claim_id
stringlengths 1
234
| claim
stringlengths 14
491
| explanation
stringlengths 1
4.18k
| label
stringclasses 5
values | subjects
stringlengths 0
223
| main_text
stringlengths 18
41.7k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16818
|
A salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.
|
"Clinton said that ""a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."" There’s reason to believe that future court decisions could allow companies to forgo payment for all types of birth control, but Clinton’s claim refers specifically to Hobby Lobby’s policies toward its employees. And in that context, her claim is greatly exaggerated. Hobby Lobby doesn’t shun contraception entirely for its employees; it pays for access to 16 out of the FDA’s 20 approved methods. Where Clinton has a partial point is that an employee would be barred from having the company pay for four other types, even if one of those may be the best medical option for the employee’s needs. UPDATE, July 4, 2014: After this article was published, Hillary Clinton's camp got back to us. A spokesman pointed us to a line from Ginsberg's dissent that ""seems to be pretty in line with"" Clinton's comments. ""The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga (Wood Specialties, another plaintiff in the case) would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure."""
|
false
|
Abortion, National, Health Care, Legal Issues, Women, Hillary Clinton,
|
"By now, lots of major political figures have weighed in on the decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, a landmark Supreme Court case. A 5-4 majority ruled that a closely held, private corporation, such as the craft retailer Hobby Lobby, could decline on religious grounds to pay for certain kinds of contraceptives otherwise mandated in employee health coverage by the Affordable Care Act. One of the most closely watched responses was by Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State who is the presumptive frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton addressed the case during a question-and-answer session at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. Clinton blasted the decision as ""deeply disturbing."" ""It’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,"" Clinton said. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker reviewed this claim and gave it Two Pinocchios, out of a maximum of four. We thought we’d take our own look. First, some background. The company’s owners say they object to four out of the 20 Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of contraception -- the four that prevent implantation of the embryo. These include two forms of ""emergency contraception,"" sometimes called the ""morning-after pill,"" and two forms of intra-uterine devices, or IUDs. (Officially, the FDA considers these four methods to be ""contraception,"" but the company’s Christian owners consider them to be a form of abortion.) According to the Wall Street Journal, the company actually supported all 20 forms of contraception until 2012, when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty informed Hobby Lobby about the Affordable Care Act’s contraception requirement. Owner David Green told the Journal that he was ""shocked"" at the discovery. He proceeded to revoke the coverage and file the suit that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2014. Contrary to Clinton’s claim, Hobby Lobby’s website says the company does in fact support the other 16 forms of contraception. Here are some excerpts from its Frequently Asked Questions page: Q: Is Hobby Lobby preventing its employees from buying contraceptives under its plan? A: Not at all. The Greens (the family that owns the company) and their family businesses respect the individual liberties of all their employees. The Greens and their family businesses have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved contraceptives required by the law that do not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. They provide coverage for such contraceptives under their health care plan. Additionally, the four objectionable drugs and devices are widely available and affordable, and employees are free to obtain them. Q: But isn’t Hobby Lobby depriving its women employees of health care? A: Just the opposite: the Greens and their family businesses, including Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., offer their employees – nearly 70 percent of whom are women – a robust benefit plan that includes coverage for preventive care and almost all of the contraceptives required under the Affordable Care Act. That plan includes an on-site clinic with no co-pay at Hobby Lobby headquarters, and all full-time employees are eligible to enroll in a generous benefit plan: including medical, dental, prescription drugs, along with long-term disability and life insurance, and a 401(k) plan with a generous company match. For the record, the 16 contraceptives the company supports, according to a Hobby Lobby spokeswoman, are: male condoms; female condoms; diaphragms with spermicide; sponges with spermicide; cervical caps with spermicide; spermicide alone; birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin; birth-control pills with progestin alone; birth control pills, extended or continuous use; contraceptive patches; contraceptive rings; progestin injections; implantable rods; vasectomies; female sterilization surgeries; female sterilization implants. Of course, not all of these forms will be equally useful to the salesclerk, particularly vasectomies and male condoms. Still, they include some of the most widely used forms of contraception, including several varieties of the birth-control pill. We found no evidence to dispute the company’s assertion that it pays for 16 out of 20 forms of contraception. So Clinton goes too far when she says the salesclerk ""is not going to get"" contraception through the company’s health care plan. And the fact that the company pays for 16 types undercuts Clinton’s claim that Hobby Lobby ""doesn’t think she should be using contraception."" Where Clinton’s claim includes a grain of truth is that the salesclerk will not have an unfettered choice in what form of contraception she gets. Say the salesclerk is unable, for medical reasons, to use the birth control pill. An IUD might be a good alternative, but it would not be available to her under Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. IUD use has been increasing in recent years, and paying for one out-of-pocket means significant up-front expenses. If IUD implantation is taken off the table, the salesclerk may be forced to choose another method -- one that may be less well-suited to the employee. There’s another nuance that leave this question in something of a gray area. The way the decision was written leaves some question about whether closely held, religious companies can choose to opt out of supporting any of the remaining 16 forms of contraception in their health plans. For the record, a spokeswoman said that Hobby Lobby ""will continue to cover all 16,"" but that may not be the case for other companies. Already, some companies have been allowed by lower courts to stop paying for a wider range of contraceptives than were at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, according to the Associated Press. Their cases are likely to work their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court has let those policies stand pending further appeals. While the Hobby Lobby decision may open the door to judicial acceptance of more sweeping contraceptive bans, the specific comment we’re checking targeted Hobby Lobby -- and it’s significantly flawed. ""To the extent she was talking about Hobby Lobby as an employer specifically, I think Clinton overstated her case,"" said I. Glenn Cohen, co-director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Havard Law School. He added, ""It may be true for a subset of employees, and to the extent she was also referring to other potential employers who might ban all contraceptives, I think she is on firmer ground."" Our ruling Clinton said that ""a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."" There’s reason to believe that future court decisions could allow companies to forgo payment for all types of birth control, but Clinton’s claim refers specifically to Hobby Lobby’s policies toward its employees. And in that context, her claim is greatly exaggerated. Hobby Lobby doesn’t shun contraception entirely for its employees; it pays for access to 16 out of the FDA’s 20 approved methods. Where Clinton has a partial point is that an employee would be barred from having the company pay for four other types, even if one of those may be the best medical option for the employee’s needs. UPDATE, July 4, 2014: After this article was published, Hillary Clinton's camp got back to us. A spokesman pointed us to a line from Ginsberg's dissent that ""seems to be pretty in line with"" Clinton's comments. ""The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga (Wood Specialties, another plaintiff in the case) would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure."" We stand by the rating of ."
|
23147
|
Republican candidate for governor Nathan Deal fought to weaken Georgia's rape shield law.
|
Ad: Nathan Deal tried to weaken rape shield law in 1991
|
mixture
|
Georgia, Criminal Justice, Women, Roy Barnes,
|
"It's the most incendiary TV ad in the race for governor so far. An empty Volvo station wagon sits in a desolate parking lot. Its alarm pulses. The driver's side door hangs open. Groceries litter the ground. ""It was my niece,"" a woman's voice says. ""If Nathan Deal had won his fight to weaken the rape shield law, and my niece took the stand, she would have been forced to defend what she wore and that she didn’t deserve to be raped."" Supporters of Democratic candidate Roy Barnes, whose campaign authorized the ad, said the actions of Deal, a Republican, show he doesn't protect women's interests. Deal's camp called it a new low in a political season dominated by negative attacks and reminded voters Deal was once a prosecutor who put rapists in jail. They also accused Barnes of being soft on child molesters. Barnes and Deal face off Nov. 2. All the ugliness of using victims for political gain aside, is there any truth to the ad? Did Deal really fight to weaken the rape shield law? Barnes' evidence is a heated, well-documented 1991 General Assembly battle over the state's rape shield law. It pitted Deal against an alliance of women's and victims' rights advocates and prosecutors. The law, established in 1976, blocks defense attorneys from entering a victim's sexual history into evidence in court under most circumstances. This barred evidence includes whether she has a reputation for promiscuity and her ""mode of dress."" Deal, who was Senate president pro tem at the time, sponsored a 164-page bill that would have overhauled Georgia's rules of evidence. These are the state's rules on what kinds of evidence is admissible in court. Then and now, these rules were a patchwork based on old Georgia code. There is a decades-old movement to update them by making them more like federal rules of evidence. Supporters of this broad-ranging change think the federal rules are more cohesive and in certain cases better. The movement has supporters at the State Bar of Georgia, which produced the bill Deal introduced in 1991. Women's rights advocates, victim advocates, prosecutors and others were furious that the Bar's proposal included changes to the rape shield law. In a meeting with Deal, his opposition warned that they would make it a ""major issue of the General Assembly session, and the next session if necessary,"" according to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Deal moved ahead without their support, but the opposition galvanized against him. Women barraged their legislators with phone calls of protest and filled the chambers of the state Senate to show their solidarity. A headline in what was then called the Fulton County Daily Report, the state's major legal news publication, warned ""New Rules of Evidence Threatened Rape Shield."" A Columbus Ledger-Enquirer editorial described Deal's bill as a ""Neanderthal law."" Deal bowed to pressure and amended the bill to address their concerns, but the damage was done. It passed the Senate but never made it out of committee in the state House. To evaluate Barnes' claims, AJC PolitiFact Georgia dug up Deal's failed two-decade-old, 164-page Senate bill from the Georgia Archives and looked up state and federal rape shield rules that were in effect then. We also evaluated arguments made publicly for and against the changes in 1991 and recently. Both the bill proposed by Deal and existing Georgia law barred the victim's sexual past from being admissible in court in most cases. Both included an exception if the victim's sexual history with the accused showed the incident may have been consensual. But the law proposed by Deal permitted four new exceptions to the rule. The biggest was this: If prosecutors presented physical evidence including semen, injury, pregnancy, or disease to prove the victim was raped, then a judge could allow a defense attorney to enter evidence about a victim's sexual past. And unlike the existing rape shield, the proposed version did not explicitly bar the accuser's ""mode of dress"" from entering into evidence. In Deal'sproposed law, if defense attorneys wanted to include a victim's sexual past, they would make a motion on the issue when the jury was not present. The judge would then hear arguments from both sides in his chambers, and might hear testimony from witnesses. If the judge found the value of the evidence outweighs the ""danger of unfair prejudice,"" it would be admissible, the proposed law said. The judge would then lay ground rules for what would be allowed in the courtroom. The author of the proposed 1991 changes is Georgia State University law professor Paul Milich. He declined to comment for this story, but confirmed he did argue in online comments on The AJC's Political Insider, the blog of columnist Jim Galloway, that no one ""was remotely suggesting"" Georgia weaken or reduce its protections for rape victims. The proposal actually strengthened protections for them. Milich said that the changes would have broadened the shield to cover all sex assault victims, not just rape victims. This is argument is technically correct, but has its limits. By 1991, judges had already ruled the law applied to victims of other sex crimes, according to case law. Milich also noted that Barnes was on the state Bar's Evidence Study Committee, which would have had to review the proposal before the Bar backed it. The Bar confirmed that both Deal and Barnes were part of that committee, but said they do not keep records on its votes. We asked Deal's camp and others for evidence Barnes voted in favor of the law, but they did not provide it. Barnes said through a spokeswoman that he doesn't recall attending meetings of the group. Third, Milich said his version of the law would require a judge to evaluate whether to admit the victim's sexual past based on a strict standard. It's correct that the proposal would require a judge weigh the ""danger of unfair prejudice"" against the victim against the value of the evidence. That standard was absent from Georgia's existing statute. Still, it remains that if Deal's bill passed, because of the additional exceptions, defense attorneys would gain new opportunities to enter an accuser's sexual past into evidence. So Deal did push for a bill that would give the defense more options. But did he actually fight to weaken the rape shield law, as the Barnes ad said? Deal said he was actually trying to make the rape shield law conform to federal standards and strengthen it against possible constitutional challenges. But these defenses have serious weaknesses. Georgia's rape shield law did not face a clear threat of being overturned by a constitutional challenge. By 1991, the rape shield law was 15 years old and had withstood a constitutional challenge in state Supreme Court. There has been no successful challenge since. That spring, the U.S. Supreme Court made its first ruling on a rape shield law, and upheld it. Furthermore, Deal's proposed revisions fell short of conforming to 1991 federal standards. They would have given defense attorneys more leeway than those rules allowed. Under federal rules, defense attorneys had to warn prosecutors and the accuser 15 days before trial if they planned to present evidence about the victim's sexual past. Deal's proposal didn't require this advanced warning. Also, federal rules list only semen and injury as the kinds of physical evidence that could open a victim's sexual past to being entered as evidence. Deal's law added pregnancy, disease, ""or other physical evidence"" to the list. So what does all this mean? Barnes' claim is correct, but it leaves out important details. Because Barnes's ad is so incendiary it's important to note that we have no proof that Deal's effort came from anything but out of concern for the rights of the accused. While in hindsight there was no looming threat that the rape shield would fall to a constitutional challenge, there were concerns at the time that rape shield laws in general may not be fair. And while the proposed law would have opened more opportunities for the defense to question an accuser on his or her past sexual behavior, it did include a process to prevent it from becoming a free-for-all for the defense. It's also important to note that this debate took place nearly 20 years ago, not recently. A more balanced way to put it is this: Deal started by leading a fight to overhaul the state's rules of evidence. This included making changes to the rape shield that gave the defense leeway that didn't exist in state law or federal rules. Legislators, prosecutors and victims advocates gave Deal fair warning that they would wage war if he didn't back off. Still, Deal pursued the change until public protest reached a fevered pitch. And while he didn't fight to help rapists or hurt victims, he invested his political capital as second-in-command in the state Senate on behalf of a law that weakened the rape shield act. Statements that are accurate but leave out important details or take things out of context meet the Truth-O-Meter's definition of . That's what we rule."
|
13261
|
With her solution, terrorists can still today — and by the way ISIS knows it, they have been advertising it — buy guns online and at gun shows in the United States of America.
|
"Hassan said the Islamic State knows its followers can buy firearms ""online and at gun shows"" and is ""advertising it."" An interview in the New York Times with a former Islamic State recruit shows group members acknowledge American recruits can buy guns, so long as they don’t have a record. And a 2011 video from an al Qaeda spokesman urges terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. There is little evidence to suggest a widespread advertising campaign, but it’s hard to tell, because not all ISIS communication is on the Internet, either."
|
true
|
New Hampshire, Islam, Terrorism, Guns, Maggie Hassan,
|
"As gun policy takes a central role in New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate race, Democrat Maggie Hassan is warning that terrorists are trying to exploit federal laws to obtain firearms. Hassan brought up the point in the first televised debate against Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte. ""With her solution, terrorists can still today — and by the way ISIS knows it, they have been advertising it — buy guns online and at gun shows in the United States of America,"" Hassan said on the debate stage at New England College. Is it really a point terrorists are spreading? Let’s look. PolitiFact has already looked into Hassan’s claim that Ayotte voted against a proposal to expand background checks and found it . Here we are going to look at what ISIS says about buying guns in America. Hassan’s camp pointed us to a series of news articles in which members of various terrorist groups talk about the ease of getting guns in the U.S. A former Islamic State recruit told the New York Times in August that the terrorist group tries to draw its recruits from within the U.S. because they can buy guns without a middleman. ""For America and Canada, it’s much easier for them to get them over the social network, because they say the Americans are dumb — they have open gun policies,"" Harry Sarfo told the Times from a German prison, when explaining attitudes within the terror group. ""They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have a contact man who has to provide guns for them."" Hassan’s camp also directed us to a 2011 video featuring American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn in which he talked about lax gun laws in the U.S. and urged followers to take advantage of them. ""America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,"" Gadahn said, according to CNN. ""You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"" Gadahn was with al-Qaeda, not ISIS. Still, he urged terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. Those two examples are enough to show that terrorists have advertised the U.S. gun laws, and ""it is something they think about internally,"" said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Still, it’s difficult to determine if these are part of a widespread advertising campaign, or just isolated examples. A lof of ISIS communication is never circulated on the internet, Gartenstein-Ross cautioned. On other occasions, PolitiFact has examined whether people can buy guns without background checks. Currently federal law requires prospective gun buyers undergo background checks when they buy guns from federally licensed dealers -- but there are notable exceptions. Anyone who repeatedly buys and sells firearms ""with the principal motive of making a profit"" has to get a dealer’s license, whether they deal out of a brick-and-mortar store, at a flea market, or online, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Licensed firearm dealers must run background checks on non-licensed buyers before selling them a gun. But the law does not require a dealer’s license for private hobbyists and others who occasionally buy and sell guns for the purpose of enhancing or liquidating a collection. So if an individual buys a gun from a hobbyist over the Internet, or at a gun show, he or she would not be subject to a background check. It’s worth noting that private sales, online or otherwise, cannot take place across state lines, so the buyer and seller must be in the same state. And there are many restrictions on shipping guns, so the actual transfer of the gun is likely to take place in person. Second, it is illegal for private sellers to transfer a gun to someone they either know or reasonably believe is prohibited from owning a gun, for example, if the seller knows the buyer is a felon. But online sellers ""can give themselves plausible deniability by not asking the necessary questions,"" Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California Davis, has previously told PolitiFact. Additionally, several states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington — and the District of Columbia require background checks for all private gun sales. There is a sizeable online market for private, background check-free gun sales, according to a 2013 study by Third Way, a center-left think tank. Focusing on the website Armslist.com, a sort of Craigslist for firearms and accessories, in 10 states, Third Way found 2,000 ads from individuals looking to purchase guns from private sellers specifically. Congressional efforts to expand background checks for purchases made at gun shows or online have failed. A recent review by the New York Times found the majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings were obtained legally, including the attack in Orlando that left nearly 50 people dead. The shooter in that incident, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before he gunned down patrons at the Pulse nightclub. Our ruling Hassan said the Islamic State knows its followers can buy firearms ""online and at gun shows"" and is ""advertising it."" An interview in the New York Times with a former Islamic State recruit shows group members acknowledge American recruits can buy guns, so long as they don’t have a record. And a 2011 video from an al Qaeda spokesman urges terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. There is little evidence to suggest a widespread advertising campaign, but it’s hard to tell, because not all ISIS communication is on the Internet, either."
|
29637
|
U.S. President Donald Trump personally donated $1 million to the relief fund for the Bahamas after Hurricane Dorian.
|
We refer you to the White House for information about any personal action taken by the president.
|
false
|
Politics
|
In September 2019, shortly after Hurricane Dorian devastated the Bahamas, a rumor started to circulate on Facebook claiming that U.S. President Donald Trump had personally donated $1 million to the relief fund for the Caribbean country: This rumor is unfounded. Although verbatim copies of this message — “President Trump donated $1 million dollars to the relief fund for The Bahamas. No politicians have donated ANYTHING. ZERO” — were shared by a number of Facebook users (as well as a few variants), we’ve yet to come across any posting that linked the claim to a credible news report. Furthermore, neither Trump nor the White House has announced any personal donations from the president to the Bahamas. We reached out to White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham for comment but did not hear back by press time. While this rumor is based on a series of unsourced social media posts, it isn’t far-fetched. Trump truly donated $1 million to the recovery effort in Texas and Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in 2017: President Donald Trump and the first lady, Melania, personally donated $1 million to Hurricane Harvey relief efforts, the White House said Wednesday in announcing which charities had been selected. The donation was divided among 12 charities, including the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Reach Out America and the ASPCA. The White House previously requested recommendations of where Trump should send his money and “several of the following organizations were recommended … by members of the White House Press Corps.” Perhaps some social media users came across one of the 2017 reports about Trump’s donation to a hurricane-relief effort and mistook them for recent news. As of this writing, however, no such donation has been announced for the Bahamas in 2019. When Trump took office in January 2017, he pledged to donate the entirety of his presidential salary (approximately $400,000 annually) to various causes. Trump has kept this promise. As of this writing, Trump’s most recent donation ($100,000) went to the Department of Health and Human Services: President Donald Trump wrote a check to donate his second quarter 2019 salary to the office of the Surgeon General to fund an upcoming public health advisory, the White House told USA TODAY. It’s his third salary donation to the Department of Health and Human Services. “The President recognizes the important mission of the Surgeon General to protect and improve the health of all Americans, including helping to tackle the opioid epidemic and raise awareness of the dangers of e-cigarette usage among teenagers and children,” the White House said in a statement. While the White House has publicized these donations, they have made no announcements regarding a $1 million personal donation from the president to the relief effort in the Bahamas. The U.S. government, on the other hand, started to provide aid to the Caribbean country almost immediately. A spokesperson for the State Department told us that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is working to “provide humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, and other disaster response measures” to the Bahamian government. USAID will also be providing nearly $3 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help the recovery effort: At the request of Prime Minister Minnis of the Bahamas, the United States is providing assistance to the people of the Bahamas in the wake of Hurricane Dorian. Hurricane Dorian began to make landfall in the Bahamas on September 1, 2019, and is the strongest storm to ever hit The Bahamas, the second strongest Atlantic storm measured by wind speed on record. The U.S. Embassy to The Bahamas and United States Agency for International Development (USAID), are a part of the whole-of-Federal Government effort to provide humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, and other disaster response measures at the request of the Bahamian government, as well as assisting U.S. citizens in the affected areas. We appreciate Prime Minister Minnis’ leadership through this difficult time and remain in close contact with all levels of the Bahamian Government as we work together to respond to this disaster. On September 7, USAID Administrator Mark Green announced $1 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help people in The Bahamas affected by Hurricane Dorian, bringing USAID’s total funding for this response to $2.8 million to date. This new funding will provide emergency food assistance to people in areas worst affected by the hurricane. USAID’s funding is also providing urgently needed shelter, water containers, and hygiene kits to people in need, as well as providing critically needed logistics support to help move commodities to The Bahamas.
|
35281
|
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested during a White House briefing that injecting disinfectants could treat COVID-19.
|
“It wouldn’t be through injection,” Trump said. “We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”
|
true
|
Politics, COVID-19
|
On April 23, 2020, social media users encountered numerous comments that claimed U.S. President Donald Trump had suggested injecting disinfectants as a cure for COVID-19 during a White House press briefing. As many of these comments included jokes instead of a link to Trump’s alleged remarks, some people were left wondering what Trump actually said about disinfectants, injections, and COVID-19. The comment in question came shortly after a presentation by William N. Bryan, the acting undersecretary for science and technology at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, about how heat and humidity could impact the spread of COVID-19 during the summer months. Bryan mentioned a recent, non-peer-reviewed study that showed how disinfectants and sunlight could kill the coronavirus on non-porous surfaces such as counters or door handles. Bryan’s presentation focused on how light and disinfectants affected the coronavirus on surfaces. But when Trump took the podium, he started talking about what would happen if light and disinfectants were “brought inside the body” to fight the virus. Here’s the official White House transcript of Trump’s remarks (emphasis added): THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting. ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could. THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful. Trump made this comment following a presentation on how sunlight and disinfectant affect the coronavirus. This presentation prompted Trump to discuss a question he said “probably some of you are thinking of” concerning what would happen if you “brought the light inside the body.” As Trump continued, he also offered his thoughts on how disinfectants could be brought inside the body “by injection.” While Trump noted that this method would have to be checked by doctors, he said it sounded interesting to him. The remarks spurred widespread condemnation from health officials, who issued statements urging people not to inject or ingest cleaning products. Dr. Vin Gupta, a pulmonologist and global health policy expert and NBC News contributor, said: “This notion of injecting or ingesting any type of cleansing product into the body is irresponsible, and it’s dangerous. It’s a common method that people utilize when they want to kill themselves.” Reckitt Benckiser, the British company that manufacturers Lysol and Dettol, published a statement on its website saying that “under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body”: Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information. While medical experts and cleaning-supply companies feared Trump’s suggestion that disinfectants could be injected as a treatment for COVID-19 could result in people poisoning themselves by ingesting or injecting cleaning products, some of the president’s supporters claimed his remarks were taken out of context. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany noted that Trump also told Americans to consult with their doctors regarding coronavirus treatments. “Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines,” she said. Other Trump defenders noted that Trump clarified later in the briefing that disinfectants would not, in fact, be administered “through injections,” but the “clarification” itself was less than clear.
|
41034
|
The new virus is not heat-resistant and will be killed by a temperature of 26/27 degrees. It hates the Sun.
|
There’s no evidence for this. There’s evidence that similar viruses transmit less well in the heat, but many countries with reported Covid-19 cases are experiencing temperatures higher than this.
|
unproven
|
online
|
If you have a runny nose and sputum, you have a common cold. These are the symptoms for the common cold, but they don’t rule out Covid-19. Coronavirus pneumonia is a dry cough with no runny nose. Some Covid-19 patients do get pneumonia, and one of the symptoms is a dry cough. A runny nose doesn’t rule out Covid-19. The new virus is not heat-resistant and will be killed by a temperature of 26/27 degrees. It hates the Sun. There’s no evidence for this. There’s evidence that similar viruses transmit less well in the heat, but many countries with reported Covid-19 cases are experiencing temperatures higher than this. If someone with the new coronavirus sneezes, it travels about 10 feet before it drops to the ground and is no longer airborne. Environmental factors impact how far droplets from a sneeze can travel, but it is likely to be several metres. If it drops on a metal surface it will live for at least 12 hours - so if you come into contact with any metal surface - wash your hands as soon as you can with a bacterial soap. It’s not yet known exactly how long the virus survives on surfaces. It can survive for 6-12 hours on fabric and will be killed by normal laundry detergent . There’s no evidence the virus can survive in clothing and be transmitted this way. Drinking warm water is effective for all viruses. Try not to drink liquids with ice. There’s no evidence that the temperature of liquids consumed can protect you from viruses. Wash your hands frequently as the virus can only live on your hands for 5-10 minutes. There is no evidence yet on how long the virus can survive on the skin. But it is important to regularly wash your hands. You should gargle as a prevention with salt in warm water. There’s no evidence this will prevent or cure the virus. Covid-19 starts with a sore throat lasting 3-4 days. It then blends into a nasal fluid that enters the trachea and the lungs, causing pneumonia, which takes about 5 or 6 days. With pneumonia comes high fever and difficulty breathing. The nasal congestion makes you feel like you’re drowning. This is a roughly accurate description of the most common symptoms, although not everyone with Covid-19 gets pneumonia. The symptoms may not come in this order or at these times. There have been no reports of sufferers experiencing nasal congestion that makes them feel they are drowning. Claim 1 of 11
|
15152
|
A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty.
|
"Cruz said at the second Republican debate, ""A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty."" We’ll reiterate that many of these candidates have changed their position on what to do about undocumented immigrants already in the United States, and we’ll note once again that the definition of ""amnesty"" isn’t hard and fast. So what Cruz may consider amnesty might not be what any of these candidates considers to be amnesty. Still, as far as we can tell, Cruz is the only one on the CNN debate stage who has never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or some other form of legal status."
|
true
|
Immigration, National, Ted Cruz,
|
"On one of the biggest issues in the 2016 Republican primary -- immigration -- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was nothing if not consistent during the second GOP presidential debate. Cruz, angling to be the primary field’s most hard-line candidate against illegal immigration, said at the CNN Reagan Library debate, ""A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty."" That was similar to something he said at the first debate, held in Cleveland and aired by Fox News in August -- that ""a majority of the candidates on this stage have supported amnesty. I have never supported amnesty."" We checked that claim and gave it a rating of . The stages were similar for the two debates, with the addition of former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in the second debate. Does Cruz’s claim hold up? As we noted in our previous fact-check, the tough part of checking this claim is that ""amnesty"" is a vague term. Some consider amnesty to be anything less than deporting all illegal immigrants, while others think of amnesty as letting immigrants stay with no punishment or additional requirements. Cruz has been adamantly opposed to a pathway to citizenship, but he’s been quiet on whether he would support some other legal status for illegal immigrants. We’ve previously found that in modern politics, the standard for amnesty is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, supported and signed by President Ronald Reagan. The law allowed illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents if they met certain standards, such as proving they had been in the country for several years and paying back taxes and a fine. After meeting other requirements, the legal permanent residents could apply for a green card and eventually make their way toward citizenship. The law was widely described as an amnesty program. We do know Cruz considered the 2013 bipartisan Senate immigration proposal to be a form of amnesty and opposed the bill. The failed bill was similar to the Reagan law in that immigrants had to meet certain requirements before gaining legal status that put them on a path to citizenship, though the requirements are more stringent than the previous law. So we’ve used that bill as a rough standard for evaluating the positions of those who shared the debate stage with Cruz. We’ll also note that since Cruz used the past tense -- ""previously and publicly embraced amnesty"" -- we’re only interested in whether the candidates have taken this position in the past, not whether they do now, or whether they have gone back and forth on the policy. Three members of the debate field have expressed outright support for the Gang of Eight bill, so called after the bipartisan group of eight senators who proposed it in 2013. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., by Cruz’s standards, has been a clear supporter of amnesty, as he was a member of the Gang of Eight. At the time, he said the bill was ""not amnesty,"" and we rated that claim Half True because of the vague nature of the term ""amnesty."" Since then, Rubio has softened his support for a path to citizenship and emphasized border security, but he still supports passing immigration legislation. Fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, the former governor, said in March 2015 that he would put his support behind a Gang of Eight-style immigration bill that included a path to citizenship. Like Rubio, though, Bush insisted at the debate that his position is not amnesty, because his ideal plan requires illegal immigrants to meet certain requirements before gaining legal status. Recently, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has avoided saying whether he would support a path to citizenship, though he has suggested he would not blanket deport all illegal immigrants. But in 2013, asked by Fox if he would side with Cruz or the Gang of Eight, Huckabee said he would choose the latter -- though he emphasized an eventual immigration bill had to emphasize border security. He has also previously endorsed a path to citizenship. Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., did not support the Gang of Eight bill because he said it did not include strong enough provisions for ensuring reduced illegal immigration in the future. But in a March 2015 speech, Paul walked a fine line, supporting a path to some sort of normative legal status, though without using the word ""citizenship."" For the remaining candidates, we could not find their opinions on the Gang of Eight bill specifically, but all four have at some point said they supported a path either to citizenship or legal status, even if their position has since changed. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker no longer supports a path to citizenship, but he said in 2013 that ""it makes sense"" people could not only stay in the United States but get citizenship after overcoming penalties, waiting periods and other requirements. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has declined to comment on the Gang of Eight bill. He has said that the solution for illegal immigrants currently in the United States is for them to go back to their home country, where they can apply for a visa and return legally. In Carson’s 2012 book, America the Beautiful, he said a path to citizenship is a moral choice. In 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he supported a ""common-sense path to citizenship."" But this year, he said he’s changed his mind and no longer supports such a path. Ohio Gov. John Kasich said in 2014 and 2015 that he isn’t keen on a path to citizenship, but he’s open to the possibility -- especially because you can’t deport everyone who is already here, and it would help get lawmakers to a point of compromise on immigration legislation. Despite his fiery rhetoric regarding Mexican immigrants, real estate mogul Donald Trump hasn’t said many specifics about what he’d do regarding the illegal immigrants already here. He has said this year that he would support a ""merit-based"" system for some illegal immigrants earning their right to stay, echoing comments he made in 2011. Finally, the newcomer to the main debate stage -- Fiorina -- has also stated publicly that she is open to a path to legal status for at least some undocumented immigrants. In a June 2015 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, she said, ""I think legal status is a possibility for sure. I think their children maybe can become citizens."" Our ruling Cruz said at the second Republican debate, ""A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty."" We’ll reiterate that many of these candidates have changed their position on what to do about undocumented immigrants already in the United States, and we’ll note once again that the definition of ""amnesty"" isn’t hard and fast. So what Cruz may consider amnesty might not be what any of these candidates considers to be amnesty. Still, as far as we can tell, Cruz is the only one on the CNN debate stage who has never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or some other form of legal status."
|
2912
|
GSK melanoma drug combination wins accelerated U.S. approval.
|
A combination treatment from GlaxoSmithKline for melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has won accelerated approval from U.S. regulators.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The green light for the combined use of Tafinlar, also known as dabrafenib, and Mekinist, or trametinib, from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the first of its kind for a form of the disease with a specific genetic profile. Both drugs are already approved for separate use but GSK believes they will have a longer-lasting effect if given together. Industry analysts also see a combination offering the greatest commercial potential. Tafinlar, which is similar to Roche’s rival medicine Zelboraf, is designed to work in patients with a mutation of a gene known as BRAF. So-called BRAF inhibitors have been remarkably effective in shrinking melanoma tumors but most patients eventually develop resistance to the drugs. By combining Tafinlar with Mekinist, which works in a different way, the hope is that the cancer will be held at bay for longer. The FDA approval, which was announced late on Wednesday, covers the treatment of melanoma that cannot be removed by surgery or which has spread to other organs. Melanoma is diagnosed in nearly 160,000 people worldwide each year. It can spread quickly to internal organs and average survival is six to nine months.
|
2038
|
"Women's tears send ""no sex"" message to men: study."
|
Women’s tears are a turnoff for men, Israeli researchers say.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The findings, in a study by the Weizmann Institute of Science and Wolfson Hospital near Tel Aviv on the role tears play in non-verbal communication, suggest that a chemical in women’s tears lowers men’s testosterone levels. Looking beyond any impact on sexual drive, the researchers hope their findings might one day be used in cancer treatment. “There are a number of illnesses that are treated by lowering the levels of testosterone, the most prominent is prostate cancer,” said Professor Noam Sobel of the Weizmann Institute. He said the current methods of testosterone reduction cause side effects, and his research team hoped that the use of tears could eliminate them. Men who took part in the study, published in Science Express, were asked to sniff the tears of women who had cried while watching sad films. Sobel said researchers had expected the tears would boost the men’s sense of empathy. Instead, their heart and respiratory rates, salivary testosterone and a brain scan all pointed to a reduction of sexual arousal. The chemo-signal in women’s tears, he said, was one way of saying “no, I am not interested.” “Communication is key to survival. Humans, like all mammals, use smell in their communication. It is very efficient if you have a chemical signal which transmits what you want — or clearly don’t want — in a sexual situation,” Sobel added. He said the researchers had set out to study the tears of both men and women, but only one man had responded to a notice put up on Israeli college campuses asking for volunteers who thought they could cry easily.
|
7717
|
On abortion, Trump agenda likely leads to Supreme Court, not Congress.
|
President Donald Trump urged lawmakers in his State of the Union address to put new limits on abortion, but partisan division in the U.S. Congress means the Supreme Court likely will set the agenda on the divisive issue, as it has for decades.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Bolstered by Trump’s appointment of two conservative justices, the nine-member court could soon begin to pare back abortion rights, starting with a major case from Louisiana that is one of several similar pending appeals. The addition of Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could alter the conservative-majority court’s approach to abortion. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed abortion rights in key rulings in 1992 and 2016. Jennifer Popik, director of federal legislation for the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, said her group hopes Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will “interpret the Constitution more narrowly” on abortion rights. In Congress, legislation backed by Trump’s fellow Republicans already has been introduced to restrict late-term abortions along the lines discussed by Trump, but there are not enough votes to pass it given Democratic opposition. Abortion is one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics. Trump, whose abortion views have been fluid over the years, has emerged as an advocate of more restrictions, a position that appeals to his conservative voter base. His address on Tuesday night in some ways kicked off his 2020 re-election campaign. His call for new limits on late-term abortions was welcomed by anti-abortion activists. When he ran for president in 2016, Trump said he would appoint anti-abortion judges who would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to abortion and legalized the procedure nationwide. In his State of the Union address, Trump criticized a New York law and legislation in Virginia that would in limited circumstances allow for late-term abortions when the mother’s health is endangered. “To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb,” Trump said during the speech, without specifying details. A White House spokeswoman said Trump backs legislation pending in Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, called Trump’s comments “smoke and mirrors.” “This is really just a distraction. The goal is not to end a certain class of abortion. His goal is to end all abortions,” Dalven added. There is no nationwide law setting a specific limit on when in a pregnancy abortions can be performed. Each state has its own laws, with conservative states imposing restrictions and liberal states more broadly backing abortion rights. Republicans have embraced the federal legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks. But past bills have failed to overcome Democratic opposition, even when Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With the House now led by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, there is even less chance of such legislation passing, though Republicans said on Wednesday they would press for a vote. As of the end of last year, 17 states had laws banning abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights. No states categorically ban all late-term abortions in all circumstances and 43 states have laws that impose at least some restrictions, it said. The Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed by the high court in 1992, concluded that abortion could not be banned before the fetus is viable, but gave states leeway to impose greater restrictions on it toward the end of a pregnancy. In 2007, the court upheld a federal restriction on “partial-birth abortions” that involve a physician removing most of the fetus intact rather than dismembering it. In its most recent major abortion ruling, the Supreme Court - with Kennedy joining the court’s four liberals in the majority - in 2016 struck down regulations in Texas that abortion rights advocates said would shutter many clinics. The Louisiana case pending before the justices resembles the Texas case. It involves a requirement that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. The provision was challenged by abortion rights advocates. If the court rejects their request, it would represent a shift away from the 2016 ruling following Kennedy’s retirement. The court will also decide soon whether to hear Indiana’s bid to revive a state ban on abortions performed due to the sex or race of the fetus or evidence of disability. Indiana this week asked the Supreme Court to hear another abortion case concerning a law to require fetal ultrasounds before abortions take place.
|
28486
|
Between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries.
|
In other words, things have become dramatically worse in the United States since the CPRC research was first published.
|
mixture
|
Politics
|
In the aftermath of a mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which a gunman killed seventeen people in February 2018, a ranking of deaths from mass shootings in various countries re-emerged on social media with the apparent intention of proving that the United States does not have a comparatively serious problem with gun violence. This image is taken from a December 2015 episode of Bret Baier’s Special Report on Fox News. It reappeared in March 2018: The source of the list is a 2015 article published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), a pro-gun rights nonprofit run by economist John Lott. In his research, Lott found that between 2009 and 2015, the number of people killed in a mass shooting in the United States (in relation to the overall population) was lower than it was in several European countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland. Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting, but also extremely misleading. It uses inappropriate statistical methods to obscure the reality that mass shootings are very rare in most countries, so that when they do happen they have an outsized statistical effect. Of the countries chosen by Lott for his analysis, the United States is by some distance the most consistent site of mass shootings. What is a mass shooting? Counting mass shootings is a notoriously difficult exercise. For one thing, there is no consensus on what counts as a mass shooting, and what doesn’t. The FBI, for example, defines a mass shooting as involving the murder of three people. The pro-gun-control nonprofit group Everytown for Gun Safety defines a mass shooting as one in which four people are killed, not including the shooter. Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings in the United States, defines the phenomenon as “indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker.” The Mass Shootings in America project, run by Stanford University, defines a mass shooting as one involving three or more victims (not including the shooter) but is not limited to fatalities. These metrics also typically focus on gun violence that is not related to armed robberies or gang activity, and often exclude domestic “family annihilations,” instead including only mass shootings that take place in public. They also typically include terrorism-related shootings, a factor that becomes especially important when comparing mass shootings in the United States with those in other countries. Lott, in his research, defines a mass shooting as involving “four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty.” We will examine Lott’s claim on its own terms, while bearing in mind that the figures can shift depending on which definitions and criteria are used. The CPRC analysis From 2009 to 2015, there were 199 deaths from 25 mass shootings in the United States, according to Crime Prevention Research Center’s downloadable data. If we apply the CPRC criteria to other data sources (Mother Jones and Everytown), this number largely checks out, but there are instances where the difficulty of categorizing mass shootings becomes clear. For example, the CPRC did not include the 7 June 2013 killings of five people in Santa Monica, California. John Zawahri shot and killed his father and brother at home, set the house on fire, then shot and killed three more people at Santa Monica College. Although Zawahri killed five people, only three were killed in public in the second part of a shooting spree that was only ended when police killed him outside the college’s library. This might appear to many observers to be a mass shooting in which the attacker killed five people, but it was left out of the CPRC analysis, apparently because two of the five fatal shootings took place in a private home. Conversely, the CPRC analysis did include a 20 February 2012 incident in which Jeon Soo Paek shot dead his two sisters and their two husbands at the spa they co-owned in Norcross, Georgia. In contrast to the public dimension of the Santa Monica shooting, all the victims in Norcross were relatives of the perpetrator, and all were killed at their family-owned place of business, reportedly after a dispute over money. However, Paek shot dead four people at a location that wasn’t a private home and — apparently on that basis — those deaths are included in the CPRC analysis. In any event, if we compare the number of mass shooting deaths for each year to the United States population for each year, we get an average annual death rate of 0.09 per million from 2009 to 2015 (almost exactly the 0.089 claimed by the CPRC.) This means that on average, between 2009 and 2015, there was one death per year from a mass shooting for every 11 million people living in the United States. Other countries The first thing to note about the rankings is that Lott has compared the mass shooting death rate in the United States with that of other countries where there was a mass shooting between 2009 and 2015. This might seem obvious, but it’s important to point out that very many countries did not see a single mass shooting as defined by Lott during this period. The second striking thing about the list of mass shootings in Europe is that it is dominated by outliers. Where the United States saw at least twelve mass shooting deaths every year between 2009 and 2015, some of the other countries on Lott’s list experienced one or two rare but very high-casualty shootings. When you average out the death rates, this creates a highly misleading impression about the consistency and lethality of mass shootings outside the United States. The example of Norway gives a good illustration of just how absurd this use of statistics is. In 2009 and 2010, according to Lott’s data, there were zero mass shooting deaths in Norway. In 2011, far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed eight people in a series of bombings in Oslo, then shot dead 69 more in a massacre at a Labor Party summer camp on Utoya island. In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, there was not a single death from a mass shooting in Norway. If we compare the number of mass shooting deaths each year to the population of Norway each year, using the same method we did for the United States, we get an average annual death rate of 2 per million, more than 20 times higher than the rate in the United States (0.09 per million), even though we know there were zero mass shooting deaths in six out of those seven years, in Norway. If this strikes you as ridiculous, you’re on to something. In his analysis, Lott used the mean to calculate the average annual death rate from mass shootings, which is calculated by adding all the numbers in a set divided by the amount of numbers in the set. This is a problem in situations such as these, as it assigns equal value to all numbers. (The mean of a set of numbers is also referred to as its average.) The median, which is the middle point in a list of values in which half the numbers are above and half are below, can give a far better sense of what is typical. If we apply the median to Norway’s annual death rate from mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, we mitigate against the enormous skewing effect of one of those years (2011), and get a much more realistic statistical picture of mass shootings in Norway. The median, in this case, is zero. That means that in a typical year between 2009 and 2015, nobody in Norway was killed in a mass shooting. This doesn’t tell the full story either, since we can’t erase the fact that 69 people were killed in a devastating attack in 2011. The more information we examine, the better our understanding. But what the median does provide, which the mean does not, is a sense of the consistency of deaths from mass shootings in a particular country, over a particular period of time. If we apply the same calculation to mass shooting deaths in the United States, we find that the median annual number of deaths per million people was 0.06 between 2009 and 2015, while the mean was 0.09. So stripping away the outliers (in this instance) means the picture was actually slightly better for the United States than the mean had suggested. We did all these calculations with the list of mass shootings used by Lott in his analysis. In some cases the numbers differ from his, because we used each country’s population for each year rather than just using the 2015 population, which is an inappropriate benchmark when calculating a death rate over a period of seven years. These rankings are based only on Lott’s own data and the CPRC definition of a mass shooting (four people shot dead in public, excluding the assailant, in an act not related to crime or warfare.) Let’s see what happens to the rankings when we strip away the outlier events by using the median, and get a better picture of the typical consistency of mass shooting deaths from 2009 to 2015. As you can see, the United States is the only country on the list where mass shootings took place consistently between 2009 and 2015, with the CPRC recording at least 12 deaths annually in that period. In fact, of the sixteen countries that Lott chose for his analysis, only one saw mass shooting deaths in more than two out of those seven years — the United States. That consistency is also illustrated in this table, which shows the number of mass shooting deaths for all 16 countries between 2009 and 2015: This table shows the reality of mass shooting deaths in sixteen countries. In fifteen of them, year after year goes by without a single death, but with sporadic fatalities in one or two years. In the United States, there were at least 12 mass shooting deaths every single year. The CPRC ranking shared by Fox News mostly accurately presents the average annual death rate from mass shootings, as defined by the CPRC, between 2009 and 2015. However, those figures are actually highly misleading, and use a particular type of statistical average to create the false impression that mass shootings are less frequent and less deadly in the United States than in European countries. In reality, mass shootings are rare outside the United States — even in the sixteen countries listed by Lott where there was a mass shooting between 2009 and 2015, and even after accounting for population size. But on the rare occasions when mass shootings do take place in European countries, they give rise to a relatively high annual mass shooting death rate in those years because of the comparatively small populations of those countries. Between 2009 and 2015, the United States was the only country on that list where someone died every year in a mass shooting. Every other country had at least five out seven years without a death from a mass shooting. Finally, the death rate from mass shootings has significantly increased in the United States since Lott published his research in 2015. We applied the CPRC criteria to the frequently updated database of mass shootings maintained by Mother Jones, and found that in 2016, there were 65 deaths in incidents that would be designated mass shootings under CPRC criteria, and in 2017 there were 94. Over the two years, that is an average annual death rate of 0.24 per million people, which is almost three times higher than the United States death rate between 2009 and 2015.
|
2465
|
First taste of test-tube burger declared 'close to meat'.
|
The world’s first laboratory-grown beef burger was flipped out of a petri dish and into a frying pan on Monday, with food tasters declaring it tasted “close to meat”.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Grown in-vitro from cattle stem cells at a cost of 250,000 euros ($332,000), the burger was cooked and eaten in front of television cameras to gain the greatest media coverage for the culmination of a five-year science experiment. Resembling a standard circular-shaped red meat patty, it was created by knitting together 20,000 strands of laboratory-grown protein, combined with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron were added to give it colour. The two food tasters were reserved in their judgement, perhaps keen not to offend their host at the London event, noting the burger’s “absence of fat”. Pressed for a more detailed description of the flavour, food writer Josh Schonwald said the cultured beef had an “animal protein cake” like quality to it, adding that he would like to try it with some of the extras often served with traditional burgers - salt, pepper, ketchup and jalepenos. Even the scientist behind the burger’s creation, vascular biologist Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, was relatively muted in his praise of its flavour. “It’s a very good start,” he told the hundreds of reporters who had gathered to watch the meat being cooked and served. The Dutch scientist’s aim was to show the world that in the future meat will not necessarily have to come from the environmentally and economically costly rearing and slaughtering of millions of animals. “Current meat production is at its maximum - we need to come up with an alternative,” he said. The World Health Organization (WHO) says meat production is projected to rise to 376 million tonnes by 2030 from 218 million tonnes annually in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialised agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a proportion expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat, the report said. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, who was not involved in the research, said it was “great pioneering science” with the potential to ease environmental, health and animal welfare problems. But, he added: “whilst the science looks achievable, the scalable manufacturing will require new game-changing innovation”. Post said he was confident his concept can be scaled up to offer a viable alternative to animal meat production, but said it may be another 20 years before lab-grown meat appears on supermarket shelves. He also conceded that the flavour of his meat must be improved if it is to become a popular choice. Post resisted requests from journalists from all over the world eager to try a morsel of the world’s first cultured beef burger, saying there was not enough to go around. Instead, he said, his children would be offered the leftovers. ($1 = 0.7528 euros)
|
29678
|
FBI agent Sal Cincinelli's death is linked to the Clinton Foundation.
|
In sum, no evidence exists that Cincinelli’s death is linked to the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation, and the connection appears to be a fabrication by junk news sites and those parroting it on social media without evidence. At this time, the only information available is that Austin police are investigating the death as a suicide.
|
false
|
Politics
|
If you are experiencing distress, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or visit online here. One of the most enduring conspiracy theories around is known as the “Clinton body bags.” That theory posits that any death that can be linked to former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be linked, even if no real-world evidence exists to do so. Basically the theory suggests that people who had incriminating evidence against the Clintons have all died under suspicious circumstances, with the assumption the Clintons were responsible for the deaths. No evidence exists that the Clintons, who have have been in the public spotlight for decades and investigated multiple times, are guilty of “bumping off” anyone. But as with many conspiracy theories, the lack of evidence hasn’t stopped the spread of misinformation. The most recent iteration of this theory focused on the death of Salvatore (“Sal”) Cincinelli, an FBI agent who died in Austin, Texas, in July 2019. Junk news sites like True Pundit picked up on the story, reporting without evidence that Cincinelli “investigated the Clinton Foundation” and thus his passing must be linked to the Clintons. The Foundation is a charitable non-profit founded by the two Democrats and is the frequent fixation of the Clintons’ political opponents and conspiracy theorists. We know of no link between Cincinelli and the Clintons or their foundation, though he is linked to a different high-profile case. Cincinelli was the brother of Valerie Cincinelli, a former New York City police officer who has been accused of attempting to hire a contract killer to murder her ex-husband and her boyfriend’s teenage daughter. Austin police are investigating Cincinelli’s death as self-inflicted. Police were called to a “deceased person” at the address of the Container Bar on Rainey Street in downtown Austin just before midnight on July 16. The FBI has declined to comment on the case, including possible motive. But a 2012 Reuters story featuring Cincinelli characterized him as having left a high-paying career on Wall Street two years prior to join the FBI as a financial-crimes specialist. Some readers on social media thought it suspicious that local news outlets didn’t report the death, but that is no surprise. Except under special circumstances, such as when an incident involves a public figure, legitimate news sources generally avoid reporting on suicides because of a well-documented risk of copycat fatalities. Mental health organizations also urge that when reporting is necessary, outlets should avoid sensationalizing or providing information that could encourage others to follow suit. The suicide story became public when the New York Post first reported it about a week after it occurred, noting that the FBI agent was related to Valerie Cincinelli, an ongoing news item in New York.
|
41653
|
Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010.
|
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils’ spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We’ve asked it for more information.
|
true
|
health
|
There are 16,481 fewer beds in hospitals since 2010. This is in the right ballpark, but it doesn’t seem to be the best comparison. It seems to compare the number of beds at different times of the year, but the number available fluctuates seasonally. Comparing July-September in 2010 and 2017, the decrease in beds available overnight in England is closer to 13,200. 66 A&E and maternity wards have been closed. We don’t know, as this information isn’t collected nationally. In 2014, there were reportedly plans to close or downgrade 66 in England, but while some have been, others have stayed open. 103 NHS walk-in centres have closed or been downgraded since 2010. We don’t know exactly, as this information isn’t collected centrally. Research from an NHS regulator and from campaign group 38 Degrees suggests more than 90 have been closed or downgraded. 60 ambulance stations have closed since 2010. We don’t know how many ambulance stations have closed since 2010 as national figures on this aren’t regularly published. 1,000 GP practices have closed since 2010. There are around 1,000 fewer GP practices in England in 2017 than in 2010. Some practices may have merged together, rather than closing completely, but we don’t know how many have done so. A&E four hour targets have been missed more than 10 million times since 2010. Correct. Between 2010/11 and 2017/18, around 12 million A&E attendances in England took over four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. The number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E is up 2,700% since 2010. Correct (although not all patients will necessarily have been waiting in A&E). In 2011/12, 120 patients in England waited 12 hours between the decision to admit them to emergency admissions and their actual admission, compared to 3,500 in 2017/18. Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils’ spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We’ve asked it for more information. There are 5,240 fewer mental health nurses since 2010. This seems to be looking at different months in 2010 and 2017, which isn’t the best comparison. Comparing the number of full-time equivalent mental health nurses between January 2010 and January 2018 (the latest figures), the drop is closer to 4,500. The number of operations classed as urgent that have been cancelled twice have doubled since 2010. Correct. The number of urgent operations in England cancelled for the second time or more for non-medical reasons more than doubled between 2011/12 and 2017/18. There has been a 22% drop in ambulances meeting their 15 minute transfer target since 2010. The decrease is actually greater—28%. In 2010/11 in England 80% of ambulance transfers were done in 15 minutes, in 2015/16 it was 58%. Claim 1 of 12
|
1678
|
Fitness vacations favor fun, adventure over weight loss.
|
Fitness vacations have ventured far from the fat farm.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Today’s fit-focused travelers want to pair exercise with escapades and fitness with fun, whether it’s yoga among the sea turtles, bootcamp on the beach or a zumba cruise. “Fitness retreat used to mean go away and lose weight,” said Melisse Gelula, co-founder of the wellness media company Well+Good. “Now it’s just working fitness into a schedule that might also include lavish dinners, beach time, cocktail hours, nights out dancing.” Wellness tourism, which includes travel paired with activities such as yoga retreats, fitness centers, boot camps, cycling, gyms and other activities, is about a $500 billion global market, according to The Global Wellness Tourism Economy report of 2013. The report said wellness tourism represents 14 percent of total global tourism revenues overall and is projected to rise to 16 percent by 2017. In January, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd will launch its first ever Zumba Cruise, offering all-day classes in the popular Latin American dance-based aerobic program during a cruise that will leave from Fort Lauderdale in Florida and make stops in Jamaica and Haiti. Daily classes will be led by 130 zumba instructors. “Our focus is more fun,” said Allison Robins of the global lifestyle brand Zumba Fitness, which is working with the cruise line. “You’ll never see us talking about weight loss, although that just happens.” Maria Walker, founder of Getaway Fitness in Florida which offers workout vacations in Florida and California, refers to the growing industry as fitness adventure. “When I started, there were spa resorts and fat camps but not much in the middle,” said Walker, whose clients are mostly people in their 30s, 40s and 50s. Now activities range from boot camp and rock climbing to kayaking, and discussions focus more on exercise and nutrition than weight loss. YogaWorks, the national chain of yoga studios, offers 10 to 15 retreats a year and plans to scale up offerings in 2016. “It’s definitely a growing part of the business,” said spokesperson Kim Allardyce, adding it is not just about perfecting one’s yoga postures. Although the emphasis is on yoga, depending on where the tour is, local sites are also included. In Costa Rica vacationers might help release sea turtles and in Italy go on wine-tasting excursions. The goal, she said, is to marry fitness with an experience specific to the location.
|
8349
|
Deaths in Singapore 'inevitable' as coronavirus spreads globally - minister.
|
Praised by the World Health Organisation for its efforts to prevent the coronavirus from spreading, Singapore warned on Friday that deaths in the city state would become “inevitable” as a global pandemic emerges.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Since erupting in China late last year, the epidemic has spread to other parts of the world with cases recently mounting in Europe and North America. “It is starting to look like a global pandemic,” said Lawrence Wong, who co-heads Singapore’s virus fighting taskforce. “It’s not going to be possible to shut ourselves out.” The WHO has not categorized the current situation as a pandemic, saying that such a term may amplify fear and signal that the virus cannot be contained. It has said it would use the term if it became necessary. Singapore was one of the worst hit countries outside China in the early stages of the outbreak. But more than two months since its first case, it has kept infections to just over 100 people, most of whom have been discharged, and had no deaths. But officials have warned that its rigid travel restrictions and containment measures may be less effective the further the virus spreads. “It is inevitable that at some point in time we will see fatalities from COVID-19 as we have seen all around the world,” health minister Gan Kim Yong said. Of the countries with more than 100 cases, Singapore is one of only two not to have recorded fatalities. The other is Germany, although the surge in cases there is more recent and almost all of its patients are in care. The WHO has praised wealthy Singapore’s virus fight as having left “no stone unturned”. Leong Hoe Nam, a disease expert, said early diagnosis and medical support for patients had helped prevent fatalities so far. “We catch them early and treat them with good supportive care early and it helps,” Leong said. Treatment was the same as in other countries, but Singapore has been “fortunate” that many of its cases were mild, said Kenneth Mak, Singapore’s top medical official. Mak said seven of its current patients were critical and that many of them needed ventilators for breathing support. Significantly, only eight of 117 virus patients have been aged over 65 years, said Singapore-based infectious diseases expert Dale Fisher, noting age can be a determining factor in the severity of the illness.
|
29531
|
An Oklahoma court ruled that forced sexual contact cannot be considered rape if the victim is intoxicated or unconscious.
|
"What's true: In March 2016, a criminal appellate court in Oklahoma affirmed a lower court's decision to not to bring charges of forcible sodomy or rape against an alleged assailant, because the state's laws pertaining to those crime did not cover circumstances in which the victim was intoxicated. due to the structure of the state's sexual assault law. The case as presented by prosecutors did not meet the standard for either forcible sodomy or rape charges, and the act of which the defendant was accused (forcible oral sex) didn't meet the standard for a rape charge in Oklahoma under the law as written. What's false: An Oklahoma court did not rule that rape charges cannot be brought if the victim was intoxicated or unconscious, nor did the court rule that the incident referenced here failed to meet the standard of evidence required for rape charges solely (or primarily) because the reported victim was ""drunk"" or ""unconscious."""
|
false
|
Politics, oklahoma, rape
|
On 23 April 2016, the investigative journalism web site Oklahoma Watch reported on a March 2016 decision handed down by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding a lower court’s earlier decision not to try a rape case due to the circumstances of the case and the provisions of the state’s rape laws. The case in question pertained to an incident that took place in the early morning hours of 1 June 2014 at a Tulsa park involving a then 16-year-old female victim (whose blood-alcohol level was later measured at .341) and a then 17-year-old male classmate. The defendant in the case transported the intoxicated teenaged girl to her grandmother’s home, after which family members took her to a local hospital, where sexual assault examination allegedly revealed the presence of the male teenager’s DNA on her person in a manner that suggested oral sexual relations (female on male) had occurred while the girl was heavily intoxicated or unconscious. Oklahoma Watch reported that criminal charges were initially brought against the juvenile male, but those charges were eventually dismissed due to discrepancies between reported versions of events and the wording of Oklahoma’s rape laws: In an interview with police, the defendant said the victim engaged in consensual oral sex with him and it was her idea. The girl told officers she could not remember anything after being at the park. Prosecutors initially charged the boy with first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy, but because there was no evidence showing he had raped the girl, that charge was dismissed. Later, Tulsa County District Court Judge Patrick Pickerill dismissed the forcible oral sodomy charge, stating unconsciousness and intoxication are not present in the law’s definition of the crime. After the charges were dismissed, the criminal appellate court heard a state prosecutors’ appeal of the dismissal, and on 24 March 2016 the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s November 2015 decision [PDF]. In that “unpublished opinion” (not intended to set a legal precedent), the court of appeals ruled that the standard of evidence for the criminal charges brought by the prosecutor could not be met under the provisions of existing Oklahoma laws pertaining to rape and forcible sodomy, and they declined to find in favor of the prosecution for circumstances clearly uncovered by law: The State’s sole proposition of error is that the trial court erred in ruling that Forcible Sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation. Finding no error, the State’s appeal to this court is denied. The Legislature’s inclusion of an intoxication circumstance for the crime of Rape is not found in the five very specific requirements for the commission of the crime of Forcible Sodomy. As set forth in Leftwich vs. State, we will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language. As the appellate court noted, the specific crime of sodomy in the state of Oklahoma (codified as a “detestable and abominable crime against nature”) details five specific conditions under which a suspect may be charged with that crime: 1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or 2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or 3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or 4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or 5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system. As the appellate court noted, intoxication was not one of the five “very specific requirements” encompassed by that law. The court’s opinion held that the State’s “proposition of error” was to try to include intoxication as a circumstance under which sodomy charges could be brought, which was not legally feasible under Oklahoma’s extant forcible sodomy law. Ben Fu, the prosecutor who argued this case before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, told us that the the Court had previously held that the inability to consent was equivalent to the use of force for the purposes of forcible sodomy, but “they decided to disregard their own precedent without comment” in this case. Many aggregated reports maintained that Oklahoma courts had ruled (or that Oklahoma laws held) an assault could not be considered rape if the victim was intoxicated. That was false: Oklahoma rape laws specifically allow for intoxication to be a circumstance under which vaginal and anal sexual contact may be considered rape. However, those laws also differentiate between oral sexual contact and other forms of sexual contact, with forcible oral copulation falling under the legal category of “forcible sodomy”: Rape is an act of sexual intercourse involving vaginal or anal penetration accomplished with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator and who may be of the same or the opposite sex as the perpetrator […] Even legal analysts who disagreed with the court’s ruling in theory acknowledged that it was congruent with existing sexual assault laws in Oklahoma. Two sexual assault law experts told The Guardian that the problem lies not with the decision of the appellate court, but rather with the wording of sexual assault laws in the state of Oklahoma: Michelle Anderson, the dean of the CUNY School of Law who has written extensively about rape law, called the ruling “appropriate” but the law “archaic”. “This is a call for the legislature to change the statute, which is entirely out of step with what other states have done in this area and what Oklahoma should do,” she said. “It creates a huge loophole for sexual abuse that makes no sense.” Jennifer Gentile Long, who leads a group, AEquitas, that guides prosecutors in sexual and domestic violence cases, agreed. She said the Oklahoma law was an example of a gulf that still exists in some places between the law and evolving notions around consent and sexual agency. Oklahoma has a separate rape statute that protects victims who were too intoxicated to consent to vaginal or anal intercourse, Long noted. But “there are still gaps in the ways laws are written that allow some cases to fall through the cracks,” she said. “This case” — because it did not involve vaginal rape but an oral violation — “seems to be one of them”. As Oklahoma Watch originally reported, the case was so highly controversial because most parties believed that some sort of criminal charge ought to have applied to the incident. Oklahoma State Rep. Scott Biggs has since proposed “fixing the statute” to “define forcible sodomy in a way that includes unconscious victims.”
|
37749
|
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said ""only .02 percent"" of schoolchildren would die if schools opened for the 2020-2021 school year, a figure of nearly 15,000 American children."
|
The claim Betsy DeVos said “only .02 percent” of American schoolkids would die should schools open across the United States for the 2020-2021 year was — at best — misattributed, as the actual figure (.1 percent) was provided reluctantly by Birx during a short but vague comment made at Pence’s behest during a July 2020 briefing. It was definitely true that DeVos adamantly expressed her belief schools ought to open with little restriction, and that her beliefs were at odds with public health experts’ recommendations. But she did not say that “only .02 percent” (or “only .1 percent”) of students would die; that comment appeared to be the product of a game of social media telephone.
|
false
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
"On July 11 2020, the following tweet claimed that the United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos — in the course of arguing in favor of reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic — asserted that “only 0.02 percent” of American schoolchildren would die, a percentage that represented the deaths of approximately 14,740 children:So, Betsy Devos today said ""only"" .02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school. 😐That's 14,740 children.✏️Welcome 📚 back! 📝— James Scott (@Jscott1145) July 12, 2020An identical post was shared to Facebook on the same day.According to the posts, DeVos made the statement on Saturday, July 11 2020. However, we had initial difficulty locating any indication DeVos made such a statement, other than copies of the tweet with similar or identical wording.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Unquestionably Wants Schools to Open in August 2020On July 12 2020, DeVos appeared on Fox News and did, in fact, claim that reopening schools poses little risk — despite all evidence to the contrary:The top U.S. education official downplayed the risk of reopening schools in the fall, a high priority of President Trump, and repeated a threat to cut funding to schools that don’t fully resume in-person learning as educators wrestle with the risk of the coronavirus.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said on “Fox News Sunday” that “nothing in the data” suggests children being in school is “in any way dangerous” — an assertion challenged by a top public health official on the same program.“Parents are expecting that this fall their kids are going to have a full-time experience with their learning, and we need to follow through on that promise,” DeVos added.DeVos’ comments come as U.S. education policy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has moved to the forefront.DeVos also floated the idea of withdrawing funding from schools if they didn’t reopen:“If schools aren’t going to open they shouldn’t get the funds … Give it to the families.”DeVos reiterated her message on cable news and Twitter:Safely reopening schools in the fall must remain our priority. It’s the right thing to do for students. It’s the right thing to do for families. And, it’s the right thing to do for our future.WATCH: https://t.co/KPYaWC7vYz pic.twitter.com/B8GsTHPGVf— Secretary Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVosED) July 9, 2020Pleased to host @VP and the @WhiteHouse Coronavirus Task Force at @usedgov today for continued conversation about the need to reopen America’s schools. It is not a matter of IF but HOW. All students need to continue learning this fall. pic.twitter.com/RyF4Zt3YOy— Secretary Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVosED) July 8, 2020Still, tracking down the specific, chilling claim that “only .02 percent” of American school children would die of COVID-19 if schools opened remained difficult.Twitter DiscourseThe most prominent version of the claim we located was the first tweet embedded above, and it did not include a citation or any other reference. However, that person said that they did not write the tweet:I did not type this tweet so I’m clarifying it’s comments. During a White House meeting about opening schools held by DeVos Pence the CDC and Dr. Birx the doctor made the 0.02% death comment of children. No change for me as @BetsyDeVosED is pushing to open schools.— James Scott (@Jscott1145) July 12, 2020They said:I did not type this tweet so I’m clarifying it’s comments. During a White House meeting about opening schools held by DeVos Pence the CDC and Dr. Birx the doctor made the 0.02% death comment of children. No change for me as @BetsyDeVosED is pushing to open schools.In a subsequent reply, the user said that they obtained their initial information from an unlinked Reddit thread, and added:Update: I don’t hide from errors. Originally the Reddit post showed the value at 0.02%. It’s actually 0.1% a much higher value. The text from YouTube and video are below. https://t.co/QqE0iftrWF pic.twitter.com/njFtU4PNU7— James Scott (@Jscott1145) July 12, 2020The second tweet linked to a rough citation — but the speaker was Dr. Deborah Birx, not Betsy DeVos.Dr. Deborah Birx’s Comments at the July 8 2020 Coronavirus BriefingThe citation linked in the above tweet was a very short July 12 2020 video of Dr. Deborah Birx speaking:A description for the video read:Commonly misquoted as 0.02%, Dr. Birx (often misattributed to director of education Betsy DeVos) claims a death rate five times higher than that among “under 25” year olds during a Wednesday July 8, 2020 covid-19 task force briefing.American population age 0-24: 104,515,765 (Source: https://www.indexmundi.com/united_sta…) x0.1%: 104,515So over 100 thousand children’s and young adults’ deaths would occur were covid allowed to rampage through schools and universities. UNACCEPTABLEIn the clip, Birx gathered her papers, and someone off-camera asked if Birx wished to address “the risk to children.” Birx then returned to the podium and said:Oh … I think the Vice President covered that incredibly well. We know the mortality rate in [those] under 25 from the CDC data is less than .1 percent and so that has been holding, but until we know how many have been infected we have no evidence that there is significant mortality in children without co-existing diseases … and that’s what we’re looking for right now is to really make sure we’ve … under … overturned every rock and understand that in deep detail.Birx didn’t say that “only .02 percent” of schoolchildren were expected to die of COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 school year. It seemed likely Birx was referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s July 8 2020 “Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics,” which we have archived here. A chart showed deaths by age group, with the first and lowest as Americans under the age of 25:Birx made her comments during the course of a July 8 2020 White House Task Force briefing. NBC News reported:But there’s not enough data to arrive at that conclusion, White House health advisor Dr. Deborah Birx said later in the briefing on [July 8 2020]. She said U.S. data is incomplete, because the country has not been testing enough children to conclude how widespread the virus is among people younger than 18 and whether they are spreading the virus to others. […]“I think it really comes to the evidence base of what do we have as far as testing in children,” Birx said [on July 8 2020], addressing a question about whether kids spread the virus. “So if you look across all of the tests that we’ve done, and when we have the age, the portion that has been the lowest tested portion is the under-10-year-olds.”On RedditIn the second of two replies embedded above, the Twitter user mentioned seeing the information on Reddit.We attempted to locate the thread and found a post on r/CoronavirusUS, itself a copy of a hyper-viral Facebook post from July 8 2020:That post did not claim that DeVos or Birx made the “only .02 percent of kids will die” comment in summarizing a briefing involving DeVos, Birx, and Mike Pence:Betsy Devos said she really really really wants kids back in school. She does not know how to do this, offered no suggestions. Just that they need to open, and leaves it up to local officials to figure it out.Vice President Pence said children are resilient. Basically made out of cartilage with healthy lungs. They probably won’t get sick, so we shouldn’t worry about them. There is also no disagreement between the CDC and Trump. Trump wants schools to open, and just doesn’t want the CDC’s guidelines to be the reason for schools not opening?Yes, he actually said he doesn’t want states to keep their schools closed just because their own CDC says it is not safe to open.So the VP says, don’t worry, let’s bring up the Director of the CDC to clarify. -And I could‘ve sworn I heard this guy gulp off camera.But the director of the CDC comes up and says he also wants schools to open safely. He said he likes his job and wants to keep it, therefore, he is also in full agreement with Trump, despite the guidelines they released hours before.So then Dr. Birx comes on and says half the country has seen a surge of new cases. The country is worse off than it was back at the start of all this. She said they should return to phase 1 and start all over.Now, an astute reader may wonder how do half the states return to phase 1, and still expect to open by fall? Good question. ….. And while you were thinking about it, Birx tries to leave the podium.But before she gets away, Pence stops her, suggests she ‘talk about that other thing about the children’. She hesitates, then agrees.She comes back up to the mic, says most children probably won’t die. Maybe 0.1%. And usually the ones who die were already sick, so you parents at home may want to keep an eye on them. Oh- and we have virtually no data on how transmissible the virus is in children because we’ve barely tested any of them, but let me get out of your hair.Pence comes back and says, see, we’re good here.However, a commenter on the Reddit thread replied:You all realize when Dr. Brix [sic]says only .02% of students will die she talking about over 11 thousand children are going to die, right? ?But hey no biggy, they won’t be any of our politicians kids so who gives a rat’s ass? ?The NumbersThe quote itself was misattributed and out of context, although the message about reopening schools was accurate. So how about that figure?We were unable to find numbers for how many American schoolchildren were expected to attend the 2020-2021 school year, but we did find a breakdown of the number of children expected to attend elementary, middle, and high school for the 2019-2020 school year — 56,600,000, or 56.6 million:How many students will attend school in fall 2019?About 56.6 million students will attend elementary, middle, and high schools across the United States (source).50.8 million students in public schools 5.8 million students in private schools Of the 50.8 million public school students (source):1.4 million will attend prekindergarten 3.7 million will attend kindergarten 35.5 million will attend prekindergarten to grade 8 15.3 million will attend grades 9 to 12 4.1 million will attend 9th grade, the grade students typically enter high schoolOf 56.6 million students, .02 percent was 11,320, and .1 percent was 56,600. The 14,740 figure is about 0.26 percent of American schoolchildren in the 2019-2020 school year.TL;DRThe claim Betsy DeVos said “only .02 percent” of American schoolkids would die should schools open across the United States for the 2020-2021 year was — at best — misattributed, as the actual figure (.1 percent) was provided reluctantly by Birx during a short but vague comment made at Pence’s behest during a July 2020 briefing. It was definitely true that DeVos adamantly expressed her belief schools ought to open with little restriction, and that her beliefs were at odds with public health experts’ recommendations. But she did not say that “only .02 percent” (or “only .1 percent”) of students would die; that comment appeared to be the product of a game of social media telephone.Comments"
|
7899
|
Exclusive: UK industry expects ventilator production go-ahead on Wednesday.
|
British industry expects the government to give the go-ahead for an emergency ventilator production plan on Wednesday that will see a number of firms join forces to tackle the coronavirus outbreak, sources close to the process told Reuters.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Airbus (AIR.PA), Smiths (SMIN.L), Ford (F.N) and McLaren are among firms involved in the process, and some degree of output, whether making components or complete ventilators, should ideally begin next week. “It will be upscaling, on more of an industrial scale, existing ventilator designs,” one of the sources said. Companies will provide expertise including 3D printing, parts manufacturing, assembly and business planning. An announcement is due on Wednesday, the sources said. Britain, like many other nations, is trying to boost the number of ventilators available to its publicly funded health service by using some from private hospitals and manufacturing more domestically if possible. Vacuum cleaner company Dyson said on Monday it was testing a ventilator and scaling up for volume production. It had been working around the clock with medical technology and development company, TTP – The Technology Partnership. Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked businesses to help make the devices over a week ago when he spoke to more than 60 manufacturing firms and organizations, including aerospace and automotive companies. A spokesman for Johnson said the government had been in discussions with more than 3,000 businesses and was focused on supporting established British manufacturers to increase production of already approved machines. “We’ve made the necessary specifications available online, and have also been evaluating concepts and designs from businesses to understand other viable options for alternative models that we can progress,” the spokesman told reporters. “We’re testing proof of concept from a number of suppliers with the support of a team of expert clinicians.” The pandemic has forced doctors in some countries to either ration or plan limiting access to critical care beds and ventilators, with many nations scrambling to make or buy more. Ventilators, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, are mechanical breathing devices that can blow air and oxygen into the lungs. They are crucial for the care of people with lung failure, which can be one of the complications suffered by patients with severe COVID-19, the disease coronavirus causes. But they don’t necessarily save people.
|
7481
|
Oklahoma, Utah face scrutiny over malaria drug purchases.
|
Republican state leaders in Oklahoma and Utah are facing scrutiny for spending millions of dollars combined to purchase malaria drugs promoted by President Trump to treat COVID-19 patients that many other states obtained for free and that doctors warned shouldn’t be used without more testing.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Understanding the Outbreak, Malaria, Health, Oklahoma, Utah, Virus Outbreak, General News, Gary Herbert, U.S. News
|
While governments in at least 20 other states obtained more than 30 million doses of the drug through donations from the federal reserve or private companies, Oklahoma and Utah instead bought them from private pharmaceutical companies. Top officials in both states chalked up the decisions to “the fog of war.” Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Tuesday defended the state’s $2 million purchase, saying the drug was showing some promise. His health secretary attributed buying the 1.2 million hydroxychloroquine pills to something that happens in the “fog of war.” Utah Gov. Gary Herbert at first defended the state’s $800,000 purchase of 20,000 packets of hydroxychloroquine compounded with zinc, but has since ordered an investigation of a no-bid contract with a local company that had been promoting the drugs. Herbert, a Republican, also canceled an additional plan to spend $8 million more to buy 200,000 additional treatments from the same company. A left-leaning nonprofit group in Utah filed a price gouging complaint Tuesday with state regulators, arguing the $40 per pack drug was grossly overpriced. Oklahoma’s attorney general requested an investigative audit on Tuesday of its Department of Health over spending and warned the agency about retaliating against employees who report wrongful government activities under the state’s Whistleblower Act. A spokesman for Attorney General Mike Hunter declined to comment on whether the request was related to the $2 million spent on the drug. Doctors can already prescribe the malaria drug to patients with COVID-19, a practice known as off-label prescribing, and many do. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday warned doctors against prescribing hydroxychloroquine for treating the coronavirus outside of hospitals or research settings because of reports of serious side effects, including irregular heart rhythms and death among patients. Preliminary results from a recent study done on coronavirus patients at U.S. veterans hospitals showed no benefit, casting more doubt on the drug’s efficacy during the pandemic. Those were the latest admonitions against the drug that Trump has regularly promoted in public appearances, touting its potential despite his own health advisors telling him it is unproven. Oklahoma acquired 1.2 million pills, or about 100,000 doses, on April 4 from FFF Enterprises, a California-based medical supply wholesaler, according to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Oklahoma state Rep. Melissa Provenzano, a Democrat from Tulsa, said the state’s purchase shows that Gov. Stitt’s actions don’t follow his claim that he relies on data to drive his decisions. “Two million dollars is a lot of money to waste, especially when we have unemployment claims approved yet going unpaid, health care professionals without proper protective equipment, and diagnosed cases and deaths continuing to rise,” Provenzano said. Stitt, a first-term Republican, said hydroxychloroquine was showing some promise as a treatment in early March, and he didn’t want Oklahoma to miss out on an opportunity to acquire it. “Now there’s some evidence the chloroquine may not be as effective, but I was being proactive to try and protect Oklahomans,” Stitt said Tuesday when asked about the purchase. “That’s always going to be my first instinct, to get the equipment and things we need that I’m seeing in the future would help Oklahomans.” Oklahoma’s Secretary of Health Jerome Loughridge said several physicians, including some in Oklahoma, were previously optimistic about the drug’s promise in treating COVID-19. He added that the drug is also useful for treating lupus and some other auto-immune diseases, so the state’s supply “will not have gone to waste.” “When we were battling sort of the fog of war at that point, we certainly acquired it on the potential that it would have utility,” Loughridge said. Jeff Burton, a former adjutant general of the Utah National Guard chosen to lead the state health department’s coronavirus task force, offered a similar explanation for why the state made its purchase. He said the state never received the pills and is trying to get its money back. “I chalk it up to fog of war,” Burton told the state’s pharmacy board. “There was a lot going on. It’s easy to judge it from (an) easy chair.. . . Since then we’ve decided that was not a wise purchase.” Doctors in Oklahoma have been using the drug to treat patients with COVID-19, often in conjunction with a second drug, azithromiocin, but the results “just are not that promising,” said Dr. Douglas Drevets, chief of infectious diseases at University of Oklahoma Medicine. FFF Enterprises said it’s the company’s policy not to comment on transactions with customers. Utah gave a local company called Meds in Motion the $800,000 contract without taking bids from other companies under emergency procurement rules, said Christopher Hughes, director of Utah’s division of purchasing. State officials haven’t explained why they didn’t seek to get the drugs for free. The Federal Emergency Management Agency said Saturday it has sent out 28.6 million tablets of hydroxychloroquine sulfate free of cost to states around the country. Several states including New York, Connecticut and Texas received donations of the medication from a private company based in New Jersey called Amneal Pharmaceutical, according to information compiled by The Associated Press. Utah taxpayers deserve to know what happened to allow a purchase that seems like a company taking advantage of the early, chaotic days of the pandemic, said Chase Thomas, executive director of the group called Alliance for a Better Utah that submitted the price gouging complaint. The complaint alleges Utah paid at least double the common price for the medication. “Whether they were buying drugs we didn’t need or paying too much for it when they could have gotten them for free, there just needed to be a lot more thought going into this,” Thomas said. Meds in Motion didn’t answer an email seeking comment about the allegations. Herbert declined to provide an update Tuesday about the investigation of the purchase. He said Friday the state’s legal counsel would aim to find out what, how and why it happened. He said he believed state officials acted in good faith as they scrambled to slow the spread of coronavirus, but acknowledged a mistake may have been made. “I have some questions about how it came about,” Herbert said Friday. “Bottom line is, we’re not purchasing any more of this drug.” ___ McCombs and Whitehurst reported from Salt Lake City.
|
8944
|
New blood test detects early stage ovarian cancer
|
The news release highlights this recent study of a commercially unavailable blood test to detect ovarian cancer. The study is quite small and explores whether the test detects cancer in women already known to have it. The results are too preliminary to conclude whether or not this experimental method could reliably detect cancer in large numbers of women whose cancer status is unknown. This is key information for readers and should have been made much more clear. The news release does well in establishing the scope and diagnostic challenges of ovarian cancer, but falls quite short in letting readers know that most of the authors — two of whom offer quite optimistic quotes — are inventors of the test with pending patents. Ovarian cancer is common and often fatal. Symptoms often develop late, when the cancer is advanced and much more difficult to treat. Technologies that might facilitate earlier diagnosis could have a much needed impact on disease stage and rates of death. Anyone writing news releases about such early detection methods should place a premium on caution and clearly address: How preliminary are the results? What limitations should readers be aware of? What are the chances of both falsely positive tests (finding cancer when it isn’t there) and falsely negative tests (not detecting cancer when it IS there). Finally, as this news release illustrates, do the researchers strongly promote the tests, even though their results are quite preliminary, and their financial conflicts of interest quite significant?
|
false
|
blood test,ovarian cancer,University of Adelaide
|
Cost is not mentioned and, according to the published study, the high costs of the sensors used in detecting the cancer have proven to be a major drawback. The only benefit mentioned is this: “the new test detected significant levels of the cancer glycan in blood samples from over 90% of women with stage 1 ovarian cancer, and in 100% of samples from later stages of the disease, but not in any of the samples from healthy controls.” We’re glad to see it made clear that the blood test was increasingly positive for cancer in those women already known to have increasingly advanced cancer. However, it should have been made even more clear the overall study group is quite small (69 women), with only 23 women having known stage I/II disease; therefore, this study can not show if the blood test would be effective as a screening tool in healthy women. It’s very important to show how the test looks in populations with and without cancer — which will likely be done in the future. The public needs to know and be clear about that when a person has cancer, the test is positive and if we know there is no cancer the test is negative. As is so often the case with news releases about cancer screening tests, what usually gets highlighted is the sensitivity; in this case, that early stage cancers resulted in a positive test 90% of the time. But what’s not highlighted — and can cause significant emotional harm — is that 10% of the time the test will be negative in someone who has cancer. That “false-negative” result provides false reassurance that there’s no cancer present. In addition, there may be a small number of “false-positive” tests leading to inappropriate procedures. Readers need to know how often false positive results occur with the test, and that’s something a small study such as this can’t confidently address. As mentioned above, this is a relatively small study that could only show that the screening test worked most of the time in women already known to have ovarian cancer. Its effectiveness as a screening method for the general population can not be determined from this study. Therefore it’s premature to state this blood test “has the potential to dramatically improve early detection of the disease … a potential game changer.” These preliminary data do NOT support such claims. No disease mongering here. The scope and diagnostic challenges of ovarian cancer are appropriately included. A major weakness of this news release is failing to mention that four out of six of the authors are “named inventors on a patent” related to this screening test. Also, the funding for this study is not included. No other alternative tests are mentioned. Cancer antigen 125, or CA-125, a test for screening for ovarian cancer, is recommended when there is high clinical suspicion (when the patient is having particular symptoms to suggest the presence of cancer). Mentioning this test, and its pros and cons, would have provided useful context for readers wondering about how these preliminary results stack up against our current screening tests. The release should also have noted that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends against screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not support screening. Here’s the last sentence of this very brief news release: “The [research] team is currently seeking scientific and commercial partners to further test the technology with larger numbers of patient samples and to adapt it for mass screening.” It doesn’t completely clarify for readers whether the test is currently available, but suggests it isn’t. It’s stated that the bacterial toxin used in the test was “discovered” by the Adelaide researchers, and that this is a “new blood test.” As noted above, there is some unjustified language used; especially given the preliminary nature of these findings. Most distressing is that a lead author — who stands to benefit from a pending patent related to the blood test — claims “our new test is a potential game changer.” Likewise, reference to adapting this technology “for mass screening” is rather premature given this study does not address the specificity/sensitivity of this blood test in screening a large population whose cancer status is unknown. (Remember: mass screening implies being able to reliably find cancer in people without symptoms.)
|
4935
|
In-home hospice volunteers focus on quality of life.
|
Laura Ann Waters went through a very difficult time in her life several years ago. Her 16-year-old cat had to be put to sleep. Her father-in-law passed away, followed by her own mother’s death. Then her husband passed away.
|
true
|
Goldsboro, Health, Hospice care
|
Having had no children, the 71-year-old had to do something to occupy her time. She remembered how hospice volunteers helped her and her husband toward the end of his life and decided that’s what she wanted to do, too. She is one of about 70 3HC (Home Health and Hospice Care) in-home hospice volunteers, who give of their time to help families of patients, and the patients themselves when the end draws near. Cyndi Shimer, 3HC volunteer coordinator, said hospice is more about quality of life. “We’re not about dying,” she said. The purpose of an in-home hospice volunteer is to give the caregiver a break. “The caregiver is typically in there 24/7, and just knowing they (caregivers) have that window of opportunity, they may want to take a nap, work in the yard or run errands,” Shimer said. “It gives them a couple hours once a week that they know somebody is going to be there and be a loving companion to their loved one.” Not only does it help the caregiver, but it also helps the patient. Shimer said the volunteers bond with their patients. They get very connected and even come to love their patients. Volunteers are companions for the patients. They may listen to music together, watch TV together or just sit and talk about their childhood. And an in-home volunteer also helps the patient by giving them another outlet with somebody outside the family. “Usually, when a patient is in hospice, the whole family is going through emotions because they are so close to the situation,” Shimer said. “When a hospice volunteer comes in, they’re just meeting that patient where they are right then. And they are able to develop that relationship based on where they are right then.” After her husband died in 2014, Waters decided to become a hospice volunteer. She started out doing menial tasks at Kitty Askins, then one day was asked to become an in-home hospice volunteer. “I had no clue what an in-home hospice volunteer did,” Waters said. “But I sat with this lady in Mount Olive, and we became very good friends. I was with her about a year before she passed away. We’d just sit there and talk and talk and talk. If she was not up to talking, I would read something to her.” Waters was asked to take another patient after that. And that’s when she became a sister in Christ with 72-year-old Joy Beth Whitfield. “God sent me to this house,” Waters said. “I love that woman. She is a special person.” When Waters first began visiting Whitfield, she would use sign language to say “I love you” and Whitfield learned to sign it back. Then Waters found a ceramic hand signing “I love you” and gave it to Whitfield, where it sits on a tiny shelf in her living room. Waters currently has three in-home hospice patients she visits with anywhere from a couple to a few hours every Thursday. “If I can do something that makes someone feel better, that’s what it’s all about,” she said. “I’ve been blessed. I felt like people were so good to me that I had to give back.” When one of her patients dies, Waters grieves, too. Don Nobers is into his 21st year of being an in-home hospice volunteer. Because there are so few men who volunteer, he takes only male patients, especially military veterans. It’s perfect for the 82-year-old, who was in the United States Navy in the psychiatric unit. “I’m using my talents to share with people who are in the final stages of their life,” he said. “I know how to listen very well. I build relationships with them.” One of his patients fought throughout Europe in World War II, survived, came home and put it all behind him. “He told me he’d been through hell once being in the war and that his cancer was a second hell,” Nobers said. “He did die in peace, though. “I sat with another gentleman about five years. He served in the occupation forces in Japan and had no realization that he’d been exposed to the bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. When he came home, he had a brain tumor. It was removed. He had a lung that had to be removed. But he was a fighter. He lasted to age 82 in spite of all the medical problems.” Nobers likes to think he’s making a difference in his patients’ lives, like with a retired Air Force veteran who was in bad shape. “I asked him what was keeping him around,” Nobers said. “He said he hadn’t talked to his mother in seven years or his brother in 10 years. I told him to get on the telephone and call his mother and brother. He did, and two days later, he passed. “The real thing with veterans in particular is you have to build a relationship and they begin to trust you, and they will tell you things that are weighing heavily on their mind, and they want to go out in peace.” Nobers has seen a lot of death during his years as a hospice volunteer, but he knows it’s just a part of life and that it’s going to happen to everyone. Shimer said 3HC needs more in-home hospice volunteers all over Wayne County. “The only requirements is that you have to be living, breathing and really have a heart for people and a desire to help people,” she said. “They fill out an application and we do a background check then provide training.” Volunteers usually go into a home once a week for two hours. Shimer said all the 3HC in-home hospice volunteers also get a lot out of the experience. “We had a 1-year-old who needed an in-home hospice volunteer because the baby needed eyes on 24/7,” she said. “You can imagine what that did to the parents. The volunteer went in and just sat and loved on that baby. “Volunteers focus on the positive, not the negative. We’re more about quality of life. We’re not about dying.” ___ Information from: Goldsboro News-Argus, http://www.newsargus.com
|
10609
|
Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
|
"The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examines how, despite a total lack of any research on the product in humans, OSR #1 ended up being marketed as a ""dietary supplement"" for children with autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps which can allow risky, poorly researched products to be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It’s an example of health journalism doing what it’s supposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few good treatment options. This is a situation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates and unscrupulous marketers of uNPRoven therapies. As Boyd Haley, president of the company that make the the OSR#1 supplement, puts it: ""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it’s just incredible."""
|
true
|
"The story mentions that 30 capsules of OSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also included information about the amount of active ingredient per capsule and the manufacturer’s recommended dosage. This would have allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact of treatment. This is critical information considering these costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone using OSR #1. The story juxtaposes a light-hearted ""success story"" with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way of way of emphasizing that the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The story clearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn’t seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that other chelating drugs carry ""significant risks"" and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the company which makes the product provided no published studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidence should be deeply troubling. The story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR #1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there are educational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have better evidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer’s website, available only through dentists’ or doctors’ offices. It notes, however, that the Tribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the product directly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We are impressed that the Tribune went to these lengths to establish the product’s availability. The story provides a fairly detailed pedigree for OSR #1 and discusses its similarity to other chelation therapies used in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raise concerns about OSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release."
|
|
17190
|
"The Koch brothers are ""the richest people in the world. Individually, they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."
|
"Reid said the Koch brothers are ""the richest people in the world. Individually they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."" If you look at families -- which is what Reid is essentially doing -- then Charles and David Koch rank second internationally to six members of the Walton family, at least according to Forbes. That’s still pretty close to the top of the list."
|
true
|
National, Campaign Finance, Harry Reid,
|
"For weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been using floor speeches to target Charles and David Koch, the industrialist brothers with libertarian political views who have spent generously -- and gotten others to spend generously -- to support conservative candidates and issues. In an April 2, 2014, floor speech, Reid criticized a House budget proposal drawn up by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., saying it reflected the principles of the Koch brothers and would lower taxes on the wealthy. ""Is $80 billion of personal wealth for the Koch brothers enough?"" Reid asked. ""I think most everyone would say yes, it's enough. But not the Koch brothers. They want more. They're the richest people in the world. Individually they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."" We wondered: Is that correct? Reid’s office didn’t respond to an inquiry for this story, but we were able to find some answers. It’s tricky to say definitively who is richer than who, because of privacy issues and fluctuations in market values. But the longstanding yardstick for measuring the world’s richest people comes from Forbes magazine, which publishes both the Forbes 400 (a list of the 400 richest Americans) and the World’s Billionaires (which tracks more than 1,600 billionaires across the globe). Currently, Charles and David Koch, when measured as individuals, are tied for sixth place on the international list, with $40.7 billion each. Combined, their net worth is $81.4 billion, which is higher than the highest-ranking individual on the list -- Microsoft founder Bill Gates, at $77.8 billion. (A third brother, William, has long been estranged from Charles and David, and media accounts about the brothers’ giving patterns generally do not consider him to be part of the ""Koch brothers."" William is worth an additional $4 billion.) So are Charles and David Koch No. 1 in the world? They’re close--but not quite. Reid ignored one other family that, collectively, has greater net worth than the Kochs: the Waltons, the heirs to the Walmart fortune. Here’s the rundown, in descending order of their ranking on the Forbes international list: 9. Christy Walton and family: $38 billion 10. Jim Walton: $35.6 billion 11. Alice Walton: $35.1 billion 12. S. Robson Walton: $35.1 billion 305. Ann Walton Kroenke: $5.0 billion 367. Nancy Walton Laurie: $4.2 billion Together, the six Waltons have a net worth of $153 billion -- a little less than double the holdings of Charles and David Koch. So if Reid is going to put together the Koch brothers, it makes sense to combine the wealth of the Walton family as well. And the Walton family’s wealth is bigger. Our ruling Reid said the Koch brothers are ""the richest people in the world. Individually they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."" If you look at families -- which is what Reid is essentially doing -- then Charles and David Koch rank second internationally to six members of the Walton family, at least according to Forbes. That’s still pretty close to the top of the list."
|
10585
|
Healthy aging benefits may be associated with walnut consumption, according to research
|
This news release from the California Walnut Commission describes a study showing that a healthy diet including walnuts is associated with lower risk of impaired physical function in older women. Researchers examined data from more than 50,000 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study, a large-scale, decades-long epidemiological project funded by the National Institutes of Health, that assessed risk factors for cancer and cardiovascular disease. They found an association between a diet that included certain fruits, lettuce and walnuts and reduced physical impairments. The news release echoes a host of previous industry declarations that walnuts “may” provide a certain health benefit that in reality could probably be obtained from a range of foods. Laudably, this news release does offer some cautions about the findings. It describes study limitations and states that researchers “emphasized that overall diet quality, rather than individual foods, may have a greater impact on reducing risk of physical function impairments.” Physical function — defined as the ability to perform certain tasks such as climbing stairs, walking several blocks, and dressing yourself — is a key driver of mobility and independent living in older adults and a strong predictor of mortality. However, the direct role of diet in preventing the decline of physical function hasn’t been well studied. Biological research has shown that greater adherence to a healthy diet is associated with better lipid and inflammatory profiles and lower cardiovascular disease risk, which are strongly related to physical function. This study’s large sample size, long-term follow-up, and wide range of data points seem to bolster evidence of a connection between a healthy diet and prolonged quality of life.
|
mixture
|
industry/commercial news releases
|
Walnuts are reasonably affordable, and most people have some idea of how much they cost. The news release does not quantify the purported benefits of including walnuts in one’s diet. It says the study “suggests that consuming 1-2 servings of walnuts per week (1/4 cup per serving) was associated with reduced risk of developing impairments in physical function, which helps enable older women to maintain independence throughout the aging process.” What was the reduced risk? How did women who followed a healthy diet compare in their physical function to those who did not? The release later tempered the message that walnuts — specifically — reduce the risk of physical impairment. It notes that the researchers “emphasized that overall diet quality, rather than individual foods, may have a greater impact on reducing risk of physical function impairments. Specifically, diet quality traits most associated with reduced rates of incident physical impairment were higher intake of fruits and vegetables; lower intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, trans fat, and sodium; and moderate alcohol intake.” It adds that among specific foods studies, “the strongest relations were found for increased intakes of oranges, orange juice, apples, pears, romaine or leaf lettuce, and walnuts.” It also provides this insight from a researcher: “The simple message from this study is that eating an overall healthy diet, including certain foods, such as walnuts and other whole foods, may help women with the ability to do key everyday tasks as they age, like carrying groceries or dressing themselves.” Nor does it state that walnuts were the only nuts examined in the study, so we don’t know if similar benefits might be found for women who consumed large quantities of almonds or pine nuts, for example. As we stated in a recent review of a news release about walnuts and heart health, a brief mention of nut allergies and the high caloric content of nuts would be appropriate. This news release cautions that the findings have limitations. Among them: the study included only women, so results may not apply to men; participants were not randomly assigned to eat walnuts or other foods but rather were just asked about their dietary choices; and subjects may have misreported their dietary intake since this information was collected by questionnaires every few years. Also, the news release mentions that because this was an observational study rather than a randomized trial, it’s possible that other lifestyle habits that are more common in adults who eat walnuts could contribute to the findings, even though researchers tried to control for such factors. The news release does not exaggerate the problem of decline in physical function with age. The news release discloses that the study was funded in part by the California Walnut Commission. However, it should also have mentioned that funding for the 30-year Nurses Health Study came from the National Institutes of Health and that one researcher involved in the study has received a grant from the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council to study nuts and cognitive function in aging. The release notes that in addition to walnuts, the following dietary traits are associated with reduced rates of physical impairment: “higher intake of fruits and vegetables; lower intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, trans fat, and sodium; and moderate alcohol intake. Among food components, the strongest relations were found for increased intakes of oranges, orange juice, apples, pears, romaine or leaf lettuce, and walnuts.” The news release states that walnuts are “unique among nuts in that they are primarily composed of polyunsaturated fat (13 grams per ounce), which includes alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the plant-based omega-3 fatty acid. They are the only nut to contain a significant amount of ALA with 2.5 grams per one ounce serving.” It does not mention that there are other plant-based omega-3 sources such as flax seeds, chia seeds, soybeans, and leafy green vegetables. Walnuts are known to be widely available. The news release does not overstate the novelty of the study. It provides this quote from a researcher: “These results add to the large body of evidence that outline the many benefits of a healthy diet for women.” The news release does not engage in sensational or unjustifiable language.
|
34277
|
Dogs can suffer chemical burns from chewing on tennis balls.
|
Specifically, Becker said, tennis balls can compress in a dog’s throat and then cut off their airways when they return to full size. He added, “Some dogs will rip the ball to pieces and then swallow them, creating a potentially life-threatening intestinal blockage. It’s not necessary to give up fetch. Just be sure to put the ball away after every game.”
|
unproven
|
Medical, dogs
|
A Houston-based dog rescue group’s warning to Facebook followers was amplified exponentially via social media after the group posted photographs of what they said were injuries to four dogs caused by exposure to a particular tennis ball brand: The shelter’s founder, Alfred Restivo, told People magazine that the incidents described in their post date to February 2018, when Sydney, a 6-year-old border collie, developed a heavily-swollen tongue. Three more dogs, Restivo said, were later found with similar issues. “It’s from the balls just being in their mouth and them licking them,” he said. “It doesn’t even have to be chewing.” Restivo also told us via email: Although I believe the tennis balls caused the issues with these dogs, I have no definitive proof. I can only go by what I saw, the situation the dogs were in, and the resulting outcome. In one case a dog chewed and swallowed a ball , which appeared to result in a ‘burn’ around a mouth. Another dog, Otis in the FB post, was merely playing catch with a tennis ball. Mouth ‘Burns’ soon showed up afterward. One of our boarding dogs was just licking, chewing and playing with a tennis ball but never swallowed or tore it apart. He had mouth “burns” on the guns and tongue. The fourth dog chewed and licked on a tennis ball for good while but never swallowed it. Her tongue swelled, and there were “burns” on both her mouth and gums. His account was corroborated by one veterinarian, Tim Gaffrey, who diagnosed Sydney with “mouth ulcers” on top of the swelling. “That combination of symptoms, it looks like a dog that had oral contact with an irritating substance. Another way of saying that is chemical burns,” Gaffrey told the magazine. Head Penn Racquet Sports, the maker of Penn brand tennis balls, told us in a statement that they were unaware of anything about the balls themselves that would cause the reported symptoms: We have looked diligently into this situation and have confirmed that nothing has changed with the manufacturing process of Penn Championship tennis balls. We have not previously heard reports of this nature. Head USA stands behind the quality of Penn tennis balls, which are the ball of choice for the world’s best tennis players. Penn tennis balls are produced to meet the exacting specifications of the US Tennis Association, the International Tennis Federation and other governing bodies of the sport. Tennis balls are made for tennis; they are not marketed or sold as pet toys, but we want to assure our customers that no toxic materials are added to our tennis balls, and we would never knowingly market a product that harms animals or humans. “Penn can deny what they want,” Restivo told us in response. “I have plenty of these balls left. I challenge them to get independent chemical testing done on the these balls as well as any news outlets. Their denials are meaningless to me unless they prove that these four injured dogs wounds were not caused by their product.” Restivo said that Penn had not contacted him, and that his post would stay up. The shelter’s claim also came as news to other medical experts. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s president-elect, John de Jong, told People that he had never heard of dogs suffering these sorts of issues related to chewing tennis balls. Similarly, veterinarian Marty Becker, a board member for the American Humane Association, told us: “Tennis balls are wonderful for playing a brisk game of fetch with your dog, but they’re not chew toys. While I have never seen an instance of chemical burns to a dog’s mouth or tongue from exposure to a tennis ball, they do pose some risks dog owners need to be aware of.”
|
1336
|
Siberian blizzards blast Britain and Ireland as Storm Emma approaches.
|
Snow storms from Siberia blasted Britain and Ireland on Thursday with the worst weather since 1991, trapping several hundred motorists on roads in Scotland, closing thousands of schools, grounding planes and halting trains.
|
true
|
Environment
|
With up to 90 cm of snow and temperatures as low as minus 10.3 Celsius in Scotland, Britain and Ireland issued their most severe red warnings which advise people to stay at home as travel is too dangerous. Dozens of people were trapped in their cars on the M80 motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with several hundred having been standed on the road overnight. Flights and trains were canceled across both Britain and Ireland - with similar transport problems in continental Europe. More freezing snowy weather was forecast as Storm Emma approaches from Portugal and France, with warnings of treacherous weather across southern England and Ireland. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said people should remain indoors from 1600 GMT on Thursday until the storm, with winds forecast to reach 100 kph (60 mph), has passed. “The risk to life and limb presented by the severe weather conditions should not be underestimated by anyone,” he said following a meeting of the National Emergency Coordination Group. “It is not safe to be outside in such conditions.” All flights will cease from Dublin airport by 1600 GMT and the two carriers that use the airport, Aer Lingus and Ryanair, said they do not plan to fly from the airport at all on Friday. Trains and planes were canceled across Britain and Ireland. Emergency services also struggled on what many consider to be the first day of the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring. One doctor told Reuters that staff were snowed in at a hospital near Glasgow, and another doctor told the BBC of a surgeon colleague who walked almost three hours in the snow to the town of Paisley to perform a cancer operation. Wholesale gas prices soared to their highest in at least 10 years on Thursday and the British power network regular, the National Grid, warned of a deficit in the market and sought to buy gas from market players to unblock bottlenecks. The cold spell, dubbed the “the Beast from the East”, has been caused by a jump in temperatures high over the Arctic which has weakened the jet stream that brings warm air in from the Atlantic to Ireland and Britain. Britain’s two busiest airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, both said that flights would be canceled. Police in Lincolnshire, eastern England, said that all roads were impassable. Britain’s Met Office warned that freezing rain was likely across southern England as Storm Emma pushes northwards from Portugal and France, adding that it looked set to be the coldest spell in Britain since 1991. In Scotland, there were widespread road closures and no trains running on the two main lines to and from England. Police were rescuing stranding motorists, and found a vulnerable man in what they described as “life threatening weather conditions”. Both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports were closed. Some places in southern Scotland were under such heavy of snow, it affected funeral services in Hawick, near the border with England. “The issue for digging the grave is getting into the burial ground, and we’ve had about 3 feet (90 cm) of snow here,” Ross Walsh of Robson’s Funeral Directors told Reuters. Ireland was bracing for the biggest snow fall since 1982 with public transport halted and schools across the republic closed. The Irish stock market said it would close from midday on Thursday and remain closed all day Friday. In Switzerland, Geneva airport closed for several hours and dozens of flights were canceled. Snow also disrupted road and rail traffic. France had its share of snow too, even on the beaches of the Riviera coast in the southeast. The worst was in the south where hundreds of cars and trucks were stranded on the A9 motorway, a strip that links southern France and Spain. The airport in Montpelier was closed for a period overnight but partially reopened on Thursday. Upwards of 15,000 homes along the Mediterranean were without power on Thursday morning, power network company Enedis said. It also snowed across much of northern Italy overnight, bringing fresh disruption to a rail network already hard hit by heavy snow across the south at the start of the week. Schools in Florence were ordered to shut, while heavy goods vehicles were banned from the roads in the north. In the Netherlands, strong winds caused problems. At Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, only two of the six landing strips could be used on Thursday morning. Authorities had to close sea barriers south of Rotterdam to protect shipping.
|
5418
|
Social media sleuths take on mysterious herbalist Dr. Sebi.
|
Social media sleuths are lighting up their streams with conspiracy theories connecting the shooting death of Nipsey Hussle and an herbalist who claimed back in the 1980s that he had a cure for AIDS and other ailments.
|
true
|
Health, Social media, Entertainment, Nick Cannon, Media, Nipsey Hussle
|
Hussle, who was killed Sunday in Los Angeles, was reportedly working on a documentary about Dr. Sebi, who in 1985 beat New York allegations of practicing medicine without a license after his healing center ran newspaper advertisements claiming his diet of low alkaline foods cured patients with AIDS. Sebi, born Alfredo Bowman, died in a Honduran jail cell in 2016 after his arrest for carrying large sums of cash into his native country. He was 82. The official cause was pneumonia. Some think Hussle’s death is connected to the Sebi documentary because of a belief that there were forces trying to silence Sebi’s health message, though there is no direct evidence of that. Nick Cannon posted on Instagram that he’d like to carry on Hussle’s work, not directly referencing the film. He has since posted photos and videos of Sebi along with mentions of Hussle. A Cannon representative said Tuesday that Cannon had not yet reached out to Hussle’s loved ones about the film project, wanting to give them time to grieve. Police have said they believe the man suspected of shooting Hussle outside his clothing store had a personal dispute with the rapper. As for Sebi, one Twitter user, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, summed it up this way: “The real tragedy about Dr Sebi is that white scientists, including medical doctors, have experimented so much on Black people that a lot of Black people don’t trust medicine or any other science. So be judgmental ... but judge how we got here: whiteness.”
|
15078
|
"About ""3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."
|
"Scarborough said that about ""3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."" Recent studies that look at prisoners who had a gun when they committed a crime found that between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show. But the studies only tell us where the guns came from, not whether they were acquired legally, and there are issues with using the data to reach the conclusion Scarborough did, experts told us."
|
mixture
|
Crime, PunditFact, Guns, Joe Scarborough,
|
"The public debate to the shooting in Oregon so far has followed a familiar script. Some observers focus on cracks in mental health services. Some highlight families who fail to keep weapons away from disturbed sons and fathers. Others talk about background checks and reining in the firepower available to private citizens. Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, trained his sights on the underground market in guns. ""Isn't it true that only like 3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually purchase those guns?"" he asked a guest on his Oct. 2 show. ""Isn't this a big trafficking problem, too?"" Scarborough supports background checks, but his focus on black market guns caught our eye. We decided to dig into the stat that only a tiny fraction of violent crimes involve guns that were purchased on the up-and-up. From the data and experts we reached, we learned Scarborough might be correct, but the data don’t precisely confirm it. Before we review the data, we should note that Scarborough’s claim is a bit ambiguous. He might have meant that out of all violent crimes, 3 percent involve a legally purchased firearm. But it’s also possible that he was thinking that out of a smaller set of violent crimes -- those involving a firearm -- the firearm was purchased legally 3 percent of the time. (We reached out to Scarborough and did not hear back.) Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University, has done some of the most recent and detailed research on where criminals get their guns. But note: His work begins with the criminals, not the crimes -- which was Scarborough’s approach. Cook knows of no study that takes the crime as the starting point. And for good reason. ""The problem is that only a very small fraction of gun crimes result in the recovery of the weapon or in any other way allow us to determine how the gun was acquired by the person who committed the crime,"" Cook told us. On the other hand, if Scarborough had said that 3 percent of criminals who use guns get them legally, he would have come closer to the truth. There are still big issues with that, but he would have found some support in Cook’s work. The Chicago Crime Lab study Cook and colleagues Susan Parker and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago interviewed 99 inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago. They were looking for criminals who were likely to have used a gun or had ready access to one. The authors described the group of participants as ""a convenience sample of gun-involved, criminally active men living in greater Chicago."" ""It is difficult to say how representative they are of the larger population with that description,"" they wrote. ""For that reason, we do not place much emphasis on the statistical results, as opposed to the qualitative patterns that emerged from these data."" That said, of the 70 inmates who had possessed a firearm, only 2, or 2.9 percent, had bought it at a gun store. The report found that percentage was in line with the findings of the Chicago Police Department when it traced weapons seized from suspected gang members. (For a glimpse into how guns move through a community, Cook's full article is good reading.) There are some important caveats however. First, Cook noted that it’s possible to buy a gun illegally from a gun store. You can use a fake ID or employ a straw purchaser (someone who can pass a background check who buys the weapon on your behalf). Furthermore, just because the rest of the people interviewed didn’t purchase a gun at a gun store doesn’t mean they acquired it illegally. ""It’s possible to make a legal acquisition from another source – a gift from a family member, a purchase from a private seller, etc.,"" Cook said. ""Whether transactions of that sort are legal depend on the details of the transaction and local regulations."" Cook also cautioned that the numbers from the Chicago study might not apply across the country. The national data In 2004, the government conducted its periodic Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. It found that among inmates who had a gun when they committed their crime (16 percent of all prisoners), about 11 percent had bought the firearm at a retail store, a pawn shop, a flea market or a gun show. Another 37 percent had gotten it from a friend or family member. About 40 percent said they got it illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer or by stealing it. But the same caveats apply. A retail purchase might not have been legal and a gift from a family member might not be illegal. A 1994 study by researchers James Wright and Peter Rossi came up with a larger percentage of potentially legal purchases. They surveyed prisoners in 10 states. About 21 percent said they acquired their weapons from a gun or other ""customary retail outlets"" as the researchers put it. About one out of four came through gray or black market sources. However, gun laws were looser when that data was collected. The Brady Bill and its background check provisions passed the year the study was published. Ultimately, there are holes in the data. But Cook said while 3 percent or 10 percent might not be the exact number of legally purchased firearms used by criminals, the fraction is in that ballpark. ""I think it’s safe to say that a low percentage of criminal assaults and robberies are committed with guns that were acquired by legal purchase from a gun store,"" Cook said. Joseph Olson, a professor at Hamline University School of Law and former board member of the National Rifle Association, believes that the number of legally acquired firearms used by criminals is negligible. ""Criminals don’t go through background checks because they know they wouldn't pass them,"" Olson said. Olson said with homicides, there are two key exceptions. Legal firearms are often found when the killings occur duing domestic violence or mass shootings. Our ruling Scarborough said that about ""3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."" Recent studies that look at prisoners who had a gun when they committed a crime found that between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show. But the studies only tell us where the guns came from, not whether they were acquired legally, and there are issues with using the data to reach the conclusion Scarborough did, experts told us."
|
22304
|
"Under a House Republican appropriations bill, ""6 million seniors are deprived of meals."
|
Nancy Pelosi says GOP bill would deprive 6 million seniors of meals
|
mixture
|
National, Corrections and Updates, Federal Budget, Nancy Pelosi,
|
"CORRECTION: In the initial version of the story, we speculated that the number of people who could be deprived of meals due to the proposed cuts could range from 2 million to 4 million. However, an alert reader pointed out that we neglected to factor in the obvious reality that people eat every day, so the number of people affected would be much smaller. We have revised this item to reflect that. However, this error doesn’t affect our ruling of , since we still believe that Pelosi’s estimate of 6 million meals was calculated reasonably, and that her error came from misspeaking as she described the statistic at the public event. On April 4, 2011, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made an appearance with a group called the Hunger Fast Coalition in which she took aim at her Republican rivals’ budget priorities. ""In one of the bills before us, 6 million seniors are deprived of meals – homebound seniors are deprived of meals,"" Pelosi said. ""People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground 3 million seniors not receiving meals? I don’t think so. We’ve got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there, to the higher ground of national values. I don’t think the American people want any one of those 6 million people to lose their meals."" The comment attracted a fair amount of attention in the blogosphere, so we thought it was worth a check. We’ll focus on whether 6 million seniors would in fact be denied meals if Republican budget plans are enacted. When we contacted Pelosi’s office, they walked us through their calculations. But first, they acknowledged an error in Pelosi’s remark: She should have said ""6 million meals for seniors,"" not meals for ""6 million seniors."" So right from the beginning, we’ll have to downgrade her original comment’s accuracy. Setting that aside, how good is the rest of Pelosi’s math? First, Pelosi’s office elaborated that the Republican bill she was referring to was H.R. 1, a fiscal year 2011 spending bill that passed the House but was rejected by the Senate in a 44-56 vote on March 9, 2011. The bill specifies that aging services programs within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Aging will get about $1.4 million. That’s roughly 5 percent below the funding for those programs during fiscal year 2010. This 5 percent cut is relevant to Pelosi’s comment because it refers to the budget category that includes federal nutrition programs for seniors. According to HHS, these programs are designed to ""reduce hunger and food insecurity; promote socialization of older individuals; and promote the health and well-being of older individuals and delay adverse health conditions through access to nutrition and other disease prevention and health promotion services."" Generally speaking, this funding goes either toward ""Home-Delivered Nutrition Services,"" which helps deliver meals to homebound seniors, and ""Congregate Nutrition Services,"" which provides meals at senior centers and other centralized locations. In fiscal year 2010, total funding for these nutrition programs was just under $819.5 million. Cutting 5 percent from this amount would mean a reduction of nearly $41 million. Pelosi’s office said when they made the calculations, they actually used a more conservative estimate -- a 3.6 percent reduction -- so by their math, the cut would actually be $30 million. And how deep is the impact of either a 3.6 percent cut or a 5 percent cut? We found data for fiscal year 2009 showing that the program funded roughly 149.2 million home-delivered meals and 92.5 million centralized meals. Together, that adds up to about 242 million meals. A 5 percent cut from that amount would be 12.1 million meals. A 3.6 percent cut would affect 8.7 million meals. But once again, Pelosi’s calculations were conservative. Her office used 193 million meals as its baseline, rather than 242 million. Using this smaller starting point, a 5 percent cut would mean a reduction of 9.7 million meals, while a 3.6 percent cut would mean a reduction of 6.9 million meals. The 6.9 million figure, her office said, is the source of the statistic Pelosi cited in her appearance with the Hunger Fast Coalition. As far as we can tell, Pelosi’s math seems sound -- at every turn, she erred on the cautious side, up to and including the final step, in which she rounded 6.9 million down to 6 million, rather than up to 7 million, which would have been entirely justified. So 6 million meals is a conservative estimate; the true number could well be higher, and her methodology provides her with a large cushion for error. In other words, Pelosi’s problem wasn’t her math; it was how she reported her math at the event. So ultimately, Pelosi is wrong, but we think she deserves credit for taking a cautious approach in cobbling together her numbers."
|
26699
|
“Whole of Italy goes into quarantine.”
|
The Italian prime minister announced on March 9 that the country was a “red zone,” meaning people must stay home with a few exceptions. Other rules include curfews on bars and restaurants, travel restrictions and no sporting events. Schools are closed until April 3.
|
true
|
Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Bloggers,
|
"The coronavirus is now a pandemic, so far infecting nearly 120,000 people worldwide and killing more than 4,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that travelers avoid visiting Italy, among several other countries, unless it's absolutely necessary. Italy, meanwhile, is taking its own precautions as COVID-19 spreads widely there. A recent blog post claims those precautions include putting the entire country ""into quarantine."" ""Italian prime minister has announced that the entire country goes into quarantine, as part of emergency measures aimed at halting the spread of the coronavirus,"" the undated post says. ""The government’s extraordinary measures, announced at Palazzo Chigi late on 9 March, comes amid a worsening of the coronavirus outbreak. The new stringent measures, covering the entire country, and would take effect tomorrow morning."" This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But this post is essentially : On March 9, Italian Prime Minister declared all of Italy a ""red zone,"" which means people should stay home except for work and emergencies, according to NPR. The emergency quarantine measure had already been in place in northern Italy, where most of the COVID-19 cases are. Italians must now also seek permission for essential travel, according to the BBC — and permission will only be granted for people with valid work or family reasons that can’t be postponed. People are forbidden from gathering in public and all sporting events are suspended. Schools and universities are closed until April 3. There are other rules that indicate the nation is allowing some movement, however restricted, including a 6 p.m. curfew on bars and restaurants, a ban on jail visits, and an embargo on unnecessary shopping. Shopping centers, except for pharmacies and food markets, must close on weekends, according to ABC News. People are being asked to stand at least a meter apart from one another in supermarket lines. But as the New York Times reports, the exact restrictions of the quarantine aren’t clear to some Italians. ""We are hearing too many things and people don’t really get what’s going on,"" the newspaper quoted one woman as saying. She said she thought it was fine to take a walk around Milan, where she lives, but said the government’s explanations ""aren’t clear at all."" It’s worth noting that the word ""quarantine"" also has several definitions. According to Merriam Webster, it can mean ""a state of forced isolation."" Clearly not everyone in the country is being forced into isolation. But it can also mean ""a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests,"" a definition that fits what we are seeing in Italy. The country’s lockdown also seems well within the definition of quarantine used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: ""to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill."""
|
9836
|
Parents’ Latest Pick: Herbal Shampoos to Keep Away Lice
|
Excellent piece, putting the “problem” of head lice in perspective and raising questions about efficacy of preventive shampoos. One company spokeswoman asks, if the products didn’t work, “why would we have such a large following of repeat customers?” The story clearly asks that same question, citing lack of evidence to show that perhaps the answer is: fear and lack of consumer information. We don’t know which children are simply not exposed to lice and would not get them anyway. $150 million in annual sales for products of unknown effectiveness: that’s why this matters. If these products were proven effective, it might be another story.
|
true
|
Wall Street Journal
|
The story includes the cost of some of the products in question. The story makes it clear that benefits of the lice control products have not been established. With its clear questioning of the evidence for lice control products, the story infers the harm of spending money on unproven products. The story includes some things parents may not have known: “Some public-health experts and school nursing groups are skeptical about the lice-prevention products, citing a lack of formal evidence. The National Association of School Nurses says in a position paper to its members that, based on several research pediatric, dermatology and nursing journal articles, the preventive products have presented “little scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness.” “There are lots of things that work in the lab, but not in the field,” says John Clark, a University of Massachusetts professor of veterinary and animal sciences. No disease-mongering. To the contrary, it shoots down some of the estimates of the size of the problem: “Richard Pollack, an entomology instructor and insect expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, estimates that only about 200,000 elementary-school students actually get head lice each year, rather than the six to 12 million children from the CDC’s 1997 estimates. In an email, a CDC spokeswoman said its figures were based on sales of head-lice treatments, noting a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics published last year that said the totals were most likely an overestimation.” Excellent sourcing. The story includes the question of whether the lice control products are any more effective than regular shampoos and conditioners. It also mentions that girls can keep wear their hair “up and tight.” The story includes the staggering sales figures of prescription and over the counter lice control products – totaling more than $151 million last year – making availability quite clear. No claims of novelty were made. It’s clear that this story involved independent enterprise reporting.
|
8302
|
New York coronavirus hospitalizations fall, New Jersey launches nursing home probe.
|
The number of people hospitalized for the novel coronavirus and related deaths in New York fell to their lowest levels in more than a week, adding to evidence the hardest-hit state was controlling its spread, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Cuomo also extended an order closing businesses and schools by two weeks until at least May 15 in coordination with other states in the region, and added details to face-mask requirements, saying New Yorkers should wear them on buses, taxis and trains. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, speaking at a separate news briefing, ordered a review of long-term care facilities across the state after learning that one nursing home had piled up dead bodies in a makeshift morgue. Cuomo, who has emerged as a leading national voice on the pandemic, said the improvement in key metrics reflected social distancing efforts that had brought the infection rate in his state low enough to control the outbreak. A total of 17,735 people were hospitalized across New York because of COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, down from 18,335 a day earlier and the lowest since April 6, Cuomo said. Intubations and admissions to intensive care units also declined, he said. “The good news is it means we can control the virus. We can control the spread,” Cuomo told a daily briefing. “And we did not know for sure that we could do that.” But Cuomo noted that about 2,000 infected people were newly admitted to hospitals on Wednesday, and that while deaths declined to 606, marking the lowest daily count in more than a week, the toll on his state was still significant. “That is still continuing at a really, really tragic rate,” Cuomo said of the death tally, adding that there were 29 fatalities at nursing homes, which he called “ground zero” in the fight against the virus. Cuomo said there was room for optimism in how social distancing had lowered the infection rate to 0.9 across New York, meaning one infected person was causing less than one new infection. Reflecting that confidence, Cuomo said New York would send 100 ventilators to New Jersey, a day after pledging to send 100 to Michigan and 50 to Maryland. Just a few weeks ago, Cuomo had been warning that a shortage of the breathing machines would cause deaths and was scrambling to secure more. Murphy said he had asked his attorney general to investigate long-term care facilities after being “outraged that bodies of the dead” had been stacked in a provisional morgue at an overwhelmed nursing home in Andover, a northern New Jersey town. “Last Saturday, we were notified that the facility was in need of body bags for deceased residents. And it was also reported that there were 28 bodies being stored in that facility,” Judy Persichilli, the health commissioner, said. While New York appears to have passed the worst of the crisis, New Jersey has yet to call a peak. New Jersey reported an additional 362 deaths for a total of 3,518, now exceeding the number of residents who died in World War 1, Murphy said. New Jersey has joined New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in a pact to coordinate the reopening of their economies. Murphy extended the closure of New Jersey public schools until May 15, conforming in part with the plan laid out by Cuomo, who said he would be looking at the infection rate and other metrics to decide when to end the shutdowns in New York. “One month is a long time,” Cuomo said. “What happens after that, I don’t know - we will see, depending on what the data says.”
|
30384
|
Coconut water can be used as an intravenous substitute for blood plasma.
|
To date, we have also been unable to confirm the existence of vampires — vegan, tropical, or otherwise.
|
false
|
Medical, coconut water, coconuts, pseudoscience
|
While “coconut water” has been promoted during the 21st century as a healthy drink, its reputed medical properties have been the subject of anecdotal claims dating back decades earlier. For example, beyond its more banal hangover-cure claims, unproven accounts have existed for decades that during World War II, British and Japanese troops used the liquid, freshly drained from the inside of a coconut, to administer emergency intravenous treatments to their troops. (We contacted the War Studies department at King’s College in England seeking comment on those stories, but have yet to hear back.) More recently, a 2002 column published in the Sri Lankan Sunday Observer calling coconut water “the fluid of life” stated that it could be used as a stand-in for blood plasma “because it is sterile, pyrogen-free and does not produce heat, and does not destroy blood cells.” Health-related web sites like Body Ecology and Listverse have made similar claims. As the latter blog reported in December 2017: Coconut water can be used (in emergencies) as a substitute for blood plasma.The reason for this is that coconut water (the water found in coconuts – not to be confused with coconut milk, which comes from the flesh of the coconut) is sterile and has an ideal pH level. Coconut water is liquid endosperm – it surrounds the embryo and provides nutrition. The claim also surfaced in a humorous post about “vegan vampires” circulating online: So I learned from my friend that coconut water can be used as an emergency blood transfusion, and of course my first thought was “So, can a vampire drink coconut water?” And of course we had this idea of these tropical vampires being horrified when these old world vampires come and are still drinking blood like some sort of monster. Guys oh my god VEGAN VAMPIRES But according to George Yaghmour, a licensed doctor and an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, the consequences of using coconut water as a plasma “substitute” are not funny at all; he told us: Coconut water and plasma are not equal fluids. Since 1942, there have been several studies confirming that coconut water mimicked intracellular fluids, not the extracellular plasma. While coconut water is a good source for calcium, potassium and magnesium as an oral hydration source, these same elements are concerning when it comes to intravenous use of coconut water, particularly when given in fluid boluses. Hypotonic fluids like coconut water could cause cerebral edema, blood hemolysis, worsening kidney failure, heart arrhythmia and many other neurological complications. There may also be irritation at the injection site. Yaghmour also told us that during “periods of crisis,” such as major conflicts or epidemics, coconut water may have served as an alternative for medical personnel to buy time for treatment. But “the acidity, hypotonicity, and high potassium do not make coconut water the ideal resuscitation solution.’
|
8377
|
China virus hits cruise ships, carmakers, airlines and Airbus.
|
Thousands of passengers and crew on two cruise ships in Asian waters were placed in quarantine for China’s coronavirus on Wednesday as airlines, carmakers and other global companies counted the cost of the fast-spreading outbreak.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Hundreds of experts will gather in Geneva next week, on Feb. 11-12, in an attempt to find a way to fight back against the outbreak by speeding research into drugs and vaccines, the World Health Organization (WHO) said. A multinational WHO-led team would go to China “very soon”, it added. It stressed no known effective treatment existed to combat the virus, dismissing various reports of “drug breakthroughs”. China said another 65 people had died in the previous 24 hours, in the highest daily total yet, taking the overall toll on the mainland to 490, most in and around the locked-down central city of Wuhan, where the new virus emerged late last year. There have been two deaths outside mainland China - in the Philippines and Hong Kong - both following visits to Wuhan. The virus had disrupted air travel, with more than two dozen airlines suspending or restricting flights to China and several countries, including the United States, banning the entry of anyone who has been in China over the previous two weeks. Hong Kong said all visitors from mainland China would be quarantined for two weeks, while Taiwan banned the entry of mainland residents from Thursday. The disruption spread to cruise ships this week, with about 3,700 people facing at least two weeks cut off aboard a liner anchored off Japan after health officials confirmed 10 passengers had tested positive for the virus. Passengers on the Diamond Princess posted pictures online of officials in masks and gowns conducting health checks and an empty deck. “This is not a good situation,” British passenger David Abel said in a video shot in his cabin and posted to Facebook. In Hong Kong, 3,600 passengers and crew were confined to their ship docked in the city for tests after three people on board had tested positive earlier. Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways (0293.HK) asked its 27,000 employees to take three weeks of unpaid leave, saying conditions were as grave now as during the 2009 financial crisis. American Airlines Group (AAL.O) and United Airlines (UAL.O) said they would suspend flights to and from Hong Kong after this week, a step that would leave no U.S. carriers flying passengers to the Asian financial hub. About half of the air cargo carried globally is in the belly of passenger jets rather than dedicated freighters. Nearly $700 billion was wiped off mainland Chinese stocks on Monday with many factories shut, cities cut off and travel links constricted, fuelling worries about global supply chains. Asian stocks steadied on Wednesday. Hyundai Motor (005380.KS) will suspend production in South Korea because of a disruption to the supply of parts, it said, becoming the first major carmaker to do so outside of China. Global carmakers have already extended factory closures in China in line with government guidelines. These include Hyundai, Tesla (TSLA.O), Ford (F.N), PSA Peugeot Citroen (PEUP.PA), Nissan (7201.T) and Honda Motor 7267.T. Planemaker Airbus (AIR.PA) has prolonged a planned closure of its final assembly plant in Tianjin, China, it said. Taiwan’s Foxconn (2317.TW), which makes phones for global vendors including Apple (AAPL.O), aims to gradually restart factories in China next week but could take at least a week or two more to resume full production, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said. German sportswear company Adidas (ADSGn.DE) said it was temporarily shutting a “considerable” number of its stores in China. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the epidemic would delay a surge in U.S. exports to China expected from a Phase 1 trade deal set to take effect this month. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said the virus was adding to economic doubts. “While the threat of a trade war between the United States and China appears to have receded, the coronavirus adds a new layer of uncertainty,” she said in Paris. HUMAN-TO-HUMAN SPREAD Evidence of human-to-human spread outside China surfaced after an international business gathering in Singapore in January was linked to virus cases reported in Malaysia and South Korea, but authorities did not comment on its nature or the industry involved. Singapore - one of the worst hit countries outside China in the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) - has reported 28 cases of the new coronavirus. Across mainland China, there were a total of 24,363 coronavirus infections, according to the WHO. Nearly 230 cases have been reported in some 27 countries and regions outside mainland China, a Reuters tally based on official statements shows. “The relatively small number of cases outside China gives us a window of opportunity to prevent this outbreak from becoming a broader global crisis,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a news conference. The WHO has declared the flu-like virus a global emergency and says face masks are important in curbing transmission if someone is showing symptoms. Pregnant women may be able to pass it to their unborn children, according to Chinese state media. Asked about various reports of “drug breakthroughs”, WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said: “There are no known effective therapeutics against this 2019-nCoV.” Russia said it would take between eight and 10 months to develop a vaccine, Interfax reported. Scores of Russians began two weeks of quarantine in Siberia on Wednesday after being flown from Wuhan. Beijing has criticised as an overreaction U.S. travel curbs that bar foreign nationals who have visited China. About 350 Americans, the latest to be evacuated from Wuhan, landed in California on Wednesday. For more on the Coronavirus outbreak, click here. here GRAPHIC: Tracking the novel coronavirus - tmsnrt.rs/3aIRuz7 GRAPHIC: Comparing new coronavirus to SARS and MERS - tmsnrt.rs/2GK6YVK
|
14362
|
"Expanding the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery stores is ""good for everybody."
|
"A Your Choice Colorado ad says a ballot measure to expand the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery and big box stores will be ""good for everybody."" The economic impact study funded by large grocery retailers said the proposal would save consumers time and money, create about 200 more grocery stores, add 22,000 new jobs and boost craft beer sales by $125 million. Opponents forecast precisely the opposite effect, saying it would close 700 liquor stores, cause the loss of 10,000 jobs, and hurt craft breweries and wineries. Independent economists say the proposal would increase competition, giving consumers lower prices and convenient one-stop shopping. But they acknowledge that liquor stories will be negatively impacted. The ad makes a fair point about consumer benefits but goes too far in saying the measure works out for all sides."
|
mixture
|
Colorado, Alcohol, Your Choice Colorado,
|
"The feel-good TV ad featuring images of Colorado outdoor adventurers and happy people holding beers bottles declares it's time to ""give Coloradans what they want — real craft beer at grocery stores."" The political ad is sponsored by King Soopers, Walmart and Safeway, big chains that are backing a Colorado ballot measure to allow grocery and big box stores to sell full-strength beer and wine. The campaign operates under the group Your Choice Colorado. The ad features Chris Phelps, co-owner of Saint Patrick’s Brewing Company, who says if the proposal becomes reality, ""People have more access to it (craft beer), the breweries have more access to the people, and it's good for everybody."" That heady assessment is hotly contested by opponents, who say the ballot measure would hurt craft breweries and wineries because big grocery chains would just offer the better-known craft brands. They also warn it would cause the demise of hundreds of liquor stores, a crucial marketplace for craft brewers and wineries. We decided to examine the ad's claim that expanding the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery and big box stores will be ""good for everybody."" Brewhaha years in the making The brewing debate highlights a contradictory quirk about Colorado, where marijuana chain stores are legal but state law prohibits chain stores that sell alcohol. This in a state whose craft brewery industry nationally ranks first for state economic contribution per capita, second in the average amount of beer consumed by drinking-age adults (13.6 gallons annually), and third in barrels of craft beer produced (1.7 million annually). Under current state law, a grocery store chain can only have one licensed location that sells full-strength beer, wine and liquor. The one-location-per-license limit also applies to liquor stores. Otherwise, the state restricts grocery and convenience stores to selling beer that contains just 3.2 percent alcohol. Colorado is one of five states in the country that have the 3.2 percent beer restriction. (The others are Utah, Kansas, Minnesota and Oklahoma). Colorado's liquors restrictions date back more than 80 years ago to the end of Prohibition, the nation's 13-year ban on booze. Colorado liquor stores have a near-monopoly on the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor — except for the one liquor store outlet each grocery store chain can operate. Grocery store-funded study: Everybody wins! Your Choice Colorado argues modernizing the state’s ""antiquated"" alcohol laws will save consumers time and money, create about 200 new grocery stores, add an estimated 22,000 new jobs and boost craft beer sales by $125 million. This analysis comes from a study by a University of Denver economist funded by King Soopers, Walmart and Safeway. You can imagine why the opposing campaign, Keep Colorado Local, an alliance of liquor stores, craft breweries, wineries and the Colorado Restaurant Association, questions the findings right off the bat. Allowing full-strength beer and wine sales at grocery and big box stores will cut the prices Coloradans pay by 18 percent through increased competition, the study said. ""Alcohol restrictions act like a tax on Colorado consumers, by contributing to significantly higher alcohol prices and limiting consumer choice,"" said the study’s author, Jack Strauss, the DU economics professor. Strauss calls the state’s liquor stores a ""protected class,"" because they don’t face competitive pressure to lower prices and have a comparatively low business failure rate. But the economist said the law is also bad for craft-beer brewers, because their products are denied access to a wider marketplace. Passage of the ballot measure would bring tens of millions in sales to medium- to large-sized craft brewers, Strauss said, and smaller brewers could do well if they have a good product and ""get lucky"" by gaining access to the big retail stores. Small brewers, however, should continue to find a ""specialty"" product niche in liquor stores, he added. Strauss said his conclusions are supported by sales data from Washington state and Oregon, big craft-brewing states where full-strength beer and wine are sold in grocery and big box stores. He said Safeway and Kroger’s sales of local craft beer in Oregon and Washington are well over $100 million annually. Meanwhile, liquor store sales in Portland and Seattle have more sales per capita of 55 percent and 14 percent, respectively, than Denver liquor stores, Strauss said. In Colorado, he noted that liquor stores appear to be thriving near grocery and big-box stores that have their chain’s allotted one liquor-store location. He counted about 75 liquor stores near the King Soopers and Target stores that sell alcohol in Glendale and 35 liquor stores near the Safeway that sells alcohol in Littleton. Still, Strauss acknowledges there’s a possibility of ""some small liquor stores potentially going under."" Opponents say the big chain stores got what they paid for in the DU economist’s study. ""The notion that liquor stores adjacent to a grocery store would stay in business is something that must have been authored in the creative writing department,"" said Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for the opposing campaign’s alliance, Keep Colorado Local. Opponent-funded study: Liquor stores will be decimated Opponents cite a 2011 study by Summit Economics on the potential impacts of allowing full-strength beer to be sold Colorado grocery and convenience stores. The study was funded by the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and other groups representing independent liquor stores. The study said that full-strength beer legislation, which was being considered by state lawmakers at the time, would devastate mom-and-pop liquors stores. The study predicted that if the full-strength beer proposal became law, within five years: • 700 independent liquor stores -- 42 percent of the state’s 1,650 total liquor stores -- would close. • 10,000 jobs would be lost, including liquor store workers and the rippling impact across the economy. • $240 million in annual wages would be lost. There are 311 licensed craft breweries in the state and more than 50 breweries oppose the ballot measure to allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores. They say the loss of liquor stores would harm brewers, too. ""Liquor law in Colorado encourages breweries to grow like nowhere else and have made us the envy of the rest of the country,"" said John Carlson, executive director of the Colorado Brewers Guild. ""Craft brewers are able to get their beer on the shelves of local liquor stores quickly and easily because they have the cooler space and the staff of local stores are their friends and neighbors who are invested in the community’s success. Colorado brewers enhance and grow the local economy."" Yet, a 2009 study for the state legislature concluded the evidence from Colorado and other states shows that allowing full-strength beer sales in grocery and convenience stores would not cause ""the widespread closings of liquor stores predicted by opponents."" The study was for a proposed bill that ultimately failed. Independent economists: Lower prices, negative impact on liquor stores Independent economists we consulted agree that increased competition should lead to lower prices. But they also say it will hurt the liquor stores. ""We find that prices are indeed lower in states where alcohol is sold in grocery stores,"" said Marco Costanigro, an associate professor of economics at Colorado State University who co-authored a 2013 study, Economic and Social Implications of Regulating Alcohol in Grocery Stores. ""I am pretty positive that the lower prices can be ascribed to increased competition and the cost-savings that larger distributors can achieve thanks to economies of scale,"" Costanigro added. Martin Shields, another CSU economist, said that while allowing full-strength beer and wine in grocery stories will likely give consumers lower prices and convenient one-stop shopping, it ""will likely significantly hurt liquor stores."" Research shows the potential economic winners -- and losers -- of loosening restrictive alcohol laws. In a 2012 study, Cornell University economist Bradley J. Rickard did a simulation model to assess the likely economic effects of allowing wine sales at grocery stores in New York state. Despite a poll showing that 58 percent of New York state residents support allowing wine to be sold in grocery stores, legislative efforts to make it happen have failed over 50 years. Rickard's analysis found that, if grocers could sell wine, state tax revenue would increase by $22 million annually and revenue for state wineries would grow about 13 percent. But introducing wine in grocery stores would have ""negative consequences"" for liquor stores, whose revenues were calculated to fall by 28 percent, the study said. Our ruling A Your Choice Colorado ad says a ballot measure to expand the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery and big box stores will be ""good for everybody."" The economic impact study funded by large grocery retailers said the proposal would save consumers time and money, create about 200 more grocery stores, add 22,000 new jobs and boost craft beer sales by $125 million. Opponents forecast precisely the opposite effect, saying it would close 700 liquor stores, cause the loss of 10,000 jobs, and hurt craft breweries and wineries. Independent economists say the proposal would increase competition, giving consumers lower prices and convenient one-stop shopping. But they acknowledge that liquor stories will be negatively impacted. The ad makes a fair point about consumer benefits but goes too far in saying the measure works out for all sides."
|
3647
|
Dog DNA testing takes off, and generates debate.
|
As people peer into DNA for clues to health and heritage, man’s best friend is under the microscope, too.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Genetics, Health, North America, Sports, Dog shows, Science, Pets, U.S. News, Dogs
|
Genetic testing for dogs has surged in recent years, fueled by companies that echo popular at-home tests for humans, offering a deep dive into a pet’s genes with the swab of a canine cheek. More than a million dogs have been tested in little over a decade. The tests’ rise has stirred debate about standards, interpretation and limitations. But to many dog owners, DNA is a way to get to know their companions better. “It put some pieces of the puzzle together,” says Lisa Topol, who recently tested her mixed-breed dogs Plop and Schmutzy. Plop was the top-scoring mixed-breed, and Schmutzy also competed, in Saturday’s agility contest at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show . Judging toward the coveted best in show prize began Monday. A test by Embark — which this fall became Westminster’s first DNA-testing partner — confirmed Topol’s guess that her high-octane pets are more Australian cattle dog than anything else. But Schmutzy’s genetic pie chart had surprise ingredients, including generous amounts of Labrador retriever and Doberman pinscher. Huh? Topol thought at first. And then: Maybe Schmutzy’s love of water and fetching is her inner Lab coming out. And doesn’t she walk a bit like a Doberman? “They are the dogs that they are ... They’re unique, and they’re special,” said Topol, a New York advertising executive. But the testing “makes me understand them better.” Canine DNA testing for certain conditions and purposes goes back over two decades, but the industry took off after scientists mapped a full set of dog genes and published the results in 2005. Wisdom Health, part of pet care and candy giant Mars Inc., launched a breed-identification test in 2007, added a health-screening option a few years later and says it has now tested over 1.1 million dogs worldwide. Numerous other brands are also available. Mass-market tests have fueled research and helped animal shelters attract adopters by providing more information about prospective pets. DNA can back up purebred dogs’ parentage and help breeders try to eliminate certain diseases. The technology has been used to identify dogs whose owners don’t pick up their droppings, to pursue accused biters and to free a Belgian Malinois from dog death row after he was accused of killing a Pomeranian in Michigan. And some veterinarians feel DNA testing enhances care. “I want to know as much about my patients as possible,” says Dr. Ernie Ward, a veterinarian and TV personality in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. He recommends testing all puppies. But qualms about the dog DNA boom spilled into the prestigious science journal Nature last year. “Pet genetics must be reined in,” a Boston veterinarian and two other scientists wrote. Their commentary opened with a troubling story: a pug being euthanized because her owners interpreted DNA results to mean she had a rare, degenerative neurological disorder, when in fact her ailment might have been something more treatable. “These (tests) should be used in a limited way until we get a lot more information,” says co-author and vet Dr. Lisa Moses. One concern is that tests can show genetic mutations that are linked to disease in some breeds but have unknown effects in the breed being tested. It also may be unclear how often dogs with the mutation ultimately get sick. That means tests, in themselves, can’t necessarily tell pet owners how much they should worry. Or tell breeders whether a dog shouldn’t reproduce. Some in dogdom fear that DNA test results could keep animals from passing on otherwise good genes because of an ambiguous possibility of disease. “The risk for overinterpretation is great,” but DNA testing can be useful along with other tools, says veterinarian Dr. Diane Brown, the CEO of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation. It has invested almost $20 million in genomic and molecular research and supports an international effort to promote standardization for dog DNA tests. The initiative, led by the nonprofit International Partnership for Dogs, provides searchable data on test labs’ procedures and breed-specific health test information. Test companies say their work can help researchers address the unknowns and provides immediately useful information, such as whether a dog’s genes suggest bad reactions to certain medications. Companies including Embark and Wisdom have veterinarians assigned to help people understand worrisome results. “We’re here to help you care better for your dog,” says Embark Veterinary Inc. CEO Ryan Boyko, whose company has breed-and-health-tested nearly 100,000 canines in its 3½ years. The alliance with Westminster — for which Embark is paying an amount neither would disclose — stands to give the company exposure, particularly to breeders. Longtime Belgian sheepdog breeder Lorra Miller, who has had dogs compete at Westminster, was initially skeptical about consumer-oriented canine DNA tests. They struck her as a novelty for mixed-breed pets. Now she hopes they can help Belgian sheepdog fanciers build up a body of genetic data to spark more research on the protective herders. “Even if I don’t get immediate benefit ... it’s for the future of the breed,” says Miller, who lives near Monroe, Washington. For Rennie Pasquinelli, the benefit is a new perspective on her dog, Murray. He was pegged as a border collie-Boston terrier mix when she adopted him. But an Embark test last month detected just a smidgen of border collie mixed with six other breeds, mainly American pit bull terrier. And no Boston terrier at all. “Obviously, I don’t love him more, or less,” said Pasquinelli, a graduate student in cognitive science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “It’s like when you know something new about someone. That doesn’t negatively or positively change your opinion on them, but you still look at them in a different way.” ___ More AP sports: https://apnews.com/apf-sports and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
|
8664
|
Australia tightens social distancing rules to fight coronavirus.
|
Australia stepped up enforcement of social distancing rules on Saturday to contain community transmission of the novel coronavirus, implementing fines, closing beaches and threatening stricter measures if people defy pleas to stay at home.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The death toll from the virus rose to 14 after an elderly woman died in an aged-care facility in New South Wales (NSW) state where several residents and employees have tested positive for the virus, according to NSW health officials. The country’s total number of confirmed coronavirus cases jumped by 469 to 3,635 on Saturday, the federal health ministry said, from less than 100 at the start of March. The case number has leapt about 30% since Thursday, with most infections in NSW and Victoria states. As of midnight on Saturday, all returning citizens from abroad will be put into compulsory quarantine in hotels for two weeks at the government’s expense. Military personnel will help ensure travelers comply with the new rules. “There’s so many parts of the world where this (coronavirus) is running rampant and I think every returned traveler is a significant risk,” Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews told a televised briefing. Two-thirds of the cases in Australia have been traced to contact with people returning from overseas, government health officials said, although community transmission has been growing. NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said harsher enforcement of social distancing could be necessary if community transmission began to rise “at a rate that we are not comfortable with”. Australia’s state and federal governments have sent some mixed messages about social distancing and other containment measures, leading to widespread confusion. While there is no national order to stay home, entertainment and other mass-gathering venues have been shut and authorities have urged people to cancel house parties and other social gatherings. Victorian police closed beaches on Saturday after hundreds of people flocked to the waterside a day earlier in a repeat of scenes the previous weekend at Sydney’s Bondi beach. Police said they had attended a backpacker hostel at Bondi on Friday night to prevent a “free sausage sizzle” that had been advertised at the venue, amid concerns that young people in particular are not taking social distancing seriously. Victoria and South Australia states implemented on-the-spot fines for people and businesses breaking social distancing rules, following similar measures introduced by NSW. While beaches and some parks were closed in various parts of the country, department stores were allowed to remain open under rules requiring shoppers to stay 1.5-metre (5 feet) apart. That has not helped the major retailers much, with Myer Holdings shutting all its stores for four weeks from Sunday amid a slump in consumer spending. Woolworths Holdings, which owns David Jones and Country Road Group in Australia, also said it would close 280 small-format fashion stores for at least four weeks from Sunday, with 5,000 staff to be stood down. In Queensland state, more than one million people were required to visit polling stations to vote in council elections on Saturday. The state government asked them to bring their own pens and practice social distancing.
|
6748
|
Tribute concert of Avicii’s music to benefit mental health.
|
A benefit concert for suicide prevention featuring the music of the late star Avicii is being planned for Dec. 5 in Stockholm, Sweden.
|
true
|
Avicii, Mental health, Kygo, David Guetta, Health, General News, Entertainment, Suicide prevention, Sweden, Adam Lambert, Dance music, Rita Ora, Music, Concerts
|
Proceeds will support the work of the new Tim Bergling Foundation, named for the musician who killed himself in April 2018. His songs “Wake Me Up!,” ″Addicted to You” and the posthumous “SOS” topped the dance music charts. The concert will feature many of the singers, including Adam Lambert and Rita Ora, who were on Avicii’s recordings and will be the first time many of them have been performed live. David Guetta and Kygo are among the electronic dance music stars that will perform opening sets. Organizers said tickets go on sale Thursday.
|
35140
|
Donating blood requires that you be administered a free test for the COVID-19, a disease caused by the coronavirus.
|
However, organizations such as the American Red Cross do advise that people should not donate blood now if they know or suspect they have been exposed to the coronavirus:
|
false
|
Medical, COVID-19
|
In early March 2020, as the availability and cost of testing members of the public for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease sweeping the globe was a hot issue, a widely-shared tweet offered a supposed “loophole” for obtaining such testing for free. Just volunteer to donate blood, it asserted, and the agency taking your donation would have to test you for free: However, it’s not the case that all blood banks are performing coronavirus tests on donors — as news reports have noted, “blood donation centers do not have test kits on hand to check for the coronavirus.” Moreover, as the American Red Cross declared in a statement, conducting such tests on donors is unnecessary because “there is no data or evidence that COVID-19 can be transmitted by blood transfusion, and there have been no reported cases of transmissions for any respiratory virus, including this coronavirus, worldwide.” The Associated Press likewise reported of the subject that: Blood banks said they do not test for the novel coronavirus as part of the donation process. […] “We do a whole range of testing on blood donations as required by the FDA, but screening or testing for coronavirus is not happening,” said Kate Fry, chief executive officer of America’s Blood Centers, a North American network of nonprofit blood centers. The network oversees more than 600 blood collection sites. Dr. Pampee Young, chief medical officer of the American Red Cross, told the AP that screeners do not test for the coronavirus as part of the process. “The last thing we would want is for people who are not healthy coming just to try to get tested,” she said.
|
11235
|
Study: Weight-loss combo pill shows promise
|
Perhaps if we had not compared the CNN.com story with the LA Times piece, our comments might be more glowing. It covered a lot of the bases – addressing most of our criteria. But the Times story was framed completely differently, delivering healthy skepticism where it appears to be warranted. This story delivered a key summary line from an independent expert: “”This might be a good tool in the short term to get someone motivated, and that’s great. But unless it’s paired with aggressive lifestyle changes, it may not be great in the long term.”
|
true
|
CNN
|
Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss cost, but the story was clear that is a drug that has been slowed in its path to marketing approval so that is understandable. The story adequately reported on the potential benefits. It just didn’t provide the context we applauded in the LA Times story. But it did state: This story – while not quantifying harms – did a better job in discussing harms than the LA Times story, so we’ll give it a satisfactory score. It reported: You have to read the LA Times’ story in order to see how much better a job it did than this CNN.com story in evaluating the evidence. The Times stated: By comparison, CNN.com called it “significant promise” and “a new report.” We think the Times’ analysis was far more helpful for readers. No disease mongering in the story. The story turned to “Dr. Melina Jampolis, CNNHealth’s physician nutrition expert, who is not connected with the study.” We wish the story had given us some background on her expertise. It also stated that “The study was funded by the pharmaceutical company Vivus.” Adequate. The story stated: The story stated that Qnexa was not approved: “The Food and Drug Administration denied the request, asking for more safety data from the company before moving forward.” Again, in comparison with the LA Times’ reporting, we must give the CNN.com story an unsatisfactory score because of how it treated as “new” something that really wasn’t. The story did not rely solely on a news release.
|
33301
|
A university medical school will pay you upwards of $50,000 for the donation of a testicle.
|
In November 2013, Las Vegas resident Mark Parisi claimed, in anticipation of appearing on an upcoming episode of TLC’s Extreme Cheapskates program, that he was hoping to garner $35,000 by participating in a medical trial during which one of his testicles would be removed and replaced by an artificial one. But that plan did not involve the sale/donation of a testicle (researchers were only interested in the effects of removing it and replacing it with a prosthetic testicle, not in keeping or using it), it was a one-time trial (rather than an ongoing program in which anyone could participate), and there have been no subsequent reports indicating medical researchers and Parisi actually went through with the trial. Nonetheless, this item is often erroneously cited as an example of how one can make “$35,000 by donating a testicle.”
|
false
|
College, medical school
|
Several decades ago, those in desperate need of cash to provide for themselves or their loved ones sometimes clung to the notion that if all else failed, they could always “sell their bodies to medical science.” A common rumor that took root after World War II had it that anyone (of sound body) could arrange to sell his remains to Harvard Medical School — the school would pay such a donor $500 in advance, tattoo the words “Property of Harvard Medical School” on the bottom of one of his feet, and arrange upon his death for his body to be immediately shipped to the school for dissection. That the Anatomical Gifts Program at Harvard didn’t pay for bodies (it accepted anatomical donations only from persons who specified such a desire in their wills and whose wishes were supported by surviving relatives) didn’t stop it from receiving several inquiries every week from people interested in obtaining pre-mortem cash payments. (If for no other reason, paying for bodies in advance would have been a bad business practice because the school had no way of stopping people from taking the cash and then fleeing somewhere they couldn’t be found, or from deliberately arranging for their bodies to be mutilated in a way that would make them useless to the medical school.) Since the 1960s, however, the rise of transplant technology has caused a shift in this class of rumor. Now the emphasis of “body sale” rumors is on selling organs that have value as transplant material, a scheme that putatively allows a donor to enjoy the proceeds of his sale immediately, as the buyer runs no risk in shelling out the cash since he gets to collect the merchandise at the time of payment. Of course, these anatomical donations would be limited to the small set of in-demand organs that one could spare and still remain alive — that is, organs we have two of. Kidneys are an obvious choice (being much sought after for transplant into dialysis patients), but most potential donors are aware that U.S. law prohibits the sale of such organs. (The same restriction applies to other less-desirable donor options, such as corneas or lungs.) So, somewhere along the rumor highway, the “body sale” rumors morphed into the idea that men could sell one of their testicles to a university medical research group (to be used for dissection or transplantation) for a hefty fee: Someone in my sister’s EMT class told her that one may sell their left testicle to Vanderbilt University for $50,000. They told her it had to be the left one. I keep hearing about a rumor that claims you can sell a testicle for $80,000. I live in VA, and often hear that it is The University of VA offering this deal, but I recently spoke to a friend in Florida, and the topic was brought up (don’t ask how). They said they had heard the same rumor, for the exact same amount, but that it was a hospital in Gainesville. I heard that there is a medical place in Texas that will pay any male $50,000 for there Testicles, can you tell me if this is true and where I can go for this? I have been hearing this for over 11 years now and can’t find where it is at. My grandson tells me that the University of Tennessee is conducting a study on male sexuality and is offering to purchase testicles from willing donors. I explained that this sounded like an urban legend, and he assured me that a friend of his called the college, found out that it is true, and that the payment for such a donation varies from $100,000.00 to $160,000.00 depending on size. It sounds like a great scheme: the removal of a testicle presents little in the way of health risks and doesn’t interfere with function (i.e., a man can still obtain an erection, engage in sexual intercourse, and produce sperm with only a single testicle). The only significant drawback might be a cosmetic one, but even that could be overcome through the implantation of a prosthetic testicle. Unfortunately for men seeking quick windfalls, universities and other medical organization don’t regularly buy testicles. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prohibits the sale of human organs and tissues for use in human transplantation, and that prohibition applies to testicles just the same as kidneys and other organs. Nonetheless, this rumor has run rampant in the last several years, with those desirous of selling portions of their male anatomy believing someone out there really and truly will pay for donated testicles. Such claims often identify a particular school that supposedly will pony up a hefty fee for these items, and they often include small details that seem to lend the rumors an air credibility: that only left testicles will are accepted, or that the purchase price increases with the size of the donated organ. One interesting change in the form of this legend is that while “body sale” rumors of years past specified a relatively modest fee (e.g., $500 to $1,000) for the sale of a whole corpse, modern rumors claim that a testicle donation will bring the seller anywhere from $50,000 to $160,000 for a single organ. Perhaps the increase in dollar figures reflects a modern awareness of the premium value of organs to our medical and biotechnology industries, or perhaps it’s a tangible representation of just how highly men prize their family jewels.
|
22717
|
The number of inmates since 2000 on death row dying of natural causes has now surpassed the number of inmates executed.
|
What's killing inmates on Florida's death row?
|
true
|
Legal Issues, Crime, Florida, Dean Cannon,
|
"House Speaker Dean Cannon thinks the Florida court system overstepped its authority last year when it removed three Constitutional amendment questions from the statewide ballot. So, in 2011, he's talking about ""comprehensive court reform."" Addressing a group of nearly 50 reporters and editors at the annual pre-session meeting organized by the Associated Press, Cannon again made his case that the court system should not have removed constitutional amendments that, if approved by voters, would have granted tax breaks for first-time home buyers and affected state redistricting. A third amendment was drafted in response to the new federal health care law to prohibit Florida from participating in any health insurance exchange that compels people to buy insurance. All three amendments were stripped from the ballot after judges ruled that the attached ballot language was either flawed or misleading. Cannon said he will propose legislative changes to effectively remove or diminish judicial review of ballot questions. But that's not all. ""Florida's judicial system has the authority to take away not only a person's liberty, but also a person's life. Understanding the severity and irreversible nature of that penalty, we have a responsibility to ensure that justice is administered not only fairly, but also efficiently,"" Cannon said. ""Criminal cases are complex in nature and in recent years we've seen cases overturned, and there have been errors. The number of inmates since 2000 on death row dying of natural causes has now surpassed the number of inmates executed. Significant and unreasonable delays plague the current process of conducting state post-conviction review in these cases and it appears that there is little the Supreme Court can do to improve or streamline the process."" Cannon said that is where the Legislature can step in. ""I believe the Legislature can and should work with the judicial branch to significantly improve the administration of justice in death penalty cases,"" he said. ""I am hopeful that reform could lead to a more equitable judicial system for all Floridians, and as we move forward toward the 2011 legislative session, we will continue to explore this issue to determine when and what the right course of action for Florida may be."" Cannon hasn't specified what court reform legislation might look like, though by his comments it sure sounds like he wants the appeals process in death row cases hastened. In that vein, we decided to check his facts about Florida's death row, focusing on this claim: ""The number of inmates since 2000 on death row dying of natural causes has now surpassed the number of inmates executed."" Of the 392 people now on Florida's death row, House records indicate that 145 inmates have been there for 20 years or longer and 34 have been there for 30 years or more, according to Cannon spokeswoman Katie Betta. Gary Alvord has been on Florida's death row since April 1974, according to the Florida Department of Corrections. Alvord escaped a Michigan mental hospital and wound up in Tampa, where he killed three women. Alvord, who turned 64 on Jan. 10, 2011, has been on death row for more than 13,400 days. This April, he will have been awaiting execution for 37 years. John Vining, who was sentenced to death in 1990, is the oldest person on death row. On March 13, 2011, he will turn 80. Vining was convicted of shooting and killing a woman who was trying to sell him a $60,000 diamond. Since Florida reinstated the death penalty in 1976 (and began carrying out sentences in 1979), 69 people have been executed -- a rate of a little over two per year. One reason, for starters, is a lengthy and costly appeals process. But politics plays a role as well. The governor must sign a death warrant for an execution to proceed. And sometimes other complicating factors are cited. Alvord, for instance, has a long history of mental illness and has been declared mentally incompetent by several courts. The last person to be executed in Florida was Martin Grossman in February 2010. Grossman was convicted of shooting a Pinellas County wildlife officer who happened upon Grossman shooting a stolen handgun in a wooded area. Gov. Charlie Crist signed the death warrant of David Eugene Johnston in 2010 as well, but Johnston died while awaiting his sentence. He was convicted of stabbing an 84-year-old Orlando woman to death in 1983. That transitions naturally to Cannon's claim. The Florida Department of Corrections provided PolitiFact Florida with a list of 55 inmates who died on death row starting Jan. 1, 2000. Thirty of the 55 somehow died while awaiting their sentence (the state does not describe the nature of a person's death), and 25 were executed. For example, Eddie Lee Sexton Sr. died on Dec. 29, 2010, while living on death row. Sexton was convicted of murder after a jury found that he ordered his mentally impaired son to strangle Sexton's son-in-law at a Florida park. Sexton feared that the son-in-law was going to report family abuses to local authorities, prosecutors said. Sexton was sentenced to death in 1998. Robert Power died on Dec. 3, 2010, while awaiting sentence for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old Orange County girl. Power had been on death row for 20 years. The waiting and appeals process certainly comes with additional cost. The Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington policy group that does not advocate for or against the death penalty, published a 2009 report discussing the cost of enforcing the death penalty. The group cited a 2000 Palm Beach Post analysis, which said that the state spends $51 million a year enforcing the death penalty. That's $51 million a year more than it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison instead. The figure has been repeated by several other news publications as well as Rex Dimmig, chief assistant public defender of the 10th Judicial Circuit, in testimony before a state Senate committee discussing the death penalty. Make no mistake, the death penalty is a controversial and complex policy issue. But here, we're focusing on Cannon's call for reforms based on death row inmate data. He said: ""The number of inmates since 2000 on death row dying of natural causes has now surpassed the number of inmates executed."" He's right. Of the 55 death row inmates to die since Jan. 1, 2000, only 25 actually were executed."
|
9927
|
Lots of Coffee Lowers Oral Cancer Risk
|
"This is the kind of story that leaves consumers’ heads spinning – the ""yes, it’s good for you…no it’s not"" yin and yang of observational studies or – in this case – pooled analysis of past studies. But even if you make an argument for the value of reporting this (an argument we wouldn’t make), it’s tough to get over the issue of inaccurate language used to describe the results."
|
false
|
"Not applicable – the cost of coffee is not in question. As already stated, it’s inaccurate to talk about benefits of ""lowering risk"" with results from a study that can’t establish a causal link. If a story like this is going to promote the benefits of coffee, it should at least wink in the direction of possible harms of drinking 5 or more cups of coffee per day. This story didn’t wink. This is the biggest failing of this story. A study like this can’t establish causation. Yet the story repeatedly used causal language: This isn’t just semantics. It’s a matter of accuracy. You can’t lower risk, cut risk, boost an effect or have a protective effect for something for which you haven’t proven a causal link. We offer a long and detailed explanation of why this is important in our Toolkit section. Not applicable – there really wasn’t any background given on the types of cancer in question. No independent source was quoted. Someone could have commented on study methods. Someone could have commented on the context of all of the other coffee-cancer studies that have been done. Someone should have been interviewed for such perspective, but it doesn’t appear that anyone was – at least no such interviews appear in the story. We don’t like single-source stories in any form of journalism, least of all in health/medical stories. There was some discussion of whether the association could be attributable to caffeine or fruit and vegetable consumption, and what was seen in tea drinkers. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for mentioning these other factors, although, again, inappropriate ""protective"" or ""effect"" language was used in this discussion. Not applicable – the availability of coffee is not in question. The story didn’t explain what is explained in the opening ""Background"" section of the published study: Only a few studies have explored the relation between coffee and tea intake and head and neck cancers, with inconsistent results. So this isn’t a first look at the question. We can’t be sure if the story relied on a news release. We do know that no independent source was quoted."
|
|
34385
|
A Michigan man said a stranger walking near his wife at a local mall could have been involved in sex trafficking.
|
Psychological means of control, such as threats, fraud, or abuse of the legal process, are sufficient elements of the crime. Unlike the previous federal involuntary servitude statutes (U.S.C. 1584), the new federal crimes created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 were intended to address “subtler” forms of coercion and to broaden previous standards that only considered bodily harm.
|
unproven
|
Crime, facebook trafficking rumors, human trafficking, michigan
|
Amid the seemingly increasing number of unproven reports of trafficking in various localities, a Michigan man’s account of a “possible sex traffic operation” was shared hundreds of times. Jacob Courtad’s 5 June 2017 Facebook post detailed his experience with a “strange man” at the Grand Traverse Mall in Traverse City: This guy with a white curly hair mullet walked past her 5-6 times in circles and kept smiling, I sat down and he walked past us twice and did a circle and sat about 6 tables behind us and kept starring [sic] at her and smiling and constantly on and off his phone. Security guards were in the corner watching him. Eventually he got on his phone and suddenly stood up and walked all the way to the other side of the food court through the tables and looped back to continue on towards the center of the mall. The security guards watched him the whole time and then as he was speed walking out of the food court they followed him. Not sure how long he was there and what happened to get the guards attention but this shit is real and you must keep your eyes peeled for situations like this. To odd not to share with my fellow TC locals and honestly Anyone who reads this. Courtad posted a follow-up statement on 8 June 2017: Everyone who knows me would agree that I wouldn’t make this crap up. Whether it was “sex trafficking” or not I or anyone else will never know. I have many friends with kids and loved ones that I care about and if they atleast [sic] thought about this evil crap and talked about it with their children/loved ones then everything beyond that was WELL WORTH my time! Thanks again. We were unable to find much information about this specific incident. The mall did make reference to an incident it called a “complete fabrication” on its own Facebook page two days after Courtad’s initial post, but did not specifically reference it: The alleged incident referenced on Social Media is complete fabrication and totally untrue. We reviewed our security footage and checked with the Traverse City Police Department, which confirms this is the case. This “story” has been circulating on many mall Facebook pages throughout the country for the past few weeks in any attempt to create a viral fake news story. We assure you that your safety is our top priority and we have robust measures in place to ensure your well-being. We have reported this user to local authorities and Facebook. Local police told us they did not speak to Courtad regarding his post. So while there is no way to refute Courtad’s account of the encounter, there also is not enough information to definitively classify it as a trafficking attempt. Cathy Knauf, founder of the Southwest Michigan Human Trafficking Task Force, told us that trafficking itself “has to have force, fraud, or coercion taking place” and this incident does not qualify: Somebody just following you or smiling at you or looking at you, it may be creepy or it may be uncomfortable but if there’s no force, fraud or coercion going on, by definition that’s not trafficking. She also said that misconceptions abound surrounding the nature of trafficking itself: When people tell me, “Oh I understand trafficking because I saw ‘Taken,'” I say “Well your dad must be like Liam Neeson.” Then they laugh and say “No.” That’s when I say, “That’s about how realistic that movie is to [trafficking].” Local officials have expressed concern in the past, however, that Grand Traverse County is seeing more trafficking activity. County Prosecutor Bob Cooney said in 2015: I’ll acknowledge that I think there’s more of a problem than I even see with the complaints coming across my desk, just from what I’m hearing from the police officers. I don’t think the public is seeing it that much because we just don’t have that many cases where we’re able to prosecute or where we even get a complaint. The National Human Trafficking Hotline, which services victims and survivors and is funded in part by the federal Health and Human Services Department, reported 246 trafficking cases out of Michigan in 2016, ranking it seventh in the nation for that type of crime. It also calls the idea that trafficking is invariably tied to “physical restraint, physical force, or physical bondage” a misconception:
|
6070
|
Official: 1 death linked to Legionnaires’ disease in Atlanta.
|
The Georgia Department of Public Health has confirmed one death linked to a Legionnaires’ outbreak at an Atlanta hotel.
|
true
|
Georgia, General News, Legionnaires disease, Atlanta, Public health
|
News outlets report 49-year-old Cameo Garrett died July 9 of coronary artery disease aggravated by Legionella. DeKalb County Medical Examiner Pat Bailey said Tuesday that Garrett had Legionnaires’ disease when she died. Garrett stayed at Sheraton Atlanta for a conference. Health officials say Garrett’s was one of 12 lab-confirmed Legionnaires’ cases and there are 61 probable cases. The source hasn’t been determined. The respiratory disease is caused by inhaling Legionella bacteria, which is found in soil and grows in water, such as air-conditioning ducts, storage tanks and rivers. Symptoms include fever, fatigue and coughing. The hotel has been closed since mid-July.
|
10612
|
Doctors say Vytorin-cancer link can’t be ruled out
|
"This story attempted to provide readers with some insight about the results of recent study that a medication (ezetimibe) used to lower cholesterol may have an unforeseen side effect on cancer incidence and/or death. But the story: failed to adequately quantify the risks seen in trials (it gave no denominator, so readers can’t do a meaningful comparison between groups); sometimes framed high cholesterol as a disease itself, failing to emphasize strongly enough that the goal is to reduce heart attacks and stroke for which there is not good evidence This is one time when it is helpful to compare how other journalists covered the story. The New York Times piece in its continuing excellent ""Evidence Gap"" series did a far better job of giving context and explaining the questions surrounding ezetimibe to readers. The Associated Press says it had three reporters working on this piece. The end result could have been much better."
|
mixture
|
"There was no discussion of cost. The story provided several pieces of information about the benefits of treatment. The first was that the drug Vytorin did not demonstrate benefit for individuals with aortic valve disease. The second piece of information that was partially presented was that the drug Vytorin is used to lower cholesterol. Here the story was inadequate because it did not indicate how well the drug worked in terms of its ability to lower cholesterol and did not provide quantitative information about the potential benefit of lowering cholesterol. The story indicated that there was a question as to whether the use of the medication Vytorin was associated with an increased risk of developing cancer or dying of cancer. However – while supplying the reader with the actual number of individuals in the respective groups that developed cancer, the story gave no denominator (i.e. how many people were in the group) – so it is not possible for readers to do a meaningful comparison of how the numbers compare to one another. The story attempted to explain the sources of the data being combined in order to get a clearer indication of whether or not there was an increased risk of cancer. It could have done a better job of explaining the type of studies and that the observed increase in cancer was not for a specific type or types of cancer but was seen only when all cancers were combined. There was some disease mongering in that the story – at times – framed high cholesterol as a disease itself and failed to emphasize that the goal is to reduce heart attacks and strokes, for which there isn’t good evidence. This isn’t difficult to explain – the New York Times did an excellent job on this issue on the same story this same day. The story included quotes from several investigators who were not directly associated with the study reported on. The story included a statement from Dr. Weaver indicating that if the only way to get his cholesterol down was to take Vytorin, he would not change his therapy based on the results of the recent study. However the story (and Dr. Weaver) failed to indicate what the options are for patients who are intent on lowering their cholesterol. The story makes it clear that ""Vytorin is a combination of Merck’s Zocor, a long-sold statin drug, and Schering-Plough’s Zetia, a newer type of medicine that lowers cholesterol in a different way."" The story indicated that the drug under investigation was a combination of 2 medications that lowered cholesterol, one of which utilized a novel mechanism. Does not appear to rely on a press release."
|
|
8105
|
Colombians scramble to get ready for coronavirus quarantine.
|
Thousands of Colombians were rushing to return to their home cities on Tuesday while others hurried to banks, supermarkets and other shops before the late-night start of a mandatory 19-day national quarantine meant to curb the spread of coronavirus.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Distressed travelers who were trapped in capital Bogota during an obligatory isolation drill over the long weekend were unsuccessfully looking for seats on buses out of the city so they could spend the quarantine at home. “I’m scared because I need to get home,” said Fernando Lopez, 50-year-old disabled man who traveled to Bogota from his home in Palmira for a medical appointment. “I don’t know anyone, what will happen to me if we can’t travel? My family is waiting for me.” The quarantine will run until April 13. So far the country has reported 306 cases of the disease and three deaths. The government of President Ivan Duque has ordered Colombians to stay in their homes, blocked international and national flights and restricted the use of long-distance public transport. People are allowed out under 34 exceptions which include travel for medical staff and delivery workers. One person per household is allowed to go buy food and medicine. Violation of the measures can mean up to eight years in prison and large fines. “I have to look for a way to get out because everything I do is for them,” said 22-year-old Venezuelan migrant Gabriela Martinez, gesturing at her two young children. Martinez, who fled her country two years ago, recently lost her job in Bogota and was evicted from her home. She was searching for a bus to Tocancipa, where she has family. She had the equivalent of $8 in her pocket. Some have already begun to protest the measures. In the central Plaza Bolivar, hundreds of street sellers, migrants and some homeless people gathered to demand the government honor promises to help the most needy. Duque has promised to make extra payments to welfare programs this week. The military is ready to help patrol streets in large cities to ensure compliance with the quarantine, Defense Minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo said. Operations against leftist guerrillas and criminal gangs will continue, he said. Outside a Bogota bank dozens of people waited in a drizzle to withdraw money. “I came out to get a bank card so I can withdraw cash,” said a visibly annoyed Jose Romero, 57. “What I’ve actually probably got is the disease.”
|
31091
|
"The driver of the vehicle that killed one person and injured more than a dozen others at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is a known ""radical leftist"" supported by Hillary Clinton and George Soros."
|
We’ve addressed an inquiry to InfoWars for clarification, and await their reply.
|
false
|
Politics Conspiracy Theories, Alex Jones, charlottesville, newspunch.com
|
Days after a 12 August 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia — in which a white supremacist mowed down a group of counter-protesters with a car, killing one and injuring dozens — various right-leaning web sites published reports claiming that the driver was actually a left-wing, Hillary Clinton-supporting Democrat. We do not yet know very much about 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. of Maumee, Ohio, but such evidence as we have places him squarely in the camp of Charlottesville protesters who marched under the white nationalist banner. One of Fields’ former high school teachers, Derek Weimer, told the Cincinnati Enquirer that the young man’s political views were extreme and flavored with Nazism: Weimer said that he knew of Fields’ political leanings early on. He said another teacher filed a report during Fields’ freshman year over something Fields had written for an assignment “that just went beyond the pale.” “It was very much along the party lines of the neo-Nazi movement,” Weimer said. Photos taken earlier on the day of the attack show Fields standing shoulder-to-shoulder with members of Charlottesville’s Vanguard America, wearing the group’s standard uniform and holding a shield with their logo, the fasces: James Alex Fields was w/ the Vanguard America folks in #Charlottesville. Learn more about the group > https://t.co/HNloF8Btnf @ADL_National pic.twitter.com/TmJLi0kfZo — Oren Segal (@orensegal) August 13, 2017 A Daily News photog spotted James Fields (center) clutching a shield with a hate group’s insignia before the attack. https://t.co/VXGqyD2LWq pic.twitter.com/LORfeVPquz — Nicole Hensley (@nkhensley) August 13, 2017 According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the basic tenets of Vanguard America’s philosophy are as follows: Vanguard America (VA) is a white supremacist group that opposes multiculturalism and believes that America is an exclusively white nation. Using a right-wing nationalist slogan, Blood and Soil, VA romanticizes the notion that people with “white blood” have a special bond with “American soil.” This philosophy first originated in Germany (as Blut und Boden) and was later popularized by Hitler’s regime. In the same vein, VA uses “For Race and Nation” as a variant slogan. Following this theme, VA maintains that America “is to be a nation exclusively for the White American peoples who out of the barren hills, empty plains, and vast mountains forged the most powerful nation to ever have existed.” All of the above notwithstanding, the unreliable web site YourNewsWire.com declared that the mainstream media were “suppressing” proof that the vehicular attacker was “a left-wing operative at the heart of a false flag designed to spark civil war, introduce martial law, and take away the rights of conservative groups to assemble peacefully”: The man accused of being a neo-Nazi and murdering a woman by deliberately driving into her during protests in Charlottesville is in reality a supporter of Hillary Clinton and member of Antifa in receipt of funding by George Soros, according to reports. James Fields, 20, of Maumee, Ohio, allegedly killed Heather Heyer, aged 32, and injured 19 others when he rammed his car into a group of protesters on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mainstream media is claiming Fields is a neo-Nazi and has conveniently produced photographs showing Fields standing with Vanguard America and carrying a shield bearing the group’s insignia. Another right-leaning web site, Freedom Daily, didn’t mention Fields at all, blaming the attack instead on an “Antifa terrorist” involved in a left-wing “false flag” conspiracy: Although it was originally reported that the driver of the car was a far right sympathizer it’s now been confirmed that it was indeed a Democrat Party member and Antifa terrorist drove his car into free speech advocates in Charlottesville Virginia this morning. It is common for revolutionary groups such as Antifa to use methods like this to implicate their enemies in order to evoke violence and start a civil war, which is what they have been working towards since Donald Trump won the presidency in November of 2016. Neither site has a leg to stand on. YourNewsWire provided no evidence that Fields was a “left-wing operative.” Freedom Daily joined Gateway Pundit, Alt Right Real News, GotNews.com, and other reliably unreliable sources in regurgitating misinformation put out by Internet “sleuths” who blithely fingered an innocent teenager for the crime. These sites accused Joel Vangheluwe (who turned out to be the son of a former owner of the attack vehicle) of being the Charlottesville killer: Vangheluwe, who is from Macomb County, Michigan, has been the target of death threats since these web sites named him, according to local news reports: A Macomb County businessman and his family are living in fear after his teenage son was falsely rumored to have been the driver who plowed a car into a crowd protesting a white supremacist rally in Virginia. Jerome Vangheluwe of Bruce Township said his son was incorrectly identified by several right-wing websites as being the owner and driver of a Dodge Challenger that rammed through counter-protestors Saturday, killing a woman and wounding at least 19 others. Vangheluwe says even though he sold the car years ago, the family was being targeted for death threats from people mistakenly believing the son, Joel, was responsible for the horrific act. The Michigan State Police responded to the threats against Vangheluwe by affirming that there is no known Michigan connection to the Charlottesville attack: .2) Local media if you are contacted by other outlets there is not a Michigan connection that we are aware of at this time. — MSP Metro Detroit (@mspmetrodet) August 12, 2017 Some of the sites that got it so egregiously wrong — Gateway Pundit, for one — quietly deleted their erroneous posts and moved on without issuing corrections or retractions. Others, such as GotNews.com, published corrections — and then congratulated themselves for doing so. Freedom Daily updated their page to identify the right suspect, but perpetuated their “leftists did it” scenario by claiming the driver lost control while trying to “escape” anti-fascist demonstrators who were allegedly throwing things at his car, and never meant to hurt anyone (a claim directly contradicted by Charlottesville’s police chief, who described the vehicular attack as “premeditated”). All these reports dovetail into a grander conspiracy theory peddled by InfoWars founder Alex Jones and his ilk, exemplified in the rambling, hour-long video rant below, part of an InfoWars.com post entitled “Virginia Riots Staged to Bring in Martial Law, Ban Conservative Gatherings”. In brief, Jones claims that the violence in Charlottesville is but one example of a well-orchestrated plot by billionaire leftist George Soros, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), “globalists,” the “deep state”, Jewish actors pretending to be neo-Nazis, and God only knows who else to foment unrest, start a race war, bring down President Trump, and pave the way for martial law in the United States: Now, if you go back to the WikiLeaks from over a year ago, the Democratic Party is sending e-mails to George Soros and back and forth at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, saying, “We’re losing the public. Minorities are getting into free market. We want to keep people in their mother’s basements as baristas.’ “Remember even Hillary said that. ‘What are we going to do to keep control of them? Keep them in the dark, keep them desperate. These are quotes. Hundreds and hundred of e-mails. We’ve covered them, written articles about it, linking to them. They didn’t deny that they’re real. They’re real. They said what do we do? They said we go to culture war. “These are quotes,” Jones said, but when we attempted to verify that Clinton actually uttered the words “What are we going to do to keep control of them? Keep them in the dark, keep them desperate,” we found nothing in any public sources, including WikiLeaks.org, to confirm it — and in point of fact, we found no published statements even vaguely resembling those. We were able to confirm something Hillary Clinton did not say, however, namely: “We want to keep people in their mother’s basements as baristas.” Ironically, the place we were able to confirm it was Jones’ own web site, InfoWars.com, which in October 2016 reposted an article from pro-Putin news site Russia Today alleging that Clinton had described rival Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders’ younger supporters as “basement dwellers” and “baristas” — which wasn’t really accurate either. Here’s what Clinton really said, transcribed from an audio clip posted on InfoWars (and elsewhere): Some [Sanders supporters] are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel that they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and, you know, one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.” So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing. So I think we all should be really understanding of that and we should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic….. To recap, there’s virtually nothing accurate in Alex Jones’ statement purporting to quote Hillary Clinton and WikiLeaks.
|
7571
|
Oregon seeks volunteers for random testing for COVID-19.
|
Oregon will launch an ambitious COVID-19 testing program and increase contact tracing as it prepares to reopen the economy, Gov. Kate Brown said Friday.
|
true
|
Kate Brown, General News, Oregon, Science, Virus Outbreak
|
People will be chosen at random for testing and asked to volunteer in a partnership with Oregon Health & Science University. The governor also said some rural counties where there are almost no cases could begin reopening slowly starting May 15. “This program is a game-changer,” Brown said. “It will give us a more accurate understanding of the true rate of infections in Oregon and to have ongoing precision monitoring of any new outbreaks.” Officials have said Oregon needs the ability to conduct 12,250 tests a week, for a rate of 29 per 10,000 people. That level would have to increase as stay-home orders are eased. In recent weeks. COVID-19 testing has increased to more than 9,000 tests Health officials warned that opening up the state will inevitably cost lives but standing still forever is not an option. “The challenge for us is to make sure that we’re managing that risk and mitigating it as effectively as we possibly can,” Health Authority Director Patrick Allen said. “The flip side of the coin is staying where we are today also has risk. We can’t keep everything shut down, including health care and important sectors of the economy, essentially forever.” The number of reported COVID-19 cases in the state increased by 69 Friday, with one additional death. More than 58,000 tests have been administered in the state, with at least 2,579 positive results, though the number of those infected is believed to be much higher. So far, 103 people are known to have died from the virus in Oregon. The governors of Oregon, Washington state, California, Colorado and Nevada have agreed to coordinate the reopening of their states. However, Brown told reporters that she and Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee are not in lockstep. “I would say that we are marching on a similar path, but we’re taking different trails off of that path,” Brown said. “I do know that Gov. Inslee was quite frustrated that he closed down construction and manufacturing and wished he’d taken the approach that Oregon took.” Under the Oregon testing plan, a request for 100,000 volunteers will go out mid-May. When any develop COVID-19 symptoms, they will be tested. A few other states have started similar testing. Oregon also plans to step up contact tracing, so anyone who was in contact with someone who gets the coronavirus can be contacted and monitored. For aggressive contact tracing, Oregon needs about one person for every 10,000 Oregonians, state health officer Dean Sidelinger said. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. But it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some people, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky
|
7405
|
Wanted: 1 million people to study genes, habits and health.
|
In a quest to end cookie-cutter health care, U.S. researchers are getting ready to recruit more than 1 million people for an unprecedented study to learn how our genes, environments and lifestyles interact — and to finally customize ways to prevent and treat disease.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Health, Francis Collins, Politics, North America, Environment, Business, U.S. News, Genetic Frontiers
|
Why does one sibling get sick but not another? Why does a drug cure one patient but only cause nasty side effects in the next? Finding out is a tall order. Today, diseases typically are treated based on what worked best in short studies of a few hundred or thousand patients. “We depend on the average, the one-size-fits-all approach because it’s the best we’ve got,” said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. That’s changing: The NIH’s massive “All Of Us” project will push what’s called precision medicine, using traits that make us unique in learning to forecast health and treat disease. Partly it’s genetics. What genes do you harbor that raise your risk of, say, heart disease or Type 2 diabetes or various cancers? But other factors affect that genetic risk: what you eat, how you sleep, if you grew up in smog or fresh air, if you sit at a desk all day or bike around town, if your blood pressure is fine at a check-up but soars on the job, what medications you take. Not to mention differences based on age, gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomics. Layering all that information in what’s expected to be the largest database of its kind could help scientists spot patterns, combinations of factors that drive or prevent certain diseases — and eventually, researchers hope, lead to better care. “The DNA is almost the easiest part,” Collins said. “It’s challenging to figure out how to put all that together to allow somebody to have a more precise sense of future risk of illness and what they might do about it.” Pilot testing is under way, with more than 2,500 people who already have enrolled and given blood samples. More than 50 sites around the country — large medical centers, community health centers and other providers like the San Diego Blood Bank and, soon, select Walgreens pharmacies — are enrolling patients or customers in this invitation-only pilot phase. If the pilot goes well, NIH plans to open the study next spring to just about any U.S. adult who’s interested, with sign-up as easy as going online . It’s a commitment. The study aims to run for at least 10 years. The goal is to enroll a highly diverse population, people from all walks of life — specifically recruiting minorities who have been under-represented in scientific research. And unusual for observational research, volunteers will get receive results of their genetic and other tests, information they can share with their own doctors. “Anything to get more information I can pass on to my children, I’m all for it,” said Erricka Hager, 29, as she signed up last month at the University of Pittsburgh, the project’s first pilot site. A usually healthy mother of two, she hopes the study can reveal why she experienced high blood pressure and gestational diabetes during pregnancy. _____ Heading the giant All Of Us project is a former Intel Corp. executive who brings a special passion: How to widen access to the precision medicine that saved his life. In college, Eric Dishman developed a form of kidney cancer so rare that doctors had no idea how to treat him, and predicted he had months to live. Only two studies of that particular cancer had ever been done, on people in their 70s and 80s. “They didn’t know anything about me because they’d never seen a 19-year-old with this disease,” said Dishman. Yet he survived for two decades, trying one treatment after another. Then, as he was running out of options, a chance encounter with a genetics researcher led to mapping Dishman’s DNA — and the stunning discovery that his kidney cancer was genetically more like pancreatic cancer. A pancreatic cancer drug attacked his tumors so he could get a kidney transplant. “I’m healthier now at 49 than I was at 19,” said Dishman. “I was lucky twice over really,” to be offered an uncommon kind of testing and that it found something treatable. Precision medicine is used most widely in cancer, as more drugs are developed that target tumors with specific molecular characteristics. Beyond cancer, one of the University of Pittsburgh’s hospitals tests every patient receiving a heart stent — looking for a genetic variant that tells if they’ll respond well to a particular blood thinner or will need an alternative. The aim is to expand precision medicine. “Why me?” is the question cancer patients always ask — why they got sick and not someone else with similar health risks, said Dr. Mounzer Agha, an oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Unfortunately I don’t have answers for them today,” said Agha, who says it will take the million-person study to finally get some answers. “It’s going to help them understand what are the factors that led to their disease, and it’s going to help us understand how to treat it better.” And NIH’s Collins expects surprises. Maybe, he speculates, Type 2 diabetes will turn out to be a collection of genetic subtypes that require varied treatments. “This looks at individual responses to treatment in a way we couldn’t do previously with smaller studies.” _____ The study starts simply: Volunteers get some standard health checks — weight, blood pressure and heart rate. They answer periodic questionnaires about their health, background and habits, and turn over electronic health records. They give a blood sample that, if they agree, will undergo DNA testing sometime next year. Eventually, researchers will ask some participants to wear sensors that may go beyond today’s Fitbit-style health trackers, such as devices that measure blood pressure while people move around all day, or measure environmental exposures, Collins said. In Pittsburgh, the Rev. Paul Abernathy made a health change after signing up for the pilot study: Surprised to learn his BMI was too high despite regular weightlifting, he began running. “I’m praying I have the discipline to continue that, certainly in midst of a busy schedule,” said Abernathy, who directs the nonprofit Focus Pittsburgh that aids the poor and trauma victims. “We have a chance really to influence history, to influence the future of our children and our children’s children,” added Abernathy, who hopes the study will help explain racial disparities such as lower life expectancies between African-Americans and whites who live in the same areas. At NIH, Collins plans to enroll, too. He’s had his DNA mapped before but can’t pass up what he’s calling a one-in-a-million experience to be part of a monumental study rather than the scientist on the other side. “I’m curious about what this might teach me about myself. I’m pretty healthy right now. I’d like to stay that way.” ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
36554
|
On the same day that First Lady Melania Trump announced a children's health and wellness initiative, U.S. President Donald Trump asked to cut the children's health insurance program, or CHIP.
|
Did First Lady Melania Trump Announce a Child Wellness Initiative on the Same Day President Trump Asked for CHIP Cuts?
|
mixture
|
Fact Checks, Politics
|
In January 2019 amid an ongoing government shutdown, a May 2018 Occupy Democrats meme showed up once again on Facebook:Under a photograph of Melania Trump and President Trump, text stated:Today, Melania Trump announced her new agenda, focused on “children’s health and well-being.”Also today, Donald Trump asked Congress to cut $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program.SERIOUSLY, YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. [Source: Washington Post]As to why the meme recirculated in January 2019, that was likely related to the $5.7 billion price tag attached to United States President Donald Trump’s border wall project — not too far from the $7 billion mentioned in the claim. The meme’s use of “today” enabled it to spread in perpetuity, possibly creating the erroneous perception that its claims were chronologically relevant at the same time the $5.7 billion wall funding request was in dispute.Under the original post, Occupy Democrats provided a top-level comment citation for its claim, a May 7, 2018 Washington Post article titled “Trump calls on Congress to pull back $15 billion in spending, including on Children’s Health Insurance Program.” That piece presented a more nuanced picture of the second part of the claim, which was that Trump proposed cuts to funding for children’s health insurance:President Trump is sending a plan to Congress that calls for stripping more than $15 billion in previously approved spending, with the hope that it will temper conservative angst over ballooning budget deficits.Almost half of the proposed cuts would come from two accounts within the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that White House officials said expired last year or are not expected to be drawn upon. An additional $800 million in cuts would come from money created by the Affordable Care Act in 2010 to test innovative payment and service delivery models.Those are just a handful of the more than 30 programs the White House is proposing to Congress for “rescission,” a process of culling back money that was previously authorized. […]The proposed cuts to CHIP would come in part from cutting $5 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Fund, to help reimburse states for certain expenses. But the White House said the ability to use this money expired in September, meaning it can’t be legally used, even as it remains on the government’s balance sheet … The White House’s other proposed cut to CHIP is a $2 billion reduction would pare back the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, meant to ensure states have access to funds if there is a higher-than-expected enrollment, the senior administration official said. States are not expecting to see a jump in enrollment, though, in part because the economy is improving.The Washington Post made no reference to any initiatives involving Melania Trump, although its “source: Washington Post” note implied that the article described the purported dichotomy. The paper reported that the funds allocated to the program then up for cutting either could not legally be used or they were not anticipated for later use.We didn’t find any reference to the other part of the claim involving Mrs. Trump’s purported agenda “focused on ‘children’s health and well-being. '” But on the same day the Washington Post article was published, many outlets covered the unveiling of the First Lady’s “Be Best” initiative.“Be Best” was widely covered in the media (due in part to its atypical syntax), but it seemed to have little to do with health insurance:Melania Trump gave a splashy launch [in May 2018] to her public awareness campaign to help children, calling it “Be Best.” In a rare twist on their White House roles, she commanded the Rose Garden lectern while President Donald Trump watched from the audience.The first lady said the “Be Best” campaign will focus on childhood well-being, social media use and opioid abuse.“As a mother and as first lady, it concerns me that in today’s fast-paced and ever-connected world, children can be less prepared to express or manage their emotions and oftentimes turn to forms of destructive or addictive behavior such as bullying, drug addiction or even suicide,” she said.“I feel strongly that as adults, we can and should ‘be best’ at educating our children about the importance of a healthy and balanced life,” she added.Additional reporting on “Be Best” appeared to focus on the reaches of the opioid epidemic, as well as cyberbullying:Written material distributed in support of the initiative includes a booklet adults can use to talk to children about being online. It is similar to one the Federal Trade Commission released during the Obama administration. A spokeswoman for the first lady said the agency asked Mrs. Trump to include the booklet in her materials. The agency also wrote a blog post thanking the first lady for distributing it.Other reports focused on the cyberbullying aspect of “Be Best”:During an appearance in the Rose Garden, Trump officially launched the multifaceted. child-focused initiative she will champion from the White House. Her new awareness campaign, called “Be Best,” is dedicated to children’s well-being, cyberbullying and opioid abuse.According to the White House, through the initiative the First Lady will promote existing programs that are already working to “overcome the issues they face growing up.”As a mother and First Lady, Trump said she wants every child to know that it is “safe to make mistakes and there are supportive adults and friends nearby to catch them” if they fall. The initiative appears to focus primarily on helping kids build a strong foundation for the future, harnessing tools that can help them develop emotionally and socially so they can use be nice to themselves and others and make a positive use of social media.An official page for the program on WhiteHouse.gov summarized it:The mission of BE BEST is to focus on some of the major issues facing children today, with the goal of encouraging children to BE BEST in their individual paths, while also teaching them the importance of social, emotional, and physical health. BE BEST will concentrate on three main pillars: well-being, social media use, and opioid abuse.BE BEST will champion the many successful well-being programs that provide children with the tools and skills required for emotional, social, and physical health. The campaign will also promote established organizations, programs, and people who are helping children overcome some of the issues they face growing up in the modern world.The Occupy Democrats meme claimed that Trump sought to cut funding for children’s health insurance on the same day that the First Lady launched an unnamed program to focus on the wellbeing of children. Taken together, the claim was misleading on a few fronts. It is true that the “Be Best” program launched on the same day President Trump’s proposed cuts to several programs were reported. But the “Be Best” initiative was wide-ranging, and it really had little to do with healthcare funding (or healthcare at all, despite a vague focus on “health.”) The proposed cuts, while controversial, had largely to do with funds that were either unused or that were not projected to be necessary to the programs going forward.
|
18231
|
Ron Hood Says abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
|
State Rep. Ron Hood links abortion and breast cancer in legislation
|
false
|
Abortion, Ohio, Ron Hood,
|
"A group of Ohio House Republicans has introduced legislation aimed at reducing abortions through an extensive list of restrictions and requirements. Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, the sponsor of the legislation, House Bill 200, said he drafted it based on talks with the National Pro-Life Alliance. He said it was intended to make women more aware of what they are doing to ""make an informed choice."" Among its provisions, the bill would require abortion providers to tell patients about ""the increased risk of breast cancer"" from abortion. PolitiFact Ohio wanted to know more about that warning. We called to ask Hood for the source. His legislative aide referred us to the website of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an advocacy group that asserts there has been a ""cover-up"" of a link between abortion and breast cancer. A review of the website shows that the group's case for a link is supported largely by the work of Dr. Joel Brind, a member of the group's advisory board, who is a professor of biochemistry at Baruch College in New York City and is recognized as the leading proponent of an abortion-breast cancer link; and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon in New Jersey who, with Brind, co-founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute to help publicize what is sometimes called the ABC (for abortion-breast cancer) link. A review of the history shows their work is a significant part of what has been called ""abortion politics."" Research on a possible connection had been going on for decades when Brind published an analysis in the 1990s that suggested a link between induced abortion (the deliberate ending of a pregnancy) and an increased risk of breast cancer. But the analysis was based on studies that relied on survey interviews of women, which were widely questioned because of factors including ""response bias"" -- the inaccurate self-reporting of medical history information by participants. Subsequent studies using larger groups and data not subject to bias found no link, according to sources including the National Cancer Institute. In 2003, largely because of political questions raised over the ""ABC link,"" the NCI convened a three-day conference of experts on abortion and cancer. Based on a review of population-based, clinical and animal studies, they concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. Hood also pointed specifically to a 2009 paper by Lanfranchi about the mechanisms of cancer. It asserted that a prematurely ended pregnancy leaves a woman with more cancer-susceptible breast tissue than when the pregnancy began. Also in 2009, however, the Committee on Gynecologic Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that ""more rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."" PolitiFact does not do medical or scientific analysis. We rely, as we do in other areas, on the most reliable and independent sources available. The World Health Organization says that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. The American Cancer Society says: ""scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer."" The Susan. G. Komen Foundation says there is no link. The National Cancer Institute gives its highest strength-of-evidence ratings to the statements that: Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. Recognized spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. Women who have had an induced abortion have the same risk of breast cancer as other women. Women who have had a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) have the same risk of breast cancer as other women. Cancers other than breast cancer also appear to be unrelated to a history of induced or spontaneous abortion. The credible research overwhelmingly contradicts the statement in Hood’s legislation. It’s a ridiculous claim, and even more ridiculous to force doctors to spread this misinformation to patients. !"
|
1900
|
Insight: FDA warned PIP on breast implant safety in 2000.
|
As early as 2000, U.S. health authorities raised concerns about the French breast implant maker at the heart of a scandal affecting hundreds of thousands of women worldwide. That was almost 10 years before the company came under scrutiny from European regulators.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The locked entrance of French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) building is seen in La Seyne-sur-Mer near Toulon December 27, 2011. France's health minister tried to calm women's fears over potentially dangerous breast implants on Tuesday, saying there was no medical need to remove them immediately. The implants at the center of the global scandal were made by now-defunct French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) and appear to have an unusually high rupture rate. REUTERS/Jean-Paul Pelissier The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent an investigator to inspect a plant run by the manufacturer, Poly Implant Prothese (PIP), at La Seyne Sur Mer in southeastern France in May 2000. Shortly afterward, the FDA sent the company’s founder, Jean-Claude Mas, a warning letter saying the implants were “adulterated” and citing at least 11 deviations from good manufacturing practices. The problems had to do with PIP’s saline implants, a different line from the silicone implants that French authorities ordered off the market in 2010 for using industrial-grade silicone instead of medical-grade silicone, leading to the French company’s bankruptcy. Still, the plant inspected by the FDA was used to manufacture the silicone implants for PIP. The French government last week recommended that women in France who have PIP’s silicone gel-filled implants get them removed by their surgeons after the implants appeared to have an unusually high rupture rate. Other countries, including Britain and Brazil, said women should visit their surgeons for checks. A critical question is why the FDA’s warning did not trigger greater scrutiny of PIP’s activities by regulators in France and elsewhere. France’s drug and medical device regulator, AFSSAPS, told Reuters on Tuesday that it had not found evidence that the FDA had informed them of the 2000 letter sent to PIP. “The FDA wouldn’t be obliged to send it to us if there wasn’t a health risk,” said a spokeswoman. “Therefore there doesn’t seem to be a reason why we would have been informed.” The FDA warning letter was made public in 2000. The agency said it also routinely exchanges non-public information with foreign regulators with whom it has confidentiality commitments, including France. But the FDA could not immediately comment on whether it had shared information with France in 2000. No one has been charged in the PIP case. Sources said a Marseilles court could soon announce fraud charges against four to six ex-PIP employees. There is also an investigation into involuntary homicide by French authorities, following the death from cancer of a woman last year. She had received PIP implants. The French government has not presented any evidence of an increased cancer risk from the product. Mas’ lawyer Yves Haddad told Reuters on Monday that his 72-year-old client was in poor health but ready to respond to any court summons. Haddad denied that Mas was in hiding, reiterating that he was still in southern France’s Var region. “He’s currently in very bad health because he has just undergone a difficult surgery that prevents him from walking,” Haddad said. “He is worried by the importance this matter is taking on. He is angry at those who pointlessly add to people’s suffering,” the lawyer added. Haddad said on Tuesday he did not have details about the FDA inspection as he had only worked for PIP for four or five years. The U.S. concerns about PIP’s saline implants more than 11 years ago could mean that there are safety issues for more women than the 300,000 worldwide who received the company’s silicone implants. The number of women with PIP saline implants worldwide and the safety record of the device could not be immediately verified. The FDA’s letter was cited in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of U.S. patients who received the saline implants in the late 1990s, and one who received them as recently as 2001. The plaintiffs said that the implants deflated several years later. Deflation can be a problem with breast implants. The key issue is whether the incidence suffered by a particular product is higher than health authorities deem to be acceptable. The FDA’s letter is available on the agency’s website. Reuters could not ascertain the outcome of the lawsuit, and the lead lawyer, Charles Houssiere, could not be reached for a comment. The FDA’s warning letter, dated June 22, 2000, cited PIP’s failure to investigate the deflation of its saline implants and a failure to report more than 120 complaints in France and elsewhere to the FDA. The letter said the plant also did not have a process in place to make sure the implants it produced met design specifications. PIP began selling its saline implants in the United States in September 1996, under a 510(k) accelerated review application that did not require the company to submit clinical trials to show an implant’s safety and effectiveness, as long as it was “substantially equivalent” to devices already on the market. The French company could not sell its silicone-gel implants in the United States at the time because the FDA had prohibited the sale of all such implants from 1992 until 2006 for most women because of safety concerns. However, for many years, the FDA allowed manufacturers to sell saline implants without formal safety trials, because many were sold before the agency received the authority to regulate medical devices. The agency assumed they were safe unless proven otherwise. In 2000, due to concerns about possible complications such as infections and rupturing, the agency finally required all implant companies to submit a formal application, known as pre-market approval, to continue selling their products. PIP was one of three companies that submitted an application, which came under review of a panel of outside advisors to the FDA in March 2000. At the time, PIP said it had already sold 35,000 of its pre-filled saline implants in the United States, and that it was the third-largest manufacturer of breast implants in the world. It said it only had reports of 521 complaints with its devices, a rate of 1.5 percent. But the panel recommended that the FDA reject PIP’s application. It recommended the implants from the other two companies, Inamed Inc, now part of Allergan Inc and Mentor, now a unit of Johnson & Johnson. Panelists said at the time they were not reassured by PIP’s data, and that the company’s clinical trials did not include enough patients that were followed for an adequate time to truly evaluate the device’s risks. One panel member, Boyd Burkhardt, a plastic surgeon from Arizona, said the company’s data was incomplete, and he found it difficult to understand why the company was “as ill prepared as you appear to be” to meet regulatory standards. “Like it or not, we have a regulatory threshold which is probably higher or at least different than it is elsewhere in the world, and I think in order to get your product approved, you’re just going to have to bite your tongue and meet that threshold,” Burkhardt told the company, according to a transcript from the panel’s meeting available on the FDA’s website. Plastic surgeon Denis Boucq displays a silicone gel breast implant manufactured by French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) in a clinic in Nice December 26, 2011. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard Asked to comment on the PIP controversy, Burkhardt, in a brief interview, said that he stands by the prior comments he made to the FDA. It was not immediately clear why after the panel’s rejection the FDA then carried out an inspection of the PIP plant in May 2000. PIP said it stopped selling its saline implants in the United States that same month, according to an SEC filing.
|
9214
|
Fenofibrate may reduce heart disease risk in some patients with type 2 diabetes
|
The research questions are important. The scope of the study is large. The funders are serious. And the journal is one of the best read in the field. So why does this news release give reporters — and the rest of the world — so little in the way of details about how and whether this study is important? No quantification of benefits. No mention of harms. No mention of costs and no comparison to alternatives. The release started with a useful explanation of the study’s design, but neglected to mention this study was an extended observation of a small subgroup of patients studied in an earlier trial. The initial trial covered 4.7 years, during which no benefit was evident; this study followed a subset of patients for another 5 years. The use of cholesterol lowering medicines of the “statin” class is widely regarded as the first-line therapy to prevent heart disease in patients with prior heart attacks or at increased risk of having one. However, many patients cannot tolerate statins due to side effects and while beneficial, these medicines do not entirely eliminate the risk. This study examined whether adding fenofibrate to a statin could reduce the risk of heart events more than just the statin alone. The results essentially confirm a previous report from these same researchers showing that in a subgroup of patients with high levels of fat in the blood (triglycerides) and low “good” (HDL) cholesterol levels, fenofibrate may have been beneficial. But the overall results of the original study were negative — something this release never touches upon. And the release never cautions readers as to the many limitations of this subgroup analysis, particularly the fact that the findings in this small group might reflect factors other than the effects of the medication. The release hints at this concern when it says “a randomized study is needed to confirm these findings,” but a more direct acknowledgment was needed.
|
false
|
fenofibrate,heart disease,NIH/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute,Type 2 diabetes
|
The drug being studied, fenofibrate, goes by the brand name Tricor. Its costs are well known — about $100 for 90 pills — and could easily have been dropped into the release, making it clear how much it would cost for a typical person to replicate the regimen necessary to see any of the benefits seen in the study. To actually see what the benefits were, one would have to read the full study in JAMA Cardiology. While we always recommend that reporters read the actual study that is the subject of their story, we live in an age where releases like this quickly find their way into the news cycle without the journal ever being consulted. So one of the most basic elements of any good release is a quantification of the benefits found in the study it’s based on. Instead, the release offers vague language like this: “The findings suggest that fenofibrate therapy may be beneficial in the way the researchers hoped: by reducing cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who take statins but still have especially high triglycerides levels and low HDL cholesterol levels.” Even the abstract, a much abbreviated summary of the study, provides data that could have easily been used in the news release. All drugs come with some kind of risk profile. And, in this case, we are talking about treating patients with diabetes who, presumably, already are managing that disease with prescription medication. At a minimum, the release should mention any side effects or harms observed in the study. We like the format that the release used, beginning with the question that the researchers were trying to answer and then explaining in clear terms what the researchers did to answer that question. But the release focuses on a small subgroup of the much larger, initial trial. First, the study was a follow-up of a previous report that overall showed that this medicine did not provide additional benefit. The only benefit was seen in this small subgroup, both in the original study and this one that followed patients for a longer period. The second point was that only 4.3% of patients randomized initially to fenofibrate continued to take it after the randomized part of the study was over. This may suggest that the benefit in this subgroup may be due to factors other than the proposed benefit of the medicine. The release should have included these important distinctions, which the study itself calls ample attention to: “It is also important to note that these prespecified subgroup analyses can only be considered hypothesis-generating and in some cases are based on a relatively small number of events.” There is no disease mongering in this release. But there’s very little context about the disease either. The release makes the funding sources for the study clear. The release makes no mention of alternatives. Not only are there many statins on the market, but there are other approaches to managing high cholesterol levels and triglycerides. While statins are clearly the standard of care for patients with specific characteristics, the release should at least make mention of alternatives.There have been a number of medicines used in patients with diabetes to examine their role in decreasing cardiovascular events. The fact that there are many alternatives — from changes in diet and exercise to supplements (niacin) and medications (such as those derived from Omega-3 fish oils and fibrate drugs which lower triglycerides) — should have been mentioned. The availability of the drug is not clear in the release. Although this is a previously approved drug that can be prescribed by doctors, some insurers may not cover it or cover it with higher co-payments. This could have been mentioned in the release. The release does not establish the novelty of the findings and really can’t do so because there are so few details in the release. As noted above, this is a follow-up report that evaluated longer term outcomes. The reported results are the same as the initial. While longer follow-up is important, the prior information about this drug and this study could have easily been added. We do not believe there is any unjustifiable language in the release.
|
5018
|
UK’s anxiety takes center stage at Hay ideas festival.
|
At Britain’s leading literary gathering, the word of the year was anxiety.
|
true
|
Brexit, Anxiety, Mental health, Health, General News, Entertainment, Carnivals, International News, Wales, Europe, Donald Trump
|
Fifty shades of worry —about climate change, mental health and of course Brexit — dominated the Hay Festival this year. The event is an annual carnival of ideas held amid sheep-studded green hills in Hay-on-Wye, a tiny Welsh town with about 2,000 residents and close to 20 bookshops. With Britain’s departure from the European Union in limbo, its population split, its politicians deadlocked — and divisive U.S. President Donald Trump in Britain on Monday for a state visit — many of the 600 authors and 100,000 audience members were asking where things went wrong, and what can be done about it. “I used to think ‘the Brits are so calm when they talk about politics. They don’t get angry,’” Turkish-British novelist Elif Shafak told an audience in Hay, 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of London. “I no longer think that way. Brexit literally broke the political narrative here and brought to the surface a much more toxic form of politics.” The festival, which ended Sunday, draws novelists, poets, scientists and politicians, and was famously dubbed the “Woodstock of the mind” by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. It’s an annual indicator of what’s on the mind of a large and largely liberal chunk of Britain. This year, the best-selling book in the onsite bookshop was “Heroic Failure,” an evisceration of Brexit failures by Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole. Britain’s 2016 decision to quit the European Union created a deep fault-line between the 48% of voters who wanted remain in the European Union and the 52% who voted to leave. Three years on, Britain’s politicians have failed to agree on exit terms, the country is still in the bloc, and voters on both sides are angry. The words “traitor” and “betrayal” are shouted and shared on social media in what often feels like a bad-tempered dialogue. “We have half the country who think the other half are idiots,” said British historian Peter Frankopan, whose book “The New Silk Roads” charts the growing power of Asia. “One of the challenges is how you blend those perspectives. How do you sit in the middle?” The depth of the political chaos has come as a surprise, even to the experts. American historian Jared Diamond, whose latest book examines nations under pressure in his latest book “Upheaval - How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change,” told his audience at Hay that he originally planned to include a chapter on Britain, a country long regarded as a stable leading democracy. “It was going to be a happy-ending chapter,” he said, about how Britain in the late 20th century overcame a crisis over its loss of empire “by finding a new identity in joining the European Union.” The 2016 Brexit referendum made him reconsider that thesis. Diamond said that at the moment, he’d hesitate to write about Britain at all. “Things are changing so fast with Brexit anything I wrote a week ago would be out of date,” he said. As it stands, Britain is due to leave the EU on Oct. 31, the delayed departure date set by the bloc amid political deadlock in London. Prime Minister Theresa May has given up trying to get her unpopular divorce deal approved by Parliament and will step down as Conservative Party leader on Friday. Most of the more than a dozen contenders to replace her have vowed to take Britain out of the bloc, even without a deal. Pro-EU Britons — along with most economists — say that would plunge the country into recession. But many Brexit supporters believe the only alternative is being stuck in the EU indefinitely. The deep division over Brexit looks to be transforming British politics. Last month’s European Parliament elections saw voters desert the Conservatives and main opposition Labour — the two parties that tried and failed to find a compromise EU divorce deal — for the newly formed Brexit Party and the fervently pro-EU Liberal Democrats. Several speakers searched for antidotes for the poison tainting Britain’s body politic. David Lammy, a lawmaker with the left-of-center opposition Labour Party, lamented “this civil conflict in Britain that is making us navel-gaze at ourselves and not look outward into the world.” His solutions included people’s assemblies to find a way forward on Brexit, and a written constitution — something Britain famously lacks — “to get serious about who we are.” Shafak said people should ignore their Brexit fatigue and start listening to one another. “I don’t have to agree with Brexit, but I need to understand why people voted Brexit,” she said. ___ Follow Jill Lawless on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JillLawless
|
495
|
Environmental group seeks California ban on 'super-toxic' rat poisons.
|
An environmental group launched legal action on Thursday seeking to ban commercial use of “super-toxic” rat poisons in California, citing data showing the products pose a grave threat to a dozen endangered species and other wildlife.
|
true
|
Environment
|
The Center for Biological Diversity notified state pesticide regulators of its intent to file suit for what the group calls a failure to adequately safeguard the San Joaquin kit fox and 11 other animals protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Harm to wildlife from highly toxic “rodenticides” is most pronounced for predator and scavenger species, including mountain lions, bobcats, owls and condors, which can feed on poisoned rodents, the group said. More than 70% of wild animals tested in California in recent years showed exposure to the rat poisons in question - so-called second-generation anticoagulants widely used by licensed pest control operators, the group’s notice said. The products are typically used in bait boxes and work by causing the animal ingesting it to hemorrhage internally over a matter of days. The slow-acting nature of the substances then poses a secondary threat to other animals that prey on those that were poisoned. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation outlawed consumer sales of the chemicals in 2014, restricting their use to professional exterminators and agricultural purposes. But the Biological Diversity Center said exposure in the wild remained high. Populations of endangered kit foxes near Bakersfield have been especially hard hit, with 87% of those examined testing positive for the super toxins, and state wildlife officials attributing at least five kit fox deaths to the chemicals, the group said. The group also cited a 2018 state analysis documenting those rat poisons in over 85% of tested mountain lions, bobcats and Pacific fishers, a federally protected member of the weasel family. Other protected species at stake include the northern spotted owl, the California condor, the Alameda whipsnake and four types of kangaroo rats. A pesticide department spokeswoman, Charlotte Fadipe, said the agency was “actively looking into this issue.” “We also acknowledge it is essential to have tools available to control rat populations in order to protect the public health,” she said. The agency encourages “integrated pest management” combining the use of traps, removal of refuse and water sources that attract rodents, managing vegetation that can harbor vermin and sealing holes in buildings that allow pests to enter. Jonathan Evans, senior attorney for the environmental group, said 175 less toxic rat poisons also remained on the market that are far safer to wildlife.
|
27380
|
Kehinde Wiley, the artist who painted former President Barack Obama's official portrait, also produced a pair of paintings depicting black women decapitating white people.
|
We reached out to Mr. Wiley for comment, but did not receive a reply.
|
true
|
Racial Rumors, art, barack obama, kehinde wiley
|
The unveiling of former President Barack Obama’s official portrait on 12 February 2018 also introduced many Americans to artist Kehinde Wiley for the first time as well, as opening the door to late-breaking controversy over some of Wiley’s earlier work. Wiley, who has described his own visual style as “bombastic, syrupy, and garish,” is celebrated in the contemporary art world for his large-scale portraits of black and brown men and women striking heroic poses modeled on those of aristocrats in classic European paintings. Two portraits in particular, both of them modern takes on the biblical story of Judith beheading Holofernes and featuring elegantly-dressed black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, suddenly turned controversial in the context of Wiley’s new role as a presidential portraitist. Images of the paintings were shared on social media with comments stating or implying that their content is racist: This what is confusing to me … you can’t have Confederate flags … you take down historical statues because they are racist but the 44th POTUS picks the guy who painted these pictures to paint his presidential portrait and that’s just fine? Maybe I’m missing something? #tcot pic.twitter.com/9RhYCGPQK7 — Jeannie-ology (@jeanniology) February 12, 2018 So a racist ex-President selects a racist artist to paint his picture. Anyone surprised? Artist Who Painted Obama’s Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites https://t.co/JarXVYUQ27 — American Real News (@USArealnews) February 13, 2018 In a post on right-wing blog TheGatewayPundit.com, Kehinde Wiley was described as being “known for” and “having a great fondness for” painting black people beheading white people: Both beheading pieces are titled “Judith beheading Holofernes”, referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him. Typical artists from the Rennaissance [sic] era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, “a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell.” Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils. Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It’s hard to imagine, right? Yea, that’s because it’s disgusting and backward. It is not the case, however, that Wiley was “famous for depicting black people killing white people” before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley’s portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. That the strong, couture-clad black females in the paintings are depicted in the immediate aftermath of decapitating white women is not incidental. As with many works of art, this was meant to be provocative (“I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations,” Wiley said in a 2015 interview). A 2012 article on the web site of the North Carolina Museum of Art (NCMA) supplies some needed context: Known for his monumental portraits of young black men, placed in historical poses and settings appropriated from Old Master paintings, Kehinde Wiley critiques the racism of art history while also commenting on contemporary street culture and masculine identity. Reinventing classical portraiture and questioning who is represented in the portraits found in museums worldwide, Wiley states, “The whole conversation of my work has to do with power and who has it.” Judith and Holofernes is from Wiley’s most recent body of work and his first series of paintings to feature female subjects. Wiley uses “street casting” to find his models — walking city streets and asking ordinary people if they would pose for a portrait. He met the model for this painting, Treisha Lowe, at Fulton Mall, a pedestrian shopping street in downtown Brooklyn. This painting references a specific art-historical work, a 17th-century painting by Giovanni Baglione, Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1608). The subject is taken from the apocryphal Old Testament Book of Judith, in which a Jewish town is under attack by the Assyrian army led by the general Holofernes. Judith, a widow from the town, goes to Holofernes under the pretense of helping him defeat the Jews. After he falls asleep, she cuts his head off with his own sword, and the town defeats the army. Wiley translates this image of a courageous, powerful woman into a contemporary version that resonates with fury and righteousness. “It’s sort of a play on the ‘kill whitey’ thing,” Wiley said in a 2012 interview with New York Magazine. The operative word is “play.” What is all too easy to miss on a cursory glance is the deeply conceptual nature of these works. We turn again to the NCMA’s commentary: Wiley takes obvious artistic license with the story — Holofernes is represented by a woman’s head, and Judith wears a gown designed by Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy. This new rendition can be interpreted on many different levels, including racial and gender identity and inequity, the representation of women throughout art history, and society’s ideals for beauty. In Wiley’s words, “I am painting women in order to come to terms with the depictions of gender within the context of art history. One has to broaden the conversation . . . This series of works attempts to reconcile the presence of black female stereotypes that surrounds their presence and/or absence in art history, and the notions of beauty, spectacle, and the ‘grand’ in painting.” In contrast to the blunt literalism of those who prefer to interpret these paintings as a celebration of racial violence, art critic Walter Robinson writes that Wiley’s take on Judith and Holofernes “suggests, with a jovial brutality, that Judith would prefer to be done with white standards of beauty.” If, as Wiley has said, his intent as an artist is to be provocative, he can consider himself successful.
|
7202
|
Rising liberal Democrat star on West Coast fundraising swing.
|
She visited Los Angeles’ notorious Skid Row neighborhood, where the homeless crowd the streets. She met with liberal activists eager to see universal health care and expanded rent-control laws. And she was cheered by hundreds of supporters at a downtown fundraiser, where she warned of those who scheme to turn liberal-minded Americans against each other.
|
true
|
Los Angeles, New York City, New York, Universal health care, North America, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, California
|
Virtually unknown just months ago, New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez arrived in Los Angeles as a rising political star, about a month after her improbable upset of 10-term U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley in a New York City Democratic primary. On Thursday, she intentionally avoided politicians and Hollywood celebrities, instead choosing to share the stage at the low-dollar fundraiser with activists pushing for broader rent-control laws in California and a public-backed banking system in the city. In her speech, she warned of a broken economy in which luxury apartments stand vacant while homeless crowd the streets, and talked of a Democratic Party in which the working class and marginalized are ascendant. Bursts of applause followed her calls for universal health care and a cost-free education through college. She swiped repeatedly, if indirectly, at President Donald Trump. “It is not us who are crazy, not with that man in the White House,” the former Bernie Sanders organizer said to cheers. Ocasio-Cortez was lauded by those who paid $27, or $10 for students, to see the candidate seen as the new face of the emerging democratic socialist movement. “She really inspires me, because she’s so young and she’s getting so far,” said Melainey Jane Foerster, 16, a high-school student from suburban Santa Clarita. Salesman Jon Pelzer, 65, said he’s “impressed by and energized by what she was able to do in New York.” “We share all the same values,” added Pelzer, a Democrat who ran on a similar platform in California’s 30th Congressional District but didn’t advance to November. The surprise victory by the political novice in a district that includes parts of the Bronx and Queens came after a low-budget campaign that she built around liberal and social causes, not the traditional Democratic Party machine. Crowley had been expected to win easily. Her platform includes expanding the Medicare program to people of all ages and abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Her trip to California comes at a time when state and national Democrats have been contending with friction between their establishment and liberal wings. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is being challenged in November by a fellow Democrat, state Sen. Kevin de Leon, who has positioned himself as a liberal alternative to the long-serving centrist. She warned of the influence of “coastal elites” in politics, and she recalled that her candidacy was largely dismissed. Ocasio-Cortez said she didn’t receive an endorsement from any incumbent “but we won anyway.” She urged the crowd to “engage in the fights that you know that are right.”
|
34254
|
Donald Trump and hundreds of his workers helped search the rubble for survivors after the September 11 terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan.
|
Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.
|
unproven
|
Politics, 9/11, donald trump
|
On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: “2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!” Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct. Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we’re bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they’ve never done work like this before. And they’re hard-working people but they’ve never seen anything like it. And they’ve never done work like this before, it’s terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they’re reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they’ve never seen bodies like this — bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that’s alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that’s the great thing, and that’s what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that’s not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it’s a very depressing situation for these folks. President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks “with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could.” Trump’s statements were vague, so they didn’t provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he “paid for” their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. “This is the first I’m hearing of it,” Alles told us by phone. “There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered.” Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn’t see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. “There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge,” he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn’t even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: [Timothy] O’Brien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was “a little bit over a dozen people,” which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. “He’s very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes,” Mr. O’Brien said. “Even in the face of tragedy, he can’t help but self-promote and self-aggrandize.” We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don’t know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Here’s video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn’t. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ — Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 It’s not the first time Trump’s accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks — but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down:
|
29972
|
Journalist Bre Payton's untimely death was connected to her reporting on the Mueller probe.
|
Mueller’s office asked the FBI to investigate after Burkman and Twitter personality Jacob Wohl in October 2018 undertook a smear campaign to discredit Mueller by linking him to accusations of sexual assault.
|
false
|
Politics
|
On 2 January 2019, Washington, D.C., lobbyist Jack Burkman tweeted that something was “strange” about the passing of Bre Payton, a young journalist for the website The Federalist who fell ill and died suddenly in late December 2018: The sudden death of my friend 26 year old Bre Payton is beyond strange. She dies just after breaking the story of DOJ wiping the Page-Strozek emails. The Profiling Project may open a major investigation — Jack Burkman (@Jack_Burkman) January 2, 2019 We found no evidence anything was amiss about Payton’s passing, other than its particularly tragic nature due to its suddenness, her youth, and her apparent vitality. We reached out to the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office, who confirmed to us that her death was not being treated as suspicious. Payton died on 28 December 2018 at age 26, according to her friend Morgan Murtaugh, who found her unconscious and called 911: Thank you everyone for your prayers. It is with a heavy heart that I type this. Unfortunately Bre has passed. Please send prayers to her family. Rest in paradise you beautiful soul. https://t.co/pMFCZNaqKl — Morgan Murtaugh (@morganmurtaugh) December 28, 2018 Payton’s family reported that her death was the result of complications from the H1N1 flu virus and meningitis. In a GoFundMe appeal to establish a scholarship fund honoring her, Payton’s mother, Cindy, wrote: Around 8:30, on December 27th, Bre’s friend went into her room and found her unresponsive and barely breathing. She immediately called 911 and Bre was taken to the hospital where she was admitted to the ICU, sedated & intubated, and doctors began working up a diagnosis. After a CT scan and hours of testing, they have determined she has the H1N1 flu and encephalitis. George stayed at the hospital with her in San Diego. Burkman’s statements about Payton’s work are true in the sense that on 13 December 2018, Payton reported that government cellphones belonging to former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page had been reset to factory settings (and effectively wiped of data) after the two were removed from U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Strzok and Page had carried on an extramarital affair with each other and exchanged a number of messages disparaging President Donald Trump while they were on Mueller’s team, which is investigating whether collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government took place during the 2016 election season. Both were kicked off the team, and Strzok was fired by the FBI, while Page resigned. However, Payton didn’t “break” the story about the wiped cellphones, as the information in her article was sourced from a publicly available report issued by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and Payton was only one of many journalists who covered it. Readers may remember Burkman for his part in helping drum up a false but persistent rumor that murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich (rather than Russian hackers) had been responsible for transmitting stolen emails to WikiLeaks. Rich was shot dead in an apparent robbery attempt gone bad on 10 July 2016 while he was walking from a bar to his home in Washington, D.C., just before WikiLeaks began dumping leaked Democratic National Committee emails in the lead-up to the 2016 general election. “The Profiling Project” Burkman referenced in his tweet is a group of volunteers based in Arlington, Virginia, and funded by Burkman, who launched an “investigation” into the Rich murder.
|
17387
|
"John Cornyn ""voted twice in 2013 to back Obama’s amnesty plan."
|
"Stockman said Cornyn voted twice in 2013 for Obama’s amnesty plan. That’s inaccurate to a ridiculous degree. For starters, Obama never offered an amnesty plan, though he endorsed the Senate-approved legislation, which envisioned ways that unauthorized immigrants could attain citizenship. This was also the plan that Cornyn consistently voted against; the two ""aye"" votes singled out by Stockman were procedural, relating to whether floor debate commenced and not to the legislation's merits. Given that Stockman’s claim misrepresented both the immigration measure and Cornyn’s votes, it merits flames. The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."
|
false
|
Immigration, Voting Record, Texas, Steve Stockman,
|
"A Republican primary challenger to John Cornyn said in an email blast Jan. 31, 2014, that the senior senator for Texas is teaming with Barack Obama, the Democratic president, to ""ram amnesty down your throat."" U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman of Friendswood went on to say that no GOP leader is working harder for amnesty than Cornyn. More: ""Last year Cornyn helped pass Obama’s amnesty bill in the Senate."" We decided to check the to-the-point claim in the banner topping Stockman’s email: ""John Cornyn voted twice in 2013 to back Obama’s amnesty plan."" He did? We zeroed in on Cornyn’s votes, also exploring Obama’s connection to the plan. The legislation, which has yet to gain traction in the House, isn’t universally considered an amnesty scheme in part because it’s not as forgiving of immigrants lacking legal residency as the overhaul signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. In April 2013, our colleagues at PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., rated as Half True a claim that the legislation drafted by the Gang of 8 --four Senate Democrats and four Republicans intent on building a bipartisan coalition--was not an amnesty plan. The legislation did not offer blanket legal residency to unauthorized immigrants while it mandated fines, background checks and waiting periods, making it tougher than its 1986 predecessor. However, the proposal did afford a measure of clemency to those immigrants, who would not be required to return to their home countries. Our email to Stockman’s spokesman, Donny Ferguson, about Cornyn’s votes elicited no response. Cornyn’s campaign spokesman, Drew Brandewie, emailed us instances of Cornyn voting against the measure. Among substantive votes, Brandewie said, Cornyn voted against the measure when it cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by 13-5 in May 2013, as noted in a news blog post by the Dallas Morning News on June 5, 2013, which also said that backers of the plan ""had fended off many amendments"" that Cornyn ""authored or supported, including some to beef up enforcement or strip the path to citizenship for 11 million people"" already estimated to be ""in the country illegally."" Cornyn’s ""no"" vote in committee, on May 21, 2013, wasn’t his last. On June 27, 2013, the Senate sent the House an immigration proposal ""that would allow millions of illegal immigrants the chance to live legally in the United States and to eventually become U.S. citizens,"" the Washington Post said in a news story posted that day. The legislation, which did not draw widespread House support, also called for doubling the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border, the story said, and required the construction of 700 miles of fencing there. In addition, employers would newly be required to check the legal status of all job applicants using the government’s E-Verify system, the Post reported. Senators voted 68-32 for the plan with 14 Republicans joining Democrats on the ""aye"" side, the Post said. But Cornyn and fellow Texas Sen. Ted Cruz voted against final approval, the Dallas Morning News said in a news blog post the day of the vote, after voting earlier that day against bringing the proposal to a final vote. ""The votes were no surprise,"" the News said. ""Both openly opposed the bill."" Stockman’s email blast condemning Cornyn singles out two other votes as indicative of Cornyn helping to advance Obama’s plan. Stockman wrote: ""Cornyn voted with Democrats twice to kill our Republican filibuster of amnesty,"" adding that he was referring to two Senate votes that preceded days of floor debate. And what were those votes? On June 11, 2013, Cornyn was among 82 senators and more than 25 Republicans (though not Cruz), who voted for cloture, a hurdle that had to be cleared before the body could consider starting floor action on the legislation. That afternoon, Cornyn was among 84 senators to vote to proceed to debating the legislation. Brandewie guided us to a news blog post by the Houston Chronicle on that day, which said that although Republican leaders in the Senate ""said they could not support the bill as written, they voted to move the legislation forward and allow lawmakers to change it through amendments."" The blog post quoted Cornyn as saying that he voted to launch floor debate so he could offer a tighter border security amendment. ""The bottom line is that if border and national security cannot be guaranteed in this bill, I cannot and will not support it,"" Cornyn said. Separately that day, Obama gave the measure his wholehearted endorsement, according to a New York Times news story posted online that afternoon, describing it as consistent with principles he had aired. ""Nobody got everything they wanted,"" Obama said, according to the Post story. ""Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for common-sense reform that I — and many others — have repeatedly laid out."" We found no sign of Obama presenting an immigration proposal. That’s correct, Marc Rosenblum, an analyst for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies worldwide immigration, told us by phone, though he also said the Senate plan largely aligned with a ""blueprint"" for reform issued by Obama in May 2011 that outlined his desired changes in law. The blueprint called for focused border security and holding employers accountable for hiring legal residents while also creating a way for farmers to hire foreigners to raise and harvest crops. In the document, Obama also said he favored giving law-abiding U.S. residents lacking legal residency, including children, ways to become eligible for citizenship. So, Cornyn voted against endorsing the immigration plan in committee, in favor of starting the Senate floor debate and against the legislation advancing to the House. Of course, there were other votes related to the legislation during floor action. Starting from Cornyn’s posted list of Senate floor votes, we peeked at the details of a dozen of his votes between the beginning of the floor action and final approval. Summing up, it looked to us like after agreeing to let debate proceed, Cornyn consistently voted on the side of Republicans opposed to the Senate plan. Ready to dig in? In a roll call vote on June 13, 2013, Cornyn was on the losing end of a 57-43 vote that set aside revisions offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that were described in a CNN news story that evening as intended to delay the legalization process for millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. until the Department of Homeland Security could certify it had effective control over the Southern border for six months. On June 18, 2013, Cornyn was on the losing end of several Republican efforts to change the legislation. In an initial floor vote, he and 38 fellow senators voted in favor of a failed move by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., to prevent the government from granting illegal immigrants legal status until at least 350 miles of double-tier fencing had been erected on the southern border, withholding full citizenship rights until 700 total miles had been built, according to a Washington Times news story posted online that day. Cornyn also voted for an unsuccessful attempt to stop any illegal immigrant from being granted legal status including citizenship until the government had put in place a biometric check-in and check-out system at every land, sea and airport entry point. Also that day, 94 senators unanimously voted to include tribal government officials on a border oversight task force. It seems reasonable to clump this vote with some others that were less contested as the immigration proposal edged forward: On June 19, 2013, Cornyn was among 72 senators who agreed to provide for limiting salaries for contractor executives and employees involved in border security and he also voted with most to include a Nevada resident on the Southern Border Security Commission. A day later, Cornyn was again on the losing end of Senate votes--including when he voted against setting aside a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., giving Congress, and not the Department of Homeland Security, ultimate authority to determine if the border is effectively secure, according to a National Review news blog post, which said Paul also sought enhanced security measures, such as requiring a double-layer fence to be completed within five years, plus other triggers to implemented before illegal immigrants could be awarded legal status, the magazine said. Similarly that day, Cornyn voted for a failed amendment described by authoring Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, as giving the Senate a future say on whether the borders were secure before allowing immigrants to start the pathway to citizenship, according to a news story in The Hill, a Capitol Hill publication. Cornyn took a personal lump on June 20, 2013, as senators voted 54-43 to table his proposed revamp, which he pitched as reasonably beefing up border security, just before the Senate moved instead to a more ambitious border build-up approach. A news blog post by the Dallas Morning News in the wake of that action described Cornyn as steamed, going on to note that while Cornyn’s amendment called for 5,000 additional Border Patrol officers, the substitute proposal favored by Senate leaders called for 20,000 additional officers. ""How much is it going to cost?"" the News quoted Cornyn as saying of the successful amendment. From that moment through the Senate decision a week later to advance the immigration plan to the House, Cornyn was on the losing end of seven floor votes, including several related to considering and then accepting the alternative border security language. It looked to us like none of these votes could be interpreted as aligning Cornyn with the Senate’s Democratic majority or Obama. Summing up, Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute told us that he sees Stockman’s claim as a distortion. ""On a fundamental level, it’s a misleading statement. It’s not Obama and it’s not amnesty,"" Rosenblum said, ""but there were those two votes,"" he said, referring to Cornyn’s votes to let floor debate proceed. Our ruling Stockman said Cornyn voted twice in 2013 for Obama’s amnesty plan. That’s inaccurate to a ridiculous degree. For starters, Obama never offered an amnesty plan, though he endorsed the Senate-approved legislation, which envisioned ways that unauthorized immigrants could attain citizenship. This was also the plan that Cornyn consistently voted against; the two ""aye"" votes singled out by Stockman were procedural, relating to whether floor debate commenced and not to the legislation's merits. Given that Stockman’s claim misrepresented both the immigration measure and Cornyn’s votes, it merits flames. ! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."
|
16252
|
"Rick Scott Says Charlie Crist wants felons who ""commit a heinous crime"" such as ""intentional permanent disfigurement of a child, you walk out of jail, you immediately get to vote."
|
"Scott said that Crist wants felons who commit ""a heinous crime"" such as ""intentional permanent disfigurement of a child"" to walk out of jail and immediately get the right to vote. The Cabinet under Crist made it easier for felons to get their rights restored, but they didn’t regain those rights immediately after leaving jail. The offenders had to complete the terms of their sentence, including probation, to qualify. And then the Clemency Board had to sign off on the restorations. The most serious violent offenders had to undergo an investigation and hearing. The only kernel of truth here is that it is possible that some felons who had committed violent crimes got their rights restored, but it wasn’t immediately upon leaving jail."
|
false
|
Elections, Crime, Florida, Rick Scott,
|
"As part of his appeal to black voters, Charlie Crist has defended his record on making it easier for nonviolent felons to regain the right to vote. Crist and Gov. Rick Scott argued about restoration of civil rights during the Oct. 21 debate on CNN. ""When I was governor, I brought restoration of rights back for nonviolent felons so they can have a chance to get a job,"" Crist said. ""Sadly, under Rick Scott it's gone, and it's gone for at least five years, you can't even apply."" That set off a testy back-and-forth exchange: Scott: ""Here's Charlie's plan. You commit a heinous crime, as soon as you get out of jail, you get to vote. Stalk, you get to vote as soon as you walk out. You have intentional permanent disfigurement of a child, you walk out of jail, you immediately get to vote. That's wrong, Charlie."" Crist: ""That is fundamentally unfair. I said nonviolent criminals. You are lying again."" Scott: ""No, that's not true. Go to FactsforFlorida.com, Charlie. You want to look yourself, you can look it up. That's exactly what you did. And I completely disagree with that."" Crist: ""It's very unfair. Go to his site if you want to, but I would recommend that you go to FairShotFlorida.com instead, and you'll find out the truth. What he just said is absolutely false."" Well, we recommend that if you want facts, go to politifact.com/florida. (We're glad you're here!) Does Crist want violent offenders to immediately regain their right to vote? In a word, no. Restoration of rights under Crist Since 1968, the Cabinet has held the power to restore rights to felons with various governors making changes to make it harder or easier. Those changes did not always fall on party lines: Democrat Lawton Chiles tightened the rules, while Republican Jeb Bush simplified the process, though advocates pushed for additional reforms. In April 2007 under Crist’s direction, Crist and the Cabinet agreed to relax the rules to make it easier for felons to regain their civil rights, including the right to vote. (Crist was a Republican at the time; he is now running as a Democrat to get his old job back.) Crist defended the move in a 2007 op-ed: ""Some who favor the current system argue that restoring civil rights is somehow 'weak on crime,’ as if restoring the right to vote, to serve on a jury or to work lessens the punishment or encourages a person to commit new crimes. In fact, the opposite should be true. Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will encourage good behavior."" Under the 2007 changes, there were specific rules for three levels of offenders who could apply to get their rights back. All of them had to first finish the terms of their sentence, including probation and restitution. About 80 percent of felons were potentially eligible to quickly regain their civil rights without hearings, the Tampa Bay Times reported when the new rules were approved. The offenders convicted of more serious crimes, such as murders, had to take additional steps to apply to get their rights restored, including attending a formal hearing. • Level 1: Offenders convicted of less serious felonies such as burglary, DUI or selling drugs had cases reviewed for eligibility and the Clemency Board could sign off on restoring rights without holding a hearing. This was nearly automatic. • Level 2: Offenders included those convicted of aggravated battery, felony stalking, or trafficking in cocaine. An investigation was required to determine eligibility, and the board had 30 days to review the results, but the state did not hold a hearing. • Level 3: Offenders included murderers and sexual predators. Those cases required a more thorough investigation, and they had to appear at a hearing. There was another path for offenders -- at any level -- to get their rights restored. If they had completed all the terms of their sentence, including probation and paying restitution, and were crime-free and arrest-free for 15 years, they could apply to have their rights restored. We asked the state how many of the 156,000 restorations that occurred under the Crist rules fell into each category and were not able to obtain that information. Most of the offender records are confidential. Those felons who had their rights restored ""could indeed be described as largely nonviolent,"" said Mark Schlakman, senior program director for The Florida State University Center for the Advancement of Human Rights. (Schlakman is a supporter of restoring felons’ civil rights.) But it’s likely that some committed a violent offense at some point, said a leading researcher of felon disenfranchisement. ""I haven’t examined the Florida restorations enough to know if anybody with any violent arrest ever had their civil rights restored, but I suspect that’s the case,"" said University of Minnesota sociologist Christopher Uggen. In 2011, at the urging of Attorney General Pam Bondi, Scott and the Cabinet reversed the policy under Crist and set a minimum of a five-year waiting period for nonviolent felons. During Scott’s tenure through mid September, restorations have been granted to 1,589 people. We asked a spokesman for Crist’s campaign, Kevin Cate, if Crist wants to bring back the three tiers. ""He will work with the Cabinet to bring back a fair and just process for nonviolent, reformed felons to regain their civil rights,"" Cate said. Scott says Crist’s policy included violent offenders Scott told the debate audience that felons who committed these ""heinous"" crimes could walk out of jail and immediately get to vote. But no one got their rights restored automatically as they walked out of jail. All offenders had to complete their sentences, including probation and paying restitution, before they were eligible. For even the lowest level of offenders, the state still had to review their cases for eligibility and the Clemency Board had to sign off on them. The state policy under Crist included a list of certain serious violent offenses, such as murder, that excluded felons from going through the faster process to get their rights restored without a formal hearing. But Scott spokesman Greg Blair noted that several violent offenses were not on that list -- leaving open the possibility that violent felons could access the faster process to get their rights restored. That includes battery or abuse of an elderly person, possessing or discharging a firearm on school property, threatening a witness, injuring or killing a police dog, resisting arrest with violence or animal torture. ""You can ask a legal expert which of those are technically classified as ‘violent,’ though I can say with some certainty that nursing home abuse and battery on the elderly count. And resisting arrest with violence, that one’s in the name. So yes, violent criminals could receive restoration of rights under Charlie Crist,"" Blair argued. Our ruling Scott said that Crist wants felons who commit ""a heinous crime"" such as ""intentional permanent disfigurement of a child"" to walk out of jail and immediately get the right to vote. The Cabinet under Crist made it easier for felons to get their rights restored, but they didn’t regain those rights immediately after leaving jail. The offenders had to complete the terms of their sentence, including probation, to qualify. And then the Clemency Board had to sign off on the restorations. The most serious violent offenders had to undergo an investigation and hearing. The only kernel of truth here is that it is possible that some felons who had committed violent crimes got their rights restored, but it wasn’t immediately upon leaving jail."
|
7893
|
Italy bans internal travel as a further 651 die from coronavirus.
|
Italy banned travel within the country on Sunday in yet another attempt to slow the spread of the coronavirus, as data showed a further 651 people had died from the disease, lifting the number of fatalities to 5,476.
|
true
|
Health News
|
A month after the first death from the highly infectious virus was registered in Italy, the government also issued an order freezing all business activity deemed non-essential in an effort to keep ever more people at home and off the streets. Amongst the sectors targeted were the car, clothing and furniture industries. They have until Wednesday to wind down operations and will have to remain shuttered until April 3. The interior and health ministries issued a separate statement, telling people they had to stay where they were, unless urgent business or health reasons forced them to move to another town or region. Italy has registered more deaths than any other country in the world, while the number of confirmed cases is second only to China, with the tally rising by 5,560 to 59,138 on Sunday, the Civil Protection Agency said. However, offering a ray of hope, the latest figures represented an improvement on Saturday, when the death toll rose by 793 and new cases increased by 6,557. “We don’t want to get over enthusiastic or overestimate a trend, but compared to yesterday there is a slight drop in the figures,” said Franco Locatelli, the head of Italy’s top health council, which advises the government. “We must not lower our guard, we must continue with the measures taken and respect the government’s instructions,” he told a news conference. Regional leaders having been pushing Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte for days to tighten the screws as infections have spiralled, but some business leaders and financiers expressed alarm at his decision to shutter more companies. “The closure of production activity is devastating. Our companies will lose market share and won’t be able to reopen for lack of liquidity,” Alberto Forchielli, head of Mandarin Capital Partners private equity fund, wrote on Twitter on Sunday. “This is the end of Italy’s industrial system.” Amongst the companies that said they were halting production in Italy were the world’s largest eyewear company, Luxottica. However, union leaders accused Conte of not going far enough with his closure order, noting that dozens of sectors had won exemptions. They threatened to call a general strike if they thought too many workers were exposed to health risks. In a video posted late Saturday night on Facebook, Conte said Italy was facing its most serious crisis since World War Two, with the health system in the wealthy north at breaking point and almost every intensive care bed now filled. China has already sent medical equipment and doctors to help Italy, while more than 50 Cuban doctors arrived in Milan on Sunday to provide assistance to the stretched hospitals. The Russian military said it would also start sending aid to Italy on the orders of President Vladimir Putin. Domenico Arcuri, head of the government’s coronavirus relief effort, told state broadcaster RAI that Italy was “at war”. “All wars are won in two ways, with one’s own army and with the help of ones’ own allies,” he said.
|
3170
|
Thai reporter gets jail in libel case filed by poultry farm.
|
A court in Thailand on Tuesday sentenced a reporter to two years in prison for criminal libel for a comment she tweeted about a labor abuse grievance at a poultry farm.
|
true
|
Bangkok, Journalists, General News, Environment, Asia Pacific, Thailand, Lawsuits
|
The case against Suchanee Cloitre, then working for Voice TV, is one of 20 lawsuits launched by Thammakaset Co. against 25 workers, activists and journalists. Critics such as Human Rights Watch say these types of libel cases are meant to deter lawsuits filed in the public interest, such as by labor activists and environmentalists. They decry criminal libel laws as especially open to abuse. So-called “strategic litigation against public participation” lawsuits are meant to intimidate, since they often pit corporations with strong financial and legal resources against individuals and groups operating on shoestring budgets. The Lopburi provincial court in central Thailand freed Suchanee on 75,000 baht ($2,490) bail after sentencing her. She will appeal the verdict, said her lawyer, Waraporn Uthairangsee. “I am so shocked. I never thought that it would be such a very harsh verdict,” Suchanee, who now works for a Thai television station, told The Associated Press. “I was doing my duty as a journalist in reporting what has happened, I didn’t intend to harm anyone.” “I think the verdict will have an effect on Thai media. They have to be much more careful when reporting any story,” she said. The case began in 2016, when workers at the Thammakaset farm filed a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. It charged that they had been forced to work up to 20 hours per day without a day off for 40 or more days in a row. It also charged that they had been paid less than the minimum wage, were provided with no overtime compensation, and had their freedom of movement restricted and their identity documents confiscated. Thammakaset sued the workers for defamation, alleging that their complaint had damaged the interests of the company, which was a supplier of poultry to Thai agribusiness giant Betagro. It later sued two workers and a labor activist for theft for taking their time cards to document their allegations of labor law violations. Thammakaset lost both cases. In August 2016, Thailand’s Department of Labor Protection and Welfare ordered Thammakaset to pay the workers a total of 1.7 million baht ($56,000) in compensation and damages, though the money was handed over only this year. Suchanee tweeted about that decision, saying the court had ordered compensation in a case involving slave labor. Reports of the labor protection department’s ruling and its aftermath triggered the flurry of lawsuits by Thammakaset. The latest lawsuit was launched by Thammakaset in October, when it charged Angkhana Neelapaijit, a Magsaysay Award winner and former Thailand Human Rights Commissioner, with criminal defamation. It claimed that she defamed the company with two posts on Twitter offering support for other human rights defenders facing lawsuits by the company. If found guilty, Angkhana could face up to three years in prison. A Bangkok court has scheduled a mediation session for the case in February.
|
34751
|
Packaged vegetables from Mann Packing are being recalled due to concerns about listeria.
|
This item is another example of a “zombie recall”: a consumer product alert that has continued to be misleadingly published and circulated online long after it ceased to be of timely relevance.
|
mixture
|
Food, vegetables, zombie recalls
|
Back in October of 2017, Mann Packing of Salinas, California, announced a recall of some of their packaged vegetable products due to concerns over possible listeria-related contamination: A California company has voluntarily recalled packaged vegetables distributed throughout the U.S. and Canada because of possible bacterial contamination. Mann Packing of Salinas says there have been no reported illnesses associated with the products. The recall was ordered after random testing in Canada turned up a single positive result for listeria. The vegetables have “best if used by” dates from Oct. 11 through Oct. 20. As noted at the time, the recall came in response to “a single positive result found on one [product] during random sampling by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,” and no wider outbreak of listeria was reported in connection with Mann vegetable products. Unfortunately, long after all the products associated with that October 2017 recall had been removed from store shelves, multiple web sites continued to publish and propagate outdated warnings — often lengthy and full of detail — without including any reference to dates, leaving many consumers believing that the recall was current and ongoing. Such web sites also employed inaccurate and sensationalized headlines in conjunction with this information, misleadingly suggesting that a related “nationwide listeria outbreak” was underway: ALERT: Nationwide Listeria Outbreak Affects Vegetables From Walmart, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, and MORE! Here’s the Complete List Mann Packing, one of the largest vegetable packaging companies in the United States, has just issued a recall of their vegetable products, as well as a warning to consumers. After detailed analysis of their vegetable products, it was found that a Listeria contamination of their vegetable products could potentially affect millions of Americans. If you have shopped at any of the following stores in the past month, you could be at risk for contamination: Image result for ALERT: Nationwide Listeria Outbreak Affects Vegetables From Walmart, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, and MORE! Here’s the Complete List Walmart Trader Joe’s Aldi Safeway Albertson’s Pak’N Save Vons Target H-E-B Listeria, a deadly bacteria often linked to food poisoning incidents, has the potential to severely impact pregnant women, newborns, the elderly, and even some adults. If you’ve exhibited any of the following symptoms recently, it is recommended that you follow up with your primary care physician IMMEDIATELY: High fever Muscle aches Nausea Diarrhea Headache Stiff neck Confusion Loss of balance Convulsions While most individuals infected by the listeria bacteria will exhibit symptoms within a few days, for some it can take over two months for symptoms to show. If you’re uncertain whether you’re infected with listeria or not, it is recommended that you get a blood test to determine for sure. Miami Herald reports: The massive listeria-inspired recall by Mann Packing across the United States and Canada earlier this week is even broader than originally reported. Store brands from Walmart, Aldi, Safeway/Albertson’s, H-E-B and others are affected. While the company’s media release detailed the full breadth of the recall, the original recall notice the company wrote for the FDA website listed only the products released under the Mann brand. Over 20 of those brands were pulled in the United States and Canada after Canadian inspectors found listeria in a sampling of Mann-produced product. Dozens of different brands have been affected thus far, and it is urged that you share this article immediately and then proceed to check your refrigerator for any of the following packaged vegetable products. Walmart store brand Broccoli Florets; Broccoli Cauliflower Florets; Broccoli Slaw; Stir Fry Medley; Cauliflower Florets; Cauliflower; Super Blend and Vegetable Medley. Trader Joe’s store brand Kohlrabi Salad Blend. Aldi store brand Little Salad Bar Broccoli Florets and Broccoli Slaw. Safeway and Albertson’s store brand, Signature Farms, Meat & Cheese Tray; Broccoli Cauliflower Florets; Broccoli Slaw; Broccoli Stir Fry; Broccoli Florets; Veggie Tray with Ranch Dip; Vegetable Medley; and Veggie & Hummus Tray. Safeway in California, Hawaii and Nevada, Pak’N Save in California, Vons in California cities Fresno, Clovis and Oakhurst recalled Cauliflower Chopped; Veggies w/ Dip; Premium Vegetable Tray; Vegetables Steaming; Broccoli Carrots Cauliflower with Ranch Dip; Broccoli Carrots & Celery w/ Ranch Dip; Broccoli Carrots Grape Tomatoes & Dip; Broccoli Carrots Snap Peas & Dip; Carrots/Broccoli/Cauliflower; Broccoli/Cauliflower; Broccoli Florets; Cauliflower; Vegetable Tray w/ Dip; Tomatoes Broccoli Cheese & Ranch Dip. All have Sell By dates on or before Tuesday, Oct. 24. Safeway and Albertson’s in Colorado, Nebraska, Northwestern New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming recalled the Veggie Ranch Snack Pack; Vegetables Steaming; Premium Vegetable Tray; Round Vegetable Tray; Rectangular Vegetable Tray; Sauté Kit; Sauté Kit with Sauce; Vegetable Medley W/ Tomato Chipotle Butter; and Vegetable Tray with Dip Grab n Go. H-E-B store brand Broccoli Carrots; Broccoli Cauliflower; Broccoli Florets; Broccoli Slaw; Shaved Brussels Sprouts Salad; Veggie Toss Kit; Caulibit Mushroom Sauce; Caulibits Chopped Cauliflower; Cauliflower Florets; Fiesta Salad; Power Slaw; Stir Fry Medley; and Vegetable Medley. Archer Farms (sold in Target) Broccoli Florets; Broccoli Cauliflower Florets; Broccoli Slaw; Broccoli Medley; Cauliflower Florets; Brussels Sprouts; and Shaved Brussels Sprouts. Cross Valley Farms restaurant food service bags of Shaved Brussels Sprouts; Cauliflower Florets; Spiral Cut Kohlrabi; and Superfood Slaw. Sysco Natural restaurant food service bags of Broccoli Cole Slaw. This is the largest listeria outbreak in some time, and unfortunately untold numbers of Americans will be impacted by it. This is extremely important information about the listeria outbreak and we urge you to share this with all of your friends and family on social media. Thank you and God bless!
|
4205
|
2 Dillinger relatives doubt body in grave is the gangster.
|
Two relatives of notorious 1930s gangster John Dillinger who plan to have his remains exhumed as part of a television documentary say they have “evidence” the body buried in an Indianapolis cemetery may not be him and that FBI agents possibly killed someone else in 1934.
|
true
|
John Dillinger, Indianapolis, Chicago, General News, Entertainment, Forensics, AP Top News, Science, Indiana, TV, U.S. News
|
The FBI immediately disputed that idea, calling it a “myth” that its agents didn’t fatally shoot Dillinger outside a Chicago theater more than 85 years ago. The agency said in a statement that “a wealth of information supports Dillinger’s demise” including fingerprint matches. But in affidavits released by the Indiana State Department of Health, two relatives of the famed criminal say they’re seeking to have “a body purported to be John H. Dillinger” exhumed from Crown Hill Cemetery for a forensic analysis and possible DNA testing. The planned exhumation will be part of a documentary on Dillinger for The History Channel, a spokesman for A&E Networks confirmed earlier this week. Mike Thompson and Carol Thompson Griffith, who say Dillinger was their uncle, wrote in affidavits supporting an exhumation and reburial permit the state agency approved in July that they have received “evidence that demonstrates that the individual who was shot and killed at the Biograph Theater in Chicago on July 22, 1934 may not in fact have been my uncle, John H. Dillinger.” In their affidavits, both say that “evidence” includes that the eye color of the man killed outside that theater didn’t match Dillinger’s eye color, his ears were shaped differently, the fingerprints weren’t a match and that he had a heart condition. The document doesn’t elaborate on why the heart condition supports their theory that the man wasn’t Dillinger. But both say they want the body exhumed and subjected to a forensic analysis and possibly DNA testing “in order to make a positive identification.” “It is my belief and opinion that it is critical to learn whether Dillinger lived beyond his reported date of death of July 22, 1934. If he was not killed on that date, I am interested in discovering what happened to him, where he lived, whether he had children, and whether any such children or grandchildren are living today,” both say in the documents. The Chicago Sun-Times and WLS-TV in Chicago first reported on the affidavits supporting the exhumation permit. A&E Networks spokesman Dan Silberman said Thursday that he only learned this week about the relatives’ affidavits and their belief that Dillinger might not be buried in the grave. He said he can’t comment on the planned documentary or what the film’s focus will be because the project hasn’t gone into production yet. “It’s really early in the process,” Silberman said. “In documentaries, it’s not like there’s a script, so it’s hard to say at this point.” He said no date has been scheduled for the exhumation and approvals are still needed from other government entities. Silberman said he did not know if Dillinger’s relatives would be paid by the network as part of the documentary. The FBI took the unusual step of issuing a statement late Wednesday insisting that its agents had in fact shot and killed Dillinger “as he reached for a pistol from his trouser pocket” outside the theater. The FBI said Dillinger was pronounced dead at a Chicago hospital. The agency also said that it’s a “common myth” that “a stand-in” and not Dillinger was the man killed, saying that such claims “have been advanced with only circumstantial evidence.” Another Dillinger relative said he considers the planned exhumation to be disrespectful. Great-nephew Jeff Scalf tells WTHR-TV that he’s certain the late gangster is buried in the concrete-encased grave that’s marked with his name at the cemetery. “I don’t believe in desecrating the dead. I think it’s been 85 years. It doesn’t matter,” Scalf told the Indianapolis station. “Unless somebody was successful in robbing the grave, that’s John. I know that that’s John,” added Scalf, who’s a cousin of Mike Thompson, one of the relatives who sought the state permit. The Indianapolis-born Dillinger, who was portrayed by Johnny Depp in the 2009 movie “Public Enemies,” was one of America’s most notorious criminals. The FBI says Dillinger’s gang killed 10 people as they pulled off a bloody string of bank robberies across the Midwest in the 1930s. Dillinger was considered a folk hero by some during the Great Depression, when banks foreclosed on homes and farms amid the economic crisis, said Susan Sutton, a historian with the Indiana Historical Society. Dillinger was awaiting trial in the slaying of an East Chicago police officer when he escaped from jail in Crown Point, Indiana, in March 1934 with a gun carved out of wood. While on the run, he underwent plastic surgery to alter his face and was said to have tried to remove his fingerprints with acid. Months later, Dillinger was fatally shot outside Chicago’s Biograph Theater after he was betrayed by a woman who became known in newspapers as the “Lady in Red.” Dillinger’s family feared that vandals might dig up his body, Sutton said, citing a 2013 book the historical society published about the Indianapolis cemetery’s history, “Crown Hill: History, Spirit, and Sanctuary.” Days after his funeral, Dillinger’s father had his son’s casket reburied under a protective cap of concrete and scrap iron topped by four reinforced-concrete slabs. “The Dillingers had actually been offered money to ‘lend out’ his body for exhibits, so they were concerned,” Sutton said Tuesday.
|
41308
|
Aluminium is in vaccines and is linked to Alzheimer’s, dementia, seizures, autoimmune diseases, SIDs and cancer. Aluminium can accumulate in the brain and cause more damage with each dose.
|
There is no evidence that aluminium build up in the brain causes the disease. Studies show that the amount of aluminium we can get from vaccines (and food) is not enough to be unsafe.
|
unproven
|
online
|
Beta-Propiolactone is in vaccines and is known to cause cancer, suspected gastrointestinal, liver, nerve and respiratory, skin and sense organ poison. It may be present in trace amounts of some vaccines. It is potentially carcinogenic, but only in much larger amounts than would be in a vaccine. The antibiotics gentamicin sulfate and polymyxin b are in vaccines and can cause allergic reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening. Traces of these antibiotics can end up in certain vaccines, but would only cause a reaction in someone severely allergic. Genetically modified yeast, animal, bacterial and viral DNA in vaccines can be incorporated into the recipient’s DNA causing unknown genetic mutations. Modified DNA can be used in the production of some vaccines, but is very unlikely to end up in the final product. Even if it did, there’s no evidence it can cause mutations. Glutaraldehyde is in vaccines and is poisonous if ingested and causes birth defects in animals. There are trace amounts in some vaccines from manufacturing, and not enough to cause harm. Formaldehyde is in vaccines and causes cancer in humans among other issues and is banned from vaccines in most European countries. It’s not banned in Europe. There are only trace amounts in certain vaccines and not enough to be carcinogenic. Latex rubber is in vaccines and causes life-threatening allergic reactions. Latex is used in the packaging of some vaccines, which could potentially cause harm if someone’s strongly allergic to it. Human and animal cells from sources like aborted foetuses are in vaccines and are linked to childhood leukaemia and diabetes. They may be used in certain vaccines’ production, but are unlikely to make it to the final product. Mercury (aka thimerosal or thiomersal) is in vaccines and can damage brain, gut, liver, bone marrow, nervous system and kidneys, is linked to autoimmune disorder, autism. Thiomersal isn’t in any UK vaccines any more. This is down to concern around a slightly different mercury-based chemical. MSG is in vaccines and is linked to birth defects, developmental delays, infertility and is banned in Europe. It’s not banned in Europe. It’s used in some vaccines to stabilise them. There’s no strong evidence it causes these problems in humans. Neomycin sulphate, an antibiotic, is in vaccines and can lead to epilepsy, brain damage and allergic reactions. Trace amounts of this antibiotic may end up in certain vaccines. If you are allergic to it could cause an allergic reaction. Phenol / phenoxyethanol is in vaccines and is used as antifreeze. It is toxic to all cells and can destroy the immune system. These chemicals have been used in vaccines as preservatives. They are not in antifreeze. Polysorbate 80 and 20 are in vaccines and cause cancer in animals and are linked to autoimmune issues and infertility. Tiny amounts of Polysorbate 80 is in a type of flu vaccine. There isn’t evidence ingesting it is linked to these issues in humans. Tri(n) butylphosphate is in vaccines and is potentially damaging to the kidneys and the nervous system. We can find no evidence of this being used in vaccines in the UK. Claim 1 of 14
|
26256
|
"Iowa Democratic Party Says Joni Ernst ""claims she ‘pushed for’ new funding for hospitals and COVID-19 testing after opposing It for weeks.”"
|
Democrats and Republicans were at loggerheads in April over whether to sandwich more funding for hospitals and testing with dollars for the Paycheck Protection Program as money ran out for the federal small business loan program. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa pivoted in messaging, initially criticizing efforts to include any add-ons to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program, but later said she pushed for hospital and COVID-19 testing that was included in replenishing the PPE funds.
|
mixture
|
Federal Budget, Health Care, Public Health, Iowa, Coronavirus, Iowa Democratic Party,
|
"The Iowa Democratic Party claims in its 2020 campaign against U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, that Ernst reversed her support for a coronavirus relief plan 3.5, which offered nearly half a trillion dollars for small businesses, hospitals and testing. The Iowa Democratic Party claimed in the headline of an April 21 statement that Ernst opposed funding for hospitals and COVID-19 testing for weeks before $75 billion to reimburse health-care providers and $25 billion for COVID-19 diagnostic testing was included in an interim coronavirus relief bill passed by the Senate April 21 and signed by President Trump April 24. It’s a claim Democrats have continued to make against Ernst. Both Republicans and Democrats blocked interim economic relief packages proposed by the other party in April before the final half-a-trillion-dollar package cleared the Senate. The Republicans’ proposal would’ve solely funded the quickly depleted Paycheck Protection Program, a loan program created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and launched April 4 for businesses that keep employees on their payroll. Democrats pushed for a $500-billion-dollar-plus aid package with Paycheck Protection Program funds as well as $100 billion for hospitals and $150 billion for state and local government, of which some of the hospital funds made it into the final deal. Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Jeremy Busch referred in an interview with The Daily Iowan to a series of interviews and public statements Ernst made in April as proof her tune had changed on the expanded relief funding. As negotiations on refilling the Paycheck Protection Program were ongoing, Ernst said in an April 16 Fox News interview she supported the program and disagreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Congress should wait. ""We have small businesses that desperately need this funding to keep their employees on payroll. If they can't do that, those employees will go unemployed and that is not the route. So, I do believe that what we had was a narrowly crafted bill to replenish the funds for PPP, but the Democrats wanted to hijack it with unrelated items and additional changes. We have a program that's working, now we need to make sure that it's properly funded."" In an email to the Daily Iowan's PolitiFact Iowa, Ernst’s spokesperson, Brendan Conley, wrote that Ernst’s comment on ""unrelated items and additional changes"" referred to an early House version of what eventually became the CARES Act, the third relief bill. The version Conley referred to was noted in a March 23 article in the Hill; it didn’t clear the Senate but included funding to curb airline pollution. However, the Paycheck Protection Program launched after that article, on April 3, as part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, making it unlikely that the narrowly crafted bill to replenish the funds for PPP referred to the measure that created the loan program. The proposal that better fits what Ernst is describing in the Fox News interview would’ve bumped up funding for the Paycheck Protection Program. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked senators on April 9 to approve with unanimous consent a measure that would have added $250 million in federal funds to the Paycheck Protection Program. He argued on the Senate floor that the small business loan program's funds were running out and that negotiations for hospital, local government, and test funding should be part of a separate congressional package at a later date. The reason: the extra funding wouldn’t pass unanimously, he said. However, McConnell’s measure did not receive unanimous consent, as two Democrats voiced opposition. No formal recorded vote was taken to gauge Senate support for the initial proposal, so there's no formal record of Ernst's support or opposition to that measure. Minutes after the two Democratic senators from Maryland rejected McConnell’s ask to fast-track the measure, the pair proposed their own amendment which was double the dollar figure of McConnell’s. It included $100 billion for hospitals dealing with COVID-19 and $150 billion for state and local governments. A final proposal to McConnell’s original interim bill included $500 billion for hospitals, the Paycheck Protection Program and COVID-19 testing, but none for local government. The Senate approved that measure April 21 with unanimous consent, a procedural fast-tracking move that means no senators voiced opposition. Again, the Senate didn’t record a vote tally, but Conley wrote to the DI in an email that Ernst supported that half-a-trillion-dollar bill. A day before the final proposal was approved in the Senate, Ernst said in an April 20 town hall, that she supported the $3.5 coronavirus relief bill’s extra $75 billion to reimburse health-care providers and $25 billion for COVID-19 diagnostic testing. ""We will also get the additional dollars we wanted for diagnostic testing an additional $25 billion there as well as another $75 billion for our hospitals. And again this is something that I’ve pushed for because we want to make sure that our rural hospitals are sustaining through this COVID-19 pandemic,"" Ernst said. Conley wrote in an April 24 email to the Daily Iowan: ""Sen. Ernst fully supports the additional funding for hospitals and testing — which are very much related to the COVID-19 pandemic — as she reiterated on Monday (April 20), and that's exactly why she supported the bill that passed the Senate this week. Her voting record shows, in no uncertain terms, that she supports those measures."" In other statements as well before the final interim package passed, Ernst reiterated her support for a narrower agreement. According to a RadioIowa report, Ernst said April 16 that discussions about extra funding for hospitals and local governments could wait until Congress passed the PPP funds. ""No political gimmicks, just a simple ask to put more money in this program,"" RadioIowa reported Ernst saying. ""Unfortunately, politics got in the way."" In a statement from Ernst’s office April 9, the day Democrats and Republicans rejected each others’ interim relief plans, Ernst criticized Democrats for rejecting Republicans’ proposal, stating that passing small business loan relief funds was too urgent to delay. ""After hearing from Iowans and seeing the overwhelming response of small businesses across the country, it’s clear we need to bolster the Paycheck Protection Program. We don’t have time for political games; we’re in a crisis. Workers and employers in Iowa and across the country need this relief now more than ever, so let’s put aside the politics and swiftly get this specific additional support for small businesses approved so money can keep flowing, Iowa workers can continue to collect a paycheck, and our state’s small businesses can stay afloat,"" Ernst said. Congress put $350 billion toward the PPP at it's creation. The program stopped taking applications when the funds ran dry April 16 date, and resumed taking applications April 27. The interim package was one of several COVID-19 relief packages Congress has passed. The Iowa Democratic Party claimed that Ernst reversed her support for a coronavirus relief in a recent bill that offered nearly half a trillion dollars for small businesses, hospitals and testing. Due to a lack of concrete voting record, we reviewed Ernst's statements before and after the passage of the interim coronavirus-relief bill. Ernst hasn't said she directly opposed hospital funding, but in public statements she was critical of putting a proposal on the floor with funding that was more broad than the Paycheck Protection Program. When Democrats brought their version of the interim relief proposal, which included extra dollars for hospitals and local government, to the senate floor April 9, McConnell objected. Ernst is the Vice Chair of the Senate GOP Conference, meaning she is part of Republican leadership. However, she didn’t vote down additional funds for hospitals or COVID-19 testing in the final half-a-trillion-dollar package. She said later she pushed for hospital funding included in the interim relief package. But, she never said she directly opposed that funding. Rather, she said it should be discussed at a later date. The claim is partially accurate but needs additional context."
|
12309
|
"Despite decades of marijuana being used for smoking in the United States, there have been no reported medical cases of lung cancer"" attributed to marijuana."
|
"Morgan said, ""Despite decades of marijuana being used for smoking in the United States, there have been no reported medical cases of lung cancer"" attributed to marijuana. The most comprehensive analysis about the health effects related to cannabis comes from a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences. The report found ""moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer."" However, the report also noted various limitations of the research. Overall, the academies called for more research -- a sentiment shared by other experts we interviewed. Morgan’s statement is partially accurate, but more evidence is needed before definitely declaring smoking marijuana is risk-free when it comes to lung cancer."
|
mixture
|
Florida, Marijuana, John Morgan,
|
"John Morgan, the lawyer who spearheaded Florida’s 2016 constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana use, says that the Legislature has ignored the will of the voters by banning smoking it. In November, about 71 percent of Florida voters approved the medical marijuana amendment. To implement the new law, the Legislature passed a provision that defines medical use to exclude smoking marijuana. Morgan filed a lawsuit July 6 asking the Leon County Circuit Court to declare the Legislature’s provision unenforceable. He says that while the amendment allows the Legislature to ban smoking in public, it does not allow it to ban smoking in general. In the lawsuit, Morgan made some claims about the benefits of marijuana and then said this: ""Despite decades of marijuana being used for smoking in the United States, there have been no reported medical cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana."" There have been people who smoked marijuana who had lung cancer, but that in itself doesn’t tell us if marijuana caused the cancer. We found some evidence to support Morgan’s statement, but the research comes with significant caveats and experts say more research is needed to reach more definitive conclusions. (Morgan also mentioned emphysema, but we will focus here on cancer.) Ben Pollara, who worked with Morgan on the amendment, sent us multiple articles related to research on cancer and marijuana. The most comprehensive information comes from a January 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report was written by a committee of experts who reviewed studies since 1999 regarding health effects of using cannabis and cannabis-derived products related to various diseases including lung cancer. In the section on lung cancer, the researchers looked at research and concluded: ""There is moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer."" However the committee also noted that the studies it reviewed -- and research in general about marijuana -- had limitations: • A 2015 study published in the journal Cancer pooled data on 2,159 lung cancer cases. This study found no statistically significant association between smoking cannabis and lung cancer incidence including for a subgroup of study participants who were not tobacco smokers. However, the study noted that ""the possibility of potential adverse effect for heavy consumption cannot be excluded."" The study relied on patients’ self-reporting about their use of cannabis. • In 2015, the American Association for Cancer Research published an epidemiologic review. One study evaluated lung cancer risk among 49,321 Swedish military conscripts over a 40-year period and found they had a statistically significant risk of developing lung cancer compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. However, the report noted several gaps related to the Swedish study, which the author has acknowledged. Overall, the National Academies report called for more research about marijuana and health effects while noting several barriers, including that it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance and that researchers often find it difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions. Pollara also pointed to information on the American Cancer Society website that listed marijuana in a section on factors with uncertain or unproven effects on lung cancer risk. The ACS states that there are some reasons to think that smoking marijuana might increase lung cancer risk, including that marijuana smoke contains tar. However, it also explains that it’s difficult to research the impact of marijuana since the use has been illegal in many places for a long time, and many lung cancer patients have smoked marijuana and tobacco, making it difficult to attribute causes. ""More research is needed to know the cancer risks from smoking marijuana,"" ACS states. Many experts we reached echoed the sentiment that additional research is needed. Harvard Medical School professor Bertha K. Madras reviewed multiple studies and her conclusion was similar to the National Academies report that there didn’t appear to be an association. However, Madras expressed caution about reaching conclusions. ""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"" she told PolitiFact. ""Data are old. Currently we have more persons smoking high potency marijuana daily than years ago, when most studies were collecting data."" A 2016 literature review written by University of Tampa health sciences professor Mary Martinasek showed that while some studies indicated an increased risk of lung cancer, others found no such link or a lower risk for lung cancer. ""There is little evidence to support statistical associations either for or against cannabis and lung cancer,"" she said. ""We need more research to confirm or deny an association."" Dr. Suzanne Sisley, who is an expert witness for Morgan and is doing an FDA approved trial related to marijuana and PTSD, said that the federal government has sought for decades to prove smoking marijuana caused lung cancer and has been unable to do so. Morgan said, ""Despite decades of marijuana being used for smoking in the United States, there have been no reported medical cases of lung cancer"" attributed to marijuana. The most comprehensive analysis about the health effects related to cannabis comes from a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences. The report found ""moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer."" However, the report also noted various limitations of the research. Overall, the academies called for more research -- a sentiment shared by other experts we interviewed. Morgan’s statement is partially accurate, but more evidence is needed before definitely declaring smoking marijuana is risk-free when it comes to lung cancer."
|
25943
|
Monica Cline Says research shows that children feel pressure “to become sexually active because of comprehensive sex education.”
|
"Cline said research shows that children feel pressure ""to become sexually active because of comprehensive sex education."" We found little to no research exploring whether sex education curriculum contributes to adolescents feeling pressure to have sex. But there is research examining the relationship between sex education and sexual behaviors, the bulk of which shows that youths who receive comprehensive sex education are less likely to engage in sexual activity."
|
false
|
Education, Sexuality, Texas, Monica Cline,
|
"The Texas State Board of Education heard testimony from hundreds of people during a 15-hour virtual public hearing last month about changes to state standards for health education, including instruction on reproductive and sexual health. Public schools in the state are not required to teach sex education, and those that do are required to emphasize abstinence. The state has not updated its standards in more than two decades. During the meeting, the majority of speakers urged the board to approve comprehensive sex education with information about contraceptives, consent and sexual orientation. But other speakers said this kind of education needs to come from parents and that schools should emphasize education on ""sexual risk avoidance,"" a term state educators use for abstinence until marriage. Monica Cline, a former volunteer sex educator, told the panel that parents should be having sex education conversations with their children at home and that those lessons should not be happening in schools. When she was still teaching sex education, Cline said, she encountered teenagers in Austin who told her that they felt they were expected to have sex ""because of comprehensive sex education."" ""There is much research that actually shows that children feel pressured or they feel that they have to become sexually active because of comprehensive sex education and the expectations they have for the use of condoms,"" Cline said. But is that accurate? ""That statement is patently ,"" said Andrea Swartzendruber, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia who has conducted research in this field. ""Comprehensive sex education is associated with delayed onset and reduced frequency of sexual activity."" Sorting through Cline’s evidence When asked for sources to support her remark, Cline pointed to a 2015 report produced by Ascend, a group that promotes sexual risk avoidance over comprehensive sex ed, which educates students on how to avoid sexual activity outside of marriage. The study surveyed 533 people ages 18 and 19 about their feelings towards sex and what kind of education they received. Information about what sex education each individual respondent had received was self-reported. On the question of pressure, the study found that respondents felt more pressure to have sex from movies, music, social media, the news and their peers than they did from their sexual education courses. Of those surveyed, 29% said their sex education courses ""made it seem like sexual activitiy is an expectation."" But Swartzendruber said the findings in the report are not ""reputable or evidence-based"" and it lacks any information about the methodologies used and the types of questions that were asked. ""It does not include information about key questions that would help provide confidence in and influence interpretation of the results: How were survey participants contacted?"" she said in an email. ""Who, specifically, was contacted? What were participants asked to do? How were questions asked? Were they paid for participating? How were analyses conducted? Were the appropriate statistical analyses conducted to support generalization to all 18-19 year olds in the U.S.?"" Cline also pointed to a report from the U.S. Office of Adolescent Health (now the Office of Population Affairs) summarizing the findings of multiple programs funded by grants through the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has funded research on the effectiveness of different programs on reducing teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and sexual risk behaviors for years. Typically, each program is assessed and analyzed individually and then all of the findings are considered together for a more comprehensive look at the impact of comprehensive sex education in general. The report Cline shared highlights 19 individual programs that received grant funding and a brief summary of the findings. For some programs, evaluators found there was ""no significant differences"" between rates of sexual activity among students receiving comprehensive sex ed and those receiving other instruction. For others, the summary of findings states that students who did not receive the education were less likely to have reported having sex. But these evaluations are only part of the equation in this research. Susan Zief, a senior researcher at Mathematica, said she has been at the ""forefront of the federal government’s effort to learn about these programs"" for more than a decade and noted that she would ""caution against using findings generated by subgroups,"" as opposed to the results of a more complete review. A meta-analysis of multiple studies across three grant programs found that, overall, comprehensive sex education programs ""significantly reduced risky sexual behaviors as measured by their pre-specified confirmatory outcomes."" Examining other research Leading medical organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — have published reports outlining the latest research on sex education and its impact on sexual activity. ""Although formal sex education varies in content across schools, studies have demonstrated that comprehensive sexuality education programs reduce the rates of sexual activity, sexual risk behaviors (eg, number of partners and unprotected intercourse), STIs, and adolescent pregnancy,"" reads a report from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Adolescent Health Care. Amies Oelschlager, a member of the committee, said adolescents will experience more pressure to have sex from media and their peers than from sex education courses. ""There is a big misconception that if you talk to adolescents about sexual activity, then you are encouraging them to have sexual activity,"" she said. ""That has not been shown to be true."" Oelschlager said the same argument has been made about the HPV vaccine, or access to condoms: that making these things available to adolescents encourages them to be more sexually active. ""That’s not true,"" she said. ""The provision of education and the provision of contraceptives are not aphrodisiacs."" A clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics states that comprehensive sex education programs ""have been proven to delay onset of sexual activity, reduce numbers of partners, increase condom and contraceptive use, and decrease incidence of teen pregnancy and STIs, including HIV."" A review of research on comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only programs published in the Guide to Community Preventative Services concluded that comprehensive curriculum were ""effective in reducing sexual activity and increasing protective sexual behaviors in adolescents."" Our ruling Cline said research shows that children feel pressure ""to become sexually active because of comprehensive sex education."" We found little to no research exploring whether sex education curriculum contributes to adolescents feeling pressure to have sex. But there is research examining the relationship between sex education and sexual behaviors, the bulk of which shows that youths who receive comprehensive sex education are less likely to engage in sexual activity."
|
36704
|
Pepsi products have been contaminated by a disgruntled worker who added blood containing human immunodeficiency virus to the company's drinks.
|
AIDS Warning: Worker Adds HIV-Positive Blood to Pepsi?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
False warnings about various foods or drinks being contaminated with the blood of a worker who has AIDS or HIV have been circulating for years, but there’s never been any truth to them.Variations of these rumors have circulated all over the world, and they all follow the same general format: an HIV-positive worker added their blood to products during the manufacturing, bottling, or packing process.This roughly translated version surfaced in Asia in 2009:for d next few days, do not drink any product from pepsi company like pepsi, tropicana juice, slice, 7up , coca cola, etc,,as a worker from the company has added his blood contaminated with HIV. watch NDtv …please 4ward this 2 every 1 u care about…..ok. Please note seriously.”Different versions of the false warning have been debunked all over the world. In 2011, Pepsi representatives in Asia debunked the above version. Pepsi uses a hands-free production process (eliminating the risk for contamination), the rep noted, and AIDS is impossible through food and drink products, as Asia News Network reported:“This SMS started circulating in India in July and even there, no one believed it,” she said yesterday.Hemalatha said Pepsi products were produced according to the strictest safety standards and were safe for consumption.“It is scientifically proven that HIV cannot be transmitted via food or drinks anyway,” she said, adding that different versions of the same rumour had made the rounds before.A few years later, a new version of the warning surfaced in the United Kingdom. That version, which singled out Pepsi products in particular, is the one that has been most widely circulated in English-speaking countries:important message from metropolitan police to all citizen of united kingdom. for the next few weeks do not drink any products from pepsi , as a worker from the company has added his blood contaminated with hiv (aids). it was shown yesterday on sky news. please forward this message to the people who you care.Even if these claims were true, as the Pepsi rep noted above it’s not possible to transmit AIDS or HIV through food or drink.As we previously reported in our investigation into (false) claims that blood oranges had been laced with HIV-positive blood, the nonprofit Aid for AIDS describes the threat as nonexistent:HIV is a very fragile virus outside of the body. The HIV virus needs the human body as its host. The life span of HIV outside of the body has not been determined. However, we know that HIV needs its host cell (a human), the body temperature, and the chemistry of the blood to survive. Out of the body, HIV is out of its environment. As the blood dries, the HIV will die. In areas like a syringe or on a razor in a medicine cabinet, HIV would probably live longer because of less airflow and it’s a more moist temperature controlled area. “Just remember, outside of the body HIV can’t survive. In minutes it will die and be harmless, but Universal Precautions should always be used.Given all that, we’re calling this one “fiction,” as it is resoundingly not true.
|
11125
|
Heart bypass surgery brings long-term benefits
|
This news release describes extended outcomes of a large, randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery plus medical treatment with those of medical treatment alone on patients with dysfunction or failure of their heart’s pumping function. The study showed significantly lower rates of death from any cause (59% vs 66%) and death from a heart or blood vessel-related cause (41% vs 49%) as well as greater median survival (7.7 vs 6.3 years) among those who received CABG and medical treatment compared to those who received medical treatment alone. This release covered much of what we like to see in news releases but omitted cost and harms. This study offers important information on the positive long-term impact of a widely performed surgery on a population previously thought to be too sick to receive it. As the U.S. population ages, more and more people suffer from cardiovascular disease, and more of those patients suffer from heart failure and left ventricular insufficiency. Improved treatment for these patients is important. The initial study also showed that CABG could be used to treat these sicker patients. Whether the median increase in longevity of 1.4 years and a 7 percent increased chance of living for 10 years is significant in human terms must be weighed against the availability of other treatments and the risks of major surgery.
|
true
|
cardiovascular disease,Government agency news release
|
There is no discussion of cost in this release. Perhaps the cost of medical treatment is moot as both groups received that, but it’s useful context for the reader. CABG is major surgery and consequently expensive. Some estimates of cost for uninsured patients range from $70,000 to $200,000. Even with medical insurance coverage, deductibles can be very large. It’s also possible that the high cost of surgery could be offset by less need for downstream care among surgical patients who appeared to fare better in the study — e.g. less need for hospitalizations and other costly care. Discussion of any or all of these points would have earned the release a Satisfactory rating. The benefits of this approach are discussed in the release and quantified. “The bypass surgery was associated with an overall 1.4-year increase in median survival time (7.7 vs. 6.3 years),” according to the release. Overall, the release did a nice job of presenting absolute rates of death in each group of study participants, but there was no mention of statistical significance which would have been helpful to include for more savvy readers. The potential harms of a major surgery like CABG should have been mentioned as they must be considered and weighed against the benefits of 1.4 years of additional survival. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute says the risks of CABG include “wound infection and bleeding, reactions to anesthesia, fever, pain, stroke, heart attack, or even death.” The release does a good job of characterizing the quality of the evidence, but we’re always open to even more details, such as how the study was blinded to prevent bias. The researchers managed to track nearly all of the subjects in the initial study. It is unclear how they accounted for those patients who later received CABG, left ventricular assist devices or heart transplants, but the 10 follow-up data appear well done. There is no disease mongering here. Coronary artery disease is widespread among the older American population. The funding sources are clearly stated in the paper. As this is part of a clinical trial, there appears to be no conflict of interest. The study itself compared alternatives, with half the patients randomized for medical treatment only and the other half for medical treatment and CABG. No comparison was made to the alternatives of heart transplant or left ventricular assist devices, but these do seem to be unusual treatments in this population. The release doesn’t talk about how often or widely CABG is used but it is well known that CABG is available and has been in use for many years. It would have been helpful to mention that CABG is performed on sicker patients in some specialty hospitals. The release claims novelty through this statement by a lead investigator: “The current 10-year follow-up provides new important insights about patient subgroups that are more likely to benefit from CABG as compared to medical therapy alone.” The procedure itself is not novel but this appears to be new information concerning patient outcomes in a specific subgroup. There is no unjustifiable language here.
|
10914
|
Chilling heart attack patients
|
"This is a story about ""The idea … that cooling a comatose patient after a heart attack prevents brain damage."" A simple claim of 14% improved survival was made, without clarification about the types of patients who were seen to benefit from the treatment nor any reference for understanding the magnitude that this benefit represented. It was interesting that the patient chosen for the story was one who worked in a company that made defibrillators and that his co-workers were able to provide CPR and electrical stimulation to his heart right away. This was an aspect of the story that was not discussed but likely also played a role in his good outcome. However, a perhaps more interesting story is why this therapy is not more widely used. Is there reluctance on the part of physicians to use this technology? Or is it not helpful to enough patients to make the investment in the equipment to control the lowering and maintenance of a lowered body temperature?"
|
mixture
|
"Although one of the physicians commenting on the treatment contrasted this treatment with the situation in medicine where there are expensive treatments that may make little difference – and explained this procedure as being just ""ice"" – the video showed some specialized equipment for controlled lowering of body temperature. The story gave no estimate for the cost of the treatment. The benefit of this treatment was described as an improved survival rate by 14%. However, without the starting point, i.e. the number of individuals who have had a heart attack and are brought to an emergency treatment facility within a specified amount of time, it is not possible to understand the magnitude of the benefit that may be gained. Viewers are left wondering ""14% of what?"" There was no discussion of potential harms that might be associated with hypothermia treatment after a heart attack. There was no discussion of conditions or medication use that might lessen or eliminate the benefit that this treatment might confer. Although one of the clinicians said ""ice packs can do the job"", there have been some studies to suggest that the percentage of surviving patients is lower in the group whose temperatures went too low. While there was mention of 'research' that showed this treatment improved the survival 14%, there was no discussion about the nature of the work demonstrating efficacy of this intervention. Even mention of a 14% improvement is not helpful because we have no idea about what the starting point was. The story did not overtly engage in disease mongering. A patient who underwent this treatment and had a good outcome as well as two physicians (a neurologist and a cardiologist) at a hospital which uses this treatment were interviewed for this story. It would have been helpful to understand why only a limited number of hospitals include this treatment in their management of heart attack. There was no discussion of treatment options that might be presented to a patient arriving at an emergency department. It would have been helpful to understand more about the nature of the patients for whom this treatment is appropriate – how long after they have had a heart attack, patients who were unconscious after having a heart attack, those who have had to undergo defribrillation, etc. The story mentioned that this treatment is not available at most hospitals. The story is relatively clear that hypothermia for management of individuals who have recently had a heart attack is not new. Does not appear to rely on a press release."
|
|
14357
|
I have now put out all of my emails.
|
"Clinton said, ""I have now put out all of my emails."" In reality, only about half of the emails sent or received by Clinton on her private email server have been released. Clinton’s comments focus on emails that she and her staff deemed work-related. Clinton says the half that aren’t available are personal and private. The problem is, it was Clinton and her staff who made that determination. Those emails -- more than 30,000 -- haven’t been available for public review, and it’s not entirely clear they can be retrieved. Clinton’s statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context."
|
mixture
|
National, Corrections and Updates, Transparency, Hillary Clinton,
|
"Controversy over Hillary Clinton's practice of using a private email server while she was secretary of state is continuing to have repercussions in her presidential campaign. The latest is a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial criticizing the Democrat's rationale, saying that ""the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding Freedom of Information laws."" NBC's Chuck Todd asked her about the accusation that she's too secretive during a taped April 2 interview for Meet the Press. Clinton repeated her acknowledgment that her use of a private email server was a mistake, along with her assertion that all of her work-related correspondence was sent using government-operated email servers, which would mean that all of those emails should be sitting in government files somewhere. In any event, she said, all of her emails have been released. ""I think that anybody who's actually looked at this has concluded that I have now put out all of my emails,"" she said. ""Go and ask others for their emails. Ask everybody else who's in public office. I'm the one who's done it, and I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do."" So are all the emails out? Literally, no. Clinton says she had about 60,000 emails on her private server during the four years she was secretary of state. She and her staff deleted more than 31,000 without any government review in December 2014 on the basis that they were personal correspondence and had nothing to do with her government job. The remaining 30,940 were turned over to the State Department, in paper form, for review and archiving. In March 2015, a House committee demanded that Clinton hand over her server to see if sensitive material had been deleted. In August, Clinton authorized the transfer. She then asked the State Department to publicly release the work-related correspondence, which it began to do in May 2015. The last batch, consisting of about 3,800 pages, was released Feb. 29. Clinton has consistently insisted that the emails did not include any information that was classified at the time she sent or received the correspondence. She turned out to be correct. (Editor's note, July 11, 2016: Based on the information publicly available at the time, she appeared to be correct. The FBI's report from July 2016 subsequently revealed she was not correct. Although that does not affect our ruling on this statement, we have downgraded another statement that she never sent or received classified material and rated that False.) But ultimately, 2,093 emails were given some form of classification, including 22 now marked ""top secret,"" which have been fully withheld from the public. The rest have been redacted. The 22 ""top secret"" emails were part of seven email chains covering 37 pages. They were not classified at the time they were sent. But a few additional emails have also not been released, even though they were not considered classified. Nineteen were exchanges between Clinton and President Barack Obama that covered eight different chains. They were withheld under the law governing the release of presidential documents, designed to encourage candid exchanges of opinion between the president and his staff. There was also one email withheld at the request of an unspecified law enforcement agency. As for the correspondence that Clinton considered to be personal and private, it’s unclear if any of those emails have been recovered. Bloomberg reported in September that the FBI had obtained the server from a company called Platte River Networks in Colorado and had recovered those deleted emails. McClatchy reported in October that some emails were synched with a cloud storage system run by Datto Inc. of Connecticut and Clinton agreed to have that data released to the FBI. However, McClatchy reported ""conflicting accounts as to whether the developments could lead to retrieval of any of Clinton’s more than 31,000 personal emails, which she said she deleted from her private server upon turning over her work-related emails to the State Department, at its request, in December 2014."" That’s a fairly critical point, as congressional Republicans have questioned whether any of those ""personal"" emails contained government business. State Department spokeswoman Lauren Hickey said the released documents only included the work-related emails that Clinton turned over. Any additional material that might have been recovered by the FBI have not been released. Our ruling Clinton said, ""I have now put out all of my emails."" In reality, only about half of the emails sent or received by Clinton on her private email server have been released. Clinton’s comments focus on emails that she and her staff deemed work-related. Clinton says the half that aren’t available are personal and private. The problem is, it was Clinton and her staff who made that determination. Those emails -- more than 30,000 -- haven’t been available for public review, and it’s not entirely clear they can be retrieved. Clinton’s statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context.
|
3157
|
EPA lowers Denver area’s air quality rating to ‘serious’.
|
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has downgraded the air quality rating of Colorado’s biggest population center.
|
true
|
Colorado, General News, Jared Polis, Denver, Environment, Air quality, Pollution
|
The EPA finalized the move Monday, lowering the ozone status of Denver and eight other northern Colorado counties from “moderate” to “serious.” That will force the state to work harder to reduce harmful pollution but also bring tougher and costly regulations for businesses. Gov. Jared Polis took the unusual step of inviting the EPA to downgrade the rating, saying in March that Colorado would no longer ask for an exemption from standards by claiming some of the pollution was drifting into the state from elsewhere. He said in August it was time to stop “sugar-coating” Colorado’s air problems. The reclassification requires the state to revise its plan to reduce ozone-forming emissions, which can aggravate asthma and contribute to early deaths from respiratory disease. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog, and it’s created from pollution emitted by vehicles, industries, solvents and other sources. Denver and the northern Colorado urban corridor have struggled to meet EPA ozone standards for 15 years. In addition to Denver, counties affected by the change are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld.
|
41093
|
US patent 10130701 is for coronavirus.
|
This number is not a patent for the new Wuhan virus, Covid-19. It’s a patent for a weakened version of a virus in the same family as Covid-19, a family which includes the common cold and SARS.
|
mixture
|
online
|
US-Patent 8835624 is for the H1N1 virus. The patent with this number was for a strand of DNA that binds to the H1N1 virus, not the virus itself. US patent number 20120251502 is for Ebola. This application number was for a strain of the Ebola virus but the application has now been abandoned. The virus was not created by those who filed the patent. US patent number CA2741523 is for swine flu. This is the application number for a patent for the Ebola virus made to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. This patent has not been granted, and doesn’t mean the Ebola virus was created by someone. 0070031450 A1 is a US patent for BSE (mad cow disease). There is a patent application number one digit away from this that mentions BSE, but is not a patent for BSE itself. ATTC VR-84 is a patent for Zika virus that comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. This is the name of a certain strain of Zika virus, which was first isolated in the 1940s in a lab funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This strain was not patented. US patents 7897744 and 8506968 are for SARS. The first number is the US patent number for the SARS virus. The patent application was made by the CDC, but after the outbreak in 2002. The second number is a patent for a SARS vaccine which has now expired. US patent 10130701 is for coronavirus. This number is not a patent for the new Wuhan virus, Covid-19. It’s a patent for a weakened version of a virus in the same family as Covid-19, a family which includes the common cold and SARS. Claim 1 of 8
|
3456
|
When light is lethal: Moroccans struggle with skin disorder.
|
Determined for her 7-year-old son to attend school despite a life-threatening sensitivity to sunlight, Nadia El Rami stuck a deal with the school’s director: Mustapha would be allowed in the classroom, but only if he studies inside a cardboard box.
|
true
|
Africa, Skin disorders, Casablanca, Health, Middle East, North Africa, Morocco, AP Top News, General News, International News
|
Mustapha Redouane happily accepted the arrangement. He knew his mother’s idea would silence the school’s worries about his condition, a rare genetic disorder called xeroderma pigmentosum, or XP, which can make sun rays and other sources of ultraviolet light extremely damaging to the skin and eyes. The disorder is more common in North Africa than much of the world. “I hate the sun anyways. It gives me blisters,” he said, sitting on his mother’s lap, his face covered with the dark brown freckles that the school director considered a distraction to other students. Now 8, Mustapha has already had 11 operations to remove cancerous growths on his skin. His family is among thousands around the world struggling with XP, and increasingly sharing advice and seeking new treatments. In Morocco, families are also fighting for recognition, government help — and the simple right to go to school. The disorder affects about 1 in 10,000 people in North Africa — more than 10 times the rate in Europe and about 100 times the rate in the United States, according to Dr. Kenneth Kraemer, who researches XP at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Because the disorder is inherited, XP is more common in populations where marriage between relatives is high, Kraemer said. Affected children inherit two copies of a mutated gene, one from each parent. A 2016 Moroccan government study estimates about 15% of marriages are between family members. Living in a country where the sun shines year-round makes them more susceptible to skin cancers that can be caused by the disorder, said Fatima El Fatouikai, pediatric dermatology specialist at the Ibn Rochd University Hospital in Casablanca. Without protection, few XP patients in Morocco live beyond their teenage years, El Fatouikai said. It is particularly challenging in developing countries, where an awareness of the disorder and access to treatments are scarce, and in poor, rural communities where people spend more time outside. Outside of El Fatoikai’s office, families coming from all around Morocco sit in a waiting room eager for their names to be called. There is a rumor about a new XP treatment. The truth is, she says, “We only have prevention as a possible treatment. These children ... have to avoid even minimum sun exposure.” The main prevention measures: avoiding the sun and wearing protective clothing, face shields and sunscreen. Fatimazehra Belloucy, 25, has dealt with skin cancer and other problems because of XP. “If only people made it easier. Their words hurt. I feel entirely alienated,” she said, describing how she faces scared looks and hateful comments as she passes by. Her family limits interactions with her, fearful that the disease is contagious. “No one would take care of me, so I had to do it myself,” said Belloucy, who received her high school diploma and is now enrolled in university. She hopes to land work helping with the disease. Most Moroccan children with XP don’t continue their education. While U.S. schools install window filters for XP pupils and otherwise adapt to their needs, such accommodations are rare in Morocco. “It hurts me that I have to see little kids suffer because of lack of awareness,” says Habib El Ghazaoui, who quit his veterinary job and made it his life’s mission to raise awareness and help children with XP after learning that his daughter Fatimazehra had the disorder. His daughter, now a young adult raising awareness on social media, has had 50 operations for cancerous growths on her tongue, eyelids and elsewhere. She stays indoors and mostly sleeps during the day but, as the sun sets, she goes to parks and cafes, determined to lead a normal life. Ghazaoui leads the Association for Solidarity with Children of the Moon from his house in the town of Mohammedia. He juggles his time between visiting families, distributing donations of creams and masks, providing the Casablanca hospital with data and pressuring the government to take action. XP support groups are increasingly sharing advice online. They held an exceptional meeting in London last year to share “hundreds of practical hints” about hoods, window protections or meters to measure light — and even a French-designed face shield with a fan in it, said NIH researcher Deborah Tamura. The donations from Ghazaoui’s group reach families like those of Said El Mohamadi, a tailor in the city of Salé, whose 6-year-old daughter has the condition. His family is still debating the topic of school. “She’s sad, but I can’t risk taking her to school where there isn’t any kind of protection,” he said. “But she needs an education,” her mother Maria El Maroufi pleads. ___ Nadine Achoui-Lesage and Mosa’ab Elshamy in Casablanca and Mohammedia contributed.
|
3143
|
Police investigating death of disabled man burned from bath.
|
Boise police are investigating the death of a disabled man who died of severe burns after he was put in a bathtub of hot water.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Boise, Crime, Burns, Injuries, Idaho
|
Benjamin Reed’s longtime friend and housemate Joe Ribich told the Idaho Statesman that Reed had a neurological disease and was under the care of a home care aide when the burns occurred. The 38-year-old was in the hospital for 11 days — much of that time at a burn unit in Salt Lake City — before he died of his injuries on May 27, Ribich said. “I kept him alive for a week and had him brought out of a coma (to tell him that) he’s too broken, and they can’t fix him,” Ribich said. Boise Police Department spokeswoman Haley Williams said the police have been investigating the death of a vulnerable adult since the adult was taken to the hospital, though she did not name the victim. “The victim is a vulnerable adult with physical impairments,” Williams said, and no charges had been filed as of Monday. Ribich confirmed police were investigating Reed’s death. He said the two had been friends for 21 years and shared a house for seven years. Ribich cared for Reed until he took a job outside the home. That’s when a local Boise-based agency, A Caring Hand, was hired to care for Reed, who couldn’t walk unassisted because he had Huntington’s disease. Ribich said he was at work when the care worker took Reed for a bath, reportedly placing him in the bathtub, turning on the faucet and then leaving the room for a time. Ribich told the newspaper that the worker apparently went back into the room and removed Reed from the bath before calling Ribich and asking “what he should do” about the situation. On the other end of the line, Ribich could hear Reed crying, he said. “All I could hear is him crying. I could hear him screaming,” Ribich said. “The only time I heard him crying like that was at his sister’s funeral.” Ribich called 911 and drove home immediately, he said. He said the care worker didn’t perform first aid or call emergency services. Reed was flown by air ambulance to a burn unit in Salt Lake City, where he was treated for third-degree burns up to his shoulder blades, Ribich said. Ribich said the men deliberately kept their water heater set at a higher-than-recommended temperature, but he couldn’t understand how Reed was so badly injured. “I’ve bathed him (up to) five times a day for four years. How does this happen? How?” he said. “You check the water and don’t put him in if it’s too hot.” Jennifer Flowers, an administrator for A Caring Hand, said the agency is conducting an internal investigation and described it as “a tragic accident.” She declined to comment further. The agency has been a Medicaid provider since 2008 and currently has 189 patients on Medicaid, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. The department said the agency also takes patients on private insurance. In Idaho, home health and personal care aides do not need a license or formal education in health care, though they must have some training and certification and pass a criminal background check if they work for an agency that takes Medicaid or Medicare. Their jobs are among the lowest paid in the Boise area, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, with workers averaging around $11 an hour. ___ This story has been corrected to remove a reference to an unrelated Twin Falls business. ___ Information from: Idaho Statesman, http://www.idahostatesman.com
|
40779
|
EU nationals have fallen as a percentage of those joining the NHS.
|
EU nationals made up 8% of new staff (whose nationality was known) joining the NHS in England in the year to June 2018. That compares to 11% in the year to June 2016. It’s possible that the number in June 2016 was unusually high.
|
true
|
health
|
The number of EU nurses coming to the UK has fallen by 90% since the Brexit vote. The number of nurses and midwives from the EEA joining the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register fell by 91% from 2015/16 to 2017/18. The number of EU nationals leaving the NHS jumped by 14% in 2017. EU nationals have fallen as a percentage of those joining the NHS. EU nationals made up 8% of new staff (whose nationality was known) joining the NHS in England in the year to June 2018. That compares to 11% in the year to June 2016. It’s possible that the number in June 2016 was unusually high. Claim 1 of 4
|
10816
|
Stem cell therapies for hearts inching closer to wide use
|
The story does a solid job of explaining that the current research, a Phase I study, can establish only that the procedure is safe, not that it is effective. The reader learns about the differences among the three phases of studies the FDA requires. The reader learns about how stem cells might benefit damaged heart muscle. Having said that, this story raises an existential question: Should the story have been done? If the results can prove only safety but not efficacy, why should a reader care? A story that demonstrates safety of a technique of no known benefit would never see mainstream publication. But the Phase I study results does show some promising benefits, and related research provides reason to believe the technique may indeed be useful. So should CNN report the story because of those apparent benefits, despite their not being established by data? That’s a lot of worry about one story. CNN decided to run with it. The report adds responsible context. The reader ultimately gets a mostly fair-minded report on promising early research into a new kind of stem cell research for heart disease. No reader would expect that the treatment is available or imminent. At the end of the day, that’s not a bad outcome. Despite advances in diagnostics and therapies, heart attack and its consequences represent a significant problem. This report highlights the results of an early phase 1 trial comparing a placebo infusion to an infusion of processed adult stem cells in patients with recent first heart attacks. The approach holds the potential to repair damage caused by a heart attack making subsequent heart failure less likely.
|
true
|
"The story reports that harvesting enough stem cells for infusion is difficult and costly, though it fails to cite specific costs. For research in Phase I, any comment on cost might be purely speculative. Since the study is designed to prove safety, there are no credible benefits data to report. The report does allow sources to make general claims of benefit based on that preliminary data, but the reporter shows restraint by not plucking benefits data points from the study. On a close call, the story earns a satisfactory rating. While the story briefly mentions the potential for rejection, it fails otherwise to specify the potential side effects of the stem cell harvesting or infusion. This is surprising, given the fact that the Phase I trial is designed to prove safety. The story makes plain that the evidence from the published study can only prove safety, not efficacy. It does a good job educating readers about the three phases of FDA trials and what each is designed to establish. The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of the damage to the heart muscle by heart attacks. The story uses two sources: One stem cell expert who is not involved with the research, and the lead author of the published paper. While that’s thin sourcing for a story of this length, it’s sufficient to earn a satisfactory rating. The story compares this process, which involves infusing the patient with a donor’s bone marrow stem cells, with both use of the patient’s own stem cells and with surgical introduction of the cells. The story does not specify conventional treatments for heart failure, which would have provided useful context. Still, the story earns a satsifactory rating. Most of the story makes it clear that the technique is in early trials and not in clinical use. Only the opening line is troubling – ""If you’ve just had your first heart attack, doctors may one day be able to reverse the damage done with stem cell therapy."" Due to clumsy wording, this suggests that if you had your first heart attack in late 2009, doctors may someday be able to reverse today’s damage from it – which is not at all the case. But this misstep is remedied by a later statement that it would take a best-case scenario to have such an approach approved even in five years. The story does not make false claims for the procedure’s novelty. See he criterion – ""Compare the new approach with existing alternatives"" – below. There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release."
|
|
2126
|
Stronger evidence pollution damages heart: report.
|
The evidence is stronger than ever that pollution from industry, traffic and power generation causes strokes and heart attacks, and people should avoid breathing in smog, the American Heart Association said on Monday.
|
true
|
Environment
|
Fine particulate matter from burning fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal and oil is the clearest offender, the group said. “Particulate matter appears to directly increase risk by triggering events in susceptible individuals within hours to days of an increased level of exposure, even among those who otherwise may have been healthy for years,” said Dr. Robert Brook of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who headed the group writing the report. A review of six year’s worth of medical research also showed strong evidence that pollution can help clog arteries, and a “small yet consistent” association between short-term exposure to air pollution and premature death. “The foremost message for these high-risk groups remains that they should work to control their modifiable traditional risk factors — blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, smoking,” Brook said. The American Heart Association said fine particulates could work in several ways, including by causing inflammation. “It’s possible that certain very small particles, or chemicals that travel with them, may reach the circulation and cause direct harm,” Brook said. “These responses can increase blood clotting and thrombosis, impair vascular function and blood flow, elevate blood pressure, and disrupt proper cardiac electrical activity which may ultimately provoke heart attacks, strokes, or even death.” The group recommends that the elderly or anyone with heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or diabetes should pay attention to air pollution and air quality index warnings. “People can limit their exposure as much as possible by decreasing their time outside when particle levels are high and reducing time spent in traffic — a common source of exposure in today’s world,” Brook said.
|
17542
|
"The federal health care law tells ""the American people precisely what type of coverage they have to have."
|
"Romney said the administration is telling ""the American people precisely what type of coverage they have to have."" We were unable to reach Romney. The health care law does mandate some types of coverage, and for some people, requires 10 essential health benefits. But it’s not nearly as sweeping as Romney makes it sound. The biggest changes are on the individual market, while people who get their insurance through an employer will see far fewer major changes, if any."
|
mixture
|
Health Care, PunditFact, Mitt Romney,
|
"Mitt Romney may no longer be a presidential candidate, but he remains a vocal critic of President Barack Obama, particularly Obama’s health care law. During an appearance Jan. 5 on Fox News Sunday, the Republican and former Massachusetts governor weighed in on the Affordable Care Act as it enters an important year of the rollout. ""It's not just that the president tells people that they have to buy health insurance; it's that he tells them what health insurance they have to buy,"" Romney said. ""The idea that the government knows better than the American people what kind of insurance they have to have makes no sense, and it's something ... I think the American people are rejecting in large numbers."" Romney put it more succinctly later in the program when he said that the federal health care law tells ""the American people precisely what type of coverage they have to have."" This issue came up quite a bit toward the end of 2013, when millions of Americans discovered their current health insurance policies did not meet minimum standards for coverage required by the law. But is it fair to say the federal government is telling Americans what insurance they have to buy and dictating the type of coverage they must own? For insurance sold on the individual market — i.e. plans purchased individually and not through an employer — there are requirements of what’s included in a policy. The administration calls them the 10 ""essential health benefits."" They are: Ambulatory patient services Emergency services Hospitalization Maternity and newborn care Mental health and substance use disorder services Prescription drugs Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices Laboratory services Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management Pediatric services Plans sold in the individual markets must meet those requirements. That means some people who aren’t thinking about having children — or can’t have children — will still need to purchase coverage for maternity care and pediatric services. Others who don’t regularly rely on prescription drugs will still pay for a plan that includes it. Critics, such as Romney, say this requires people to pay for coverage they don’t need or want. Proponents say the alternative (a.k.a. pre-Obamacare) was an individual market where people were often paying for plans that actually provided very little coverage and the new law sets minimum standards. And, like plans purchased through your employer, requiring everyone to pay for certain coverage, even if they don’t need it, will spread the risk around and keep the cost lower for everyone. In practice, it means fox example that men and women will pay the same rates for equivalent coverage, and women won't be charged more because they can have children. The 10 essential health benefits apply to any plan that has not been grandfathered into the law. In practice, that includes all of the plans purchased in the individual markets offered by the federal government or states. It also includes any businesses with 50 or more full-time employees who previously did not offer insurance to their workers (Obama delayed the employer mandate until 2015). To be clear, there’s still choice in the individual market. While there are minimum coverage requirements regardless of the policy, 95 percent of consumers who buy insurance on the federal marketplace will have a choice between options offered by two or more insurance providers. In the 36 states where the federal government is running or assisting the marketplace, the average consumer has a choice between 53 health insurance options. Those choices range from less costly catastrophic insurance for younger adults to the higher-tiered bronze, silver and gold plans. Consumers can choose to pay more for more coverage and benefits. So Romney is right that the health insurance law is mandating some type of coverage, but he’s exaggerating as to the extent. That’s even more true for Americans who already receive their health insurance through an employer. Their plans are not required to offer the 10 essential benefits if they were in place before March 2010, though they are required to make some more minor changes. One of them requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of someone’s premium on patient care. Employers also cannot significantly decrease the benefits, or risk losing grandfathered status, but they can make changes. (For the record, individual plans also can avoid the 10 essential benefits if they are considered grandfathered under the law. That’s easier said than done, however, and prompted the cancellations letters that came out last year. Obama has asked that some old, expiring plans remain on the books one more year before transitioning out.) Our ruling Romney said the administration is telling ""the American people precisely what type of coverage they have to have."" We were unable to reach Romney. The health care law does mandate some types of coverage, and for some people, requires 10 essential health benefits. But it’s not nearly as sweeping as Romney makes it sound. The biggest changes are on the individual market, while people who get their insurance through an employer will see far fewer major changes, if any."
|
4457
|
What my DNA told me: Avoid fast food, eat vegetables.
|
Avoid fast food, eat vegetables and exercise. It sounds like generic health advice, but they’re tips supposedly tailored to my DNA profile.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Genetics, Technology, Health, Science, Exercise
|
The suggestions come from 23andme, one of the companies offering to point you toward the optimal eating and exercise habits for your genetics. As with most dieting schemes, the idea is appealing because it implies there’s an elusive reason why you can’t get in shape — in this case, your genes. But Isaac Kohane, a biomedical researcher at Harvard, said research in the field is still limited and that there’s little evidence any small effects from genetic variations can be translated into meaningful dietary advice. “By and large, these are not giving a lot of value to the people who are purchasing them,” he said, adding that other factors play a far bigger role on health, such as how much we eat. Still, it’s tempting to think your DNA holds clues to your ideal diet. To see what my genes might reveal, I tried two services, 23andMe and DNAFit. 23andMe If you pay $99 for a 23andMe ancestry report, you can spend $125 more for its health reports based on the same saliva sample. Among the extras you get are several wellness reports, including one that predicts your “genetic weight” and offers other dietary insights. These findings are based on comparisons to data from other 23andMe customers. After adjusting the default setting from European to East Asian descent, my report said I’m predisposed to weigh “about average.” For a 40-year-old, 5-foot-6 woman, the company defined average as 138 pounds. 23andMe notes that most its customers are of European descent, and that its data for other ethnicities is more limited. The report then lists 10 habits associated with healthy weights for your DNA profile. For me, that included limiting red meat, avoiding fast food and exercising at least twice a week. Given how formulaic that sounded, I wondered how much results vary for others. It turns out everyone gets the same 10 habits, since those are the ones 23andMe decided to survey people about. But the order in which they’re listed varies to indicate the magnitude of their supposed effect for you. Alisa Lehman, senior product scientist for 23andMe, said the top two habits for most people are limiting red meat and avoiding fast food, as they were for me. Like many other nutrition studies, the findings do not establish cause-and-effect relationships, but are links the company makes between customers’ genes and the survey results. Other wellness reports said I’m more likely to be lactose intolerant (check), to flush when drinking alcohol (check) and to consume less caffeine (check). They were more interesting because of their specificity, but didn’t reveal anything surprising. Another report said my weight isn’t likely to be affected by my intake of saturated fat, which is commonly found in meat. The only surprise was learning I have a genetic variant “common in elite power athletes.” When I followed the link, however, I saw about half of customers have the same variant. DNAFit For $99.99, you get a saliva collection to produce reports on a variety of fitness and dietary traits. If you already have your DNA file from 23andMe, you can upload it to get instant results for $79. DNAFit says its reports are based on the broader universe of scientific research about genes and diet. Given the general fear of carbs among many dieters, I started with the “carbohydrate sensitivity” report. It started with an overview explaining the difference between complex carbs like brown rice and refined carbs like sugar that are digested more quickly. After scrolling down, the report said I have a “very low” sensitivity, meaning I’m less susceptible than others to sugar highs and diabetes. Despite this carb tolerance, it suggested I limit refined carbs to 10 percent of daily calories. Again, this sounded like fairly generic advice and made me wonder how much the recommendations vary for others. Andrew Steele, head of product at DNAFit, said that depending on people’s sensitivity, the recommended limit for refined carbs ranges from 6 to 10 percent of total calories. For someone who eats 2,500 calories a day, that’s a range from 150 calories to 250 calories. While that may not seem like a big difference, DNAFit notes cutting back from 10 to 6 percent would mean a 40 percent reduction. Still, the relatively tight range reinforces the idea that dietary advice would be largely consistent regardless of your genes. Another report said my sensitivity to saturated fat is low, and suggested limiting it to 10 percent of calories. DNAFit said the range for that recommendation is also 6 to 10 percent. Other reports were more nutrient specific. One said I have a raised need for omega-3, the cholesterol-lowering fatty acid. Another said I have a raised risk for DNA damage from chargrilled meats and should limit them. (This advice was provided over an image of candle-lit steak.) On the fitness side, the reports said I’m more prone to endurance activities than high intensity activities. I don’t know if I’ll take this into consideration if I start exercising. Others have questioned the accuracy of the fitness reports, which rated one Olympic runner’s aerobic potential as “medium.” DNAFit and 23andMe say knowing your genetic predisposition can motivate you to stick with diet or exercise routines. You may also have specific reasons for wanting to try the services, particularly 23andMe, which most get for the ancestry tests and provides many other reports. But for me, the findings from both felt too broad to influence my habits. One small note: DNAFit is based in the United Kingdom, so if you decide to try it, you may notice a small currency exchange fee on your credit card statement. ____ Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
225
|
Bayer mediator dismisses report of $8 billion Roundup settlement.
|
Bayer AG has not offered to pay billions of dollars to settle claims in the United States related to the Roundup herbicide, mediator Ken Feinberg said, dismissing a report to that effect which drove its shares as much as 11% higher.
|
true
|
Health News
|
“Bayer has not proposed paying $8 billion to settle all the U.S. Roundup cancer claims. Such a statement is pure fiction,” Feinberg said in an email on Friday. “Compensation has not even been discussed in the global mediation discussions.” Bayer shares, which had shed some of their gains before Feinberg’s statement, retreated further and closed up 1.7% at 64.63 euros. Bayer, which acquired Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers as part of its $63 billion takeover of Monsanto last year, declined comment on the initial Bloomberg news report and on Feinberg’s response. Bayer Chief Executive Werner Baumann last week said the company would consider settling with U.S. plaintiffs only on reasonable terms, and if it “achieves finality of the overall litigation”. He added at the time the group was “constructively engaging” in a court-ordered process with mediator Feinberg on the cases heard in federal court. Most of the pending cases, however, have been filed with U.S. state courts. Feinberg added that any efforts by Bayer toward a comprehensive settlement were tied in with the mediation proceedings overseen by him. “These are all part of the same mediation process.” Bayer shares have lost more than a third of their value, or roughly 30 billion euros ($34 billion), since last August when a California jury in the first such lawsuit found Monsanto should have warned of the alleged cancer risks from Roundup. The German drugs and pesticides company has engaged in negotiations with plaintiffs’ lawyers, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. “The problem is, how do you get the plaintiffs to climb down from their very high expectations? None of the jury verdicts so far have been favorable for Bayer,” one of the sources said, adding that talks were focused on basic questions such as how to handle potential future claims. Bayer said on Friday that the next U.S. glyphosate lawsuit initially scheduled to be heard in St. Louis, Missouri, this month would be postponed to Jan. 27, 2020, and that a following St. Louis case slated for September had also been postponed. The German company may benefit from having cases heard in the city where Monsanto was headquartered and where Bayer manages its global seeds business. But Missouri is also known for juries that often hit companies with huge damages. Bloomberg said the delays had been pursued by Bayer to allow for undisturbed settlement talks. The initial unfavorable court rulings in the first three glyphosate cases, heard in California, have at times dragged Bayer’s market value below what it paid for Monsanto, although the shares are now trading above that level. The company, which says regulators and extensive research have found glyphosate to be safe, has previously said it was banking on U.S. appeals courts to reverse or tone down three initial court rulings that have so far awarded tens of millions of dollars to each plaintiff. Bloomberg cited three sources familiar with the discussions as saying Bayer’s lawyers were seeking an accord to resolve all current and future cases. Talks over cases that have yet to be filed were particularly tricky, the report added. While Bayer has indicated it could pay $6-$8 billion, plaintiffs’ lawyers want more than $10 billion to drop their claims, the report said. An estimate of a $20 billion hit from the litigation has previously been reflected in the share price, while a likely litigation settlement liability was in the mid single-digit billion dollar range, Bank of America analysts said in note. They kept a “neutral” rating on the stock, citing uncertainty over Bayer’s fortunes in the appeals process - with the first appeals verdict expected by the end of the year - and whether a settlement could be achieved before that. The number of U.S. plaintiffs blaming Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers for cancer had continued to rise by 5,000 to 18,400, Bayer said last week.
|
15724
|
We have towns in West Texas that are out of water, that are having to truck in water.
|
"Miller said: ""We have towns in West Texas that are out of water."" In recent years, towns around Texas occasionally ran dry until new wells or water plants met needs. But Miller named no towns out of water of late nor did we identify any."
|
false
|
Water, Texas, Sid Miller,
|
"At a March 2015 symposium on water in Texas, the state’s agriculture commissioner was asked about his agency’s actions in that realm. Sid Miller, a former legislator who took office in January 2015, replied that just that week he’d signed off on water wells being drilled in two West Texas communities with less than 180-day water supplies. Miller, a Republican, continued: ""We have towns in West Texas that are out of water, that are having to truck in water."" We were familiar with occasional past shortages. But is that happening again? When we requested Miller’s backup information, Agriculture Department spokesman Bryan Black sent us web links to news reports. One was a January 2012 NPR news report on Spicewood Beach, a Burnet County town northwest of Austin, having to truck in water. Then again, conditions there were expected to rebound, according to a June 2013 Austin American-Statesman news story, thanks to new water wells drilled near Lake Travis and a new water treatment plant. Black also pointed out a June 2013 Texas Tribune news story on the West Texas town of Barnhart, which was then out of water. To gauge Barnhart’s conditions of late, we reached John Nanny, an Irion County commissioner who serves on the board of the Barnhart Water Supply Corp. By phone, Nanny said drinking water last had to be trucked in during July and August 2014 — at quite a cost, he said. ""We can’t afford to do that,"" he said, adding that a second well was dug, helping to shore up supplies to about 50 customers. Black didn’t specify communities that had no water when Miller, um, piped up. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Next, we reached out to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. By email, spokesman Terry Clawson said that as of March 12, 2015, the agency wasn’t aware of any public water systems hauling in water. That said, Clawson wrote, the Berry Oaks Water Company in Comal County, between Austin and San Antonio, intermittently hauls water because of summer shortfalls. Clawson emailed us a chart indicating the water system is building a well and water plant, to be up and running, Clawson said, by mid-May 2015. Clawson said the chart represents the agency’s weekly updated High Priority Water System List, which reflects water-supply conditions self-reported to the commission — meaning it shouldn’t be read as all-inclusive. ""There may be systems that have either not reported their status or are not aware of their conditions,"" Clawson said. In a follow-up note, Clawson specified 11 public water systems previously reported as having to haul (or truck) in drinking water due to persistent drought. He attached a chart describing each instance. In another email, Black mentioned most of the same systems. The commission chart listed five water systems located somewhere on the vast west side of Texas, specifically ones in Burnet County, northwest of Austin; Barnhart in Irion County, west of San Angelo; Medina County, west of San Antonio; Hood County, southwest of Fort Worth; and Tom Green County, whose county seat is San Angelo. Then again, in each event, according to the chart, the Texas Department of Agriculture or the water system itself funded improvements restoring supply. Our ruling Miller said: ""We have towns in West Texas that are out of water."" In recent years, towns around Texas occasionally ran dry until new wells or water plants met needs. But Miller named no towns out of water of late nor did we identify any. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
2140
|
Sex virus blamed for rise in head and neck cancers.
|
The number of head and neck cancers linked to a virus spread by oral sex is rising rapidly and suggests boys as well as girls should be offered protection through vaccination, doctors said Friday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
An electron micrograph of a negatively stained human papilloma virus. REUTERS/National Cancer Institute/Handout Despite an overall slight decline in head and neck cancers in recent years, cases of a particular form called oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have increased sharply, particularly in the developed world. This growth seems to be linked to cancers caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), scientists said in a report in the British Medical Journal. Two vaccines — Cervarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline, and Gardasil, made by Merck & Co — can prevent HPV, which causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer, the second most common cancer in women worldwide. Many rich nations have launched HPV immunisation programs for girls to try to protect them from the common sexually transmitted virus before they become sexually active. The scientists, led by Hisham Mehanna of the Institute of Head and Neck Studies at University Hospital Coventry, said while including boys in immunisation plans has been seen as too expensive, it may be time to look again. “We need to look at the evidence again to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of male children in light of this new and rapidly rising incidence,” he said in an interview. Analyst Savvas Neophytou at Panmure Gordon in London said such studies would dispel worries about sales prospects for HPV vaccines, and repeated his ‘buy’ recommendation for Glaxo stock. “The emergence of new data such as this may increase motivation amongst national vaccination authorities worldwide to re-double efforts to vaccinate children before they become sexually active,” he said in an equity research note. Glaxo shares were slightly lower, in line with a weaker European pharmaceutical sector and down 0.4 percent by 0905 GMT. More than 500,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed annually in women and it kills around 200,000 a year. Head and neck cancer is the sixth most common cancer among men and women, with about 640,000 new cases each year worldwide. A recent study found the risk of developing oropharyngeal carcinoma was linked to a history of six or more lifetime sexual partners, four or more lifetime oral sex partners, and, for men, an earlier age at first sexual intercourse. “Sexual transmission of HPV — primarily through orogenital intercourse — might be the reason for the increase in incidence of HPV related oropharyngeal carcinoma,” wrote Mehanna. The scientists pointed to recent studies which showed a 70 percent increase in the detection of HPV in biopsies taken to diagnose oropharyngeal carcinoma in Stockholm since the 1970s. HPV-related cancer was also reported in 60-80 percent of recent biopsy samples in studies in the United States, compared with 40 percent in the previous decade, they wrote. Mehanna said the findings had other important health implications. Patients with HPV-related head and neck cancers were typically younger and employed, he said, and because their tumors appeared to be less deadly than those caused by factors like smoking and drinking, patients may also live longer with the physical and psychological effects of treatment. “This means they would need prolonged support from health, social, and other services, and may require help in returning to work,” he said.
|
36708
|
Former senator John McCain started a fire as a young pilot aboard an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors because he was showing off.
|
Did John McCain Start the USS Forrestal Fire?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks, Military, Politics, Viral Content
|
John McCain wasn’t to blame for a deadly 1967 fire aboard the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier — but that smear has been circulating at least since McCain ran for president in 2008.The smear resurfaced on the tragedy’s 50th anniversary in 2017, and again after McCain’s August 2018 death from from brain cancer.It’s not clear where the John McCain-USS Forrestal rumor started, but it’s been widely circulated in forwarded emails and disinformation blogs. The gist of these emails is that McCain, who was held as a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years during the Vietnam War, was a “hotshot” pilot who crashed planes and sparked a blaze, all because he was showing off.In 2015, shortly after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that John McCain was not a hero, the idea that McCain was responsible for the USS Forrestal fire was advanced by LewRockwell.com under the headline, “Trump is Correct, John McCain is NOT A Hero.” The post’s author claims that McCain accidentally started the deadly fire by doing a “wet start” of his plane’s engine, and that the Navy subsequently covered it up:When a pilot wants to be a wise ass or show off, this type of engine start creates a large startling flame and lots of surprise noise from the rear of a jet engine on start up–this was no accident. This and the large subsequent electrical surge and apparent (incorrect and against policy) weapon arming (by the pilot) caused the launching of a powerful Zuni rocket across the carrier’s deck hitting other parked planes (photo below) that were packing 1,000 high-explosive pound bombs. The subsequent massive explosions, fire and destruction went several decks below and nearly sunk this major 82,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier.This post and earlier forwarded emails do not even attempt to provide proof that might back any of these assertions. They simply advance a narrative that runs contrary to all available accounts. An official report on the USS Forrestal fire filed in 1969 concluded that it was caused by an Mk-32 “Zuni” rocket misfire. The rocket, which was attached to an F-4B Phantom II, launched after “sufficient electrical current” was supplied from an external power source. The rocket hit a nearby plane, triggering a series of explosions and fire that eventually destroyed the air carrier and killed many sailors who had been trapped on board.An excerpt from a 1969 report outlined the sequence of events that led to the USS Forrestal fire.John McCain narrowly escaped from the fire and wrote about the experience in his book “Faith of My Fathers.” He also told the Arizona Republic in 2007 that the disaster was one of the biggest events of his life, saying:To be honest with you, the Forrestal fire seems to be a more impactful date I remember more than that of when I was shot down.Given that there’s nothing in the way of proof or hard evidence to contradict the official version of events that led to the USS Forrestal fire that killed 134 sailors and plenty of evidence supporting it, we’re calling claims that McCain was to blame Fiction.
|
14669
|
Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136%.
|
Sheila Jackson Lee said the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 136 percent between 1990 and 2013. A 2014 report compiled by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and The World Bank presented just that figure. However, experts agree it is inaccurate and based on a modeling method WHO no longer uses. While there has been an increase in U.S. maternal mortality in that time -- possibly due, in part, to better reporting and worsening health conditions in the general population -- experts said it was not as drastic.
|
false
|
Women, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee,
|
"Shortly before the December holidays, Sheila Jackson Lee, a 10-term U.S. House member, inserted remarks into the Congressional Record in regard to women’s legal and human rights. The Houston Democrat, sharing initial findings from the U.S. visit of a United Nations Working Group that focuses on discrimination against women, touched on the nation’s gender wage gap, the increasing percentage of women in poverty and disparities in access to reproductive health. A figure that got our attention had to do with the maternal mortality rate. ""Between 1990 and 2013,"" Jackson Lee said, ""the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136 percent."" Were women in this country dying at a significantly higher rate from pregnancy-related causes compared with almost a quarter century ago? We had to find out. We checked with Jackson Lee’s office to find the source of the 136 percent claim, and staffers sent back a Euro News article from Dec. 14, 2015. The article also referenced the U.N. working group’s U.S. visit, and attributed the 136 percent increase to U.N. rights workers. Similarly, several media outlets have used the 136 percent figure often. We also found the figure in a 2014 report compiled by the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division titled ""Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2013."" It showed that yes, from 1990 to 2013, there was a 136 percent increase in the maternal mortality rate in the United States. Before we get into the figures, some definitions. The maternal mortality rate is the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. A maternal death is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, regardless of duration and site of pregnancy, but not including accidental or incidental causes. A WHO fact sheet attributes 75 percent of maternal deaths to these complications: Severe bleeding (mostly bleeding after childbirth) Infections (usually after childbirth) High blood pressure during pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and eclampsia) Complications from delivery Unsafe abortion According to the WHO, 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in developing countries. Nicholas Kassebaum, professor at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, also analyzed the maternal mortality rate for an article in the medical journal The Lancet. His team put the rate increase between 1990 and 2013 at closer to 49 percent. Kassebaum suggested the difference in percentages could be attributed to model predictions the World Health Organization used. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation used a larger volume of data than the WHO/UN report, Kassebaum said, which showed the rate peak in 2009, and subsequently go down slightly the following years, settling at 18.5 deaths in 2013, or close to a 49 percent increase. The original WHO report used 5-year projections that predicted an increase every year. Experts such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Bill Callaghan warn against indiscriminately using the 136 percent figure. To make his point, the 2015 report (the following year) from WHO, UNICEF, et. al. showed only a 16.7 percent increase in maternal mortality rate for the United States. In an email, Sebastian Oliel, a spokesman for the Panamerican Health Organization, attributed the new figures to a change in methodology intended to allow a better comparison of mortality rates from different countries. Instead of relying on vital statistics (information gleaned from death certificates), which Callaghan said are not the most accurate, the WHO/UN began using CDC data for the United States in reports after 2014. Also, the current methodology uses estimates on an annual basis, instead of the previous method that estimated figures every five years, based on vital statistics. While the new rate looks like it’s telling a less drastic story, Callaghan said there still is a legitimate cause for concern. ""The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is unacceptably high,"" said Callaghan, chief of the CDC’s Maternal and Infant Health branch. ""I’ve borne witness to women dying in pregnancy, it’s an awful thing. Whether it’s 18 out of 100,000 or 12 out of 100,000, it’s too high. Whether we’re first in the world or 89th in the world, it’s too high."" He said that in the 1980s and ‘90s, health experts knew maternal deaths were underreported. Vital records, such as death certificates, were the main source of information and there was no way to ensure accurate reporting of deaths due to pregnancy-related issues. ""The system was not nuanced. When women die in pregnancy, it’s not like counting people who died from colon cancer. Women who die in a particular state from a multitude of causes, it’s hard to account for it."" The CDC began the pregnancy mortality surveillance system in 1986. Callaghan says reporting has ""incrementally gotten better,"" but the process remains imperfect since states do not report every death identically. The 2014 WHO report (where the 136 percent increase originated), used older methods of modeling based purely on vital statistics, ""which we know are problematic,"" he explained in an email. The more recent estimates in the 2015 report (source of the 16.7 percent increase) are based on CDC pregnancy mortality surveillance system data. While better reporting could account for more maternal deaths, Callaghan said he believes there is a definite increase beyond that. It could be attributed to a multitude of causes, including changing demographics of women giving birth (people giving birth at older ages) and worsening health outcomes (higher rates of obesity, heart disease) in the general population. But, there has been a proportionate decrease in common causes of maternal deaths, such as hemorrhages and blood clots in the United States, he said. One ratio that has been consistent since the CDC began collecting this data has to do with health disparities between white and black women. Black women face a three- to four-times greater risk of dying from complications of pregnancy. Callaghan explained that black women aren’t dying from different causes, but they are more likely to die from complications. That could be a reflection of differences in care, or being more susceptible to certain diseases, or a ""complex combination of both,"" he said. To find a solution, there has been an increasing focus on patient safety, establishing national guidelines and rooting out possible variations in care, facility to facility. By having protocol at all facilities to handle the ""low-hanging fruit"" of hemorrhages, blood clots and women with severe hypertension, the rate in the United States could improve for all women. Our ruling Sheila Jackson Lee said the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 136 percent between 1990 and 2013. A 2014 report compiled by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and The World Bank presented just that figure. However, experts agree it is inaccurate and based on a modeling method WHO no longer uses. While there has been an increase in U.S. maternal mortality in that time -- possibly due, in part, to better reporting and worsening health conditions in the general population -- experts said it was not as drastic. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
7437
|
Rare Wyoming Legislature special session to take on COVID-19.
|
The Wyoming Legislature will convene its first special session in 16 years Friday to help businesses and workers, allocate federal funding and take other action in response to the coronavirus.
|
true
|
Legislature, Bills, Health, General News, Wyoming, Mark Gordon, Cheyenne, Virus Outbreak, Public health
|
Besides holding a rare special session, the full Legislature will meet in a way unlike ever before. A small number of lawmakers will meet in the state Capitol in Cheyenne and the rest will take part by video conference. Lawmakers have drafted five bills, four of which have mirror versions so the House and Senate can consider them simultaneously, and plan to wrap up no later than Saturday. The bills would: — Give Gov. Mark Gordon guidance in allocating $1.25 billion in federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. Legislators propose putting the money toward emergency public health costs, aid for families and businesses, economic development programs including infrastructure projects and, to the extent federal law allows, replacing public revenue lost during the pandemic. — Help ensure that people who fall ill from the coronavirus can collect unemployment benefits and not be evicted for missing rent payments. — Alter state funding calculations for school districts and authorize Gordon to make certain emergency funding transfers between state agencies. — Allocate up to $275 million in interest-free loans and other aid for businesses affected by the coronavirus. — Give legal immunity to businesses whose customers contract the coronavirus, a proposal to be initially taken up by the Senate only. The public can monitor the proceedings online. Journalists will keep an eye on things from the House and Senate galleries. Wyoming’s previous special session in 2004 involved an ultimately unsuccessful constitutional amendment to limit payouts in medical malpractice cases.
|
28290
|
"The U.S. Congress passed the 22nd Amendment in order to ""make sure President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not get re-elected."
|
What's true: The campaign to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency intensified after FDR's third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944, giving rise to what ultimately became the 22nd Amendment in 1947. Those historical facts support what a spokesperson for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said was the intended meaning of her remarks in March 2019. What's false: The way Rep. Ocasio-Cortez phrased her remarks appeared to suggest, incorrectly, that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent a further re-election of FDR. In fact, FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment came into force.
|
mixture
|
Politics
|
Some critics of Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded with a measure of ridicule and criticism in the Spring of 2019, after remarks she made about the introduction of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which imposed a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., might want to brush up on some history after asserting, incorrectly, that Republicans in Congress amended the Constitution to kick President Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of office. “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected,” Ocasio-Cortez said [March 29] during a night hall event with MSNBC with Chris Hayes. According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which passed in 1947. The text of the amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” FDR died in 1945, meaning he was dead for a full two years before presidential term limits were implemented. That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office.” The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be getting A’s in social media — but she’s getting an F in basic history. The Bronx-Queens Democrat flunked 20th century world events last week when she claimed during a town-hall meting [sic] that the Constitution was changed to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from being re-elected. In fact, he died two years before the amendment to which she was referring was passed and six years before it was ratified by the requisite number of states. A video clip of Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks was prominently shared on Twitter by Tom Elliott, who added: “According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: ‘They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.’ (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947).” According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.” (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019 Critics of Ocasio-Cortez pounced on her remarks as evidence of a purported lack of historical knowledge on her part. However, the Congresswoman’s subsequent comments on the subject, along with clarification provided by her spokesperson, indicated the intended meaning of her remarks was that the catalyst behind the development of the two-term limit (which was ultimately enshrined in the 22nd amendment) had been Roosevelt’s repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s, and not that the introduction of the 22nd amendment (as opposed to Roosevelt’s death) prevented what would have been his fourth re-election. The Congresswoman’s remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC’s “All In” with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the “Green New Deal,” a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy. Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, asked Ocasio-Cortez what lessons she had learned from the “New Deal,” the series of economic projects FDR introduced in the 1930s with the intention of helping the U.S. economy to recover from the Great Depression, and the program to which the “Green New Deal” is an allusion. One of the points Ocasio-Cortez made in response to that question was to highlight the importance of Democratic success in facilitating the passage of legislation that introduced New Deal programs. Here’s a (lightly edited) transcript of that segment, which can be viewed below: Paul:…What are the lessons from the New Deal that we can bring in today? Ocasio-Cortez: There’s [sic] a lot. One is, you know when we talk, when we start picking apart the problem of political will –you know, “Technologically possible, is it politically feasible?” — one of the big parts of political will is fear, especially fear within our own party. “If we do this, if we are a little too bold, we will lose our majorities, we will lose everything.” And it is a difficult question because the House has been gerrymandered in ways that are extremely difficult. But I think there’s [sic] a couple of lessons. One is that, when we look into our history, when our [Democratic] party was boldest — the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on — we had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate, we carried the presidency. They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected. And there were so many extraordinary things that were happening in that time that were uniting working people, and so that, I think, is one of the encouraging lessons … The point Ocasio-Cortez was making in that section of the interview was to highlight the role that electoral success for Democrats — not least of which was FDR’s repeated presidential victories during the 1930s and 1940s — played in facilitating the introduction of major reforms such as the New Deal programs. FDR was first elected in 1932, then re-elected three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. To illustrate the extent of FDR’s power and popularity at that time, the Congresswoman said: “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected.” The manner in which she phrased that statement (“They had to … to make sure”) indicated, on its face, that Ocasio-Cortez was saying that the introduction of the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent FDR from being re-elected a fourth time. It is therefore understandable that some commentators seized upon her remarks and made the rather obvious point that the 22nd Amendment was not required to prevent FDR’s fourth re-election, because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment was ratified and came into effect. (FDR died two years before the U.S. Congress passed the amendment, but it was not implemented until it was ratified by the requisite number of states six years after his death, contrary to the Washington Examiner‘s inaccurate statement that he had died “two years before presidential term limits were implemented.”) However, that was not the intended meaning of Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, according to a spokesperson for the Congresswoman. The spokesperson told us it was “pretty clear” that her intention was simply to point out that FDR’s repeated re-elections, and the sustained implementation of his policy agenda, had been the catalyst for Republican efforts to introduce a term limit on the U.S. presidency, a plan that began while FDR was still alive. That this was Ocasio-Cortez’s intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the “full story” behind her remarks, which reported that: The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried, with both Fox News and the Washington Examiner running the story and calling Ocasio-Cortez’s claims false. However, some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelt’s monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death … The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortez’s back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: “Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy.” It is unquestionably true that efforts to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency began before FDR’s death and were intensified by his unprecedented third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944. FDR’s decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie’s platform that year. In a speech accepting his party’s nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: “I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.” In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put “The Third Term” at the top of a list of major issues, writing: “Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention … and gave as an excuse I was drafted.’ Are we Americans that gullible? … Let us say together, ‘There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term. '” (In order to avoid the controversy of actively seeking to break the two-term tradition, FDR coyly declined to openly declare himself a candidate in 1940, and instead his supporters arranged for him to be “drafted” as a nominee by delegates at the 1940 Democratic National Convention.) In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that “When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less.” Before FDR’s third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be “the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed,” adding, “I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment.” FDR won his fourth presidential election that year, but he died just five months later, in April 1945, leaving Vice President Harry Truman to serve out nearly all of what would have been his fourth term. After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.) The 22nd amendment states, in part: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC on 29 March was that, “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected.” It is understandable that some of her critics viewed this as her saying that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required to prevent FDR’s fourth re-election, an assertion which would make no sense because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment entered into force. However, according to clarification provided to Snopes by her spokesperson, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s intended meaning was simply to point out that the catalyst for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution and impose a two-term limit had been FDR’s repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s. As we have shown, that is certainly true, and calls for such a constitutional amendment began to intensify even before FDR’s second re-election in 1940, almost five years before his death.
|
8316
|
Exclusive: India agrees to sell hydroxychloroquine to Malaysia to help fight COVID-19.
|
India has agreed to sell hydroxychloroquine tablets to Malaysia for use in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, a Malaysian minister told Reuters on Wednesday, with New Delhi partially lifting its bar on exports of the anti-malarial drug.
|
true
|
Health News
|
India is the world’s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine, sales of which have soared across the world including in the United States, especially after President Donald Trump touted it as a potential weapon against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. New Delhi had last month put a hold on exports of hydroxychloroquine to secure supplies for itself, before agreeing this month to supply it to some of its neighbours as well as “nations who have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic”. “On 14 April, India has given permission for Malaysia to import 89,100 tablets,” Malaysia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kamarudin Jaffar told Reuters. “We will try to get more hydroxychloroquine tablets from India, which is also subject to stock availability.” India’s Ministry of External Affairs did not respond to requests for comment from Reuters. Malaysia has been using hydroxychloroquine for mild to severe COVID-19 cases along with other drugs, according to its treatment protocol seen by Reuters. Doctors and pharmacists from more than half a dozen large healthcare systems in New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington and California have also told Reuters they are routinely using hydroxychloroquine on patients hospitalised with COVID-19. At the same time, several said they have seen no evidence that the drug had any effect on the virus. In one small French study, some COVID-19 patients showed improvements but there was no way to know if the drug was the reason. Results published in April from another study in France and one in China found no benefit in patients treated with the drug. Dozens more clinical studies are under way around the world. Malaysia’s Health Ministry told Reuters it had “faced challenges” in securing the drug, which it said may be able to reduce the progression of the disease and lung inflammation. It said the drug has been used in Malaysia for the treatment of COVID-19 since January. Malaysia had asked India for more than 1 million hydroxychloroquine tablets, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters, requesting anonymity as they were not authorised to speak with the media. “I am not sure if that much can be given,” one of the sources said. “India is also giving hydroxychloroquine to some less developed countries. In Africa.” Malaysia has the third highest number of infections of COVID-19 in Southeast Asia with more than 5,000 cases, 83 of whom have died. India’s decision to sell the sought-after drug to Malaysia signals a turnaround in relations between the countries that had soured because of repeated criticism of some Indian policies by Mahathir Mohamad, before he resigned as Malaysia’s prime minister in February. The tension had also affected palm oil trade between the countries. “Broadly, nations will need each other to fight this pandemic,” said an Indian source with direct knowledge of the discussions with Malaysia. “Globally, there will be a new alignment of relationships.” Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, IPCA Laboratories and Cadila Healthcare are among India’s leading suppliers of hydroxychloroquine. Cadila said last week it had increased production tenfold to 30 tonnes per month and was ready to produce more if needed.
|
3001
|
Suspect in cleaver killing ordered to mental health facility.
|
A man charged with killing his wife with a meat cleaver in 2017 has been placed in the custody of the Vermont Department of Mental Health.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Burlington, Mental health, Vermont
|
Aita Gurung was charged with murder in his wife’s death, but the charges were dropped by the county prosecutor who said evidence showed he was legally insane at the time. The attorney general refiled the charges in September after Republican Gov. Phil Scott asked him to review the case. Last month, Gurung was found incompetent for trial. On Monday, Gurung was ordered back to a mental health facility after one of his former doctors said he is at “high risk of suicide.” Gurung’s defense attorney Sandra Lee told Mynbc5.com that she was frustrated by the process. “I’m relieved for Mr. Gurung, but I’m also incredibly saddened that we’re actually here,” she said. Police allege that in October 2017 Gurung attacked and killed his wife, Yogeswari Khadka, 32, in Burlington and injured his mother-in-law hours after he had sought mental health treatment at a local hospital.
|
7922
|
Turkey confirms first coronavirus case, wins WHO praise for vigilance.
|
Turkey confirmed its first case of the coronavirus on Wednesday, becoming the last major economy to report an outbreak after taking what the World Health Organization (WHO) described as “vigilant, cautious” measures to delay the disease.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Health Minister Fahrettin Koca confirmed early on Wednesday that a Turkish man had been isolated after being diagnosed with the virus following high fever and a cough. “This is the first case confirmed in our country. The findings show the diagnosis of coronavirus was made early and if the virus has spread it is limited,” he told a news conference. “Our country is prepared for this. All measures to prevent the spread (of the virus) have been taken,” he said, referring to comprehensive screening and testing programs. Until the announcement, Turkey - a member of the Group of 20 biggest global economies and a major transit hub between Europe, Asia and Africa - had officially managed to avoid an outbreak, though all its neighbors except war-ravaged Syria had reported cases. Iran has an especially high number of cases. In an interview hours before the announcement of the first case, Irshad Shaikh, the WHO Health Security Program Leader in Turkey, praised Ankara’s preventative measures and good organization, saying it had been “very lucky, vigilant and cautious”. Turkey’s tourism sector, which accounts for about 13% of its economy, stepped up calls on the government for financial help to deal with the expected negative impact of the outbreak. Tourism Minister Mehmet Nuri Ersoy said a support package for the sector would be announced within the week. He added Turkey would move to reduce tourist demand until the end of April, and hotels had been advised to postpone summer openings. The Tourism Evaluation Council said it suggested financial support for tour operators and airlines, reductions in utilities costs, and measures to increase bookings. It added the sector is “starting to be negatively impacted”. Medical firms have been told to prioritize local demand, the government said. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who arrived in parliament with an aide using a thermal camera to scan people he met for a fever, said: “No virus is stronger than our measures.” The WHO has given guidance globally, and is in contact with health officials in Turkey on legislation, risk management, testing and screening practices, among other issues, Shaikh said. “In all those areas...Turkey has taken that to heart.” “Turkey is an advanced country, and most of the systems were already there. What was needed was to make sure they are quick to this outbreak,” Shaikh told Reuters. Ankara has said that all 81 of its provinces are geared up to handle a potential outbreak and that it has set up seven test centers across the country. Turkey says it has developed its own testing kit, which it is also exporting to other countries, to get faster results. On Wednesday, Koca said Turkey used a combination of its own kit and the global PRC method for testing. State media also reported that Turkish authorities launched investigations of 29 people who are accused of spreading false information about the virus on social media. Shaikh said the spread of misinformation hindered efforts to convey accurate information, adding the “infodemic” was one of the main concerns for the WHO and Turkish officials.
|
21795
|
On repeal of Wisconsin's smoking ban
|
On repeal of Wisconsin's smoking ban, Walker goes from pro to con
|
false
|
Public Health, Wisconsin, Scott Walker,
|
"It’s been a year since you could light up a smoke in Wisconsin bars and restaurants. The state’s smoking ban, approved by the Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2009, took effect in July 2010 and continues to stir debates. Some tavern and restaurant owners say it’s hurt their business and driven away long-time patrons -- or sent them outside to shiver. Others say state government shouldn’t be mandating what businesses can and can not do. Meanwhile, smoking ban supporters are pleased they can have a beer or a meal and not go home smelling like an ashtray. On June 30, 2011, as the ban’s first anniversary approached, Gov. Scott Walker issued a statement that said he would not support a repeal of the ban. That sounded like a new stance from the conservative Republican governor. So, we decided to roll out the Flip-O-Meter, which measures how consistent politicians have been on key issues. Remember: It does not examine whether a change in position is a good one from a political or a policy perspective. Indeed, on contentious issues, some will view a switch as sensible flexibility in response to constituent demands. Others will see it as political appeasement or caving to pressure. As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. In this case, perhaps, especially if you sit at the bar. Here is the sum total of Walker’s statement: ""Although I did not support the original smoking ban, after listening to people across the state, it is clear to me that it works. Therefore I will not support a repeal."" What did Walker say about the smoking ban in the past? While a candidate for governor, Walker was opposed to the ban, and then his position shifted -- to being even more strongly opposed to it. The shift came in response to positions staked out by Mark Neumann, his opponent in the Republican primary election. Here’s how that played out: Walker said on July 6, 2010, that he would didn’t believe that government should have been involved. ""On principle I don’t think the government or anybody else should be telling these establishments or anybody else what they should or shouldn’t do,"" he said. A few days later, Neumann said he supported repealing the ban: ""The smoking ban to me is a local issue and it’s about personal responsibility and personal freedoms and local control."" The following day, on July 10, 2010, Walker matched Neumann’s call for a repeal of the ban: ""I don't think the government should have been involved in a smoking ban in the first place, and as governor, I would sign a repeal of this law."" The smoking ban did not become a key issue during the primary campaign or the general election. And Walker did not made any additional statements about the ban until the one where he said he would not back its repeal. Studies by groups such as the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center said that air quality in state bars and restaurants had improved 92 percent since the ban took effect. And SmokeFree Wisconsin, a group that supported the ban, said 75 percent of state residents support the ban. So, Walker started out opposed to the ban, even toughening his stance to promise a repeal. But now he’s opposed to a repeal, so the ban will remain. For those scoring at home, that comes in as a ."
|
34789
|
Unsuspecting phone customers are gulled into placing calls to area codes in the Caribbean that result in hefty charges.
|
Chinese health authorities said they are investigating 27 cases of viral pneumonia in the central city of Wuhan, after rumors on social media suggested the outbreak could be linked to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).
|
mixture
|
Fraud & Scams, Telephone Scams
|
Of the people infected, seven were in critical condition and 18 were in stable condition, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said on Tuesday on its Weibo social media account. The condition of two other patients had improved to the point where they would be discharged soon, it said. “The cause of the disease is not clear,” the official People’s Daily newspaper said on Weibo, citing unnamed hospital officials. “We cannot confirm it is what’s being spread online, that it is SARS virus. Other severe pneumonia is more likely.” All of the patients had been isolated and their close contacts are under medical observation, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said. An investigation and cleanup were under way at a seafood market in the city, which is suspected to be connected with the cases, it said. Initial laboratory tests showed that the cases were viral pneumonia. No obvious human-to-human transmission had been found and no medical staff had been infected, the commission said. A team of experts from the National Health Commission is in Wuhan to carry out tests, state broadcaster CCTV said. An official at Wuhan Central Hospital, where local media said some of the cases are being treated, declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. In 2003, Chinese officials covered up a SARS outbreak for weeks before a growing death toll and rumors forced the government to reveal the epidemic, apologize and vow full candor in future outbreaks. The disease, which emerged in southern China in late 2002, spread rapidly from south China to other cities and countries in 2003. More than 8,000 people were infected and 775 died.
|
11564
|
Higher Folic Acid Levels in Teens Tied to Academic Success
|
The study reported on found an association between folic acid intake levels and a measure of school performance in a group of Swedish students. This story did not clarify for readers how the group studied differed in an important way from youth in the US, who are raised consuming a food supply supplemented with folic acid. The story failed to help readers understand that the results of the study were not generalizable to populations of children who differed from those studied. Nonetheless, the story went on to mention many problems that have at one time or other been postulated to be related to folic acid levels. And although the story indicated at the end that the study results did not show that folic acid supplementation was of benefit, the overall gist of the piece was that there was reason to be concerned about the folic acid intake of our nation’s youth. Associations between diet and cognitive function are of interest. However, it is important that the insight from studies be reported so that readers can appreciate whether the outcomes apply to a US audience.
|
mixture
|
HealthDay
|
Not applicable. No discussion of costs but we don’t think that’s a big issue in this case. The story did not quantify the improvement in scores as was done in the Reuters story. Not applicable. The story could have mentioned the potential for excessive folic acid intake to interfere with vitamin B12 uptake which, though unlikely in a teen population, could mask symptoms of B12 deficiency. But we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this. Although towards the end, the story quoted a pediatrician who explained that there was no evidence that taking folate supplements would be beneficial, the story failed to help readers understand that the study only showed that there was an association between the students score and their folic acid intake; that the population may have included youngsters who were deficient to begin with, and that the results of this small study may not be generally applicable to a population consuming a folic acid fortified food supply. These caveats were addressed in the competing Reuters story. Although the study reported on examined the association between folic acid intake and composite school group score, this story strayed awkwardly into a litany of all sorts of problems associated with low folic acid intake: heart disease, brain development and function, poorer neurocognitive function and neurocognitive development, autism, spina bifida, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease. But such a laundry list, with no discussion of the strength of the evidence, seems alarmist. Quotes from a clinician without apparent ties to the story were included in this story. This story did a very nice job of indicating food sources of folic acid as well as those foods that are good sources of folic acid by virtue of food supply supplementation. The story reported on the results of the study without helping readers understand that it was conducted on a population of youngsters without access to a folic acid supplemented food supply. The competing Reuters story made this point clearly. The story discussed story a host of prior studies linking folate to cognitive function and reported that “these results provide new information” pointing to importance of watching folate status. The story did not appear to rely solely on a news release.
|
24612
|
"President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill ""will have government decide"" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker ""should take a pain pill"" instead."
|
Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Dan Lungren,
|
"Rep. Dan Lungren, a Republican from California, says President Barack Obama's health care plan is so mixed up that the government would tell 100-year-old ladies who need pacemakers to take pain pills instead. During a speech on the House floor on July 28, 2009, Lungren cited comments that Obama made in a TV special to suggest that Obama's plan was callous and bureaucratic. ""If we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether a 100-year-old woman who is in extraordinarily good health but needs a pacemaker ought to instead be told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill — as the president suggested on television not too long ago — then maybe we owe it to the American people to give ourselves sufficient time” to study this legislation further. Lungren was referring to remarks Obama made during the ABC News' June 24 special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, which was anchored by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson. We went to the transcript of the event and found that Lungren is distorting Obama's words. While Obama did bring up the example of patients and their families possibly having to choose between a pill and a pacemaker at some point, he did it as a hypothetical example while emphasizing that the government’s role should be to provide background information so that patients and doctors can better sort through thorny, end-of-life issues. The exchange began when Sawyer introduced Jane Sturm, who takes care of her mother, Hazel, now 105. When Hazel was 100, Sturm said, the doctor told her she needed a pacemaker. Both mother and daughter said they were game, but an arrhythmia specialist initially said no, before seeing Hazel’s “joy of life” in person. Sturm asked the president, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?” After joking that he’d like to meet Sturm’s mother and “find out what she’s eating,” the president said, “I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.” After Gibson interjected with a comment about how money may not have been available for a pacemaker, Obama responded, “Well, and — and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care.” Obama continued, “And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.” Looking at the full transcript, it’s clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian. “I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions,” Obama said. One can be skeptical about whether Obama’s promises to keep the government out of doctor-patient decisionmaking will hold if health care legislation becomes a reality. But Lungren goes beyond that to distort what the president actually said."
|
9574
|
Test Of Experimental Alzheimer's Drug Finds Progress Against Brain Plaques
|
This NPR story discusses early studies on an experimental amyloid-reducing drug that researchers hope may prevent Alzheimer’s disease. It does a good job of balancing the promise of the drug with realistic assessments about the early stage of the research and the fact that there are potential downsides to this treatment. Importantly, and in contrast to many stories we’ve seen that report on experimental Alzheimer’s drugs, the story doesn’t equate amyloid reduction with reduced risk of disease. It acknowledges that we don’t know whether amyloid is actually the cause of the Alzheimer’s or a by-product of some process that begins elsewhere. That’s important context. Still, the story would’ve been better with a more precise description of the benefits seen in early studies and with perspective from a truly independent source. It also should have explained why some of these same results, reported last year, were generally greeted with disappointment. That being said, we were glad to see that this story avoided the hype that so many other outlets chose to stoke with headlines like these: Many stories suggest that reducing amyloid deposits in the brain is the same thing as reducing Alzheimer’s risk. But that’s never been proven, and some studies suggest that reducing amyloid may not have any effect on the disease symptoms that people care about. It’s important to explain this uncertainty to readers. Journalists shouldn’t suggest that a drug is a home run when it’s still standing on second base. This story took a measured approach that we wish we saw more often.
|
true
|
beta amyloid
|
The story doesn’t mention costs. However, the piece is clear that this is early-stage research that might not pan out, so we think it’s acceptable that there’s no cost discussion. The story suggests that treatment with aducanumab results in “striking,” “dramatic” and “remarkable” reductions in amyloid plaques in the brain. But it doesn’t quantify what that means. How many patients saw their plaque levels go down? By how much? Is the reduction bigger than what has been seen with other experimental Alzheimer’s drugs? These details would’ve been helpful. The story is clear that the drug’s effects on amyloid plaque are accompanied by potential harms: But there’s a downside. The process of removing plaque sometimes causes fluid to build up in the brain. In rare cases, it can also cause bleeding. These side effects are known as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA. We’re also told that about 20 participants dropped out of because of adverse effects. The story cautions that these results are from small, early studies and that plaque reduction is a proxy for outcomes that really matter to patients. But it will take much larger studies to show for sure whether aducanumab really does slow down Alzheimer’s disease, Reiman says. And unlike many stories we’ve seen that discuss therapies to reduce amyloid, this piece acknowledges that we don’t whether amyloid is actually a cause of Alzheimer’s symptoms or perhaps an effect of the disease. If aducanumab works in larger studies, it could help settle a long-running debate about whether amyloid is really the root cause of Alzheimer’s. This idea is known as the amyloid hypothesis. And large studies showing that removing amyloid can preserve memory and thinking “would go a long way toward validating the amyloid hypothesis,” Sandrock says. We do wish the story had noted that about one third of patients in all groups dropped out before completion of the study, which could impact the quality of the overall findings. The story doesn’t disease monger, but it also doesn’t explain what Alzheimer’s is or give any sense as to the impact of the disease. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. The story quotes an official from Biogen (which makes the experimental drug) and the author of an accompanying editorial. But we don’t hear from any truly independent sources in the story. The editorialist, Dr. Eric Reiman, is said to be the executive director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute in Phoenix. It doesn’t explain that the Banner Institute is leading Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, an effort to postpone and prevent the disease before it starts. The initiative partners with a number of drug companies, including Roche, Amgen, Genentech, Novartis, on its studies. These relationships merited a mention in the story. The story is clear that there are no drugs that treat the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s. It links to a story about a competing amyloid-reducing drug that failed to produce any benefit in a large clinical trial. We did want to know: Are there any older drugs that have been tried for this? Were they equally optimistic when they were first introduced? Putting them into perspective would help as it seems there were prior drugs that were hyped to prevent or slow the progression of AD–but subsequently didn’t pan out. The story calls the drug experimental and says that it will take several years for larger studies to report results. It’s apparent that the drug won’t be available outside of a research study any time soon. The story establishes what appears to be novel about this drug compared with others that reduce amyloid plaques. One is that the drug appears to ignore benign forms of amyloid protein while attacking the toxic forms thought to damage brain cells. Another is that aducanumab seems to enhance the ability of existing immune cells in the brain to devour toxins, including amyloid. But while the story is clear that the new paper is presenting details of research first reported last year, it doesn’t explain why the results are now “remarkable” whereas last year they were considered “disappointing,” “mixed” and a “setback.” We’ll rate this a borderline Satisfactory. The story includes original reporting and clearly goes beyond any news release.
|
18213
|
"The Senate immigration bill ""has immediate legalization ... and the border security is sometime in the future, and just like in 1986, it's designed never to come into being."
|
"Cruz said the Senate immigration bill offers immediate legalization of unauthorized immigrants and that it indefinitely defers action on border security. Cruz said this bill was just like the major reform bill in 1986. On legalization, the process would not be immediate, but as the CBO uses the term, it would come before the border is fully secured. Proponents of the bill refer to this as ""provisional"" status. By and large, immigrants could not apply to receive permanent legalized status until border security meets certain benchmarks. The Senate measure also appropriates more than $46 billion for border security and makes that money available immediately. So Cruz is wrong to say the security measures are designed ""never to come into being."" Cruz was reasonably accurate on legalization but was way off the mark on the bill’s border security being ""designed never to come into being."""
|
false
|
Immigration, National, Corrections and Updates, Ted Cruz,
|
"A 1986 immigration law signed by President Ronald Reagan casts a long shadow over the current immigration reform debate. Opponents of today’s immigration bill say that law gave away the farm -- it granted amnesty and failed to button down the border -- and they don’t want to see history repeat itself. This was the main argument from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in a Fox News interview. On the day a key amendment passed a crucial Senate vote, Cruz warned that the bill ""has immediate legalization ... and the border security is sometime in the future, and just like in 1986, it's designed never to come into being."" Cruz and the Senate Republican leadership say the border must be able to keep people out before those who are here without documents are given any path to legal status. To do otherwise, they argue, would only invite a flood of unauthorized immigration. We’ll examine both parts of Cruz’s statement. Does legalization come before the border is secure? And is border security treated as it was in the 1986 law and ""designed to never come to pass""? Defining legalization The matter of when legalization happens is relatively easy to resolve, although we found two different meanings to the word. For some, such as Cruz, it means any formal status that allows a person to stay and work in the U.S., even temporarily. For others, it means permanent legal residency, often referred to as a green card. The Senate bill, grants what it calls ""registered provisional immigrant"" status, or RPI. This is not a green card granting permanent legal status; but it does mean a person has passed a criminal record check, paid a fine, and met other requirements. With provisional status, a person can stay and work for at least six years. However, under an amendment crafted by John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Bob Corker, R- Tenn., no one can apply for that until the Department of Homeland Security puts together and launches a border control plan (formally called the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and the Southern Border Fencing Strategy). There’s also a similar status for agricultural workers called a blue card. Is either status legalization? Cruz would certainly say yes. More important, so does the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the analytic arm of Congress. The CBO’s assessment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, the bill’s formal title, tallies the number of people expected to qualify under the new rules. In one table, it lists legalization programs and under that are the provisional status (RPI) and the blue card. We checked with the CBO and there is no mistake. The provisional status and the blue card are legalization in the eyes of the CBO. We also contacted the Migration Policy Institute, a group that studies population movements worldwide. The institute defines legalization the same way as the CBO. Supporters of immigration reform often focus on the rules and timing for getting a green card and consider that to be legalization, but the CBO definition carries great weight in this debate. Getting back to the bill, a border security plan must be underway before people can begin to apply, but that security plan need not be completed. The CBO estimates the application process wouldn’t begin until sometime in fiscal year 2015, but it would come before all border tightening measures are in place. Hardening the border If Cruz had stopped with legalization, he would have been on more solid ground, but he went further and said the Senate bill neglects border security. He said it was like the 1986 reform act, and he went so far as to say it was ""designed"" to lead to nowhere. We asked Cruz’s office for specific supporting evidence. Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier noted several deficiencies in the Hoeven-Corker amendment, including that it fails to require a biometric system -- such as a retina scan -- for monitoring people as they enter and leave the country. But even more fundamental is the timing in the legislation. ""The border security assets required by the amendment have to be in place 10 years in the future before illegal immigrants can obtain green cards,"" Frazier said. ""Meaning border security does not have to happen if an administration does not care about giving them green cards… and just leaving them as RPIs in perpetuity. ""There is no guarantee in this bill that the border will ever be secured, so we essentially have a bill that offers legalization and little else."" Frazier said. The CBO analyzed the Hoeven-Corker amendment, which has become the latest version of the bill. The report said, ""The proposed amendment would appropriate $46.3 billion for expenses related to the security of the southern U.S. border and initial administrative costs."" About $30 billion would go to hire at least 19,200 additional border patrol agents; close to $8 billion would go to building a fence along the border. There is an important verb in that sentence from the CBO. It is ""appropriate."" Congress controls the purse strings on government spending. The smallest step it can take is to authorize money. Authorized dollars mean little until Congress takes the real step and appropriates the money. Appropriations, on the other hand, are actual dollars that are there for an agency to spend. The Senate bill appropriates over $46 billion to beef up border security. The time frame for most of the spending is 2014 to 2018. Cruz said this is ""just like 1986."" We looked at the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act. When it comes to border security, it only authorized spending. The current bill both authorizes and actually appropriates spending for border security. It sets aside a designated pot of money -- the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund -- and it puts $46.3 billion into it by Oct. 1, 2013. Taking note of the sequence of events, if the bill becomes law, the agencies start spending money on agents and other measures immediately. The bill sets many goals for border enforcement. Beyond the new patrol agents, it adds 350 miles of fencing and creates an entry/exit system to track not just when people enter the country but when they leave. It requires all employers to use an employment verification system. Our ruling Cruz said the Senate immigration bill offers immediate legalization of unauthorized immigrants and that it indefinitely defers action on border security. Cruz said this bill was just like the major reform bill in 1986. On legalization, the process would not be immediate, but as the CBO uses the term, it would come before the border is fully secured. Proponents of the bill refer to this as ""provisional"" status. By and large, immigrants could not apply to receive permanent legalized status until border security meets certain benchmarks. The Senate measure also appropriates more than $46 billion for border security and makes that money available immediately. So Cruz is wrong to say the security measures are designed ""never to come into being."" Cruz was reasonably accurate on legalization but was way off the mark on the bill’s border security being ""designed never to come into being."" Editor's note: This item has been updated to include additional comments we received from Cruz's office after our initial publication."
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.