CJRDaily.org features an interview with Wall Street Journal health columnist Tara Parker-Pope. The interview focuses on her opinion that “a flawed communications effort led to widespread misinterpretation of results by the news media and the public” regarding the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and its findings on how low-fat diets, consumption of calcium and vitamin D, and hormone replacement therapy affect women’s health.
In the interview Parker-Pope says, “I also think that as reporters, we should never take anything at face value. I think a mistake that a lot of people might make is to read the press release. I almost never read the press release. I read the study first, because I don’t want to be swayed by what the press release says. That’s what you have to do with any kind of scientific research — ask what is really being asked here, and how much is really being answered?”
She also says that science doesn’t work in soundbites. “But I also think just because we have 15 seconds or 800 words or whatever the amount of time we have to tell our story, we still have to get it right. It’s challenging but it’s also what’s kind of fun about being a health writer — taking this really technical, complicated stuff and distilling it down into something that people can understand and use to make decisions about their health.”
I’m part of a team that has been working for months on a system to evaluate and grade U.S. health news coverage of clinical research. A website displaying these evaluations will be launched in about a month. It’s meant to support excellence in health/medical journalism, but also to help people become smarter consumers of news and of health care. More details on this website in the weeks to come.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Tom Braun
March 23, 2006 at 5:23 pmHi! Tara Parker-Pope is right, the studies should be read, but let’s peel the onion back and determine if the construction of the study was non-bias. 85% of all studies do not meet the standards for rigorous scientific investigation.
The WHI study overdosed the participants by 300% on the Progestrin. That smells in my opinion.
T. Braun RPh
S: Could you forward my comments to her. Thanks.
“Confessions of a Drug Pusher”
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like