Rolaids is back, with ‘survey’ results to bolster its return
Yesterday, Sanofi Canada issued a news release announcing that “iconic brand Rolaids is back,” and not a moment too soon because the drug company commissioned an Ipsos survey that showed – quel surprise! – that the January-to-March period is “heartburn season”!
The news release presents the results of the ‘research’ in detail, but fails to remind us when and why Rolaids ever left us. The release did remind us that, as a commercial several years ago claimed, the spelling of ‘relief’ is remarkably similar to the spelling of the brand name, and that not only is Rolaids back, but Sanofi is the new owner of the brand. Continue reading →
Toronto Star doesn’t understand clinical trials
The Toronto Star has good medical reporters, but none of them wrote the front-page story in Saturday’s paper that showed an almost-total lack of understanding of clinical trials.
I know better than to judge an entire story by a headline — or in the case, a cutline (commonly known as a caption) on a Page One picture. I hoped this cutline (newspaper-speak for the text below a photo; a “caption” is the photo’s “headline”) was just meant to draw me into the paper, where the full story actually appeared on page A18:
“Adrienne Lotton, a 34-year-old veterinarian, was accepted into a drug trial to treat her advanced melanoma. But she landed in the control group of patients, who didn’t get the drug. Should a life potentially hinge on a random selection?” Continue reading →
‘Dr.’ style
People who have earned MDs (and British equivalents), PhDs, DVMs, DDSs, ScDs, DCs, JDs and other similarly advanced academic credentials all want to be called “doctor,” with the accompanying “Dr.” honorific or courtesy title.
But publications — daily newspapers, professional magazines and journals — have different policies on who is entitled to the “Dr.” title, with the result that some people feel hard done by when they’re left out. Continue reading →
Murray's Review of Medical Journalism 