Janice Horowitz discusses common health reporting myths and misconceptions. She writes the "Dueling Docs" column on The Huffington Post and has worked for NPR and Time Magazine.
A very thoughtful and informative interview stated with great clarity.
May. 12 2009 11:20 PM
Score: 0/0
Chuck
from NJ
Do not trust health reporting from the Huffington Post! Some are good but too many (most) are full of flaws. That's the opposite of "Fact-Checking Health Reporting". The Science-Based Medicine does a great job of reporting on these flaws.
David Gorski 4-May-09 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=473
Steven Novella 29-Apr-09 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=470
May. 12 2009 10:37 PM
Score: 0/0
Rick Brandon
from New York City
A colleague mentioned this to me and told me to listen to it on-line.
I am a medical researcher and think this type of analysis is critical to educate the public to the complexities of research and the slant that can be given to even well-conceived work.
May. 12 2009 10:26 PM
Score: 0/0
Gidget
from the speakers
We have a hard time getting accurate medical knowledge (especially if one is on the subject of drinking behaviors), because it deals with people often not telling the truth, especially when they are asked simple questions about how much they drink.
May. 12 2009 09:50 PM
Score: 0/0
PL Hayes
from Aberystwyth
“Frankly if you want to know the facts go straight to the actual study. Make sure it's properly controlled and peer reviewed.” –Milton from Woodside.
Not something most people can do but there are plenty of very good science and medical blogs and forums around these days anyway. Since journalists are allowed on the internet too, and with gems like this recent one from Prof. DC: http://dcscience.net/?p=1435 to help them out, there's really no excuse for their anti-sausage scaremongering etc. in the first place.
May. 12 2009 12:46 PM
Score: 0/0
Milton
from Woodside
@hjs: I'm sure that has something to do with it too.
May. 12 2009 11:40 AM
Score: 0/0
Mark Speer
from brooklyn, NY
The big problem with health reporting of this kind starts and ends with journalists. I studied newspaper reporting in college and the only math course I had to take was intro statistics. It was a joke course, and we believed the public really wouldn't get the subtleties of modeling, standard deviation, relative risk, etc. so we didn't use our column inches on drilling down into the issues in a way that makes the studies clearer. When reporters start believing their readers aren't a bunch of idiots, they'll start reporting more clearly. Laziness leads to "if it bleeds, it leads".
May. 12 2009 11:15 AM
Score: 0/0
hjs
from 11211
milton, not better healthcare? interesting...
May. 12 2009 11:12 AM
Score: 0/0
Milton
from Woodside
@hjs: I would imagine it's lifestyle and obesity. Generally speaking places that implement the American type lifestyle (high intake of fats, animal proteins, lack of exercise) the lifespan decreases (as the waistline increases).
May. 12 2009 11:03 AM
Score: 0/0
Anon
from Manhattan
Newspaper, TV, radio and internet reporters do not use a health care professional to review and approve their piece before the media outlet broadcasts to the public. For that reason, they're targeted by big pharma who uses that media to sell their drugs directly to a lay public--using a lay reporter (with the air of credibility)--without physician review or only last-minute. The undiscerning public then asks their doctor for it, and their jaded physicians is often happier to comply than argue.
May. 12 2009 10:59 AM
Score: 0/0
David
from boston
Brian,
As an engineer and former math teacher, please except my compliments on how well you are able to explain numbers and mathematical ideas to your listeners. You do a better job at this kind of thing than most of us who are in the number crunching professions. You're really very good at making these kinds of concepts clear to your audience, rock on!
May. 12 2009 10:59 AM
Score: 0/0
Milton
from Woodside
Frankly if you want to know the facts go straight to the actual study. Make sure it's properly controlled and peer reviewed. It's not always perfect EG: The Lancet's report on antivirals and autism. Mass media does a horrible job of any kind of science especially medical reporting. Mostly fear mongering and alarmist reporting. These so called science reporters have little to know scientific background.
If you do read an article look out for terms like "experts say" or "scientist baffled" or vague references but does not directly site the study, or name the scientist.
It is ironic that someone who blogs for the Huffington Post is speaking out about poor medical reporting in the media. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=463
May. 12 2009 10:58 AM
Score: 0/0
Merrill
from New York, NY
I think this is part of a larger issue: truth and how sensationalistic newspapers in a declining industry try to shock the reader to sell newspapers.
May. 12 2009 10:58 AM
Score: 0/0
Alvin
from Manhattan
I think it's safe to say that a woman who drinks three or more glasses of wine a day greatly increases her chance of pregnancy.
May. 12 2009 10:57 AM
Score: 0/0
Lola
from Canada
Why is this woman talking to us as if she were talking to four year old?!
May. 12 2009 10:55 AM
Score: 0/0
Dan K
from Manhattan
As an epidemiologist, I am quite happy to hear a discussion of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. These distinctions as the relative risk can often be used to sensationalize findings that have very little effect.
May. 12 2009 10:52 AM
Score: 0/0
hjs
from 11211
why do europeans live longer than americans?
May. 12 2009 10:49 AM
Score: 0/0
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Comments [17]
A very thoughtful and informative interview stated with great clarity.
Do not trust health reporting from the Huffington Post! Some are good but too many (most) are full of flaws. That's the opposite of "Fact-Checking Health Reporting". The Science-Based Medicine does a great job of reporting on these flaws.
David Gorski 4-May-09
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=473
Steven Novella 29-Apr-09
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=470
A colleague mentioned this to me and told me to listen to it on-line.
I am a medical researcher and think this type of analysis is critical to educate the public to the complexities of research and the slant that can be given to even well-conceived work.
We have a hard time getting accurate medical knowledge (especially if one is on the subject of drinking behaviors), because it deals with people often not telling the truth, especially when they are asked simple questions about how much they drink.
“Frankly if you want to know the facts go straight to the actual study. Make sure it's properly controlled and peer reviewed.” –Milton from Woodside.
Not something most people can do but there are plenty of very good science and medical blogs and forums around these days anyway. Since journalists are allowed on the internet too, and with gems like this recent one from Prof. DC: http://dcscience.net/?p=1435 to help them out, there's really no excuse for their anti-sausage scaremongering etc. in the first place.
@hjs:
I'm sure that has something to do with it too.
The big problem with health reporting of this kind starts and ends with journalists. I studied newspaper reporting in college and the only math course I had to take was intro statistics. It was a joke course, and we believed the public really wouldn't get the subtleties of modeling, standard deviation, relative risk, etc. so we didn't use our column inches on drilling down into the issues in a way that makes the studies clearer. When reporters start believing their readers aren't a bunch of idiots, they'll start reporting more clearly. Laziness leads to "if it bleeds, it leads".
milton, not better healthcare? interesting...
@hjs:
I would imagine it's lifestyle and obesity. Generally speaking places that implement the American type lifestyle (high intake of fats, animal proteins, lack of exercise) the lifespan decreases (as the waistline increases).
Newspaper, TV, radio and internet reporters do not use a health care professional to review and approve their piece before the media outlet broadcasts to the public. For that reason, they're targeted by big pharma who uses that media to sell their drugs directly to a lay public--using a lay reporter (with the air of credibility)--without physician review or only last-minute. The undiscerning public then asks their doctor for it, and their jaded physicians is often happier to comply than argue.
Brian,
As an engineer and former math teacher, please except my compliments on how well you are able to explain numbers and mathematical ideas to your listeners. You do a better job at this kind of thing than most of us who are in the number crunching professions. You're really very good at making these kinds of concepts clear to your audience, rock on!
Frankly if you want to know the facts go straight to the actual study. Make sure it's properly controlled and peer reviewed. It's not always perfect EG: The Lancet's report on antivirals and autism. Mass media does a horrible job of any kind of science especially medical reporting. Mostly fear mongering and alarmist reporting. These so called science reporters have little to know scientific background.
If you do read an article look out for terms like "experts say" or "scientist baffled" or vague references but does not directly site the study, or name the scientist.
It is ironic that someone who blogs for the Huffington Post is speaking out about poor medical reporting in the media.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=463
I think this is part of a larger issue: truth and how sensationalistic newspapers in a declining industry try to shock the reader to sell newspapers.
I think it's safe to say that a woman who drinks three or more glasses of wine a day greatly increases her chance of pregnancy.
Why is this woman talking to us as if she were talking to four year old?!
As an epidemiologist, I am quite happy to hear a discussion of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. These distinctions as the relative risk can often be used to sensationalize findings that have very little effect.
why do europeans live longer than americans?
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.