It seems amazing that Annals would publish "The Breakthrough" [1], which decries hype when the piece itself is pure fiction. The author, Dr. David Pisetsky, is not a cardiologist and has never reported a medical breakthrough in Heart. There is no public information officer named Jennifer Richman, nor, I suspect, a patient named Roy Carver. The story was just that—a story, not real.

The problem is that, at the end of the piece, Dr. Pisetsky identifies himself correctly, as a physician at Duke University Medical Center. His fictionalized account of "public relations" swirls around a hospital called "University Medical Center," which, to readers who have contacted our office, and to most others, I believe, sounds suspiciously like Duke.

I have received calls from national medical reporters who suggest that we fire Ms. Richman for blatant exaggeration of research findings, including never checking quotes, over-blowing results, and misleading the press and the public. Physicians from Duke and other medical centers have also asked us about this cardiologist at Duke of whom they've never heard.

It doesn't help when I tell them that Dr. Pisetsky, a rheumatologist, made up the story to illustrate something that happened to him years ago at a different hospital and that he is a firm supporter of Duke's News Office. A seed of doubt has been sown by Dr. Pisetsky, and the reputation of our office, and Duke in general, may have suffered. I fear that no matter what we say about "The Breakthrough," people will assume we are just making excuses.

I suggest that when you print another piece of fiction, say it is just that. Or you can run the disclaimer many crime shows use: "The names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent ... ."