We’re back to blogging 
after a week away in Beijing, China, where we led a journalism workshop co-hosted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the Cancer Institute and Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.
It was a fascinating trip and we enjoyed the chance to share ideas and to discuss challenges and suggestions for improvements with many Chinese journalists, physicians and researchers.
Some participants stated an interest in a translation of the “Covering Medical Research: A Guide to Reporting on Studies” booklet that I wrote for the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ). I wouldn’t be surprised if AHCJ gained a few Chinese-journalist-members after this event. Others stated an interest in the establishment of a Chinese version of HealthNewsReview.org.
Just one tidbit from the meeting:
I asked our Chinese host, Dr. You-lin Qiao, about prostate cancer screening in China. He said there was no national program of prostate cancer screening – that such screening was not common. Contrasting that with the US pattern of prostate screening, I asked him which men were better off — Americans or Chinese? His answer:
“On this issue, it is as if Americans are overweight and Chinese are very hungry. There must be something reasonable in the middle.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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