テレビをみていて、


「嘘つき！」


という事が、癖になってしまった。


その番組に出ている芸能人の反応をみて、


昔、超能力者のユリゲラーの番組で、


「スプーンが曲がった！」と、

言って、自分でスプーンを曲げていた芸能人を思い出す。



「わびしい」と感じる・・・・



2015年1月6日の記事を再掲載する。


・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・


 「テレビの医療番組」をやめさせよう

 

医療ジャーナリスト：宇野良治

 

テレビニュースで、科学研究について新しく発表された研究について解説するのはいいだろう。

しかし、バラエティー番組で、医療を取り上げるのはもう、おしまいにしてほしい。

これらの番組は、ある一方の方向へ誘導し、時間内にまとめようとするシナリオが前提である。紹介されるのは、ある学説の一方的な展開であり、そこには議論もディベートもない。

そのため、利益誘導が行われる。

テレビで「この食べ物が痩せる」と言えば、

たちまち、売り切れになる。

もし、テレビディレクターが先物取引していたら、

大儲けである。

全く専門外の医者がテレビのシナリオ通りに発言しているという今日の健康番組は、完全にショーであるが、

それを、あたかも本当のように信じてしまうのが日本人である。

一生、知らなくてもいい病気の知識を与え、

テレビを見るものを恐怖に陥れ、

症状が似ているからと、全国民が病院を受診したら、

医療費が跳ね上がる。

つまり、「テレビ番組が医療費を増加させている」と思うのである。

症状が似ているからと無駄に受診する多くの人の医療費は、

症状が似ているからと受診して病気が見つかる医療費を

はるかに超えているのは間違いない。

ここは、ひとつ、国の規制が必要だろう。

 

これは、米国でも問題になっている。

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

ほとんどのテレビ医療アドバイス、研究ショーには証拠がない

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837467

No Evidence for Most TV Medical Advice, Study Shows

Diana Swift

December 26, 2014

Patients should be skeptical about claims and recommendations made on mainstream television medical talk shows, according to a Canadian media study published onlineDecember 17 in the British Medical Journal.

In many cases, investigators found that specific details on the magnitude of benefit or harm and the cost and inconvenience of following recommendations were lacking, and evidence supporting them was contradictory or absent. Viewers had little basis for informed decision making.

The prospective observational study, led by Christina Korownyk, MD, associate professor, family medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, randomly recorded 40 episodes each of the widely watched programs The Dr. Oz Show andThe Doctors from early January 2013 to early May 2013 and assessed all recommendations made on both shows.

These influential internationally syndicated shows, which in 2012 to 2013 each attracted 2 to 3 million daily viewers, typically featured a host or hosts and guests discussing one to five health topics per episode and making an average of 11 or 12 recommendations to consumers, some of which were stronger than others. On both shows, the visitors made a substantial proportion of health recommendations: 65% on Dr. Oz and 33% on The Doctors.

To critically assess the content of these shows, experienced evidence reviewers independently searched and then, as a team, evaluated the evidence for 80 pieces of advice, randomly selected from what they considered stronger recommendations.

The most frequent topic on both programs was general medical/public health advice ("Get vaccinated"; "Sneeze or cough into your sleeve to prevent the spread of germs"), followed by non-weight-loss dietary advice; for example, on immune-boosting diets. The combination of dietary and weight-loss advice represented 43.2% of the topics discussed on Dr. Oz and 16.8% of those on The Doctors.

On Dr. Oz, the recommendations were most often dietary (39.2%; eg, "Carb-load your plate at breakfast"), although the researchers reported no direct links to specific dietary products. On The Doctors, the most common advice involved consulting a healthcare provider (17.8%): "Go to your primary care doctor or talk to their nurse before going to the [emergency department] to help relieve the load in the [emergency department]." Potential conflicts of interest of hosts and guests were acknowledged only four times out of 924 recommendations.

On both shows, exercise took a definite back seat to diet, with dietary advice accounting for 39% of recommendations vs 5% for exercise on Dr. Oz and 10% versus 5% on The Doctors.

On either program, a specific benefit was mentioned for only about 40% of recommendations. Even less commonly mentioned were the magnitude of benefit (<20%), potential harms (<10%), costs (<15%), and potential conflicts of interest (<1%). "We did come across a couple that had evidence of harm associated with them, and we are compiling this data now," Dr Korownyk told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, the Alberta investigators found that 87 of the 160 recommendations assessed (54%; 95% confidence interval, 47% - 62%) had some level of published evidence to support them. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of recommendations from The Dr. Oz Show, and 53% onThe Doctors.

Conversely, believable or somewhat believable evidence was found against 11% (Oz) and 13% (Doctors) of the recommendations. For slightly more than 1 in 3 (Oz) and 1 in 4 (Doctors) recommendations, no evidence was found. "Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence," the authors write.

Among the limitations of the study, the authors acknowledge the shows' complexity, the subjective nature of much of the advice, and the difficulty of distinguishing between what was said and what was implied. They raised the question of whether medical talk shows should provide more than entertainment. "If the shows are perceived as providing medical information or advice, viewers need to realize that their recommendations may not be supported by higher evidence or presented with enough balanced information to adequately inform decision making."

The study was partly supported by a research scholarship through the University of Alberta. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.