We began producing audio podcasts in August, 2015 because we wanted our users to have the opportunity to hear and to learn directly from a variety of people with different perspectives: expert commentary from physicians and researchers, smart patients reflecting on the impact of media messages, stand-out health care journalists, and other media analyses. The response has been so positive that we are now committed to producing these regularly.
Production of the first 25 episodes was supported by a grant from The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.
You can subscribe to the Health News Watchdog podcast on iTunes at https://itun.es/i6S86Qw or via the RSS feed: http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:167780656/sounds.rss.
If you like what you heard, please leave a Review and a Rating on the iTunes page.
You can also find our podcasts on SoundCloud or on Stitcher.
Episode 33: The Wild West of Stem Cells
Episode 32: “The List”…of industry-independent experts for journalists – originated by Shannon Brownlee & Jeanne Lenzer
Episode 31: DCIS: Searching for Clarity
Episode 30: Memoirs of a Female Surgeon
Episode 29: Why would a 23-year-old graduate student choose to live in a nursing home?
Episode 28: Wellness Programs: Do they work?
Episode 25: Gerd Gigerenzer: “Health care should not systematically mislead the public about benefits and harms.”
Episode 24: Medical music video parodies by James McCormack, PharmD
Episode 23: ShowMoreSpine campaign against osteoporosis overdiagnosis/overtreatment
Episode 22: Dr. Vinay Prasad on cancer moonshot, precision medicine, cost of cancer drugs, journalism & more.
Episode 20: AnneMarie Ciccarella – ChemoBrainFog.com blogger criticizes celebrity breast cancer news
Episode 19: Sharon Begley – nearly 4 decades of excellence in medical science journalism
Episode 18: Celebrating 10th anniversary of HealthNewsReview.org – with original contributors Harry DeMonaco, Drs. Steve Atlas, Karen Carlson, Kathleen Fairfield
Episode 17: Migraine Media Mess, with Teri Robert, migraine patient advocate
Episode 16: John Fauber, watchdog on conflicts of interest in health care
Episode 14: Christie Aschwanden – 1st in occasional series on standouts in health care journalism
Episode 13: Real harm to real people from shoddy PR news releases
Episode 12: Year-end podcast reflecting on best year yet on HealthNewsReview.org
Episode 11: Jennifer Miller, PhD and the “Good Pharma Scorecard”
Episode 10: Brian Nosek, PhD – Center for Open Science
Episode 9: John Ioannidis, MD – “the scourge of sloppy science”
Episode 8: Teppo Järvinen, MD: A Finn with a bone to pick about osteoporosis diagnosis & treatment
Episode 7: Jean Silver-Isenstadt, MD – 10th anniversary of National Physicians Alliance
Episode 6: James Rickert, MD – overdiagnosis in orthopedics
Episode 5: Otis Brawley, MD – pathologic profiling: cancer overdiagnosis issues
Episode 4: Laura Esserman, MD – the DCIS dilemma
Episode 3: Saurabh Jha, MD – the arsonist and the firefighter: overdiagnosis issues in radiology
Episode 2: John S. Yudkin, MD – Idolatry of the Surrogate/overdiagnosis in diabetes
Episode 1: Hanna Bloomfield, the mild-mannered MD who became mad as hell
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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.