- http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/the-reward-for-donating-a-kidney-no-insurance/
- http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/
- http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/x-ray-scans-at-airports-leave-lingering-worries/
Provide names of other journalists involved.
None
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
June 11, 2012; Aug. 7, 2012 & Nov. 5, 2012.
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
‘X-Ray Scans at Airports Leave Lingering Worries’ explained that even though airport backscatter scanners should not, in an ideal world, expose passengers to dangerous amounts of ionizing (Xray) radiation, the machines are not maintained and calibrated regularly enough and are used extensively, and a mechanical failure could lead to dangerous exposures. ‘The Reward for Donating A Kidney: No Insurance’ highlighted a little-known problem that often faces those who altruistically donate an organ to ease the burden of chronic illness for someone else: Even though donors are carefully screened for health problems before being approved, they are likely to have a hard time getting health insurance (and are unlikely to be able to purchase any life insurance). ‘Reassessing Flu Shots’ exposed the hyperbolic promises made about seasonal influenza vaccines, and the very shaky ground on which aggressive public health policy about vaccines rests.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
I relied extensively on published scientific reports and the medical literature for the columns on flu shots and airport scanner radiation risks. Since the TSA has not given independent scientists access to the actual machines in use, even so-called independent analyses are actually based on simulations of the backscatter X ray machines. Some of the most illuminating documents were a series of letters written by independent scientists to the TSA airing their concerns, as well as Congressional testimony by highly respected scientists (e.g. Dr. David J. Brenner, director of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research). For the column on flu shots I read an enormous number of papers from the scientific literature, accessed online through PubMed and directly from the researchers and/or the Centers for Disease Control, as well as Cochrane Collaboration reports, which can be accessed online, and the Osterholm report.
Explain types of human sources used.
Sometimes an individual person’s experience makes a story, and that was the case with Radburn Royer, who had donated a kidney to his daughter to ease her illness, only to discover he would have a hard time getting health coverage later on, despite the fact that he is in excellent health himself (and would not have been approved to be a donor otherwise). Once I started looking into the issue, I discovered it was a common problem, albeit one the medical community is ambivalent about broadcasting for fear of dissuading live organ donation. By working the grapevine of the kidney waiting list community and other live donors, I was able to track down other people who’d had similar experiences, like Linda Bramblett, a self-employed swim instructor who was denied health insurance after donating a kidney to her chronically ill brother. For the column on radiation risks from scanners, I had to go searching for a ‘real person’ who had concerns about exposures, and was fortunate to find someone who adheres to the precautionary principle of “better safe than sorry.” The most powerful voice in the flu vaccine story was that of Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at University of Minnesota, and author of a new report that’s very critical of current influenza vaccines; In my interview with him, this former CDC insider said influenza vaccines had been “overhyped” and “overpromoted” to the American public, and characterized the public health campaign to promote the vaccine as nothing more than a “sales job.” (I also spoke to health care workers who were being forced to have flu shots against their will in order to keep their jobs, but they were reluctant to be interviewed, for obvious reasons).
Results:
The debate about mandatory influenza vaccines for health care workers has been picking up steam in recent months, but I can’t really take credit for that. ProPublica reported in October that the TSA has been removing Xray body scanners from major airports, but again, that action was not triggered by my story.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
After the columns about flu shots and airport scanners were published, I expected a reaction from the government agencies involved, but neither the Transportation Security Administration nor the Centers for Disease Control responded at all — their silence was deafening. They did not complain about the facts or the tone of the stories, nor did they write a letter to the editor to put forth a different point of view. While this was reassuring to me as a journalist, it was also deeply troubling that these powerful agencies either cannot defend their agendas or cannot be bothered to do so.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Dot your i’s and cross your t’s on the facts you report, but be aware of the information that you leave out as well, and try to find the space and provide background information that you may think is common knowledge. In retrospect, I wish I had addressed widespread concern among some people that getting a flu shot can actually give you the flu; I also wish I had clearly explained that flu shots really should be called ‘influenza’ shots and only protect people against illness caused by influenza viruses, as there are many illnesses commonly called ‘flu’ that are not caused by influenza viruses. These misconceptions came up frequently in readers’ comments.