Americans have embraced non-traditional medicine with an enthusiasm that is impossible to deny. In 1997 alone, U.S. health consumers spent some $27 billion on a wide range of non-traditional medical services -- an amount exceeding all out-of-pocket expenditures for hospitalizations that year.

The growing competition from non-traditional practitioners has not been lost on "Big Medicine." In recent years, there has been a mounting crescendo of criticism and complaint from orthodox physicians who fear that the growing interest in alternatives is threatening their bottom line.

What is perhaps most surprising, however, is that among "Big Medicine's" most important allies are the national media.

As the 77 million members of the "Baby Boom" have reached middle age, the media have given increasing amounts of attention to health-related stories. This increase in coverage, however, has not been accompanied by a corresponding increasing in understanding and accuracy.

Indeed, more often than not, reporting on health topics has amounted to little more than a repetition of press releases from pharmaceutical companies, medical associations and other interested parties. This unquestioning attitude, however, has not extended to non-traditional medicine.

Worse, in many instances, media reporting on non-traditional medicine is not merely superficial, it is blatantly biased in favor of medical orthodoxy.

One of the most blatant recent examples of this phenomenon was the widespread news coverage given to a Vanderbilt University study of the herbal remedy St. John's Wort. Headlines trumpeted the study's conclusion that the herb was ineffective in treating severe depression. Although the news stories did accurately report the Vanderbilt scientist's conclusions, it failed to mention two vitally important facts. First, St. John's Wort has never been recommended as a treatment for severe depression. Rather, it is indicated as a treatment for mild to moderate depression, an entirely different problem. It is no surprise therefore, that it would be ineffective in treating the more severe form of the problem. Yet the news reports made no mention of this critical fact.

Secondly, the study was funded in part by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which manufacturers the anti-depression medication Zoloft. Treatment with Zoloft costs anywhere from ten to twenty times as much as St. John's Wort. As a result, as St. John's Wort has grown in popularity, sales of Zoloft and similar products have suffered. This fact clearly gave Pfizer a motive to in essence stack the deck in designing a study that would be assured of having a negative outcome. Again, however, the media failed to report this critical consideration.

When it comes to "Big Medicine" however, the media take a much different approach. Take Time Magazine for example. On May 28,2001, the cover of Time carried a banner headline" "THERE IS NEW AMMUNITION IN THE WAR AGAINST CANCER." A subtitle under the banner read: " Revolutionary new pills like GLEEVEC combat cancer by targeting only disease cells. Is this the breakthrough we've been waiting for?"

Inside the magazine, an article describing GLEEVEC was somewhat more restrained, but still left the impression of a "miracle cure." As with the reports on herbal remedies, important facts went unmentioned, but unlike herbal remedies, where the information omitted was favorable to the dietary supplements, these facts were unfavorable.

Among the omissions was the limited scope of GLEEVEC's potential use. Only 4,400 of the over 1,500,000 cases of cancer diagnosed annually could be treated with GLEEVEC. Another factor was the cost -- an estimated $20,000 per year -- that patients would have to bear for the rest of their lives. Most important however, was the fact that the FDA had "fast-tracked" the drug after it was tested on just 54 patients -- far too few to have a definitive assessment of its efficacy. Yet, Time threw caution to the wind and in essence declared victory in the War on Cancer. As it turned out, the declaration was premature.

Less than a month after Time's dramatic cover story, a paper was published in Science Magazine describing how GLEEVEC loses its effectiveness in many patients -- particularly those with more advanced cancer -- after a few months. This news, however, was not met with the same fanfare that accompanied the announcement of GLEEVEC's only weeks before. There was no banner headline. There were no special graphics. Indeed, even in reporting the bad news, the stories that did discuss what had been discovered carried a positive "spin." They called the findings "valuable" in sharp contrast with the way similar information on dietary supplements would be cast.

But why is there such a marked difference between the way stories on conventional medicine are reported, and the way non-traditional therapies are covered? The answer is simple: money. Because of recent relaxation of restrictions on product advertising, pharmaceutical companies have become among the nation's largest advertisers.

You can hardly watch a television broadcast or pick up a magazine without encountering an ad for some new "miracle" product. It should come as no surprise that when billions of dollars are on the table, it is all too easy for journalistic standards to be compromised.

For example, a recent cover of in U.S. News and World Reports ominously warned about the dangers of dietary supplements. The article the cover highlights is a call for greater Federal regulation -- something most observers agree will greatly curtail, if not destroy the dietary supplement industry. But that's not all the magazine contained. Inside the issue was a four-page ad from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, one of the world's largest drug companies. Similarly, MSNBC's website features an article in its health section urging people to participate in a cancer drug trial using celecoxib. Celecoxib is the generic name for the painkiller Celebrex, a drug heavily advertised on NBC.

Both U.S. News and World Reports and NBC would undoubtedly argue that advertisers did not influence their coverage, the proof is in the content. While the U.S. News and World Reports warned ominously about such potential threats as drug interactions between herbal products and pharmaceutical drugs, it failed to mention that over 100,000 people a year die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs taken in as instructed! While the MSNBC report extolled the virtues of the celecoxib trial, it also claimed that the drug was less likely to cause bleeding than aspirin -- a statement that is flatly untrue! It would seem that profits were more important than journalistic ethics!

At first glance, the media bias against non-traditional medicine might seem an insoluble problem. But there is a way to address it: public pressure. It is true that media outlets are responsive to their advertisers, but they are even more responsive to a vocal public Letters, phone calls and visits work! So the next time you see an example of slanted, inaccurate coverage write a letter to the editor or call the reporter! You will be amazed at how effective you can be.

But why is there such a marked difference between the way stories on conventional medicine are reported, and the way non-traditional therapies are covered? The answer is simple: money. Because of recent relaxation of restrictions on product advertising, pharmaceutical companies have become among the nation's largest advertisers.

You can hardly watch a television broadcast or pick up a magazine without encountering an ad for some new "miracle" product. It should come as no surprise that when billions of dollars are on the table, it is all too easy for journalistic standards to be compromised.

For example, a recent cover of in U.S. News and World Reports ominously warned about the dangers of dietary supplements. The article the cover highlights is a call for greater Federal regulation -- something most observers agree will greatly curtail, if not destroy the dietary supplement industry. But that's not all the magazine contained. Inside the issue was a four-page ad from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, one of the world's largest drug companies. Similarly, MSNBC's website features an article in its health section urging people to participate in a cancer drug trial using celecoxib. Celecoxib is the generic name for the painkiller Celebrex, a drug heavily advertised on NBC.

Both U.S. News and World Reports and NBC would undoubtedly argue that advertisers did not influence their coverage, the proof is in the content. While the U.S. News and World Reports warned ominously about such potential threats as drug interactions between herbal products and pharmaceutical drugs, it failed to mention that over 100,000 people a year die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs taken in as instructed! While the MSNBC report extolled the virtues of the celecoxib trial, it also claimed that the drug was less likely to cause bleeding than aspirin -- a statement that is flatly untrue! It would seem that profits were more important than journalistic ethics!

At first glance, the media bias against non-traditional medicine might seem an insoluble problem. But there is a way to address it: public pressure. It is true that media outlets are responsive to their advertisers, but they are even more responsive to a vocal public Letters, phone calls and visits work! So the next time you see an example of slanted, inaccurate coverage write a letter to the editor or call the reporter! You will be amazed at how effective you can be.