In this snippet, the hosts discuss how sensationalist reporting of public health information garners more audience engagement rates, but is it forgoes credibility.
Upload Date: Sep 28, 2020
In this snippet, two doctors describe the sensationalist reporting techniques journalists use to garner more audience engagement, potentially spreading hubs of public health misinformation. In order to verify popular medical research, taking into account the full scope of available information is necessary.
calcium kind of the same deal. We thought it was good for all women to take calcium to maintain bone health and prevent osteoporosis. But research came out saying calcium may increase the risk of heart disease. So now we backed off on the calcium as a mandatory supplement for all women, and we looked at the situation on an individual basis. So this is not encouraging. What can we trust? All of it. But when the research offers different results, how can we trust all of it? Well, I'm being a little facetious. But from a scientific point of view, one of the cornerstones of scientific research is that it was to be, um, replicable. We should be able to do the same research and get the same results. Lots of things can interfere to cause different results from different studies. That's true. So the right thing to do is to look at the whole body of scientific knowledge to make decisions not at any one study, particularly in studies like the ones on hormone replacement therapy and calcium, which were epidemiological studies. We know that these studies can't control for interfering or confounding factors, but we hear and read in the headlines about what science says air quotes all the time. It's hard to ignore that it really is. And these headlines are the result of so called journalists who want people to click on their articles. Clickbait. In other words, it's also an issue of what gets.