To provide general feedback about the Media Doctor website, please leave your comments below. If you wish to provide feedback relating to a specific article, please use the comments section located on that article's page.

site feedback

(01 Mar 2006) Philip Clarke writes,

"Please consider reviewing this article
- Thanks in advanced
Philip

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1581528.htm

Last Update: Wednesday, March 1, 2006. 4:32pm (AEDT)

Genetic predisposition: One-fifth of the population is prone to depression.

Gene linked to depression risk
By Alex Wilde for ABC Science Online

Australian researchers say more than a fifth of the population has a genetic predisposition to major depression triggered by a string of stressful life events.

These events include the loss of a parent or other significant relative, a relationship br....."

Media Doctor response,

"We are happy to oblige. We will send it to our raters. One comment though... our rating instruments are designed for news stories that make therapeutic claims. For instance if a laboratory was offering the detection of the genotype described in the article to predict individuals who were at risk of depression, in the expectation that this would improve their future health the instrument would work. In this instance it may not 'fit' very well but we'll give it a shot."

(23 Feb 2006) Brett from Medical Practitioner writes,

"Addendum:

Perhaps "readability" could be added - not as part of the formal rating - as it is (to some degree) subjective - but as an addition - no doubt there are scales that would be useful.

I ask this as sometimes the "best" articles are rather too opaque for me!"

Media Doctor response,

"We have considered some separate measure of the quality of the writing and so far have not had the confidence to do this. We are not trying to tell journalists how to write stories; we know that there are many aspects of journalism that are beyond our knowledge and we are happy to keep it that way. All we are saying is that for stories that make therapeutic claims we believe that certain factors should be covered in the story. How the story is written is another matter."

(23 Feb 2006) Brett from Medical Practitioner writes,

"Thank you for providing an excellent service.

I read the comments provided below with great interest and believe one indication of a good service is the fact that you receive criticisms such as those provided (eg. David Margin). I note the absence of any appreciation of your goals in Mr Margin's criticisms, especially his disparagement of "academics" (no wonder they feel marginalised and leave for overseas' posts) and appeal to "contact[] me to check...facts" (does every consumer have this opportunity - please provide number!)? Such criticisms are however a healthy indication of the value of your work.

One suggestion is that perhaps you selectively locate the better articles on an issue rather than simply the first published (see Janelle Miles interesting comments). I use this site to direct myself to quality articles both for personal interest and to forward to colleagues and patients as good journalists have the gift of being able to translate complex medical discoveries into commonly understood language.

Finally, having some sort of general directory (eg: cancer, influenza, whatever) might also be helpful to provide articles of interest.

Thank you again."

Media Doctor response,

"Brett - thanks for the comments. We have considered a variety of presentation formats including 'best' at the top rather than most recent. It makes the site quite hard to maintain unfortunately and this is a shoe-string operation, so we try to keep maintenance to a minimum by automating as much as we can. But we are reviewing these processes soon and will take these comments into account."

(20 Jan 2006) Robert Howes from Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, Inc. writes,

"Dear Media Doctor Team,

Thank you for your critical analysis of medical journalism.

The worldwide media reporting of the inflammatory skin disease 'Hidradenitis Suppurativa' is problematic and confusing to physicians and patients alike. Poorly researched media reports of this disease without fact-checking and without assessing evidence has the potential to harm the self-image of patients with this debilitating disease.

Best Regards,

Robert Howes
Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, Inc.
http://hs-foundation.org"

(30 Dec 2005) Adam from USA writes,

"I just wanted to commend what you are doing in with this website. I live in the USA, where I believe the media has taken a turn for the worst. It is a race to who will get the scoop, without ethics and or facts for that matter. We have planes on tv that have called in a meaningless emergency landing for a light on the in the toilet and every news station has it up waiting for a crash. What has been more alarming is the careless articles in the US on health, pharmaceuticals, and managed care. Many news sources are printing half of half of a story; citing no factual evidence, or just making vague statements that will clearly SCARE the general public. What you are doing is GREAT! Hopefully we can get this in the US soon."
(this comment has been moderated)

Media Doctor response,

"We believe that a similar site will be starting up in the USA in January 2006. We will post details when they are available."

(13 Dec 2005) barbara writes,

"This is a very good website. Just wanted to tell you, after having read the article on claims about coffee, that one of my work colleagues just told me she's heard that tea prevents cancer. Suspect a lot of people may have been running for the teapot when magazines started extolling the virtues of tea as an antioxidant. Perhaps you might consider doing a segment on tea and antioxidants. Cheers.
Barbara

Barbara - thanks for the comment - we will indeed be featuring stories based on recent research suggesting that tea can protect against ovarian cancer"
(this comment has been moderated)

(23 Nov 2005) A Reader writes,

"(22 Nov 2005) A reader from desperate daughter writes,
"Dear Media Doctor,

I have heard about Dr Holt and his cancer cure, my dad has been diagnosed with cancer and they have no further treatments to offer him, yet they tell us they've never seen a man of his 60 years of age in his condition, he has the strength of a 45 year old man, unfortunately his cancer has progressed from his throat (op of a laryngectomy) removed cancer, unfortunately it is in his lungs now, he was a non smoker and a very fit man. my dad us strong enough, and willing enough to try any thing any one has to offer, and Dr Holt looks good to us, please is there any way you can help us, or advise us in this,

yours sincerely Kylie""

Media Doctor response,

"Kylie - thanks for writing

"Dr Holt's treatments have been carefully reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Their report is at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

The relevant section of the summary is as follows:

The final report on the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of microwave cancer therapy concluded that:

There is no high-quality published scientific evidence which shows superior benefit in terms of therapeutic effectiveness for the treatment of cancer with: microwave (or UHF) cancer therapy when combined with radiotherapy (used by Dr Holt before 1991); or microwave cancer therapy when used in combination with glucose blocking agents (used by Dr Holt since 1991)

Microwave cancer therapy in combination with radiotherapy was inferior compared to standard conventional radiotherapy with respect to disease control and survival for patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma or prostate cancer.

There was no significant difference in survival between conventional radiotherapy and microwave therapy used in combination with radiotherapy for patients with head and neck, colorectal or bladder cancer.

Microwave therapy in combination with glucose blocking agents was inferior to radiotherapy in terms of symptom control and disease control in patients with bladder or any invasive cancer.

There is insufficient information to make a reliable assessment of the safety of UHF in combination with radiotherapy, or in combination with glucose blocking agents for the treatment of patients with cancer.""

(07 Nov 2005) James writes,

"Great site. Thank you :)"

(28 Oct 2005) A reader writes,

"I believe doctor holts treatment should be used. If only one% is cured, it is a life saved. life is so important. If I had known about doctor holt when both my mum and dad were told there was nothing more could be done, I am sure they would have been alive today.The government rule the country, but whe gives them the right to say who should live and who should die."

Media Doctor response,

"We have placed this in our general feedback section because it raises the issue of the efficacy of the unconventional cancer treatments being advocated by Dr Holt. Dr Holt's treatment has recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Their report is at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/nh67syn.htm (paste into your browser). NHMRC found no conclusive evidence that Dr Holt's treatments work."

(06 Sep 2005) David Margan from Channel Nine writes,

"First let me say I have no problem with this website service nor any problem with reasonable ,accurate criticism but when you publish the sort of criticism you have of one of my stories re "Eye Q" on ACA and no one contacts me to check ANY of your alleged facts and assertions you do your self and your stated goal enormous harm.
Its very easy to be judge,jury and executioner in an environment where everyone's escape clause is ..blame the media !!
Much harder to establish dialogue and make a constructive contribution, but don't let me get started on "Academics" (graduate 1974 Sydney University )
We interviewed the academic responsible for the research linking 'Eye Q' to the treatment of adhd and its related cohorts AS A POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTE FOR RITALIN...I would not have done the story without some scientific support and she thought our piece was fine
So go figure !!
As an addendum...your rating categories need some work..in some cases they are irrelevant and meaningless.
in my humble opinion
Regards
David Margan
A Current Affair
Channel Nine."

Media Doctor response,

"We regret David Margan was upset by our criticism of ACA's story on a fish oil preparation. We do not check with journalists what message they intended to impart in a story. As such there are no 'facts' to check. Some of our raters are academics but they are also researchers and practicing physicians. We rate each story as it is published or broadcast using a well-established rating instrument. In the case of ACA we rely on the transcripts; we are not sure if they are always complete; that is a matter for the network. It is instructive to repeat here some of the language used by ACA to describe this proprietary fish oil preparation. It "offers hew hope for parents"; it is "ground breaking research"; the product is "all natural"; it "can also help general brain function during exam periods or in the workplace". In our view this is the language of promotion not journalism. We are not saying fish oil has no effect; but claims like these need to be treated with skepticism and serious analysis. In our view ACA did not do this."

(31 Aug 2005) Janelle Miles from AAP writes,

"Further to my comments on your line graphs which I could have written better, I concede, but unfortunately no time.
My point is not that you shouldn't rate news articles from varying sources using the same criteria. To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous.
My point is that your line graphs are meaningless because often the same stories appear in different publications and you don't rate every story. You also recently rated a story on the ninemsn site which was clearly a promotional article. Maybe your beef there should be with the way such stories are displayed. Newspapers display stories relating to advertising content as advertorials.
Also, I question the value of your rating overseas wire stories because I doubt the journalists who write them will read your website anyway so the benefit is questionable.
With regard to your recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia, maybe if you asked the journalists involved for a copy of any press releases they may have used for the story - although this is often not the case - they would simply be happy to supply a copy. For example, in the recent story you assessed relating to botox and incontinence, the article actually did NOT, as you said, rely on a press release, it was based on an interview with a urologist and was aimed at highlighting continence awareness week.
Just a few thoughts. Cheers"

Media Doctor response,

"Thanks again for your interest in the site - we appreciate any comments except those that will land us in court!

We rate a selection of stories that deal with therapeutic claims; not every health story - there are thousands every year. Sometimes identical stories are reproduced in several outlets, and we try to rate it only once, which we agree is arbitrary as only the first outlet to carry it will be scored. It may have been written overseas and our comments will remain unread by the journalist who wrote it; but the media outlets that carry a story have a responsibility for the content that appears in their pages. Despite the large number of stories sourced from overseas there are significant differences between outlets that have been maintained over time. We try to avoid advertorials and stick to content listed under a 'health' label, but sometimes it is difficult to tell and the public will find it even harder. Press releases remain our main problem - they are very hard to get hold of - including from journalists. So sometimes we do guess about the origin of an article. In the case in point we assumed the two similar articles came from a common press release - in the case they came from the same journalist. This was a mistaken assumption, which we apologise for and will try to avoid in future."

(24 Aug 2005) Dr Timothy Mathew from Kidney Health Australia writes,

"Although linked to a specific story these comments are important and we believe they belong in the general feedback section. Please see separate response from Media doctor.

The Media Doctor rating and comment miss the point of the article that states:
"If kidney disease is diagnosed early teatment can stop its progress or slow it significantly"
"Current tests do not return an abnormal reading until patients have lost more than 50% of kidney function...." meaning that the presently available test performs poorly in detecting kidney disease early.

The automatic reporting of the kidney filtration number each time a conventional kidney test is ordered is new and only possible because of the application of the formula that does not require body weight or height (like all existing formulas). The existing formulas as Media Doctor states in its comment "have been available....but use of this function by GPs is not common".
The whole point of this development is to let the laboratory do the calculation 'automatically' and present it to the GP.

With regard to the rating:
- The test is in this sense 'novel'
- There are no other diagnostic options
- The evidence behind the use of this formula is extensive and readily available
- The diagnostic accuracy is better than all other available measures of kidney function except for methods impractical for widespread use
- The potential for harm is minimal and is being addressed through a substantial GP education campaign
- There is no additional cost beyond the one-off software cost to implement the formula
- By our scoring a more appropriate rating would be 8/10

The recommendation to introduce the test is truly independent - and developed in collaboration with the Royal College of Pathologists, Australian Association of Biochemists, Australian and NZ Society of Nephrologists and Kidney Health Australia."

Media Doctor response,

"Our general response is that Media doctor rates the news article, not the diagnostic test itself. Taking the specific points:

If kidney disease is diagnosed early treatment can stop its progress or slow it significantly. - We do not doubt that this is true. The question here is whether the article describes evidence that the new test leads to earlier recognition by clinicians, which leads to better treatment.

Current tests do not return an abnormal reading until patients have lost more than 50% of kidney function.... meaning that the presently available test performs poorly in detecting kidney disease early.- We agree that the article does describe the existing form of presentation of data and that the score for novelty and diagnostic options should be amended

The evidence behind the use of this formula is extensive and readily available - This is true, but the average reader will not know this and the article does not describe the evidence

The diagnostic accuracy is better than all other available measures of kidney function... - We agree but the article provided no evidence for this. At Media doctor we are encouraging journalists to find ways of making scientific data like this available to the public

The potential for harm is minimal and is being addressed ... - Again, no argument, but we believe that the potential harms (or lack of them) should have been covered in the article.

There is no additional cost beyond the one-off software cost to implement the formula - We believe that this information should have been included in the article

The recommendation to introduce the test is truly independent - The Media doctor criterion judges whether the journalist has sought comment from some-one who has no connection with the initiative. Because it would have been difficult to obtain independent comment in this case (all relevant organizations are involved in the initiative) we have amended this score to NA."

(22 Aug 2005) JM from AAP writes,

"Another beef with your website - You compare newspapers with websites. Both use wire service copy, mixed with copy from their own sources. So comparing line graphs between media groups is like comparing apples with oranges. Totally useless and not very scientific."

Media Doctor response,

"We don't understand this point. We assess two 'websites' - ABC news online and ninemsn. Both carry news and we see no reason whatsoever that different standards should be applied to medical news stories carried by these outlets and newspapers (which are all available on the web anyway). This point is covered in a recent paper in the Medical Journal of Australia (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/183_04_150805/smi10755_fm.html). There is an accompanying editorial and several commentaries, including from well known journalists and the Press Council; none has challenged the proposition that the same standards should be applied to both types of news delivery."

(18 Aug 2005) Michelle writes,

"Fantastic site. As a former journalist and (so shoot me) now a PR professional, I am constantly amazed at the poor quality of reporting especially of the miracle cure and breakthrough variety. As a former journo though I also know how damn easy it is to get it wrong when you are under the gun. Have you thought about a project with Uni of Newcastle School of Communications? In one short lecture you could impart some useful tips for journalism students on how to assess the media release before them, some guidelines on questions to ask and avenues to check with before getting the editor to hold Page 1. (BTW - perhaps the staff of ACA and TT could also sit in?)"

Media Doctor response,

"Michelle - we have been thinking along these lines but hadn't considered using critical appraisal of press releases as an educational aid - it is a neat idea, thanks"

(15 Aug 2005) J.A. Lister from RANZCP writes,

"I note that in the agenda of the forthcoming conference on "Disease Mongering", the only disease mentioned by name is in the topic "A Contemporary Case Study: The Selling Of Bi-polar Disorder". However on searching your site I could only find two articles on Bipolar Disorder.
In both cases the "Disease Mongering Score" was satisfactory.

How come?

Is this specific disease mogering not applied in Australia?"

Media Doctor response,

"You make a very good point. In fact, if you delve more deeply through the MD archives you will find few relatively examples where the mainstream media were judged by our raters to be 'mongering' the disease that was the target of the treatment being covered in the article. So, mongering goes on but maybe not through the pens of the journalists"

(11 Aug 2005) Martin Hadley from Barrister/Prez Australian Skeptics writes,

"Although I presented the (Eureka) prize on tuesday night, I was not one of the Judges and it is only now that I have had a good look at your site. Excellent stuff and a worthy winner of the prize. I am sending your link to a number of friends who are interested in health matters.

Sometimes I think we are fighting a losing battle but more often I see a growing tendency for people to think and ask before the fork out big money on some treatment touted by the media. Every time someone buttonholes me and says: 'What do the skeptics say about...?' it is a small victory.

I see a number of ways you can help us while promoting your activities too e.g. keep a collection of the silliest things you find, for an article in our mag or a talk at one of our fun dinners. If you find an out-there website, send it to Bowditch etc."

Media Doctor response,

"Martin - like you we think there may be a growing skepticism in the community over silly claims about expensive and implausible treatments. Our interest is in encouraging this healthy skepticism amongst journalists. Sometimes we despair - see the accompanying story on 'anti-wrinkle' jam (pointed out to us by a journalist at the ABC).

As you suggest we will be providing a list of the silliest stories - but also a list of the best. Some of the reporting we have seen has been superb and that is even more important than the rubbish."

(10 Aug 2005) Robyn Fried writes,

"I am a Newcastle grad, working as a GP in Newcastle. This site is great. Congrats on the Eureka Award too. Thanks for all the hard work and commitment you are putting in. I'll be recommending it to the patients, as I try to get across the ideas of critical appraisal of information.
Thanks
Robyn"

(10 Aug 2005) John writes,

"Congratulations on the simplicity, user friendliness and purpose of the site. However in the current climate of data-mining, spy-bots and worms etc., I and possibly many other users need this information before committing to the interactivity which is a feature of this great site."

Media Doctor response,

"We appreciate this comment and understand the reluctance of individuals to leave their details - on comments or for e-mail notifications. What we can say is that we are non-commercial, don't compile lists of correspondents' addresses and would never provide any details to another organisation."

(01 Jun 2005) JM from AAP writes,

""As the writer of the story on the new surgical technique to help incontinent men I would like to advise you of the following. I did try to seek alternative comment on the procedure via several avenues including the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and a urologist. They were too busy to help. I did speak to Dr who performs the operation in Australia, although is not financially linked to (the maker) of the InVance sling. I felt (he) was very balanced in his comments, even describing the artificial sphyncter as the "gold standard". So it's not as if I only quoted a lone source linked to the company without any balance. I also made sure I researched other avenues men could explore. Unfortunately, with such stories I have a limit of around 400 words - so it's impossible to include and explain every possible side effect. unless the side effects are dire, I leave that up to a patient's doctors which is what they're there for.
After a very cut-down version of this story appeared in the Daily Telegraph, I received a phone call from a man who'd suffered incontinence for three years following radical prostate surgery. None of these surgical techniques had ever been explained to him. He thanked me for the story and I advised him to talk to his GP about his options. That's what doctors are there for.
Unfortunately, as with many people in the community journalists are busy. I produce several stories a day working large amounts of overtime to make sure the stories are accurate and informative. It's not like spending months researching an academic paper. For instance, I've noticed for several weeks you've had another story of mine relating to leukaemia ready to review but you haven't yet done so. Obviously, you're busy too. That, I understand"

Media Doctor response,

"These remarks are from a journalist whose article is reviewed. We feel that the comments explain the realities of a journalist's work (we have shortened it to fit the available space)."

(23 May 2005) A reader writes,

""I have had email correspondence with the clinic the above article references. They ignored my requests for scientific evidence about their treatments, instead referencing me with TV and magazine "spots" and quoted "testimonials" as their source of credibility. Interestingly, they refuse to treat anaphylaxis because of the life threatening nature of the problem. (It would seem to me that this is the group they sould be treating as a priority *if* their treatments actually worked) Further requests to supply peer reviewed articles to evidence their claims of an 85% success rate in CURING allergies has been met with a stony silence."

"I would be happy to retract all I have said if the Clinic would supply myself, or alternately media-doctor, with scientific evidence in the form of peer reviews, double blind studies and / or other contemporarily acceptable, sound research which demostrates that they are a credible treatment option."

"I wouldn't waste my money paying their fees. Join Anaphylaxis Australia or one of many other allergy groups, and your money will help further actual research into allergy etiology, treatment and cure rather than lining the pockets of these so-called allergy revolutionaries.""

Media Doctor response,

"This comment relates to an article about an allergy 'treatment' that was one of the poorest we have seen. The link is http://mediadoctor.org.au/content/viewarticle.jsp?intArticleID=489 (you will have to paste this into your browser). We have reproduced it here because it indicates the importance of health consumers developing a healthy scepticism regarding the claims made about some treatments and the need to challenge vested interests regarding the evidence behind their therapeutic claims."

next 20 comments >> << previous 20 comments

Media

+

Doctor

Australia

what do you think?

site feedback