Don Smith

FYI:

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) has some great articles in the current issue that deal with the "credibility" of scientific articles.

Some of the findings:

1. Scientific articles are often "misleading" especially if they are funded by drug companies or "special interest" groups.

2. The authors often fail to "disclose" conflicts of interest.

3. The studies often do not present either the limitations of the data or disclose the other side of the story.

4. The "press releases" submitted to the media often exaggerate the importance of the findings.

5. The "media" are ill-equipped to "understand" the material sent them by the researchers and, therefore, they give "too much credibility" to titles (MD, PhD, etc).

6. The "media" does not take the time to "check out" the veracity of the material sent them by researchers.

7. Conflicts of interest and "biases" among the reviewers "skews" the data that is published.

8. Blatant "vested interest" financial conflicts among "special interest" groups are common.

9. The "media" gives too much attention to "preliminary" material presented at scientific meetings and do not "understand" that presentations are made as partof the "grantmanship" process of securing funding. Only 50% of the material presented at scientific meetings ever results in being published in "peer reviewed" journals.

The "conclusion" of one article was that "Press releases do not routinely highlilght study limitations or the role of industry funding. Data are often presented using formats that may exaggerate the perceived importance of findings."

The "conclusion" of another article was "Abstracts at scientific meetings receive substantial attention in the high-profile media. A substantial number of the studies remain unpublished, precluding evaluation in the scientific community."

What the JAMA articl DID NOT say (but is true nonetheless, IMHO) is that articles are written (like the Karagas article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute) SPECIFICALLY for "contrived" purposes, i.e., to "damage" the indoor tanning industry.

It is about time that a publication as prestigious as JAMA "exposes" the "scandal" that exists today regarding (1) the lack of credibility of the information that is published, and, (2) the abysmal failure of the media to check out the validity of the press releases sent them by the research community.

Now do you see why it is so easy for anti-tanning articles to be published?

Do you think that the "media" will EVER understand that the dermatology community and the sunscreen industry "bad mouth" the indoor tanning industry for "vested interest" reasons?

Will the "media" EVER understand that they have been "duped" about the danger of skin cancer?

And, will the "media" EVER wake up and report the "truth" about the risks of UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR?

The JAMA article, IMHO, helps our cause vis-a-vis the NAC. Why? Because the "media" has been "put on notice" to not accept scientific information without questioning it. Now, we have to find a way to present OUR side of the issue, i.e., that the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved.

We have work to do and time's awasting!

Don "Keeping You Informed" Smith

Sheila in Minnesota

Don - - is there a way to applaud this artical in a more overt and public manner??

We spoke of media connections . . . and this would be sweeeeet to include with any responses or alerts to the general public via their local media . . . .

S

Tamar

Hit print...for the National Ad Campaign research file.

Drew D

Don,
Articles like this are great. The problem is by time they get out, the media has done it's damage. I used to work for Ross Laboratories. They made Similac infant formula. You may remember back in 1984, they were accused of poisoning a baby. This was not true of course, the parents had put Drano in their baby's bottle and were looking for a lawsuite. The problem here was, David Hartman of Good Mourning America got on TV the next morning holding a can of the product telling mothers accross the nation not to use the product. By then it was damage control time. The facts wern't even in and the media just could not wait to do their damage. My question is who is the media in this country accountable to?

Don Smith

Drew:

Thank you for the "insightful" and "helpful" comments. Please keep on adding your thoughts to this thread!

You "touched" on something that I have been thinking about for several months now. In essence the situation is that our "response" is to "close the barn door AFTER the horse gets out"!

For instance, the "Geller" study (as shown as by my post) is total "nonsense" backed up by a fatally flawed protocol BUT the media picked it up and ran with it anyway.

For instance, the "Karagas" study that was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute was, at best, misleading and, at worst, "contrived" to damage the indoor tanning industry (which it did!). It, too, was based upon "faulty" assumptions.

But, IMHO, the media "lacks" knowledge about these scientific topics and they are either unwilling or unable (because of time deadlines) to check the "facts" before they print them. Don't forget, Drew, that the media will "accept" and give "credibility" to ANYTHING (no matter how absurd!) said by a medical doctor!

To paraphrase what a politician who was TOTALLY exonerated after a costly 2 year "Independent Counsel" investigation said - "How do we get our reputation back?".

Thus, I concluded that we must do (at least) three things:

1. Make a "hot line" available so that the media can have someone to call to "verify" information before they run it. This I have done and I am starting to get some calls.

2. Provide the media with a steady flow of information that supports our industry that can be "run" by them without a lot of work on their part. Unfortunately, I have concluded that this information must be structured as "bad" news because the media seems unwilling to use "good" news.

3. We must also "educate and inform" the media about indoor tanning. The "first step" was to send them a list of "definitions" covering the most common tanning related terms. [Note: Each of you out there reading this post can help by "inviting" the media in your area to "visit" your tanning salon. YOU can help in "educating and informing" them about our industry! Think about it. IF we set up a "Visit A Tanning Salon Day" and we ALL took the time to show the media how much we know and how much we care, we could start the ball rolling to change their "perception" of the industry.]

You made a very important comment. You said "My question is who is the media in this country accountable to?" and the answer (for the most part) is, IMHO, NO ONE! That is the "price" we pay for our "First Amendment" freedom.

However, I believe that IF enough tanning salon owners "protest" these unfair articles, the media will pay attention. And, I also believe that the "perception" would change IF the media "visited" tanning salons and saw, first hand, how well they are run!

In summary, Drew, it is my opinion that the task facing us is daunting but it is a task we must undertake. It will not be easy and it WILL take time. Will it be (ultimately) successful?

There's only one way to find out!

Don "Who Appreciates Your Insight!" Smith