Customer Relations – Marketing – Sales, Homes Without Limits
by Liz de Laparouse
All of us have our favorite media sources – the newspapers that we read daily and the websites on our bookmarks bar that we surf to every time we log onto the Internet. When we consume content from these sources, the information often reinforces or challenges our personal beliefs and life experiences. Conscious of it or not, this ongoing synthesis of information fuses to form the thoughts that guide our decisions and the notions that inform our judgments.
For many years, consuming news was a straightforward, relatively mindless absorption process. Sources were trustworthy and journalism ethics safeguarded the credibility of the mass media. But today, because of the 24 hour news cycle, there are countless channels and other platforms through which information is being transmitted to the public. Anyone with Internet access can share a message if they’d like to, causing an inundation of information and an erosion of fact-checking and information digging. As a result, there are more megaphones than ever spreading information, yet the quality of it has declined sharply.
When it comes to our health, we’re subject to information that could affect the well-being of us and our families. Problem is, not all of the information being relayed to us, even by our friendly news anchor or the health columnist in our favorite magazine, is always supported by scientific research. While it may often be unintentional, this alarming development should concern us and prompt us to think critically and further question their sources. Three particular examples come to mind: stem cell research, chemicals and vaccines.
Six years ago, an amendment to the state constitution was proposed in Missouri to allow stem cell research to be federally approved. Tens of millions of dollars were spent by a coalition of research institutions and patient advocacy groups to try and rally votes for this initiative while opponents campaigned equally as adamantly to block the amendment. The debate became dominated by the voices of activists and elected officials, and the media coverage made that the story. Lost in the clamor of the public discussion was a coherent discussion of the scientific implications of the proposal. Instead, political theater crowded out a meaningful discussion in the media, and many voters cast their votes for the healthcare system research based on arbitrary sound bites rather than informed perspectives on the science from experts.
These days, there’s an ongoing discussion about chemicals. In the 1950s, chemicals were seen as wonderful, cutting edge chemistry. Scientists created mixtures that solved problems and made our lives better, killing bugs that carried disease and protecting crops from insects. Unfortunately, as the use of chemicals became more widespread, some skepticism started to rear its head. Government restrictions were passed on chemicals like DDT, and society as a whole started to became more mindful of best practices in chemical management. But those strides in understanding haven’t stopped certain activists from trying to lead the debate down their ideological path as they adamantly call for blanket bans of various chemicals, many of them vetted for safety by independent and government research.
Believing everything in the media would lead one to think that we’d be better off in a world without chemicals. But stop for a second and think, do we really want a chemical free world? Chemicals are a staple in maintaining our 21st century quality of life, that do far more good than harm. In fact, many of them are only harmful when used improperly, and the truth of the matter is, anything can be dangerous at extreme levels – even drinking too much water too fast can kill a human being.
Instead of putting risk in perspective, there has been a lot of press targeting chemicals, such as the ones used in plastics known as phthalates. Phthalates are integral in making every day products flexible and durable, such as life-saving medical devices and protective coatings on wire and cable. These chemicals enhance our safety, health and well-being. And even though phthalates have been around for decades and closely studied and deemed safe for consumer use by multiple government agencies in the U.S. and abroad, incomplete media reports continue to demonize these substances rather than accurately sharing the positive conclusions found in scientific research. Rather than letting misinformation get the best of us, we need to be asking the hard questions like, would we actually be safer if safe chemicals were phased out and replaced with less-studied alternatives?
Lastly, the need for vaccines has been a topic questioned by the media. One scientific researcher in Britain released a study claiming to have found a link between vaccines and Autism. Despite being an outlier in his assertions, journalists and reporters pounced on the study in order to make a quick headline and sell a few papers, in the process scaring many parents out of vaccinating their children. Since then, the aforementioned research has been totally discredited yet the misinformation lives on, and has resulted in the exposure of many unvaccinated children to serious illnesses. It’s a tragedy but a stark reality that uncorroborated medical advice and science reporting of this nature is adversely impacting health here in America.
As we read scientific news articles and health reports, we need to carefully and critically consider the messages. No longer can we assume all articles and reports from the media to be valid and reliable. It is important to know the facts so we can make informed decisions to protect our families and ourselves.
Liz has always been interested in health care, specifically how different systems operate in countries around the world. Her experience studying the U.S. healthcare system turned Liz from observer to advocate when the issue of stem cell research emerged. As an advocate for this research, Liz has met and worked with numerous people and families associated with such conditions as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease, ALS and spinal cord injuries. The difficulties many of these people had with accessibility became a priority and interest for Liz, leading her to join the HDC Homes Without Limits team. Liz also works to educate the public on science and public policy, with an emphasis on chemical legislation.
Liz earned a degree in Philosophy from Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut. She worked as an underwriter and manger for Chubb & Son’s Executive Risk department in New York City and Boston. Liz has lived in Zimbabwe, England, Spain and France and currently resides in St. Louis with her husband and three children.
