative cancer therapies in Tijuana, Mexico, and chose one woman whose treatment was unsuccessful. As each therapy was introduced, Dr. Steven Rosenberg (the head of the National Cancer Institute and an "expert" on "cutting-edge cancer treatments") dismissed them all with terms like "mumbo jumbo." The program emphasized that over $15,000 was spent by this particular patient, which did nothing to halt the progression of the 75-year old woman's ovarian cancer. However, nothing was said about the conventional and other accepted treatments that previously did nothing for her either (and the cost for that treatment was enormously expensive).
As if this coverage was not biased enough, they called in Dr. Stephen Barrett to comment (He is the founder of "Quackwatch, a Web site bent on discrediting alternative medicine.") Dr. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist with no particular experience or education in cancer treatment or alternative medicine, and among other erroneous statements, he said that to his knowledge there has not been a single idea in the past 50 years that was thought to be quackery that was later demonstrated to be useful. A person knowledgeable in cancer treatments could call to mind a few: PC-Spes, immunotherapy, and photodynamic therapy. There are also many others that were found to be of value. For example: (1) Linus Pauling, for his work on vitamin C; (2) many herbs (such as St. Johnswort, Gingko biloba, and garlic) which were thought to be useless/quackery. There are quacks in every branch of medicine, and we must all exercise caution about decisions that affect our health. As this broadcast illustrated, the mainstream media is generally not a good place to get the pros and cons of all the options in health care, and heaven forbid that someone like Dr. Barrett would decide what therapies we should access.
{"Broadcast highlights mainstream's bias," Health Sciences Institute e-Alert, Jenny Thompson, Jan. 2002}
In June 2001, Dr. Ian Blair, recent researcher at the University of Pennsylvania Pharmacology Unit, conducted tests on the efficacy of vitamin C. However, even though he postulates that high consumption of vitamin C might cause human tissue generation, which in turn could lead to a heightened risk of contracting cancer, he stated, "Absolutely, for God's sake, don't say vitamin C causes cancer." Yet the headlines came out strong "Vitamin C Cancer Scare."
{"They Say That Vitamin C Can Increase the Risk of Cancer - Oh yes? And who's 'they'? mercola.com - Mar. 2002} Editor's comment: The article stated that certain parties involved have an interest in casting doubt on vitamin C, and gave examples of the funding by the Cancer Institute, pharmaceutical companies, etc., that could have influenced this study.
Related Links about Supplements
Top of page
|
