This is an extremely well researched and produced podcast and I enjoyed all three episodes. My only problem with it was the lack of depth that was overlooked on several key issues re: child abuse. I also wanted more national coverage in order to put this particular story into perspective.

This journalist down plays child abuse prevalence while uplifting potential child abuser voices with little evidence. I was expecting the parents to be more vetted but it seems their vague stories about how life threatening injuries occurred to their children are good enough. I work in pediatrics. This take is chilling and this reporting unethical in how much data and fact finding was left out.

This season made me question the reporting of all Serial seasons. NYT needs to either show their research receipts or retract this season.

Imagine a father is accused of sexual abuse. Is your instinct to say 🤷well he explained the physical trauma as an “accident” and says he didn’t do jt. If the judge lets him see the kid surely he’s not an abuser— That’s what you are asked to believe here. Takes the parents at face value and loses credibility by obfuscating evidence of what processes are actually in place to protect a child. Surely a single dr purposefully tearing families apart would necessitate a thorough examination of the why and how. The child is lost in this series. The broken bones, the head trauma, the starving, the patterns over time. Think critically- do we think abusers are sharing every single piece of evidence or do we know that HIPPA means the picture were presented with is necessarily one sided. This reporter would have been eating out of Deedee Blanchard’s hands

The Preventionist takes a thoroughly researched look at this tough-to-talk about and important topic. My heart breaks for the families that have been ripped apart by this unjusy system. I pray that the increasing prevalence of reporting like this will shed light and promote reform.

Truly consider pulling this down or putting out an episode addressing the criticisms here. Never been so disappointed in serial. Abusive parents aren’t ever going to admit their abuse. Medical child abuse is real, not as uncommon as many think, and deadly. This is harmful at worst, and will negatively impact actual children to the point their continued abuse or death at worst. Don’t underestimate the conniving lies the parents will come up with to protect themselves. Shameful reporting.

I've loved serial for years, but this season they are on the absolute wrong side.

This is a careful and deeply reported podcast about an out of control Doctor in Pennsylvania who ripped families apart without any real evidence of abuse. The last episode, about the cost of this abuse of authority for one family, is heartbreaking.

Lazy, sensational, conspiracy-based “reporting” that the NYT should be ashamed of. Child abuse is real, and there are many types. Educate yourselves— go listen to “Nobody Should Believe Me” by Andrea Dunlop.

Well-researched, significant reporting on a very important issue. Thank you, Dylan Neary, for shedding light on this troubled system.

This podcast is misleading in several ways, but the most glaring for me is that it makes it seem like pediatricians are making finals decisions about removing children from homes. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Forensic pediatricians present objective findings to a court based on their education, research, and training. They do not decide a child’s final placement. That final decision is the culmination of a multidisciplinary team in conjunction with the court system. Placing blame on health professionals, especially in today’s climate, is in very poor form.

Neary chooses to platform conspiratorial narratives over actual expert perspectives on child abuse reporting and diagnosis (which she did collect and withhold in order to propel a plotline). The publishing of this series is unethical, irresponsible and harmful to children.

If the doctors could defend themselves against these accusations they would, but because of HIPPA they cannot. I don’t understand the pro child abuser stance the podcast and the NYT has taken.

While the third episode was an odd choice and I also would’ve skipped much of that in my own reporting, the issue at LVH was severe and that CAP’s misguided behavior was proven to be widespread and dangerous. This wasn’t “oh CYS got involved, asked questions and made people uncomfortable so what’s the harm?” These families lost their children for long periods of time (which also harmed the children), couples got divorced and some parents went to jail—all because a second opinion wasn’t built into the process. The kids were extremely harmed in those situations being ripped from their families, losing their parents, some watching one parent go to jail, etc. This doctor has been demonstrated to be arrogant and unflinching and her refusal to accept modern ways of diagnosis is dangerous to children. I agree that “better safe than sorry” as a first step keeps kids safe—taking one person’s initial diagnosis as fact and refusing to do any actual investigation is wrong. Period. As a local to the LV area I appreciate Serial and the NYT for stepping in and telling these stories—even if we may have wanted more details they aren’t always available.

This podcast is misleading at best. At one point it refers to neglect as not abuse, despite being the most common type of child abuse. Leaves out important details that completely change the narrative. Repeatedly says, “we asked the doctor and they said no comment” without including that the doctor legally cannot comment due to HIPPA which the reporter obviously knows. Overall very disappointed in the NYT for airing this.

They did zero fact checking to explore the kids point of view in this. The child was the one who came forward as a teen to alert authorities to abuse in the house that was going on. This show absolutely was manipulative and doesn’t explore the full spectrum o child abuse and medical child abuse because it’s trying to be sensational and present an easy picture

As a longtime listener of Serial productions, I am exceptionally disappointed in the “investigation” of the cases for The Preventionist. While I wholeheartedly agree that there are very real issues with CPS, the topics addressed within the series were distractions at best and very serious dangers to victims at worst. Medical child abuse is real and the allegations made against the unnamed families (though easily identified with minimal research on listeners’ parts) were purposefully misleading. If you want a true depiction of this very serious issues, I recommend following Andrea Dunlop and listening to “Nobody Should Believe Me”.

I loved the first couple episodes, especially as a parent of a medically complex kiddo who thankfully has never been questioned as a parent. However, episode 3 just seemed like sensationalism and should have never been aired. This may be one of the worst Serial shows I’ve experienced.

Wow, this is shockingly one-sided! Just mentioning MBP or FDIA in passing here is simply irresponsible. People really do hurt and kill their children, drain money from the well-meaning public and tax the child welfare system. I’m sorry but I think if a child comes to the ER with multiple fractured ribs from multiple injuries at different times, as happens in the show, the doctors should remove the child from the home! If there’s any problem with this system, it’s with the inaccessibility of medical care and testing for differential diagnosis. If there’s one doctor who is over diagnosing MBP, tell that story by giving us the narrative of how they’re getting it wrong. How could they behave differently in the moment? What does real MBP look like?! I guarantee, just by the nature of probability and also the behavior patterns of MBP perpetrators that some of the people participating in this podcast as aggrieved parents are being rightfully accused. Shamefully under reported. This viewpoint puts children at risk. There’s too much at stake— what’s worse: a parent losing custody for a few months or a child dying?

The case study presented in episode 3 is alarming and raises more questions than answers. That a small child was blamed by her mother for nearly killing her sibling, then by implication ruining their family is cruel, heartless, damaging, irresponsible and ultimately a scapegoating and gaslighting of epic proportions. How this case could be used as emblematic of system failure is gobsmacking. Grow up folks. Nobody has three infants who suffer broken bones by accident.

I’m actually shocked that the Times and Serial would sponsor this series when it is so - admittedly! - poorly fact checked, and, generally, such poor quality reporting. For example: in Episode two, the host admits that the story of the teenage football player was not actually fact checked against anyone in the family or any medical records. The story had so little detail, factual support, and corroboration it was essentially reporting on bad vibes. I’ll also point out that the series never actually provides the listener with the legal or the medical definitions of child abuse, and even worse, seems to (wrongly) operate under a functional definition of child abuse as physical abuse. Finally, the series misrepresents or completely ignores state and hospital child welfare procedures, while claiming, without any support or explanation, over and over again, that there are no “checks and balances” built into these procedures. For other listeners: do not waste your time listening to this, it’s pure melodrama and it will not give you a practical or meaningful understanding of the child welfare system or its many very REAL problems. Instead, it unethically sensationalizes unverified cases, and uses such shoddy journalistic standards that it runs the risk of actually platforming the stories of people who are abusing their children!

Very disappointed with NYT and Serial for airing this dangerous, bad reporting. Shows a lack of understanding of the complexities on medical child abuse, widespread under-reporting, and the challenge of being a mandated reporter. This will be harmful to children.

It is very disappointing for something sponsored by the New York Times to have such a very obviously one-sided story told. Why is there no focus on anything that happened to the children? Did the parents in question not release the medical records for a full picture? Did the reporter talk to the children? What were in the police records that led to children being taken in the first place? Were their background checks done on the parents? Any reputable journalist should be digging deeper than this and providing a full unbiased reporting on all of the facts, not just what fits their narrative. I expected much better from Serial.

The one-star reviews are exactly what the show is working against: the self-righteous, over-simplified approach to policy and charges that affect real lives. I think we need reporting like this that delves into the complexities and messiness of seemingly cut-and-dry stories.

This series is a big disappointment from the usually excellent Serial and the NYT. How can you air a series that is so biased and anti-science and facts in today’s world??

Coming from the mother of a medically complex child. I challenge Serial Productions, with the vast amount of resources they have access to, to include an interview from a board certified child abuse pediatrician or an expert in child abuse/medical child abuse. I challenge Serial productions to include any information it most certainly had the ability to obtain from public record regarding the facts of these cases reported on or the actual victims, the children.

It is clear that this journalist did not do enough research to understand the system they are reporting on or just does not believe that medical child abuse exists. Very disappointing.

This podcast highlights the real-world consequences of what happens when the pendulum swings too far in either direction. In this case, it examines how medical and legal systems can overreact, removing children from homes where abuse did not occur. It serves as a powerful reminder of the difficult balance we must strike between protecting children from genuine harm and preserving families that are loving, safe, or in need of support rather than separation. As someone who went through the system and experienced abuse, I was failed in the opposite way. Despite multiple indicators and clear evidence that I should have been removed from my home, no action was taken. These two realities can exist at the same time. Not all parents are abusive—but there are also instances where professionals, acting out of fear, bias, or unchecked authority, cause harm by misusing their power. Conversely, there are providers who fail children by turning a blind eye to serious, documented abuse when intervention is necessary. The reporter does an effective job presenting a clear, evidence-based investigation of a physician whose actions, across multiple cases, led to fractured families and deeply traumatized children. The reporting avoids sensationalism and instead lays out the facts, allowing the impact of those decisions to speak for itself. What this ultimately shows is that the system is not balanced—and balance is essential. We need a comprehensive overhaul of the child welfare system that both protects children from real danger and supports families appropriately, using discernment, accountability, and compassion rather than extremes. Children deserve safety, and families deserve fairness. Those goals should never be in conflict.

Neary bends over backwards to protect child abusers. One of the “victims” was a mother who’s had THREE CHILDREN abused by her or the father. 2 of the cases resulted in criminal convictions. She also changed her story many times about the case in question. Her final story was her 2 year old jumped into a bassinet and chucked the baby out after taking the baby’s onesie and diaper off lol. This story is trash and this hack journalist is a joke.

Serial Productions continues to make shows that are extremely one sided, ill informed. They promote fringe views from less educated self-proclaimed experts without fact checking. Lying and lie by omitting is not investigative journalism. I don’t trust anything they produce anymore. Especially when it involves defending child abuse.

Mandated reporters should be able to fulfill their duty. If a mandated reporter does not report concern of harm, there are also consequences. Disappointing that the New York Times is supporting anti science propaganda in the times of RFK. Do better.

How is this ethical reporting? The full backgrounds on some of these parents is left out, and HIPPA doesn’t allow any of the doctors involved to speak to these cases. I caution listeners to be skeptical of such one-sided reporting.

This podcast is very disappointing and poorly researched. Platforming an abuser.

Similar to other reviews, I am disturbed by the lack of diligence that went into exploring both sides of this story. Irresponsible coverage of a very nuanced and sensitive topic, it comes up short of understanding the broader issues of medical child abuse and arrives just shy of accidentally supporting an insidious form of child abusers.

If I listened to this, with no previous understanding of medical child abuse, I can see this truly shaping and influencing my opinions and beliefs of CAPs, the child welfare system, munchausen by proxy and so much more. Pinsley’s motivation is so questionable and that’s demonstrated when you actually research him which apparently no one did. This is child abuse and murder cases and it’s presented as some injustice against parents scenario. Every county should have CAPs but most don’t and Lehi county is blessed enough to have one. Why did Pinsley not look into THAT? And try to learn about the laws and children and history. Why are all these people ok with less advocacy for children? And advocating for less support and resources for children? He says he’s about finances but ultimately his solutions (that are not mentioned on this podcast) are more costly! Serial really made me question all their other reporting with this series. It’s ultimately so harmful. This type of reporting fuels MAHA narratives and hurts families. How disappointing.

This is shocking. The third episode especially where the reporting is so blind to CLEAR evidence against the parents. I actually had to stop listening. I hope this gets taken off the air

The podcast Nobody Should Believe me has responded to this series with thorough reporting. I would listen to this show with caution and consider other sources on this topic. The health and well-being of children should be the primary concern of pediatric doctors.

This podcast is a great example of how journalism today had become more entertainment based than actually informative.

I listened to this and was outraged by these overzealous doctors. Then, by chance, I came across the “Nobody Should Believe Me” podcast, which focuses solely on child abuse. There are 6 seasons but she had recent episodes discussing how The Preventionist deliberately leaves out vital information in order to portray the parents as innocent victims and the doctors as evil. I highly suggest listening. One example: the couple leading the lawsuit against the doctors/hospital in Lehigh Valley, Kim and Steve Steltz, has a great deal of evidence against them. Biggest indicator- their older son emancipated himself and spoke out against his parents, confirming that they are abusive.

I’m honestly shocked this level of journalistic negligence was allowed to be published under the purview of such a (previously) well-respected organization. Just wow.

I cannot believe the New York Times of all institutions actually put its name behind such a poorly reported podcast. Much like Take Care of Maya, I first listened to this and got upset. HOWEVER, also like TCoM, they leave out so much easily found public and primary data that tell a VERY different story. They did not correctly portray what exactly a child abuse specialist does within the court system. In addition, the podcaster leaves out important family history in several of the portrayed cases that would leave the reader with, at a minimum, more doubt as to whether the parents are telling the truth. Real journalists have an ethical duty to fact-check and to treat individual testimony with skepticism. ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE. Not doing so is either sloppy, or worse, contorting facts to fit a story. This is yellow journalism. I’m left with the impression that this was a story designed to get clicks and stoke emotional moral panic. This could have been a podcast exploring real faults in the child welfare system. What we have instead is propaganda that plays directly into conspiracy thinking with contorted data to back it up. Worse, you’ve given child abusers a platform. To Serial: Shame on you. I hope you understand that when you push forward sensationalist slop like this, while you may benefit in revenue, it has a bigger cost. You make people hesitate to report suspected abuse for fear they even if it’s good faith and they’re protected, they’ll be smeared. You make parents less likely to trust doctors in an era where we’re already dealing with anti-vax and anti-science approaches that harm and even kill children. And worst of all, you teach viewers to digest information based on what evokes a strong emotional response, not by what the facts say. I would strongly encourage you to consider a follow up episode where you explore all of these criticisms in the comments. At least then you’d actually have to fact-check.

This is an incredibly eye opening and well thought out podcast. I am not surprised the reviews are so binary. I would be willing to bet most of the negative reviews are from individuals without children who can’t possibly understand the trauma of being falsely accused of child abuse and the threat of having your child taken away unjustifiably. Hats off to NYT and Serial for having the courage to bring this systemic issue to light.

The thesis of this show appears to be “this extremely qualified doctor who has been practicing child abuse medicine since children were being regularly murdered by their parents, and who does not show a racist pattern in her recommendations (the major reason to be concerned about overreporting), is simply too worried about ensuring that parents don’t murder their children, and for that she should be nationally harassed and shamed.” Very bizarre take? Disappointing and unexpected from a previously reliable source.

Not only was this poorly produced, with episodes' storytelling not fully connecting, the production team decided to keep their research at surface level to fit whatever sensationalist narrative they want to sell. A quick Google search will give you the full picture of the abuse these children have suffered by parents who were convinced of child abuse. Extremely irresponsible podcast.

One doctor is put at the center of this story, and we are supposed to believe that she is to blame for everything. There is no real curiosity of why a doctor would do such a thing, or any motive presented. This combined with the omission of key information about the cases discussed clearly points to a reporter who came to a conclusion first and then created a podcast to back it up. The New York Times should be ashamed of such blatant bad faith journalism.

A podcast that advocates making it harder and more dangerous for mandated reporters to do their due diligence. I expect more from serial and the times.

It is extremely surprising to me that the Serial team has given a platform to this story - which is at best, biased and at worst incredibly harmful to the systems and individuals working to protect vulnerable children.

This podcast furthers the dangerous trend of sowing distrust in science and medicine, and making parents think they know better than doctors and medical professionals. It left me with many more questions than answers as the investigation seemed to lack details and nuance, and only shared the side of the accused abusive parents, who of course will claim they are wrongly accused. Unfortunately child abuse is a real problem as is the sometimes horrific foster care system, but villainizing doctors is not the take. Disappointing for the NYT.

At best, The Preventionist is negligent- fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Munchausen child abuse cases it highlights in the series. At worst, it is intentionally misleading and dangerously perpetuates misinformation that obscures serious child abuse. I have always been a supporter of Serial, NPR, and NYTimes, but the irresponsible and frankly just sloppy reporting makes me reconsider continuing my subscriptions and annual donations.

Serial is shockingly wrong about medical child abuse. They gave a mouthpiece to obvious abusers and never confirmed the full medical records of the child victims. The fact that one of the children profiled here emancipated himself and publicly spoke about his parents’ abuse - how can this not be credible? Please check out the real journalism being done on this topic at the podcast No one Should Believe Me. Shame on Serial and the NY Times.