Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.


Posted By


Gary Schwitzer is the founder of and has been its publisher for 14 years. He has been a health care journalist for 47 years. He tweets as@garyschwitzeror as@HealthNewsRevu.




But it was Reuters that gave the scientist an international megaphone.

Journalist Roxanne Khamsi was one of the first I saw to react to the Reuters story on Twitter:

Indeed, it was a train wreck Reuters story. A rushed 348-word brief, the first two-thirds of which were nothing but stenography of the scientist’s opinion, with no clear evidence to back it up.

We often hear that science is self-correcting. In this case, journalism employed some self-correcting steps on social media and in this story from the Washington Post, “Experts dispute reports that coronavirus is becoming less lethal“。The Post story calmly explained:



And a“What You Need To Know” piece in Forbesstated:

“As most horror movies have probably taught you, don’t make any assumptions that a threat has subsided until you are really, positively, absolutely sure that it has.”


World Health Organization experts and a range of other scientists said on Monday there was no evidence to support an assertion by a high-profile Italian doctor that the coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic has been losing potency. …



路透必须要看它的编辑决策。消息传出像病毒一样 - 全球 - 报道据路透社报道,这个故事的方式时,并导致伤害。

At the very end of the Reuters story is a link to我们的标准:汤森路透信托原则. One of them is this:

That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop, and adapt the news and other services and products of Thomson Reuters so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

It’s pretty clear that effort was spared in this example.