--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Thanks Judy. Great suggestions, in general, for "internet" > research.
I should add that Barry isn't wrong to be concerned about bad science reporting; it's a real and long- standing problem. But his investigations are significantly sloppier and lazier than the reporting he castigates, as his post on West Nile virus demonstrates. He had a couple of good examples of bad reporting in a recent post--but one of them, by a writer whom he roundly condemned as "the worst offender in the United States" (Mercola), had written another article that Barry had cited in a post a couple days prior as having exposed major flaws in research on cancer. And he never noticed. He's just too inattentive and too careless to be a useful source of information. He's much more interested in making impressive-sounding pronouncements of his own than in getting his facts straight. > From: authfriend <jstein@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:27 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] How to properly evaluate science reporting (was: Re: > Bad Science Reporting, con) > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > OK, because I'm on a bit of a soapbox about this subject > > lately, I have to continue to preach. > > > > This evening, sitting at my cafe relaxing, I foolishly > > clicked on the HuffPost and found this article: > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/west-nile-virus-cases-increase_n_1822056.html > > In fact, it's an Associated Press article, not one written > for HuffPo. > > Always a good idea, if you have any reason to be suspicious > of a news article, to check to see whether it's from one of > the agencies like AP. Not that they always get everything > right, but you look pretty foolish blaming an AP article > on HuffPo's writers. > > Another good idea in this situation is to do a Web search > on the headline. If you get a lot of hits from different > media outlets, you know <duh> that it isn't unique to the > one you found it on. (Google has 108,000 hits on it.) > > Still another good idea is to do a topical search and see > if any of the more reliable outlets have a similar story > of their own. In this case, for example, the New York Times > has one reported by its own journalist: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/health/west-nile-outbreak-shaping-up-as-worst-ever-in-us-authorities-say.html?hp > > http://tinyurl.com/8cfe49b > > One more tip: If the article is reporting on what some big > institution has said and you're dubious that the reporting > is accurate, go to the institution's own Web site and see > if you can find its perspective on the topic, then compare > with the article. In this case, you'd want to look at the > CDC's Web site, where indeed you'll find that the CDC is > very concerned about the recent outbreaks: > > http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm > > This link was even given in the AP article on HuffPo. > > Lots of other material on the site on West Nile, which the > CDC considers a significant public health threat. > > > Let's look into this, shall we? > > > > I am NOT trying to knock the CDC. They do important and > > valuable work. I am knocking the reporters who took what > > they said and tried to turn it into something else. > > The reporters did not try to turn what the CDC said into > something else. If you want to disagree with the AP article, > you're going to have to disagree with the CDC. > > > There has been -- according to this article -- an "alarming" > > increase in outbreaks of the West Nile virus. That is, 1118 > > illnesses have been reported this year, as opposed to a > > "normal" year, in which only 300 would have been reported. > > > > "Drill down" on this statistic for a moment. > > No, because you've missed the most important fact about > the statistic. > > It's not the total for the year. It's the total for the > year only through the third week in August. The West Nile > virus season has just gotten started. It will continue > through September at least; and the rate of new cases is > expected to *increase* until then. > > > It means -- given that the current population of the US is > > 311,591,917 people -- that instead of an infinitesimally > > small percentage of them being at risk of contracting this > > disease, a slightly higher but still infinitesimally small > > number of them are at risk. This is what real science calls > > the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. > > > > Now let's get to the Good Part. The reporter in question > > didn't adequately define what is meant by "illness." In > > the article itself, he says that "Only about one in five > > infected people get sick. One in 150 infected people will > > develop severe symptoms including neck stiffness, > > disorientation, coma and paralysis." This reduces the > > infinitesimal risk to even more infinitesimal levels. > > > > WTF? > > Gosh, wonder why the CDC is so concerned, then? Maybe > you should think about doing just a *little* more > digging. > > > It's almost as if someone wants to sell an article to > > HuffPost by *creating panic* about an issue that does > > not really deserve to be panicked about, or at least > > not yet. > > Of course, nobody sold the article to HuffPo, nor was it > written to create panic. > > Hmm, and there's even a video accompanying the AP article > on HuffPo in which a physician from NYU Medical Center > explains the current threat (referring to it as "alarming") > and suggests preventive measures. > > Bottom line, Barry, you didn't do your homework. You > leaped to incorrect conclusions without doing even the > most minimal checking. > > You won't read this, so you're unlikely to do any better > next time. But hopefully FFL readers will now be aware > that you are not the knowledgable authority you pretend > to be on science reporting. > > > Just sayin'... >
