|
Get Sucked in or Get the Facts?
(October 4, 2004) -
Well-known science journalist Yanick Villedieu, who currently
hosts the radio program Les Années lumière
on Radio-Canada, provides a few tips and ideas on how not to cave
in under pressure from drug companies. In brief: keep your eyes
peeled.
On the one hand you have an industry that spends billions a year
to sell its product; on the other, an ordinary reporter. How can
you treat the information objectively? Is the battle lost before
it begins?
The pharmaceutical industry is no different  from
any of the others that have equally powerful machinery and spend
huge sums to sell their products. The difference — in theory
— is that they save lives, or promise "a better life".
It’s not exactly the same as flogging a new car...
I don’t think the battle is lost before it
begins. Sure, it’s a big machine. In the States, drug companies
are allowed to advertise. That could happen here. Except a full-page
ad is never as attractive to a pharmaceutical as a story with
a byline in a major daily. Journalists have an important role.
They can do their job by maintaining a critical distance.
Exactly — given the conditions for governing the profession,
can you always be as objective as you should? Aside from the constant
pressure of deadlines — you have to produce fast! —
all kinds of ploys have been used to seduce journalists. A perfect
example of this is the Viagra campaign launch: reporters were
offered testimonials...
That’s a major ploy you have to be suspicious
of! The INFAMOUS testimonials! "Before I was all messed up.
Since taking the drug, I’m in ecstasy!" "Now I
can get it up!" The firsthand account, their family, the
daughter of the woman suffering from Alzheimer’s... The drug
companies have caught on that the media love firsthand accounts,
especially on TV.
Another common practice is to send stock shots (canned footage)
along with the media kit. All you have to do is add a voice and
piece together the puzzle in editing. It’s as quick and easy
and cheap as it gets!
Here too reporters have to keep their distance.
You have to keep in mind that there’s a spin on the information,
that the facts get packaged very attractively. Look at this "new"
drug that’s more modern, more effective, more scientific!
But research findings are rarely that cut-and-dry.
In concrete terms, that means digging up primary sources, picking
apart the studies...
A figure that’s statistically significant can
be clinically insignificant. For example, a 50% reduction in mortality
rate is nothing less than spectacular! But if the incidence falls
from 2% to 1% per 100,000? That raises a public health issue:
is it really worth the trouble of treating a million people to
save one life while running the risk of killing 25 from side-effects?
So you always have to stay on your toes, especially when it comes
to how the numbers are laid out.
You also have to find out exactly who —what
population group — was used to test the drug. Solid research
has to be done on people who don’t take drugs! So if you
put a number like that in the headline...
Learn how to deal with the seductive ploys of drug companies at
Cutting Through the Spin on New Drugs (C8) from 10:15 to
11:45 a.m. on Tuesday, October 5.
Julie Calvé
|
