Con artists use an array of tactics to persuade their victims. One of those tactics they use to lend credence to their lies is to invoke the name of trusted individuals or entities. It’s important in these instances that we use common sense to debunk outrageous claims.
One of my duties as a critical-care nurse is to interact, on a fairly regular basis, with Poison Control. A typical conversation goes as follows:
PC operator: “may I have the name, physical location and call back number of the person I’m speaking to?”
Me: “my name is xxx, I’m a registered nurse at xxx, call back # xxx”
PC operator: “name of affected individual, age, weight and other relevant medical history”
Me: “the patients name is xxx, date of birth xxx, weight xxx kg, patient is diabetic with renal disease.”
PC operator: “what substance was the person exposed to?”
Me: “labetolol 20mg”
PC operator: “method of exposure?”
PC operator: “approximate or actual amount ingested?”
Me: “the bottle originally contained 30 pills, it was a once daily medication and it was filled 2 days ago, the bottle is now empty, we estimate an ingestion of 28 pills.”
PC operator: “length of time since ingestion?”
Me: “patient was last seen normal 6 hours ago.”
PC operator: “what is the current status of the patient?”
Me: “patient is currently hypotensive with a blood pressure of 70/40, unconscious and intubated.”
From here, the poison control center will categorize the severity of the exposure, make recommendations for treatment/reversal, suggest laboratory tests, gather further data and follow up on patient status.
Calls to poison control are directed, succinct, and meant to gather the most information in the shortest period of time possible to ensure the best outcome for the victim.
Claiming to have had a lengthy, informative, casual conversation with a representative from poison control would be akin to claiming to have had the same conversation with a 911 operator. It simply didn’t happen.
I’m not even going to address the underlying issue of vaccine ingredient safety that this ridiculous post eludes to, because that has been done eloquently by individuals more qualified than I, many times before. But on the sheer basis of “this conversation never happened” – I can say with confidence, that it indeed did not happen in the way that this post has represented. It is possible that a call was placed to poison control, and that the operator momentarily answered questions in an attempt to discover whether the caller was reporting a possible poisoning, but the latter part of the conversation goes beyond unlikely into a completely false attempt at lending credence to lies by invoking the name of poison control.
Kathy from Vaccinesworkblog covers this nicely…. As you can see in the link below…
I also want to point out that using an emergency resource, like Poison Control or 911, without an emergency is taking away that resource for someone who really needs it. This is just another example of how selfish anti-vaxxers are, that they would take away a precious resource from someone who may be dying and needs it. These resources should not be abused and should only used in the case of an emergency exposure/poisoning.