1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"Heavy Metals Inc. Doctors pushing chelation therapy are a creative, resilient bunch" by David Whelan.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Jan. 18, 2010.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
My story examines chelation, a medial treatment that has a real purpose, which is to remove poisonous metals from patients such as ones who've been in industrial accidents or otherwise exposed. Yet the therapy has been promoted by some doctors to heart patients, autistic kids and just as a general detoxification therapy–without any medical evidence that it works.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Lawsuits, disciplinary records, scientific papers, government documents from the NIH and FDA (though no FOIA was required).
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Doctors who promote chelation and those who are critical, lawyers representing patients who claim to be harmed and those defending the practioners.
6. Results (if any).
I heard from some readers that was it was helpful to read about chelation's history when considering whether to pay for it for their autistic children. The anti-vaccine elements of the autism patient community saw the story as threatening.
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.
I've followed up on the subject to cover the autism-vaccine debate on my blog. Nobody has challenged the veracity of my story.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Be skeptical of alternative remedies especially when they are expensive and/or being promoted by non-mainstream doctors.