More re: pro-HRT media coverage today in UK

A friend sent me this article.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...medical_pr.htm

>April 14, 2007

>Pharma to medical press: thanks for resuscitating HRT
>by Martha Rosenberg

>It wasn't a new study and it didn't reverse the Women's Health Initiative findings.
>
>It was a reanalysis of an existing study and it tweaked the Women's Health
>Initiative findings.
>
>But that didn't stop medical reporters from a new round of gee whiz journalism
>about HRT following an article in the April 4 Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA).

See URL above for the rest of article.

Kathryn

I had just came across the article via Google News and was gonna post
it here when I saw you'd beaten me to it. Good for Martha Rosenberg;
she writes sense. There's been so much shallow and misleading
reporting around the WHI "revisitings". Pity that those involved in
directing the WHI research, and who announced the new analysis, eg
Jacques Roussouw, don't do more to correct some of the errors in
reporting.

On Apr 15, 11:06?pm, kathryn <kdroz...@telus.net> wrote:
> A friend sent me this article.
>
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen..._pharma_to_med...
>
> >April 14, 2007
> >Pharma to medical press: thanks for resuscitating HRT
> >by Martha Rosenberg
> >It wasn't a new study and it didn't reverse the Women's Health Initiative findings.
>
> >It was a reanalysis of an existing study and it tweaked the Women's Health
> >Initiative findings.
>
> >But that didn't stop medical reporters from a new round of gee whiz journalism
> >about HRT following an article in the April 4 Journal of the American Medical
> > Association (JAMA).
>
> See URL above for the rest of article.
>
> Kathryn