Do You Experience Chronic Pain? – survey link on post

2 Responses

1. 

   Kathy C, on June 17, 2019 at 5:13 pm said:

   20 years of these marketing surveys have made the situation even worse. This “Healthy Woman Site” does not divulge the interests of their “Partners and supporters” that they share this information with. These sites are textbook marketing, designed to “build engagement” with topical surveys.

   In college marketing and related programs seemed somehow sleazy and manipulative. As a science major, these programs were a shortcut, and easy way to get a jobs and make a fast buck. All of these years out, I realized that science and facts have little to do with this kind of marketing, so I started boning up on health marketing. Surveys are recommended to “build engagement” and collect customer data. Factual and topical articles can drive customer engagement.

   A quick scan of the “Acupuncture” section, promoted by an MD is scary. The “MD” did not look at the quality of the studies at the NIH. These studies were mostly based or inconclusive, and many stated that they were inconclusive. Each of these studies, was limited and no attempt was made to avoid the Hawthorne Effect. We should expect that an MD, should be able to pick up the signal from the noise in these alternative studies.

   We expect physicians to apply science and facts, not content marketing to their endorsements of alternative medicine. No research has been done on the effects of Gas Lighting patients by recommending acupuncture, nor the number of people who had a serious health concern postponed while seeking acupuncture or other forms of alternative medicine.

   Typically when I see an article on health supplements or trendy health related products, my feelers go up. Women’s healthcare is a serious topic, yet it is cheapened and diluted by these quasi advocacy sites. We have all seen the massive corruption and distortion of the health industry by “partners” in Insurance, pharma and big corporate health providers. We only have to look at their track record, facts are inconvenient, and cut into profitability. These pharma industry “supporters” ignored facts for years, only looking at women in clinical trials, when the market took notice.

   Women’s Pain is a topical issue, one that can drive engagement, and create a nice list of people for targeted marketing. People with pain can be desperate seeking relief, so they are easily sold products or treatments. Once these sites build trust, and people with limited research skills, believe what they are told, products can be targeted for their personal issues.

   This kind of advertising and deceptive marketing used to be illegal in the US. There was an assumption that sick people should be protected from unscrupulous marketing, now they are targeted. The last few limitation went out in 1996, the same year the opioid industry marketing, kicked off. This coincided with the rise of the Internet, and nonstop pharma ads on TV. Distress with healthcare is a marketing bonanaze for everything from hygiene products, to useless herbal remedies, and vitamins. We need to look at the Vitamin D scam, a clever marketing campaign based on faulty data. They took factual data and misreported it to sell vitamins, and denial.

   A quick read of their “Pain Management” section is very telling. The discussion of “Moods” is clearly more significant than underlying physical problem. Us womenfolk, know all about our “Moods.” This is Mansplaining at it’s finest. A site for “Woman’s Health” could not even find a qualified woman to write about “Pain.” A woman’s moods should always be thoroughly explored before a physical problem is recognized, it seems quaint and Victorian. I wonder how many women died of cancer, because the diagnosis was postponed while exploring their moods and hormones? Women are emotional creature you see, they need to be patronized, after all their hormones could interfere with their logical abilities. They still can’t get enough women in science, due to these outdated and patriarchal ideas.

   Reply
2. 

   Sue Stewart, on June 15, 2019 at 11:52 am said:

   yes

   Reply