A Comparative Study of Mainstream Media Representation of Experimental Treatments of Laetrile and Experimental Stem Cell Procedures

Today, one controversy surrounding experimental medical procedures stems from the marketing of these treatments to vulnerable patient populations with few or no therapeutic options. In many cases, there is sparse data about the potential harm that these procedures may bring. The phenomenon of patients traveling to foreign countries or unsanctioned clinics to undergo unproven procedures is not new and was seen in past controversies such as Laetrile, an anti-cancer drug of the 1960s and 1970s, and presently with experimental stem cell procedures (ESCPs), which are offered as cures for diseases like Alzheimers, Multiple Sclerosis, and diabetes. This project will compare stakeholder perceptions of laetrile and stem cell procedures, through popular press portrayals of patients, physicians, government representatives, and advocacy groups during two periods in American history. What can we learn from the Laetrile controversy that will better inform public policy on ESCPs and future unproven medical technologies? Methods include content analysis of articles found in a systematic review of the popular press from 1975-1980 (Laetrile) and 2005-present (ESCPs). Coding schemes will focus on how individuals portrayed the treatment, for example as a desperate last-option for patients, and whether the unproven treatments are framed in a positive or negative light. Preliminary analysis shows differences in the reasons for support between the two technologies.  For Laetrile, the most prevalent reason focused on efficacy based on anecdotal evidence of recoverying patients. In addition, treatment choice, usually articulated by advocacy groups or patients, was also an important issue.  For ESCPs, the prevalent reason was based on perceived efficacy and the potential of cures from this treatment, a view shared by patients and some physicians. In both cases, clinician-scientists and government representatives were more likely to be skeptical of the procedures in terms of effectiveness, though some from these stakeholder groups sympathize with patients and would be accepting, though not necessarily supportive, of a patient's choice to undergo an experimental therapy as a last resort or in the last months of life. This project will attempt to explain the differences between the reasoning of the supporters or criticism of either procedure, while considering in mind the differences in the regulatory environments of the two periods. By understanding the motivations for support and criticism of these unproven treatments between different stakeholder groups, we hope to provide a blueprint of issues that need to be addressed when future unproven experimental medical technologies are discussed in the media. Funding provided by the Stanford Medical Scholars Fellowship Program.