See what Gary Schwitzer’s team at Health News Review thought about the segment:
Good stories don’t always make good journalism. This is such a case.The segment is likely to raise hopes, clearly prematurely if not falsely, of millions of people affected by cancer, or even cancer risk. This is the opposite of public service.
Related posts:
- A 1-month old goes through an airport X-ray machine
- Screening embryos for breast cancer
- How mainstream news butchers health policy
- Roger Ebert: Salivary gland cancer
- Woman delivers baby in 8 minutes
- Obesity and heart attacks
- "You can’t provide good care when you’re seeing a patient every seven minutes"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Kevin,
Thanks for the link to HealthNewsReview.org.
But let me correct what you wrote. We don’t just publish what “Gary Schwitzer thought” about the 60 Minutes piece or any of the 540 stories we’ve reviewed in the past 3 years.
Three different reviewers evaluate each story. I’m just the third reviewer on each story. Most of the work is done by others – a multi-disciplinary team including physicians, health services researchers and others from the faculties of Duke, UNC, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, UCLA, UCSF and elsewhere.
So I didn’t want to let the possible impression settle in that these were simply the opinions of one individual. This unprecedented broadly-based team applies ten standardized criteria to the evaluation of all stories.
Thanks for allowing this correction and clarification.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
HealthNewsReview.org
so what happens to the iron in blood when subjected to the kanzius machine?
^^To the above question: The radio waves transfer energy (an amount proportional to their frequency) and cause the metal atoms to vibrate. The gold atoms heat up rapidly and ‘cook’ the affected cells.
The question I have is: If we’re able to use such specific monoclonal antibodies to deliver the nanoparticles, why haven’t we used the same MAB’s to deliver specific chemotherapies?
Comments on this entry are closed.