Crikey.com, a news Web site based in Melbourne, Australia, calls our attention to some recent reporting about Mabthera, a drug used to treat non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
Nick Miller, health editor of The Age, recently reported that Mabthera, manufactured by Roche, “has been found to nearly double the number of [leukemia] patients who go into remission.”
In that article, Miller quoted a doctor as saying, “This is the largest single advance in the treatment of this disease in the last 30 years.”
Miller was rebuked by oncologist Dr. Ian Haines, who wrote a letter to the newspaper. Haines points out that the article was “an exaggeration of the benefits of the treatment with no presentation of the downsides … which is that it’s incredibly expensive, it’s not without risk,” according to Flint Duxfield, a student at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism.
Duxfield goes on to explain how events unfolded and reveals that the promotion of Mabthera is being driven by Roche, which provides financial support to Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, which employs the doctor who originally touted the drug in Miller’s article.
In fact, sections of the press release issued by the cancer center and the press release from Roche’s public relations company are identical and contain the same comments from the doctor quoted by Miller.
Duxfield also reports that warnings that have been issued for the use of Mabthera that have gone unreported in the print media.
The story says “the engagement of third parties in providing a link between a drug company and the media is all too common in health journalism.”
Veteran health reporter Ray Moynihan agrees: “It happens enormously often because third party endorsements are PR 101 for drug companies.”
Duxfield also points to other examples of these so-called “third=party endorsements” and how they have been reported in the media.
