This installment of The Doctor’s Lounge on Substack Live was special to me for two reasons. First, we covered a topic that many Inside Medicine readers care deeply about: how physicians and scientists can better communicate complicated medical and scientific concepts to the public, whether in medical settings or online. Second, to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that my guest, Dr. Kristen Panthagani, was a mentee—though as you will see, her expertise in this area goes far beyond what most people know on the topic, myself included. (By the way, subscribe to her newsletter, You Can Know Things.)
In our conversation, we covered Kristen’s superb new essay in The New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Training Health Communicators—The Need for a New Approach,” for which she was lead author. Am I just a little bit proud? Umm, yes!
But we also went well beyond what her essay was able to cover—because, frankly, we had nearly an hour to dive into all of the fascinating complexities, rather than the tight word count that they insist upon over at The Journal.
Sidebar: I really like this platform, don’t you? Thanks for being here.
So, why do doctor’s suck fall short when it comes to communicating with the general public? Well, for starters, it’s not taught routinely in medical or graduate school. But it’s much more than that. As Dr. Panthagani pointed out, we’ve actually been taught that using social media to disseminate knowledge is dangerous—something that could get us into trouble. But Kristen and I both believe this is an essential part of our jobs, though it takes practice. Some strategies work better than others. Some approaches that seem good can backfire. In this in-depth conversation, we covered this and more.
Also, as promised in the video, I’m opening the comments section to everyone. (Usually the comment section is limited to paid subscribers who make all this possible.) But for this one, I’m opening it up for feedback from everyone, whether it’s about Inside Medicine, or other medical sources you consume. What’s working? What isn’t? What do you want to see more or less of? Please chime in!
Closed captions (㏄) for this video and a transcript option (📄) can be found beneath the video playback control bar above. A summary with timecodes can be found below.
The Doctors Lounge with guest Dr. Kristen Panthagani: Training the Next Generation of Health Communicators.
(Summary aided by ChatGPT).
We need a new playbook.
We opened the session by framing the problem: most people no longer get reliable health information from clinical encounters. Instead, they turn to social media and peer networks. That shift in access demands a new approach to training health communicators—not just to "do" communication, but to do it better.
Meet Dr. Kristen Panthagani. 00:38
Faust was joined by Dr. Kristen Panthagani, Yale emergency medicine resident and lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine perspective titled Training Health Communicators: The Need for a New Approach. Panthagani, who publishes the Substack You Can Know Things, spoke about empowering non-experts to understand science without condescension or jargon.
We’ve lost trust. Now what? 02:15
Both Faust and Panthagani discussed how institutional trust—especially in the CDC and NIH—has eroded post-pandemic. Faust recalled reading recent CDC media briefings and wondering whether they were credible. Panthagani argued that part of the loss stems from institutional failures and part from broader cultural confusion about where to find “truth” in health.
Scientists are smart. But not great at talking. 04:35
Panthagani’s essay cited data showing that while 89% of Americans think scientists are intelligent, fewer than half think they’re good communicators. Worse, 1 in 4 adults report getting health information from social media weekly—while only one-third get it from their doctors.
The sixth-grade reading level debate. 06:52
We tackled the controversial guideline that medical communication should be aimed at a sixth-grade reading level. Panthagani admitted that most of her own writing is closer to eighth or ninth grade—but emphasized that message design should vary by platform. On Instagram, she simplifies aggressively; on Substack, she embraces complexity for depth.
Train the trainers. Everywhere. 13:36
Panthagani argued that communication training should be baked into medical and scientific education. Even one lecture on how to explain uncertainty, avoid jargon, and communicate with empathy could help. For students who want to do more, she proposed electives, interest tracks, or practical skills training—like how to handle media interviews, make reels, or talk to journalists.
Academic credit for public communication.18:22
Jeremy called for health communication to “count” in academic promotion and to be reimbursed in clinical practice. Panthagani agreed, noting that current academic systems reward publications and grants—but not public outreach. Worse, social media is still treated with suspicion or even fear by many institutions.
Humanizing the conversation. 27:20
We stressed the importance of empathetic communication online. Jeremy observed that clinicians would never mock a patient for asking a question in person—but online, the tone is often combative. Panthagani advocated for conversations that build mutual understanding rather than public “debates” or dunking contests.
On platforming and polarization. 30:59
Panthagani reflected on her appearance on the Why Should I Trust You? podcast, which brings together public health professionals and skeptical parents. She defended these dialogues as productive, even if they don't change minds on facts. Jeremy agreed, saying that mutual respect can open doors to future collaboration, even without ideological alignment.
How to talk about uncertainty. 36:00
Panthagani previewed an upcoming post on her newsletter on the “scale of scientific uncertainty”—a framework for helping the public understand what’s known for sure vs. what's still emerging. She emphasized that good science evolves over time and that presenting every finding as absolute erodes public trust when facts change.
Asymmetry is real—and maddening. 40:00
Jeremy vented his frustration at the asymmetry in public communication: scientists are punished for getting things wrong (even slightly), while grifters and conspiracy theorists rarely lose followers even when proven wrong. Panthagani acknowledged the imbalance but cautioned that we mostly hear from the loudest extremes.
Ban the word “misinformation”? 44:11
Panthagani explained why she avoids terms like “misinformation” and “debunking” in public writing. They can alienate conservative audiences or signal ideological bias. Instead, she frames her writing around answering common questions with empathy and facts.
Words matter. Headlines matter more. 46:00
Faust shared his struggle to balance reach and credibility in headline writing. Calling something “bullshit” may turn off persuadable readers, while neutral phrasing might fail to attract attention. Both agreed that it comes down to audience selection and strategic intent.
Social media in the waiting room? 50:04
Jeremy floated the idea of turning waiting rooms into health education hubs. Panthagani agreed—just as paper pamphlets once served that purpose, videos or reels could now fill that gap. She pointed to efforts by people like Dr. Katelyn Jetelina to create FAQs and visual content as a model.
Discharge instructions and AI: huge opportunities. 53:16
Both Jeremy and Kristen noted that discharge instructions for patients are a “hot mess” and underutilized as communication tools. He envisioned AI-generated summaries of medical visits tailored to patients' comprehension levels. Panthagani echoed the potential of pairing emerging tools with empathetic language.
You Can Know Things. 54:47
In closing, Panthagani shared the story behind her newsletter title, You Can Know Things. She wants readers—especially those without medical training—to feel empowered to understand complex topics. “You don’t have to take my word for it,” she said. “You can know things.”
