VacTruth Alleges Bullying in One-Sided Account of Nurse-Patient Encounter

Anti-vaccine activists have a love-hate relationship with medical providers, be they nurses, doctors, pharmacists, whatever. They love to hate any medical provider that dares to question their anti-vaccine beliefs. When they encounter someone who strongly urges them to get vaccinated or to vaccinate their children, the nurse or doctor is invariably described as a "bully", "ignorant", "ill-informed", "brain-washed", "pharma whores" and so on. They push "propaganda" are paid by "Big Pharma". Any interaction is viewed through this lens, that the parent is right and the medical professional is hopelessly benighted or even downright evil. If they happen to have a poor bedside manner, so much the worse, though given how some anti-vaccine activists respond to science-based feedback, I might be a bit short-tempered, too.

Over the weekend, an anti-vaccine blog called VacTruth.com (why must anti-vaccine groups always use such Orwellian names?) posted a story entitled "Bully Nurse Harasses Parents of Unvaccinated Baby at Michigan Hospital". According to the account, an unidentified couple brought their child to an urgent care center in Madison Heights, MI after talking on the phone with a nurse at their pediatrician's office. Their son, called "Oliver" in the article, had cold symptoms, a low fever and an "acne-like" rash on his face. Following the advice, they reportedly went to the Detroit Medical Center at Madison Heights, where the admitting nurse, if the account is to be believed, suspected the child had chicken pox and subsequently harassed, ridiculed and bullied the parents.

A Pox on Health Reporting

Science and health reporting in the U.S. can be a bit of a mixed bag. Sometimes, reports on these topics are level-headed, presenting accurate information in the proper context. There is often a great deal of nuance involved. More often, though, news outlets do a less than optimal job. They oversimplify. They leave out important details. They get details wrong. They engage in inappropriate emotional appeals to spin the story, often to the detriment of truthful reporting.

You may have heard in the news, recently, of FrankieElizabeth Staiti, a 5-year-old New York kindergartener who has been barred from school because she has not received the varicella vaccine. The reason? Her pediatrician refuses to give the varicella vaccine to any child who has an infant sibling, believing that the varicella vaccine poses too great a risk, since it uses a live, weakened virus. FrankieElizabeth has a 14-week-old sister. Her mother, Elizabeth Wagner, applied for a medical exemption for her daughter, but it was rejected after the Department of Education reviewed it with her and FrankieElizabeth's pediatrician.

That is the basic story. But there are some problems with the way that a lot of outlets are reporting on this.

One Size Fits All Vaccination

There are a number of frequent refrains heard from those opposed to vaccines. There are too many. Oh, the toxins! If vaccines work, then what are you worried about? Vaccination laws take away parents' rights. The list goes on and on. They get repeated so often that it becomes very easy to just gloss over them and ignore the strident ululations of anti-vaccine activists. Between posting here and commenting on various blogs and news stories, I feel like I've addressed these arguments (if you can call them that) more than enough times. But then I remember that as long as the noise keeps going, there will be a need for reality-based individuals to speak out against them.

Recently, one such complaint caught my interest a little more than usual. Perhaps it was because I happened to be rereading the CDC Pink Book at the time. Much is made among anti-vaccine types of personal liberties and how each person is different. Every little snowflake is precious and unique, they opine, so how can anyone support a "one size fits all" vaccination schedule?

Big Fruit Is Trying to Poison You...or Not

People in positions of authority or renown ought to be careful with what they say and do. They are held to a higher standard because their actions can often have a rather influential effect on the public at large. A simple comment may be enough to sway how we think, what choices we make and may even have a huge impact on the economy. Suggesting that there may be something wrong with one product may steer people away from that product, at least for a time. It may even scare consumers away from the entire class to which the product belongs. It is very important, therefore, to do one's due diligence before saying something from a platform that reaches audiences in the hundreds of thousands. It's easy to make an error when speaking extemporaneously; we're all human, after all. But when a person's words and presentation are planned well in advance, when there is forethought, and when the topic has the potential to sway a lot of people, that person must tread carefully, dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s. It is disturbing when people in such public positions fail in this.

People like Dr. Oz.