Trojan Man Censored
Citing fears of objections by religious groups as well as a public opinion backlash, network television officials continue to restrict condom advertising. But a recent survey released by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Carter-Wallace Inc., makers of Trojan brand condoms, could help put at least one of those fears to rest: 71 percent of Americans support condom advertising on television. "Networks don't have that much to fear," said Susan Kannel of the Social Policy Research Institute, a Washington organization that conducted some of the polling.

Three of the big six broadcast networks do not allow condom advertising at all, reports the Chicago Tribune, and the remaining three have significant restrictions. NBC will only run the ads after 11 p.m. and requests they not be "overly erotic." Fox runs the ads only after 9 p.m. and requires that they focus on health concerns rather than pregnancy prevention. CBS will only run the ads after 9 p.m. with the further stipulation "depending on program content." Rick Mater, senior vice president of the WB Television Network, defends his network's decision not to run the ads at all: "Something that might find acceptance in San Francisco might find a lot of non-acceptance in Mobile, Ala."

Yet there seems to be a double standard operating here. The networks had no objection to running those creepy Bob Dole Viagra ads a few years back; nor do they limit pitches for birth control pills, such as a recent Ortho Tri-cyclen spot featuring three young women chatting about how the pill helps their complexions. These ads, however, make it clear that everyone is married—or at least in a committed relationship. This is rarely true of condom ads. Is this part of the problem? Maybe if Trojan Man, a character in a condom commercial, were to settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship, the networks would be more comfortable with his message.

Misinformation for All
Medical myths, once passed from person to person like the common cold, now have a much more efficient means of propagating themselves: the Internet. Have you received e-mail warnings about the health dangers of deodorant or tampons? What about bananas harboring flesh-eating bacteria? It turns out the only real danger is that of wasting your time.

A new page on the web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, devoted to debunking medical myths, has quickly become one of its most popular areas, reports the New York Times. See www.cdc.gov/hoax_rumors.htm. There are other web sites devoted to this purpose as well. Urbanlegends.com has sections on medicine and religion, phony e-mail petitions, and a "zeitgeist" section that tracks current stories. It also posts a report claiming that the site is itself a tool of the Central Intelligence Agency, because "the government" has "a strong vested interest in deceiving 'the masses'" to protect covert operations and big business interests. So, while the truth is most certainly out there, you may or may not be able to find it on the Internet.

Not Better Than Nothing
A cherished idea in medicine—that of the placebo effect—is also a myth, reports the New York Times. Danish researchers published a paper last year in the New England Journal of Medicine stating that the placebo effect, in which about a third of patients get better when given an inert treatment, does not exist. The researchers traced cross-references in research to the original paper, "The Powerful Placebo," published in 1955 by anesthesiologist Henry Beecher. According to the authors, Dr. Beecher analyzed fifteen studies using a method of analysis that would not be acceptable today. Beecher focused on the subjects who improved with the placebo, disregarded those who got worse, and concluded that a third of subjects got better simply from the placebo.

This inspired the researchers, Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Peter Gotzsche, to look for other studies using a placebo group and a group receiving no treatment. After careful analysis of 114 studies involving 7,500 patients with forty conditions, they determined that untreated patients did as well as patients given placebos.

But this information may not be enough to convince people that the placebo effect is no effect, as it challenges the much-loved idea that the mind can control illness and the symptoms of disease. John Bailar III of the University of Chicago compares this idea to a "secular religion," saying: "And as [in] a religion, no kind of evidence is going to get believers to change their minds."