1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
1) Industrial chemical or autism treatment? One mom says: 'I sprinkle the powder into Bella's morning juice'
2) Questioning Dr. Oz: Celebrity surgeon's goal is to offer 'as much information as possible' on health issues. But critics say that inclusive approach does the public a disservice.
3) Pot of gold or a pipe dream? Little evidence for claims of pot's medicinal value
4) Hope outrunning science on illness Patients eager for answers latch onto retrovirus theory
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
January 17, 2010, April 9, 2010, May 5, 2010, June 8, 2010
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
All of these stories pivot around a handful of key questions: What does the medical science say, and how are people behaving in relation to it? What are the consequences of ignoring the science? In "Hope outrunning science on illness," I showed scientists and desperate patients running ahead of the science, at a considerable risk to patients. I showed these scientists and patients placing enormous weight on a single paper linking the retrovirus XMRV to chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, even as other teams of researchers failed to replicate the original findings. In spite of these negative studies, patients diagnosed with CFS started taking potent and risky antiretroviral drugs usually prescribed for HIV patients, and the original paper_s lead scientist announced to people with other illnesses that they too, may have an XMRV infection, a baseless assertion. Since the story ran in June, more teams have failed to replicate the results. In "Pot of gold or a pipe dream?" I showed how legislation can be in conflict with medical science. In this case, a law proposed in Illinois and many other states lists 14 disorders and diseases for which patients could use marijuana. But, as I showed, scientific studies do not support the use of marijuana for most of the conditions, and indeed, for some there is reason to think that the substance could be harmful. A day after our story ran, the state_s medical marijuana bill was pulled by its sponsor. In "Questioning Dr. Oz," I showed how this celebrity doctor – through his TV show, his bestselling health books and his extensive website – gets it wrong in important ways by ignoring the science. In this case, Dr. Mehmet Oz blurs the lines between evidence-based medicine and unsupported pseudoscience, inviting on his show a physician who promotes the idea that cancer is caused by a fungus and advising against certain vaccines that have been shown to be safe, for example. And finally, in "Industrial chemical or autism treatment?" I showed how desperation can lead parents to ignore science, or a lack of science, even putting their children at risk. In this story, I exposed a supplement being sold to parents of children with autism to actually be a repurposed industrial chelating chemical designed for use in mining operations. One parent described "sprinkling" it on her kids' breakfast sandwiches. No rigorous safety or efficacy studies had been run on the product. After our story ran, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent the company owner a letter declaring the supplement an illegal drug, and shortly after, the company stopped making it. The FDA later sent a flurry of warning letters to companies selling similar "chelators" as supplements when they were, in fact, illegal drugs.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Scores of scientific studies were used in the reporting of these stories, along with court records, legislation, message boards, blogs and Internet videos. No public records act requests were required to obtain any of these materials.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
In order to report these stories, I interviewed dozens of scientists, physicians, patients, their advocates, their family members, non-profit organization leaders, lawmakers and Dr. Mehmet Oz's public relations staff.
6. Results (if any).
After my story on medical marijuana ran, the sponsor of the bill pulled it. After our story on OSR#1, the autism supplement that was actually an industrial chemical, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent the owner of the company a warning letter declaring it an illegal drug and the owner stopped making it. The FDA later sent a flurry of warning letters to companies selling similar "chelators" as supplements when they were, in fact, illegal drugs.
7. 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.
We have not had to run any corrections or clarifications.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
There are endless stories to be written about the clash between what the science says and how people people react to it or behave in relation to it. The world is filled with unscientific and pseudoscientific claims, some silly and harmless, some downright dangerous. Reporters planning to do one of these stories should try to talk to as many people as possible – the best experts, the advocates, the patients, the regulators. But then it is important not to portray all viewpoints as equally valid. Some will be supported by actual scientific studies and some will not, and it's important to point that out. Because you will be, in some cases, pointing out that some treatment is not supported by science, many patients who have invested heavily – financially and psychologically – in that therapy are likely to become very angry with you. I heard from many upset patients. Blogs were written about me, and personal information about my family, including details about my extended family, were disseminated. Expect a harsh, personal and sometimes vicious reaction from some patients, but also accolades and thanks from scientists, physicians and patients who have wasted money and hope on dubious treatments.