Some of you might remember the stem cell clinic firm R3 Stem Cell. I have major concerns about some of what they are marketing including in the U.S.
I was reminded of R3 Stem Cell again just now. The Associated Press (AP) ran a PR on R3 Stem like it was a news story. I keep an eye open for news and ads on unproven stem cell clinics, which is how this popped up on my radar screen.
For years now many media firms have been promoting unproven stem cells in various ways. It seems to be getting worse too and I’m sad to see the AP involved now.
Stem cell ‘media’
Why would the AP do this? It seems they and many other media including local TV stations are making some extra bucks this way.
Why does this matter?
Every time this happens, more people end up going to the clinics, potentially risking their money and potentially their health.
Here’s the AP running a press release from R3 Stem Cell as though it was a news story. There seems to be no actual journalism involved. The title reads, “R3 Stem Cell Now Offering Treatment for Premature Ovarian Failure in Several Countries.”
“Treatment’?
What’s the science here?
Glancing at the relevant paper from R3 Stem Cell on this, in my view this is not a proven treatment. As far as I know, this is also not offered in the U.S. In my view, it would probably take more data to try to get FDA approval unless the firm has more extensive unpublished data from rigorous clinical trials.
The AP item has this disclaimer in hard-to-read print at the top of this item, “PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from EIN Presswire | Newsmatics. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation.” Then why do it? Again, it’s probably about money.
I believe the AP shouldn’t be posting press releases like this. People will often think it is news.
Local TV stations and stem cell clinic promotion
It’s not just the AP though although this is the first example I saw from them.
Every month or so I also see local TV stations running videos or print stories that are largely just promotional material for unproven stem cell clinics. These TV stations should have standards for what counts as news reporting vs. promotional material. They end up blending the two at times.
In other cases, the puff piece-type stories on supposed amazing results from stem cell clinics air as lifestyle kinds of stories.
See this piece from back in January: Textbook case of bad media on ‘stem cell treatment’ clinic: Kirk Cousins Caribbean trip.
Nature too?
I guess what can we expect when even Nature has been in the business of blending science articles and promotional material? Even involving unproven stem cells.
At one point they ran a piece that was a hybrid between a paid promotional piece and a science article on highly dubious so-called MUSE cells.
After I highlighted this as questionable, the piece went away.
However, who knows what else Nature and other publishers have published this way for a fee and without peer review? The MUSE piece looked like a standard Nature article so there is plenty of room for confusion amongst readers.
Advertorials on stem cells
The bottom line is that both journalism and solid scientific publishing should not be mixing paid ads with biomedical science in ways that yield confusing, potentially harmful hybrids. These combos are sometimes advertorials or sponsored content, but readers may not realize that.
Keep in mind that not all stem cell clinics are alike. I have more concerns about chains like R3 Stem Cell than, say, Regenexx. My sense is that Regenexx is FDA compliant and they publish in peer-reviewed journals. I don’t endorse Regenexx but they are clearly far different than R3. See my Regenexx review.
It is my stance on all ads that promote unethical and demonstrably fraudulent information to the public in order to make money. Just my opinion. You don’t mind ads that promote cash procedures suing unapproved drugs (exosomes, wharton’s jelly, amniotic fluid)?
So, are we banning all press releases now or just the ones you don’t like? Regarding MUSE cells, Adeel Khan seems to have resurrected them into a thriving business these days.
Nobody said anything about banning PRs, but if the AP is going to publish PRs with bold and, in my opinion, misleading headlines about medical treatments that could put people at risk and the AP does no fact-checking, that’s a problem. Some of the TV stations are much worse, actually airing informercials for some clinics, tossing them softball questions, etc…all for money.
No shocker than some folks would sell “MUSE cells”. It doesn’t mean that the cells are real. Even if MUSE cells were real somehow, there’s no good evidence in my view that they do anything useful and are safe.
The key is that this is actually not a press release. It is an advertisement. Anyone could (and some have) creates “releases” that say totally unsubstantiated things….like “we have discovered how stem cells can cure all stages of arthritis”. We simply have to pay PRnews to send it out….no basis in fact or science….
It is a paid advertisement that is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. The disclaimer should be in large font bold print at the top of the ad.
Is this your stance for all ads or just the ones you don’t like?
Absolutely. Legitimate journalism might report that “X released a press release today claiming that…”, but these shallow and shameless “advertorials” just undermine everyone’s confidence in the press. Sad that even Nature has gotten into the act.