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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26127
|
“N95 masks block few, if any” COVID-19 particles due to their size.
|
This attempt to discredit a fundamental piece of protective gear used and studied around the globe fails to account for several fundamental scientific principles. The COVID-19 particle is small, but it always exists bonded to larger particles of water, protein, mucus and other materials expelled by breathing, coughing, etc. These are all well above the 0.3 micron size of the N95 filter. The N95 filter also filters particles smaller than 0.3 microns very efficiently because particles under that size have a high amount of erratic movement and are electrostatically drawn to the mask fibers.
|
false
|
Health Care, Public Health, Wisconsin, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"As many states and communities ease restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the debate over mask usage has intensified. Businesses, churches and governments have implemented all manner of policies — some requiring masks, some leaving it up to each person, some even banning masks. That has spurred many armchair epidemiologists to weigh in, including a Facebook page with nearly 1 million followers. A June 4, 2020, post from Why don’t you try this? went a step beyond the homemade mask debate to claim that even the N95 masks used by healthcare workers are pointless in the face of COVID-19. ""COVID 19 virus particle size is 125 nanometers (0.125 microns); the range is 0.06 microns to .14 microns,"" the post said. ""The N95 mask filters down to 0.3 microns. So, N95 masks block few, if any, virions (virus particles)."" In other words, the post asserts the virus is smaller than the filter on the N95 mask, so the N95 mask doesn’t work. But that’s ridiculous. Experts say this claim flies in the face of numerous studies and reflects a failure to grasp fundamental principles of how viruses behave and how face masks work. 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). Here’s what we found. The science of mask functionality gets really small, really fast. The unit of measurement here is microns — 1/1000th of a millimeter. The size-based argument against N95 laid out in this claim assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t. But the physics involved don’t work like that at all. The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger. ""There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,"" said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses. The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron. ""Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,"" said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection. Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since ""there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19,"" said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim. The N95 filter is indeed physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. It works well for particles above that size, and actually snares particles below that size better than those at exactly the 0.3 level. ""N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,"" Marr said. ""If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander and small ones don’t get through."" N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns. Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts: The first is something called ""Brownian motion,"" the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers. The second is the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through. ""Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck,"" said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. ""When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks."" A Facebook post said the ""N95 masks block few, if any"" COVID-19 particles due to their size. This claim — attempting to disprove a fundamental piece of protective gear used by healthcare professionals around the world — is nonsense. The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well."
|
14892
|
Taking all the money of the top 1 percent wouldn’t keep Medicare going for three years.
|
Cavuto said that one year of the income of the top 1 percent would not pay for three years of Medicare. His point was that the financial capacity of the top 1 percent is not unlimited. He bolstered his point with a definitive statement, but the underlying math is flawed. Cavuto used the highest number we could find for the cost of Medicare. While he may have relied on an official web page for his Medicare number, we found an equally official source, the Medicare Trustees, that reported a lower figure. That small difference in itself made his claim incorrect. Other measures of Medicare spending made it even more incorrect. His income figure, based on an approach he never fully described, is guaranteed to undercount the actual income of the top 1 percent. There is a sliver of accuracy in his calculation, but the weight of the numbers goes against him.
|
false
|
Education, Health Care, Taxes, PunditFact, Neil Cavuto,
|
"Fox Business Network host Neil Cavuto put a college organizer in the hot seat when she came on his show to talk about the need to reduce college debt. Cavuto pressed Keely Mullen with the Million Student March on how she would pay for a program to make public college tuition-free, forgive all current college debt and pay college students $15 an hour. ""If you wanted all that stuff, someone has to pick up the tab,"" Cavuto asked on his Nov. 12 show. ""Who would that be?"" ""The 1 percent of society that are hoarding all the wealth and causing a catastrophe that students are facing,"" Mullen answered. Cavuto pushed back and presented Mullen with this scenario to demonstrate the limits of getting the wealthy to pony up. ""They’ve done studies on this, Keely,"" Cavuto said. ""I don’t want to get boring here. But even if you were to take the 1 percent, and take all of their money, tax it 100 percent. Do you know it wouldn’t keep Medicare -- just Medicare -- going for three years? "" Several readers asked us to check Cavuto’s basic math. Could the wealthiest 1 percent pay for Medicare for three years or not? We don’t want to get boring either, but reader be warned: Numbers, multiplication and subtraction lie ahead. We asked the Fox Business Network for studies backing up Cavuto’s math. The Fox press office didn’t point us to any studies. Instead, a spokeswoman explained that Cavuto and his producer averaged the yearly income going to the top 1 percent as reported by the Internal Revenue Service for 2011, 2012 and 2013. They came up with ""about $1.75 trillion."" For the cost of Medicare, they went to two sources: The Kaiser Family Foundation, which we’ll get to in a moment, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services web page on national health expenditures for 2013. That page gave them the figure of $585.7 billion of Medicare expenditures. They multiplied the Medicare number by three and found that it would be $1.755 trillion over three years. The correct number is actually $1.757 trillion, but the point remains the same. Using Cavuto’s estimate, three years of Medicare spending is more than all the money the top 1 percent took in. We tried to repeat Cavuto’s analysis and ran into some issues. Problems with the Medicare dollars Cavuto’s Medicare spending number is not bulletproof. There are credible, lower figures. Medicare spending is reported in two ways: Gross outlays and net outlays. Gross outlays are basically money out the door, and net outlays reduces the total based on the money Medicare takes in apart from the federal budget and the payroll tax. We found a discrepancy in the gross outlay number. While the CMS fact sheet does report $585.7 billion in gross spending, the Medicare Trustees, the program’s overseers, reported a slightly lower $582.9 billion for 2013. Since that comes from the Trustees' official report to Congress, we gave it some weight. (The difference is due to accounting rules.) We also found that the other source cited by Fox Business, the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is widely seen as a neutral source of health care data, focuses on the net outlays, not the gross spending. Fox Business directed us to the foundation’s Medicare fact-sheet. That page reports the net figure, which factors in billions of dollars of premiums paid by Medicare users, along with recaptured inappropriate payments to providers. For 2013, Kaiser reported net spending of $492 billion. Juliette Cubanski, a top Medicare analyst at Kaiser, explained that the net amount does a better job of capturing the burden on taxpayers as a whole. ""Showing the gross spending amount would, in a way, overstate federal spending on Medicare because some of that amount comes back to the Treasury in the form of premiums,"" Cubanski said. So the Medicare Trustees provided a slightly lower number than Cavuto used, and his other source provided a significantly lower number. Both measures put his math at risk. Problems with the top 1 percent dollars Cavuto used IRS data for 2011, 2012 and 2013. It’s easy to find the IRS analysis of the Adjusted Gross Income, or AGI, for the top 1 percent for 2011 and 2012. But the official analysis only comes out about three years after the fact, and the 2013 numbers are not available. So where did Cavuto get an estimate for 2013 income? His staff said he used an IRS spreadsheet for 2013. However, this only gives you a rough approximation, and when we compared past spreadsheets to the official analyses for 2011 and 2012, we found significant differences. Nonetheless, there is another issue with Cavuto’s income figure. Adjusted Gross Income misses a fair chunk of the money people actually make. There are many deductions in taxable income that come before taxpayers reaches that point in their tax returns. One of the largest takes the form of tax-free contributions to a retirement account. In a perfect world, one would be able to say precisely the actual incomes, before any deductions, of the top 1 percent. In practice, that turns out to be a tricky business, said Daniel Feenberg, a tax expert at the National Bureau of Economic Research. ""There are many ways to do this calculation, including many that are correct but differ from each other,"" Feenberg said. The Tax Policy Center, a joint effort of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has a method to estimate what it calls the ""cash income"" of tax filers. Its model adds back in the dollars put into a retirement account, along with non-taxable Social Security and pension income, and various other pots of money. Averaging the center’s estimates of cash income for the top 1 percent for 2011, 2012 and 2013 produces a total of $1.85 trillion. That’s about $100 billion more than Cavuto’s estimate for the top 1 percent. The center’s co-director William Gale warned us that using tax returns to measure income totally misses a major source of income for the top 1 percent: gains on financial holdings that accrue but aren’t cashed out. ""When Warren Buffett’s stocks go up up by X billion over a year, none of that shows up in his AGI unless he sells some of the assets,"" Gale said. Setting aside the huge policy debate involved here, measuring income in any given year is a particularly poor yardstick for the financial capacity of the top 1 percent. Way more than most people, they get to decide when to turn their wealth into income. Running the numbers For the last step of this fact-check, we stress-tested Cavuto’s assertion. The math is simple: You triple a given Medicare spending number and subtract that from an income estimate. We did the math using three different amounts for Medicare spending and three different estimates of the income of the top 1 percent. For the IRS, we use the most recent available AGI figure from 2012. (We know that due to efforts to avoid higher capital gains taxes, many people sold assets in 2012. This artificially raised the AGI figure that year, but we’ve yet to find a report that shows the size of that effect in terms of the income of the top 1 percent.) With that caveat, here is the table -- using all the sources above -- showing what you’re left with when you take one year of income for the 1 percent and subtract the three-year cost of Medicare. A negative number means the Medicare total was more than the income -- as Cavuto said. The green background is where Cavuto is correct. The red is where he is not. The amounts are in billions of dollars. There’s only one outcome that supports Cavuto’s assertion that the income of the 1 percent wouldn’t pay for three years of Medicare spending — the one that uses his own sources. The remaining eight scenarios based on other reputable sources show the income of the 1 percent exceeding three years of Medicare spending, ranging from a difference of $1.3 billion to $504 billion. Cavuto’s method is very sensitive to small shifts in the numbers. Even using his income estimate but relying on the gross spending figure from the Medicare Trustees, he missed the mark. Not by much, but his assertion is still not right. The gap only gets wider if you use any other estimate of income and any other Medicare spending amount. If you use the Kaiser Family Foundation’s number for Medicare ($492 billion) and the the Tax Policy Center’s number for income ($1.85 trillion), the money from the wealthiest 1 percent would cover Medicare for about three years and nine months. Our ruling Cavuto said that one year of the income of the top 1 percent would not pay for three years of Medicare. His point was that the financial capacity of the top 1 percent is not unlimited. He bolstered his point with a definitive statement, but the underlying math is flawed. Cavuto used the highest number we could find for the cost of Medicare. While he may have relied on an official web page for his Medicare number, we found an equally official source, the Medicare Trustees, that reported a lower figure. That small difference in itself made his claim incorrect. Other measures of Medicare spending made it even more incorrect. His income figure, based on an approach he never fully described, is guaranteed to undercount the actual income of the top 1 percent. There is a sliver of accuracy in his calculation, but the weight of the numbers goes against him."
|
22668
|
The two worst counties for (Medicaid) fraud in the country -- not state -- are Dade and Broward county.
|
Ron Saunders says Miami-Dade, Broward rule the country in Medicaid fraud
|
true
|
Health Care, Crime, Florida, Ron Saunders,
|
"South Florida has a reputation as a place ripe for fraud and crime -- including bilking the government. State Rep. Ron Saunders, the Democratic minority leader from Key West, has slapped a more specific label on a costly problem in South Florida: Medicaid fraud. ""The two worst counties for fraud in the country -- not state -- are Dade and Broward county,"" he told a roomful of reporters on Jan. 19, 2011, during an Associated Press preview of Florida's upcoming legislative session. It's easy to find news articles describing South Florida as a mecca for such fraud -- with labels such as ""ground zero"" or mind-boggling tales of abuse. But the word ""worst"" caught our eye -- are the South Florida counties of Miami-Dade and Broward truly the ""worst"" in the country for Medicaid fraud? Medicaid, a health care program for low-income individuals, is administered by the states and receives some federal funding. The Truth-O-Meter has weighed in multiple times on fact-checks related to the high cost and growth of Medicaid, including a claim by Pam Bondi, now Florida's attorney general, and Bill McCollum, Florida's previous attorney general. For more background, check out this website of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We spoke to Saunders directly on Jan. 20, who told us that his statement was in response to a question about how to resolve the state's budget crisis. Saunders said it's a ""no-brainer"" to cut back on fraud such as in Medicare and Medicaid rather than make more cuts in areas such as education. But after a lot of calls and research, we can say one thing for certain: Nobody tracks county-by-county Medicaid fraud nationally. Even within Florida, a county breakdown is not available. So we're going to rely on expert opinions and documented trends in this ruling. Mark Hollis, spokesperson for the House Democratic caucus, sent us links to newspaper articles and government reports about Medicaid fraud in South Florida. Among the sources Hollis cited was a March 2009 article in Health News Florida, quoting state Sen. Don Gaetz saying: ""Since we have the worst problem in the nation, we need the most effective solution."" Hollis also sent us a December 2005 article in HomeCare, an industry publication, quoting FBI agent Michael Clemens, who was in charge of the Miami field office at the time, saying: ""South Florida is ground zero for health care fraud."" But neither article provides any documentation to support that ""worst"" label. Hollis also sent us links to a House bill and recent government reports about Medicaid fraud. House Bill 1487 in 2009, which labeled Miami-Dade an area of ""special concern,"" was intended to rein in Medicaid fraud. The Senate version, Senate Bill 2658, was signed into law in June 2009. The staff analysis outlined the rampant growth in home health care agencies in Florida: Of the 431 licensure applications in 2007, 58.5 percent were in Miami-Dade. In that county, the number of licensed agencies grew 414 percent between August 1999 and March 6, 2009. The analysis also stated that ""While Miami-Dade has about 20 percent of Florida’s Medicaid population and about 33 percent of Florida’s residents over the age of 60, 91 percent of the state reimbursement for certain home health services were going to Miami-Dade."" While the bill analysis doesn't provide data ranking all of Florida's counties, it certainly suggests that Miami-Dade has an overwhelmingly disproportionate share of Medicaid dollars -- and fraud. Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration, which administers the Medicaid program, has a report from 2009-10 that also provides some insight. Although the 94-page report does not describe Broward and Miami-Dade as the worst in the nation, it noted: • ""Home health agencies have been an acknowledged area of health care fraud in recent years. For the four fiscal years ending June 30, 2009, approximately 90 percent of Medicaid expenditures for home health aide visits were made to providers in Miami‐Dade County, while only about 20 percent of Medicaid recipients reside in that area. At the end of the fiscal year, there were 339 home health agencies in Miami‐Dade County actively enrolled in the Medicaid program and only 293 in the other 66 counties combined."" (Page 53) • Statutes were changed in 2008 and 2009 to address home-health fraud. Forty-seven licensure denials for home health agencies were upheld in FY 2009-10 for fraud-related reasons. Thirty-one of the denials (66 percent) were in Miami-Dade County. (Page 65) We reached out to several agencies that have a role in Medicaid. Both the Florida Attorney General, which has a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and AHCA said they had no nationwide county-by-county information to support or refute Saunders' claim. Don White, spokesman for the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also told us that the federal government has ""no statistics on Medicaid fraud."" As for Saunders' claim that Dade and Broward are the ""worst"" in the country, White said: ""Do we have the numbers? No. Is he probably correct? Yes."" We ran Saunders' claim by Alan Levine, a former secretary at AHCA under Gov. Jeb Bush and an expert on Medicaid. ""I have absolutely no doubt South Florida is among the highest,"" Levine wrote in an e-mail. ""Others that likely run in the same circle are New York and New Jersey. But South Florida, from all the experience I have, clearly leads the way."" Levine sent us a 2009 report, ""Stop Paying the Crooks,"" by the Center for Health Transformation, an organization founded by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It stated that the U.S. Department of Justice labeled ""South Florida -- and more specifically, Miami-Dade County --Ground Zero for health care fraud in America."" But no numbers ranking counties nationwide. We sent Saunders' claim to Craig Smith, the attorney who wrote the South Florida chapter, who works at Hogan Lovells law firm in Miami. ""Whatever the exact figure is, there can be no question that the bulk of the fraud, waste and abuse is occurring in Miami-Dade and Broward counties,"" Smith wrote to us in an e-mail Feb. 1. ""Based on the size of Florida's Medicaid program, you can fairly eliminate about 45 states from the comparative discussion."" So let's review: Saunders said that ""The two worst counties for (Medicaid) fraud in the country -- not state -- are Dade and Broward county."" We could not find any government office that could point to numbers ranking counties across the nation in terms of Medicaid fraud. But we found four experts -- one from the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, one a former secretary of the state's AHCA, a spokesperson from a national organization that provides information on health care fraud and an attorney who specializes in health care law -- who all agree that Saunders is likely right. At PolitiFact Florida, we dig for data to support claims by politicians -- and Saunders and our experts haven't provided hard numbers to prove him right. But the fact that four experts -- including one appointed by a Republican governor -- generally back up the Democratic minority leader or say that the two counties are at least among the worst in the nation carries weight with us."
|
29033
|
The Monday after Thanksgiving is the busiest online shopping day of the year in the United States.
|
In late November 2017, reports appeared that Cyber Monday had, as promised, become the single largest online shopping day of the year, with Americans spending a record $6.59 billion, up nearly 17 percent from the year before.
|
mixture
|
Holidays, ASP Article, black friday, cyber monday
|
Now that it seems nearly every human activity has a computer- or Internet-based equivalent (e.g., cybersex, e-mail, online chats), it should probably come as no surprise that even a concept such as “Black Friday” also has a digital counterpart, one dubbed “Cyber Monday.” Just as Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) is supposedly the busiest “brick and mortar” shopping day of the year in the U.S., so Cyber Monday (the Monday after Thanksgiving) is supposedly the busiest online shopping day of the year. But even though Black Friday may be the day that the largest number of consumers traipse through malls and shopping centers to look at goods, it isn’t really the highest-volume sales day (in terms of dollars spent) of the year. Likewise, although Cyber Monday might be a day when a lot of computer users pile onto the Internet to check out wares offered by online vendors, it isn’t the day most of them are buying stuff online. In terms of overall online sales, Cyber Monday historically ranks as one of the busiest e-commerce days of the year. Certainly many, many consumers (including those who braved the Black Friday sales crush but didn’t come away with the purchases they wanted, and those who didn’t even try) hit the Internet that day to browse e-commerce sites, as the Thanksgiving holiday has ended, thoughts have turned towards Christmas, and people have returned to work (where many of them have more solitude and better Internet access than they do at home). But although e-shoppers may do a lot of looking and browsing and comparing and even a good deal of buying on Cyber Monday, they aren’t placing nearly enough orders to make that day the year’s #1 online sales day. So where did the concept of Cyber Monday as the “busiest online shopping day” originate? As BusinessWeek noted in 2005, the term was something created by a retailers association as a promotional scheme: So what’s up with this Cyber Monday idea? A little bit of reality and a whole lot of savvy marketing. It turns out that Shop.org, an association for retailers that sell online, dreamed up the term just days before putting out a Nov. 21 press release touting Cyber Monday as “one of the biggest online shopping days of the year.”The idea was born when a few people at the organization were brainstorming about how to promote online shopping, says Shop.org Executive Director Scott Silverman. They quickly discarded suggestions such as Black Monday (too much like Black Friday), Blue Monday (not very cheery), and Green Monday (too environmentalist), and settled on Cyber Monday. “It’s not the biggest day,” Silverman concedes. “But it was an opportunity to create some consumer excitement.” The genesis of the concept goes back even further. Shop.org member Shmuel Gniwisch, chief executive of the online jewelry site Ice.com, recalls getting an e-mail from Shop.org [in 2004], suggesting that online retailers come up with their own marketing hook to match Black Friday. “The online guys got together and said, ‘Let’s give people something different,'” he says. “The reality is, we didn’t notice anything special” on the Monday after Thanksgiving. Typically, the busiest “real” shopping day of the year occurs on the Saturday before Christmas, and the busiest e-shopping day takes place on a Monday or Tuesday a week (or two) before the week in which Christmas falls. (According to PayPal, the most popular cybershopping day in 2008 was not the Monday after Thanksgiving, but the second Monday in December.) Also, because more consumers now have high-speed Internet access at home, many of them no longer wait until they return to work on the Monday following the four-day Thanksgiving break to look for deals; instead, the day that generates the most web traffic to online retail sites is Thanksgiving Day itself, as avid shoppers use the Internet to plan their strategies for Black Friday weekend sales at “brick and mortar” stores: Matt Tatham, a spokesman for Hitwise, a company that tracks 100 of the largest online retailers, says there’s another trend that’s emerged over the last few holiday seasons: the greatest amount of online traffic (searching and visiting, though not necessarily buying) happening on turkey day itself.”After the tryptophan wears off, we’ve seen that people are going online and planning their strategies for the brick-and-mortar stores,” Tatham said. “Then they go out and shop the deals Friday and the weekend.” Tatham cited a Hitwise study that found savvy consumers — and retailers — have started leveraging the term Black Friday, with searches on “Black Friday ads” up 91% compared with [2006]. But the tide seems to be changing as Americans spend more time online. In 2016, American customers spent more than $3 billion on Cyber Monday, according to marketing blog Adobe Digital Insights, making it the biggest single day in online commerce (so far). Black Friday is still a contender, though — the day after Thanksgiving generated more than $650 billion in spending in the United States in 2016, up about 3.6 percent from the year before, including online sales. “Super Saturday“, for its part, was so successful that it was rolled into several days of sales and promotional events leading up to Christmas.
|
26355
|
Trump bailed out Wall Street, but not Main Street.
|
It’s wrong to say that coronavirus relief legislation didn’t support ordinary small businesses. The CARES Act included the Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to support smaller employers. Among the loans made with the first $350 billion of the Paycheck Protection Program, three-quarters of those loans were made in the smallest loan size category, one that would support a business of roughly seven to 10 people. In addition, singling out Trump for problems with how coronavirus relief efforts ignores that the efforts were also backed by virtually all congressional Democrats.
|
false
|
Corrections and Updates, Financial Regulation, Small Business, Ad Watch, Coronavirus, Lincoln Project,
|
"A group called the Lincoln Project, headlined by several high-profile Republicans and former Republicans who oppose President Donald Trump, recently released an ad that turned a famous re-election ad for President Ronald Reagan on its head. The Reagan ad, ""Morning in America,"" is one of the most celebrated campaign ads in history. Using optimistic imagery and themes to argue that the country was on the right track after the crises of the 1970s, the ad set the tone for Reagan’s landslide reelection victory. By contrast, the Lincoln Project’s ad, retitled ""Mourning in America,"" is replete with depressing footage of masked Americans and economic devastation. And it directly blames Trump for acting ineffectively on the health and economic fronts. At one point, the ad asserts, ""Trump bailed out Wall Street, but not Main Street."" Trump tweeted his displeasure with the ad, ironically producing a banner fundraising day for the Lincoln Project. But is the ad’s claim about bailouts accurate? While there have been high-profile examples of larger corporations being awarded loans from a primarily small-business lending program (and sometimes giving them back), this line in the ad is inaccurate. Marc Goldwein, the senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, has been tracking the federal response to the coronavirus-driven economic downturn. He said the dichotomy in the ad is wrong. The coronavirus relief legislation passed so far, Goldwein said, ""generally bails out everyone."" We should start by noting that Trump wouldn’t be solely at fault for any design flaws in the primary law for coronavirus relief, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The $2.2 trillion act, which Trump signed into law on March 27, 2020, included stimulus payments to most Americans, enhanced unemployment aid, loans for small businesses, and other relief measures. However, before it got to Trump’s desk, the bill had the support of both parties. It passed the Senate unanimously, and it passed the House overwhelmingly. The primary way the bill helps small companies is through the Paycheck Protection Program. Under that program, small businesses can take out federally backed loans through banks or credit unions to tide them through the coronavirus pandemic. The government will forgive the loans if the company keeps all of their employees on the payroll for eight weeks, and as long as the money is used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities. The Paycheck Protection Program attracted negative media attention when some larger employers, such as Shake Shack, secured small business loans. Criticism grew as the program ran out of money allocated under the CARES Act. Congress later provided funds for additional loans. The Shake Shack loan appears to have been legal, since the program allowed loans for businesses in the food services sector that have more than one physical location and employ less than 500 people per location. Still, the negative attention led some of these businesses, including Shake Shack, to voluntarily give back their loans. The Small Business Administration, which is overseeing the program, has produced some broad breakdowns of how the first $342 billion in loan money was spent. For assessing the ad’s claim, the most problematic cut of the SBA data concerns the size of the loans made so far. The breakdown shows that slightly more than 74% of the individual loans granted were for $150,000 or less, totaling $58 billion. Because most companies apply for the maximum amount allowable, and because the loans are capped at 10 weeks of payroll costs, a loan of this size is consistent with a company that has roughly seven to 10 workers, Goldwein said. (Because the individual loan amounts in this category were small, the sum of all these loans was equal to only 17% of the total money spent.) Further evidence that the loans are reaching smaller companies comes from a survey released May 5 by the National Federation of Independent Business, a leading small-business group. This survey found that 77% of the group’s small business-owner members have successfully submitted an application, and about 61% of those applicants had already received their loans. Others were still in process. So contrary to what the ad argues, tens of billions of dollars are flowing to small businesses. The public’s aversion to rescuing Wall Street dates back to the Great Recession in 2008, which, unlike the coronavirus downturn, was sparked by a meltdown specifically of the financial sector. The first big bill to address it, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was designed primarily to help ailing banks, credit markets, and other financial institutions. Another early action was to rescue the government-chartered home mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This initial legislation bailed out the financial services sector, rather than economically stressed ordinary Americans. Since then, complaints about lawmakers favoring ""Wall Street"" have persisted for more than a decade, from the Occupy Wall Street movement to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaigns. As recently as a few months ago, Sanders, in his second presidential bid, was regularly assailing federal assistance to Wall Street firms. The Paycheck Protection Program does not put any special emphasis on aiding financial firms, although most of the big ""Wall Street"" players would be too big to qualify. In addition, after the bill was passed, regulations were implemented to bar private equity firms from benefiting from the program. If a financial company is small enough, from community banks or credit unions to insurance broker firms, it could qualify for a loan under the program. In fact, the SBA data shows that the ""finance and insurance"" sector received 2.39% of the dollars loaned under the program. Still, that’s well down the list of sectors being served by loans. The biggest recipients were companies in construction (13.12%), professional, scientific, and technical services (12.65%), manufacturing (11.96%), and health care and social assistance (11.65%). Another way banks and credit unions can benefit from the Paycheck Protection Program is by servicing the program’s loans to small businesses. When lenders make a loan under the program, the government pays them a fee. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the total administrative costs of the first $349 billion loan tranche was $7.6 billion. Much of that probably went to financial institutions, some of them big players of the kind critics have targeted. However, it’s worth noting that this was not a ""bailout"" but rather a fee for services rendered. Probably the closest the relief legislation has come to a ""bailout"" of Wall Street comes from a separate part of the law, and its impact has been indirect. The CARES Act provides the Federal Reserve with $454 billion in emergency lending authority. This is designed to provide liquidity to the financial system to aid eligible businesses, states and municipalities. So while much of this aid will flow through banks, it was not created with bailing out Wall Street as its endpoint; Wall Street is being enlisted to aid a wide range of companies within the U.S. economy. Of course, some of this support will be used to help bigger companies, and this has probably helped the stock market recover some of its initial losses from the pandemic, Goldwein said. In turn, a healthier stock market does help ""Wall Street."" But this is an indirect benefit. The Lincoln Project did not get back to us with support for the claim; nor did the White House or the Trump campaign. (Editor's note: We received a response from the Lincoln Project after publication; their response is included after our ruling.) The Trump campaign issued a news release on May 6 that cited the 74% figure from the SBA as well as a tweet from White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany saying that 1 million businesses with 10 or fewer employees received Paycheck Protection Program loans in the first round. The Lincoln Project ad says, ""Trump bailed out Wall Street, but not Main Street."" This is wrong on several levels. First, Trump doesn’t solely get the credit, or the blame, for anything in the CARES Act; it was supported by virtually all congressional Democrats as well. The financial firms criticized for benefiting from the Great Recession bailouts do receive some ancillary benefits from the act, but the loan-accepting companies are the primary target of such largesse, not the banks. The clearest problem with the claim is the notion in the ad that ""Main Street"" is not being aided. About three-quarters of the loans in the Paycheck Protection Program were made in the smallest loan size category, one that would support a business of roughly seven to 10 people. UPDATE: After publication, we received the following response from the Lincoln Project. Our key findings still stand, and the rating remains . ""We base that claim on the following Meriam Webster remarks about Wall St: 'In popular culture ""Wall Street"" stands in contrast to ""Main Street."" While Wall Street is used to describe the capital markets and the financial industry, Main Street is typically used to describe the larger economy in which the vast majority of people live and work.' ""Charlie Gasparino, the senior correspondent at Fox Business Network, wrote in an op-ed for the New York Post, 'These measures will almost certainly benefit Wall Street and market speculation — even as their impact on Main Street will be slow to come.' He also wrote, 'Wall Street traders will make money, while Main Street businesses face economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression.' ""Private equity, one of the largest sectors of the financial industry, is looking to cash in on COVID-19 relief money. According to an article from Vanity Fair, 'Among those angling for a federal handout is one of the wealthiest sectors of the American economy: private equity. These firms not only have a record $1.5 trillion in cash on the sidelines, waiting to be invested, but their CEOs are among America’s richest executives. So why should they be permitted to raid the federal Treasury in a time of crisis?'"""
|
5034
|
UofA scientists to study Yuma lettuce outbreak.
|
University of Arizona scientists are hoping to find more answers about what caused a romaine lettuce outbreak that sickened dozens and put the spotlight on Yuma farmers last year.
|
true
|
Yuma, Arizona, General News, Environment
|
Researchers with the UofA Cooperative Extension are moving forward with a multiyear study of the environment and growing practices in the “winter vegetable capital,” the university announced last week. They will be partnering with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, state agriculture officials and local growers. “It’s really rare to see a project like this, to see all three entities working together to solve a problem,” Channah Rock, an environmental science professor with the UofA Cooperative Extension, told The Associated Press. Seven to 10 scientists will be based in Yuma and collect data year-round. They will gather samples of water, sediment and wildlife feces, Rock said. The study is expected to last one to three years. One of the goals is to come back with recommendations for growers or anyone along the production chain, and perhaps inform future practices, Rock said. “The goal is to look at trends over time to tell us a better story about what is and isn’t going on in the environment,” she said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the spring 2018 outbreak was responsible for five deaths and made 200 others ill. Health officials ultimately traced the romaine lettuce back to Yuma. FDA investigators said water samples from an irrigation canal in eastern Yuma County tested positive for the same genetic type of E. coli. And a cattle feedlot in the area was identified as a potential source of harmful bacteria. However, nothing definitive turned up at 22 farm fields, and subsequent testing didn’t find the outbreak pathogen again in the canal. The FDA and CDC’s assessments were only a snapshot of a few months, Rock said. The scientists hope with more time, they can shed light on how the water became contaminated to begin with. Produce growers in Arizona and California have since adopted new standards based on the information gleaned from the FDA, including additional water quality testing, increased attention to weather and longer distances from feedlot operations.
|
2199
|
As desperation rises, thousands in Bahamas flee Dorian's devastation.
|
Thousands of people fled devastation in the Bahamas on Saturday as conditions grew increasingly desperate nearly a week after Hurricane Dorian made landfall, reducing many homes to rubble and knocking out water and power.
|
true
|
Environment
|
Aid groups rushed emergency help to the storm-ravaged islands, and officials warned a death toll of 43 was likely to spike higher as the number of missing among the archipelago nation’s 400,000 residents becomes clear. Even as the aid ships and aircraft headed in, residents abandoned hard-hit Great Abaco Island to seek safety and food in the capital, Nassau, and others headed to Florida for shelter, supplies and perhaps jobs. Some 90 percent of the homes, buildings and infrastructure in Marsh Harbour of Great Abaco, where Dorian rampaged for almost two full days as one of the strongest Caribbean hurricanes on record, were damaged, the World Food Programme said. The agency noted that thousands of people were living in a government building, a medical center and an Anglican church that survived the storms, but they had little to no access to water, power and sanitary facilities. “The needs remain enormous,” WFP spokesman Herve Verhoosel said in an email. “Evacuations are slowly taking place by ferry, as hundreds of residents reportedly flee daily.” A cruise ship with more than 1,000 evacuees arrived in south Florida on Saturday. Some had small children or aging relatives who they hoped to find safe lodging for before returning to try to repair or rebuild their island homes. The risk of outbreaks of diarrhea and waterborne diseases is high as drinking water may be tainted with sewage, according to the Pan American Health Organization. Travis Newton, a 32-year-old carpenter who survived the storm in Marsh Harbour, said he arrived in Nassau on Saturday morning with his family, trying to find a safe place to live. He said residents of the town foraged for food and water in the wreckage of damaged stores after the storm passed. “We had to survive, we had to make it happen, we had to find food, water, where we were aid couldn’t get to us, we had to find what we could from the damaged stores,” Newton said. “Everybody needs to get out of that place.” The U.S. Coast Guard and Navy were shipping in relief supplies and had already rescued some 290 people from isolated areas on the islands. The U.S. Agency for International Development said it raised its allocation of aid to the Bahamas by $1 million, to $2.8 million in total and had moved enough emergency supplies for 44,000 people to the islands. Some 70,000 people were in need of food and shelter, the WFP estimated, and private forecasters estimated that some $3 billion in insured property was destroyed or damaged in the Caribbean. Dorian remained a powerful threat. The storm on Saturday made an unusual third landfall when it slammed into Canada’s Atlantic Coast, knocking down trees, cutting power and blowing over a large construction crane in downtown Halifax, the capital of the province of Nova Scotia. Dorian was reclassified to a very intense post-tropical storm as it lost a defined eye though wind speeds of 150 kilometers per hour (93 miles per hour) were equivalent to a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, the Canadian Hurricane Centre said. The system was racing north-eastward toward Prince Edward Island and was expected to pass over northern Newfoundland and eastern Labrador late Saturday or early Sunday, the National Hurricane Center said. Local authorities urged anyone who lived close to the seashore to evacuate as a precaution. Dorian, proving to be a long-lived storm, hit the Bahamas on Sunday and Monday with Category 5 winds, with some gusts topping 200 miles per hour (320 kph). The hurricane pounded parts of North Carolina’s Outer Banks Islands on Friday, and Governor Roy Cooper on Saturday reported the death of a 67-year-old man in Pamlico County on the mainland coast, the state’s second fatality in the storm. In the Bahamas, medical chief of staff at Princess Margaret Hospital in Nassau, Dr. Caroline Burnett-Garraway, said two refrigerated, 40-foot trucks would be needed to hold the “staggering” number of bodies that were expected to be found. “Our relief operation is growing, but we are also facing serious challenges in terms of delivering aid,” Red Cross spokeswoman Jennifer Eli said. “Even search-and-rescue choppers haven’t been able to reach some people because there’s no place to land.” Near an area called The Mudd in Marsh Harbour, a Reuters witness reported most houses leveled, the body of a man lying near a main street and dead dogs floating in water. Among those who fled Abaco was 19-year-old Isaiah Johnson, who was staying in a hotel in Nassau with his mother and three sisters after the storm’s severe winds destroyed their homes. A wealthy friend had paid for a two-week stay, but after that it was unclear where they would go. His mother was already searching for work in the United States, Johnson said, reckoning that jobs would be hard to find in Nassau. “Two weeks might be enough time for me to figure things out,” Johnson said on Saturday. “For my mom, I’m not so sure.”
|
7320
|
No COVID-19 testing at home yet but quicker options coming.
|
Home testing for the new coronavirus may sound like a good idea, but U.S. regulators say it’s still too risky.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Understanding the Outbreak, Health, General News, Business, Virus Outbreak, U.S. News
|
They’ve stopped companies that quickly launched home-testing kits until they can show their products can accurately detect the virus. For now, the only way Americans can get tested is at hospitals, clinics or drive-thru sites, with a doctor’s order. After a botched rollout, testing in the U.S. has ramped up thanks to high-volume testing machines and new rapid tests. Last week, federal officials said total tests topped 1.4 million, and labs are processing nearly 100,000 tests daily. That’s the threshold many experts say is needed to track the virus. Still, testing continues to be constrained by shortages of medical supplies like gloves, masks and swabs. And the widespread drive-thru testing proposed for parking lots at chains like Walmart, Walgreens and Target has barely gotten off the ground. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration is aggressively pushing new options onto the market. FASTER RESULTS Genetic tests are the gold standard for detecting COVID-19 infections. New, quicker ones are replacing the original laboratory tests that have to be manually mixed and developed. The idea behind both tests is the same: chemical solutions are used to isolate the virus from the patient sample, grab its genetic material and then reproduce it millions of times until it’s detectable with a computer. New rapid tests such as the one by Abbott Laboratories automate the process, cutting the time from four to six hours to about 15 minutes. “Essentially all of the reactions are squeezed into a little cartridge, so it’s a very nice, self-contained system.” said Dr. Bobbi Pritt, lab director at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota The cartridges from Abbott and other companies run on small, portable electronic machines found in thousands of U.S. hospitals, clinics and doctor’s offices. That’s expected to increase testing beyond large universities, government and commercial labs. Abbott said it plans to begin shipping 50,000 tests per day this month. U.S. officials said they’d go first to remote areas with less access to labs. For now, only a health care professional can order a coronavirus test. Under current guidelines, priority is given to people with COVID-19 symptoms who fall into several high-risk groups, including hospitalized patients, health care workers and the elderly. “If you’re not sick, you don’t need to be tested,” has been the mantra for weeks. DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME Accurately testing for coronavirus involves several steps, including carefully swabbing the nose or throat to collect a sample, placing it in a sterile tube, storing it below 46 degrees Fahrenheit and then shipping it to a lab within three days. Health officials warn a number of things could go wrong if consumers try to swab, store and ship their own samples, potentially resulting in testing errors and undetected infections. The FDA is talking to companies working on at-home kits, but they’ll be required to show that their results are comparable to those of people under professional care, agency spokesman Jeremy Kahn said in a statement. Many of the proposed at-home tests aren’t like home pregnancy tests — they won’t provide instant results. The samples still need to go to a lab. After several companies began shipping test kits last month, the FDA quickly intervened. No home tests have been approved and the products sent to U.S. consumers were frauds, regulators said. Several companies were caught off guard including San Francisco startup Nurx, which initially built its business around prescribing birth control drugs via brief online consultations. On March 20, the company announced plans to ship 10,000 testing kits to customers for $181 each. Within 24 hours, the FDA warning went out and Nurx’s plan was off. UPCOMING OPTIONS Simpler, cheaper blood tests could also have a role in tracking the virus — and possibly expanding testing to the home. The FDA is permitting companies to launch certain types of finger-prick tests that can detect whether people may have recently been infected. Instead of detecting the virus itself, these tests detect proteins called antibodies that the immune system generates to fight COVID-19. Public health experts hope that mass screening with antibody tests could eventually help track how the virus spreads and who might have built up immunity. “We have this massive epidemic on our hands and if we really want to control it through testing we need to have it more readily available and on a repeated basis — potentially every week to know who is truly positive and negative,” said Harvard University’s Dr. Michael Mina. Because the blood test is easy to perform and can be developed in 15 minutes — without laboratory equipment — some companies think it could become a viable home-testing option. Scanwell Health is seeking approval for a home test using one developed by Chinese manufacturer Innovita and deployed by the Chinese government. People who meet criteria through an online questionnaire would receive a test kit in the mail, take a blood sample and scan the test with a smartphone app. Next is an online consultation with a health professional who will deliver and interpret the results. “The entire testing process happens within the home— nothing needs to be shipped back,” said Scanwell executive Dr. Jack Jeng. ___ AP business writers Tom Murphy in Indianapolis and Anne D’innocenzio in New York contributed to this report. ___ Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter ___ 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.
|
12235
|
"Ashley Smith Says transgender residents make up ""about 1-in-300 people, we're all over the place, we're your friends and your neighbors."
|
"Smith said transgender residents make up ""about 1-in-300 people, we're all over the place, we're your friends and your neighbors."" There’s no direct national count of individuals identifying as transgender but recent analyses rooted in federal survey results support estimates of 1.8-in-300 adults and 2.1-in-300 minors."
|
true
|
Population, Sexuality, Texas, Ashley Smith,
|
"A San Antonio activist tried to make a point about the proposed Texas law affecting bathroom access in public schools and other buildings simply by posing with a presumed leading supporter of the legislation, Gov. Greg Abbott. The photo from Abbott’s July 14, 2017, re-election kickoff rally in the Alamo City shows Abbott grinning next to ""Trans-Woman"" Ashley Smith. Smith added this comment in a post below the photo placed the next day on her Facebook page: ""How will the Potty Police know I'm transgender if the Governor doesn't?"" That post went viral though Smith later got our attention when she described the prevalence of Americans who are transgender, telling Chris Quinn of the San Antonio Express-News: ""We're about 1-in-300 people, we're all over the place, we're your friends and your neighbors. Some of us are not immediately obvious as trans. And the idea that you are going to be able to enforce a bathroom bill, I mean the enforceability is just not there."" We asked Smith the basis of her 1-in-300 figure. She pointed by email to a report finding that nationally, about 1.4 million residents were ""trans,"" Smith said, ""which if my math is right, would make us 1 in every 231 people."" The June 2016 report, ""How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United States?."" was issued by the Williams Institute, a UCLA School of Law think tank that says it advances sexual orientation law and public policy through independent research. The authors, making statistical adjustments to Centers for Disease Control 2014 phone survey results, estimated that 0.6 percent of U.S. adults ""identify as transgender."" The report went on: ""This figure is double the estimate that utilized data from roughly a decade ago and implies that an estimated 1.4 million adults in the U.S. identify as transgender."" In 2011, an institute researcher, Gary Gates, had estimated based partly on surveys taken in Massachusetts and California that 0.3 percent of U.S. adults identified as transgender. The U. S. Census Bureau hasn’t estimated the number of Americans identifying as transgender. But we turned to its population estimates to gauge the institute’s latest figures. As of July 2014, the bureau says, the U.S. was home to 318,563,456 residents including 244,986,302 adults. Applying the institute’s estimate that 0.6 percent of adults identify as transgender delivers a subtotal of 1,469,917 adults. Summing up, the institute estimated that 1.8-in-300 U.S. adults identify as transgender. Minors identifying as transgender? For an estimate of younger Americans identifying as transgender, Smith told us, she relied on a January 2017 institute report similarly starting from federal surveys. That report says researchers estimate that 0.7 percent of U.S. minors aged 13 to 17, tallied at about 150,000 people, are transgender--which breaks out to about 2.1-in-300 individuals in the age group. The 2017 report includes a chart estimating transgender residents by age groups: SOURCE: Report, ""Age of Individuals Who Identify As Transgender in the United States,"" the Williams Institute, January 2017 (accessed July 26-27, 2017) At Smith’s urging, we also queried the policy counsel of the National Center for Transgender Equality, which says it’s the ""nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people."" By email, Ma’ayan Anafi replied that the center considers the 2016 institute estimate to be the most reliable available estimate of the U.S. transgender population. Anafi similarly noted the institute’s estimate for people aged 13-17, adding: ""Currently, there is no comprehensive national estimate for the number of transgender people under the age of 13."" A Williams Institute researcher Next, we heard back from Andrew Flores, a visiting scholar at the institute involved and familiar with its reports. Flores said that while the research estimates were not independently peer-reviewed prior to publication, both are under consideration by an academic peer-reviewed journal. ""We have not seen a methodological challenge or rebuttal,"" Flores wrote. Also, he said, ""we have seen other estimates proposed using the same or similar data."" In that vein, Flores provided a web link to the abstract of a study published in the February 2017 American Journal of Public Health containing an extrapolation based on 12 U.S. population surveys taken from 2007 to 2015. Its authors estimated that as of 2016, 390 U.S. adults per 100,000, or almost 1 million adults, identified as transgender. That breaks out to 1.17-in-300 adults. ""This estimate,"" they wrote, ""may be more indicative for younger adults, who represented more than 50% of the respondents in our analysis."" State estimates by institute We saw that the 2016 institute report had state-by-state estimates of adults identifying as transgender, ranging from 0.3 percent in North Dakota to 0.8 percent in Hawaii--and 0.66 percent in Texas, or 125,350 residents, the report said. The report specified that its estimates were rooted in data from 19 states that opted in to asking participants in the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 2014: ""Do you consider yourself to be transgender?"" If someone answered affirmatively, he or she was asked: ""Do you consider yourself to be male-to-female, female-to-male, or gender non-conforming?"" In total, the report says, 0.52 percent of respondents in the 19 states identified as transgender. According to the report, if a respondent asked for a definition of transgender, the person seeking responses was to reply: ""Some people describe themselves as transgender when they experience a different gender identify from their sex at birth. For example, a person born into a male body, but who feels female or who lives as a woman would be transgender. Some transgender people change their physical appearance so that it matches their internal gender identity. Some transgender people take hormones and some have surgery. A transgender person may be of any sexual orientation -- straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."" We asked Flores why the institute reached the 0.66 percentage for the nation when responses to the survey question in the 19 states--Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming--supported a lower 0.52 percent result. Flores replied: ""While our underlying dataset only contains 19 states, we wanted to make inferences about every state. We did this by running a model that included all respondents, even those who did not get asked about whether or not they identified as transgender. We then used the model results to impute or fill-in whether an individual would identify as transgender considering their state and demographic profile. Finally, we used these results and generalized them to population statistics provided by the Census Bureau. ""The reason why the (19-state) survey estimate is lower than the resultant national estimate,"" Flores wrote, ""is mostly due to the demographic composition of the remaining states. As we noted, people of color and younger individuals are more likely to identify as transgender. If a state that was not one of those 19 contains more younger individuals or populations of color, then that would mean then national estimate would be larger as a result."" Texas state demographer Next, we asked Lloyd Potter, the Texas state demographer, to review the institute’s 2016 report. Potter said by email that his read suggests that from 0.36 percent to 0.95 percent of the population identifies as transgender, so 1-in-300, or 0.3 percent, ""is a little low,"" he said. Potter explained that institute researchers applied characteristics including race and ethnicity, age cohorts and educational attainment provided by individuals who responded affirmatively to the CDC survey question to produce its estimates of adults in each state who may identify as transgender, with all of the state estimates aggregated to a U.S. estimate.. Potter went on: ""It is likely that there is under-reporting among those who do identify as transgender in those 19 states which would suggest the estimate is on the low end."" Our ruling Smith said transgender residents make up ""about 1-in-300 people, we're all over the place, we're your friends and your neighbors."" There’s no direct national count of individuals identifying as transgender but recent analyses rooted in federal survey results support estimates of 1.8-in-300 adults and 2.1-in-300 minors. – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing."
|
11539
|
Fewer mammograms being done, studies show
|
We give the story credit for highlighting the main point — that the benefit is small and that women should be informed and given a choice. The piece could have ended with that. it also would have been good to comment more on the science of the studies which were not really particulary powerful or well designed to support the claims (e.g. they don’t advance the science that mammograms save lives) or generalize well to the provider population at large. Demonstrating far more balance than some other stories, this report allowed the chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force to explain their recommendations: “The task force did not say don’t get mammograms, Moyer said. “It might make women not want to get the test,” she said. “This is a decision that should belong to the woman with appropriate info on hand.” But still missing in the piece was any recognition of the possibility that a decline in mammography in women in their 40s could be a good thing.
|
true
|
CNN,Screening
|
At some point, costs must enter into this discussion. But this story never got there. The story states: “The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age,” (the USPSTF chair) said. “There are whole lots of assumptions that are not supported by the data they presented.” We wouid have like to have seen more discussion of the potential harms in 85% of biopsies being non-cancerous. But since the story did actually quantify the number of false positives, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. Better than the competing Denver Post story if only because CNN allows the US Preventive Services Task Force chair to explain their recommendations – something the Denver story didn’t do. But there could have been more scrutiny of the studies reported on. There was not much focus on whether we can really learn much from the single site retrospective study of their biopsies (did they compare to biopsies from patients who did not have screening mammograms? on what basis were they claiming that they were more treatable? and that being more treatable leads to longer life?). No overt disease-mongering. Good sourcing, including – unlike the competing Denver Post story – input from the chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force. There was a far more balanced discussion of harms and benefits in this story, although the use of personal opinion and recommendations, and the ending resulted in an imbalance in the piece. Excerpts that demonstrate this imbalance: Wouldn’t a more balanced way to end the piece – focusing on the shared decision-making element so important in this issue – have been to end with this: Nonethless, all of this was in the piece, so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. Not applicable. The availability of mammograms is not in question. Adequate job putting the new studies in context of past research and recommendations. It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
|
10709
|
Vaccine sharply cuts rate of shingles: study
|
This story outperformed the HealthDay and WebMD stories on one point; in addition to reporting both the relative risk reduction (55 percent) and absolute risk reduction (from 13 to 6 cases per 1,000 people per year), it was the only one to also point out that 71 people would have to be vaccinated in order to prevent one shingles attack. The fact that this story included all three ways of looking at the results (and that the other stories included both the relative and absolute risk reduction results) may be due to the way the study authors clearly and prominently reported these complementary statistics. But it got unsatisfactory scores for: not discussing the limitations of the observational study; not addressing potential harms; not interviewing anyone who would make the point that NOT getting this vaccine is still a valid choice – a shared decision-making message that was absent. There is a line in this story – “…the vaccine has not caught on as much as some had hoped” – that raises the question of whose hopes have been dashed? The makers of the vaccine? Perhaps this vaccine is being slowly disseminated because it is too early to know what harms may arise as more and more patients in the general population receive it. It’s also important for patients to know that not everyone is destined to have zoster. The cumulative lifetime incidence is about 10-20%, with incidence rates increasing with age. The zoster vaccine appears to reduce the risk but doesn’t bring it to zero. The take-home for readers is that there’s a need for shared decision-making on this issue.
|
mixture
|
Reuters Health
|
The story reports that the vaccine can cost $200. This story reports the apparent reduction in shingles risk among vaccinated participants in three ways: Although the half-as-likely description got top billing, readers are given the results in complementary ways that help them understand just how common shingles is among the people studied and how much difference vaccination may make. The study authors highlighted these different ways of looking at the results, thus helping journalists provide a more complete picture to the public. This story is the only one of the three we reviewed that clearly noted that the study looked at a limited time span and that the researchers can’t say whether the effects of the vaccine persist through later years. That’s an important caveat, since a 60-year-old who had chicken pox as a child is at risk for a shingles attack for the remaining decades of life. If the vaccine cuts the risk of attacks in half, but only for the first few years after vaccination, then the lifetime reduction in risk would be much smaller. The story does not address potential harms. This study did not report adverse events, but the clinical trial that led to approval of the vaccine reported more than a third of participants had redness and pain after getting a shot. Although the original clinical trial (partially funded by the vaccine maker) concluded that adverse events were generally mild, the story still should have addressed this point. This story highlights the value of studying vaccination effects in actual practice (rather than merely under ideal clinical trial conditions), but it does not do as good as job a job as the WebMD story did in pointing out the limitations of the retrospective observational approach the researchers used. Even though the study authors prominently noted sources of potential bias and their attempts to take those factors into account, the story does not tell readers about those limitations and caveats. The story accurately describes the population of people eligible to be vaccinated. It notes the vaccine is not recommended for everyone over age 60, but it does not explain why some people are advised not to get this vaccine. There is a source who is independent of this study; however, Dr. Oxman was the lead researcher of the clinical trial that led to the approval of this vaccine. The description of him as being “involved in a previous study of the vaccine” is inadequate to describe his perspective on this vaccine. This story also fails to tell readers about study funding (from the Kaiser Permanente health plan) or support that the vaccine maker has given to some of the researchers for other research projects. The comments from Dr. Oxman dealt only with benefits of vaccination. The story would have been better if there had been independent comment on the study itself, both what it adds to what we know and what potential weakness or limits there are in this sort of study. There’s still a strong shared decision-making message that should be the take-home, but that didn’t come across in the story – perhaps because of who was interviewed. While there are reports of links between stress and shingles outbreaks, there is no alternative that has been studied to the extent that vaccination has. However, given the high cost of the vaccine (for people without generous insurance coverage) and other practical hurdles to vaccination, and then the relatively small risk of an attack (about 1 percent per year in unvaccinated people), it would have been helpful to see some discussion of the relative priority of shingles vaccination for most older people. Overall, as noted above, there is still a valid choice NOT to get this vaccine, yet that perspective did not appear in the story as an alternative. The story notes that this shingles vaccine was approved in 2006. It also makes reference to stringent requirements for storage and handling, which have been cited (along with cost) as barriers to access. The story makes clear that this vaccine is the only approved shingles vaccine and that it has been available in the United States since 2006. It also makes clear that this study provides information about how the vaccine performs in the real world, as opposed to the idealized conditions of a clinical trial. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
28559
|
"In August 2017, Oregon governor Kate Brown signed a ""gun confiscation"" law."
|
What's true: The law authorizes the confiscation of firearms belonging to certain individuals by law enforcement in certain circumstances. What's false: The law only applies to individuals deemed an imminent danger either to themselves or to others; evidence is required for a judge to make the ruling, which can be appealed.
|
mixture
|
Politics, gun control, gun laws, gun rights
|
On 23 August 2017, the right-leaning web site Silence Is Consent reported that Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, had signed a law which would allow for the confiscation of firearms without a number of conventional constitutional protections for the individual: In an unprecedented move of ruthless tyranny, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a Democrat-backed document which allows the government to confiscate guns without any prior notice. The law, based off of Oregon Senate Bill 719, has faced massive resistance from Republicans and Oregon citizens alike. Despite this, the local governments managed to sign it into law — Oregon is no longer a free state. This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing. Worse yet, the only way for the gun owner to get his gun back is to file a case and prove his innocence. This is Orwellian, and it must be overturned by the Supreme Court; if this law begins being enforced, step by step, inch by inch, civilians will lose their second amendment rights. The article accurately describes some components and implications of the law, but also greatly exaggerates its provisions, uses unspecific and misleading language, and also leaves out important facts and context about the legislation. Oregon Senate Bill 719 is intended to introduce a judicial process whereby concerned individuals can ask a judge to quickly sign an order allowing for the confiscation of firearms from a particular individual deemed to present a risk of suicide, self-harm, or violence to others. It was signed into law by Governor Kate Brown on 23 August 2017, and will come into force on 1 January 2018. The bill authorizes law enforcement agents to confiscate guns from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, under specific, limited circumstances, in what is called an “extreme risk protection order.” It can only be requested by law enforcement officials, family members and housemates, thus largely minimizing the risk of vexatious or malicious requests. (This limitation is not mentioned by Silence is Consent.) The order can only be granted by a judge, but must be either granted or denied within 24 hours of the request. Further, it is somewhat misleading to claim, as this article does, that guns can be confiscated “simply based off of hearsay evidence” or that “no actual evidence” is required. The bill stipulates that in reaching their decision, a judge will consider the following kinds of evidence: If the request is successful, the judge issues the order, which applies for one year. The subject of the order has 24 hours to hand in any firearms or gun license they may possess, either to a law enforcement agent or licensed gun dealer. Law enforcement officials are also authorized to confiscate such firearms. For the next twelve months, the subject of the order cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm. They have 30 days in which to apply for a hearing to overturn the order, and such a hearing must take place within 21 days of their request. If they don’t succeed in overturning the order, the order remains in place. If they do succeed, the order is lifted, and any property handed over or taken from them is returned to them, providing they are otherwise legally authorized to possess that property. The order is not automatically renewed after a year, but whomever requested it in the first place can request a renewal. The same process applies to the renewal request as it did to the original request. One of the primary concerns of critics of the bill, who argue that it suspends due process and the right to a fair trial, is that the extreme risk protection order hearing is held ex parte, meaning that the subject of the request does not have a right to be present at the hearing and a judge need not hear or receive evidence from them. This is true. SB 719 does call for ex parte hearings, and the subject of an order cannot block it in the courts in advance, they can only apply to have it overturned afterwards. However, the legislation does also stipulate that the burden of proof is on the person making the request, not the subject of it. Another provision of the law — not mentioned by Silence is Consent — is that if the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months in Oregon. This is the same charge and same penalty that applies to the subject of an extreme risk protection order if they violate its terms by, for example, buying or possessing a firearm after the order is in place. This provision is likely to further minimize the risk of individuals maliciously or falsely accusing one another, and underlines the intention of the bill as being to prevent vulnerable individuals from seriously harming themselves and/or others, but only after “clear and convincing” evidence of a risk is provided. The article makes a point of attacking Oregon Democrats over the bill, describing the law as “Democrat-backed.” What the article doesn’t mention is that one of the authors and public champions of the law is state senator Brian Boquist, a combat veteran inspired to begin writing the bill after the suicide of his stepson, a Navy veteran, in 2016. Boquist is a Republican. Silence is Consent also falsely describes the bill as “unprecedented.” However, SB 719 was consciously modeled after similar legislation overwhelmingly passed into law by Washington voters as a ballot measure in November 2016.
|
36707
|
Senator John McCain accidentally voted against a GOP Senate bill to repeal Obamacare in July 2017, dooming the bill to failure
|
"John McCain Accidentally Voted ""No"" on Obamacare Repeal"
|
false
|
Government, Politics
|
A self-described satirical website is behind bogus claims that John McCain accidentally voted “no” on the Senate’s Obamacare repeal bill in July 2017. The story first appeared at Empire News on July 29, 2017, under the headline, “John McCain Says He ‘Accidentally’ Voted No On Healthcare Repeal: ‘My Brain Tumor Got The Best of Me!’” The report claims that McCain admitted he’d made a mistake when he “no” on the Senate GOP plan to repeal Obamacare now and to come up with an alternative later: “I momentarily lost my senses, and literally couldn’t remember which way was up, and which was down,” said McCain, speaking from his home, where doctors have put him on bedrest. “I meant, of course, to vote TO repeal it, as was the plan. As I’ve mentioned before. There’s nothing that Republicans like doing more than screwing the entire country, and so naturally I should have given a thumbs-up. I swear I did. This brain tumor is really taking its toll.” Empire News is a fairly well-known (and self-described) satirical publication. It’s disclaimer makes clear that the site is “intended for entertainment purposes only” and that the site only uses real names “in cases of public figure and celebrity parody or satirization.” By August 1, however, the Empire News report had been re-reported by international websites known for spreading misinformation during the 2016 campaign to cash in on ad revenue from American readers. The domain for one of those sites, AmericanNews88.com, is registered in Macedonia, which has become known as a hotbed for misinformation sites that replicate right-wing news sites with names that sound credible (like American News) and publish fabricated reports. There have been various theories about why John McCain voted no on the Obamacare repeal, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) said in an interview on August 9, 2017, that McCain’s brain cancer might have been a factor. But the idea that McCain accidentally voted “no” isn’t supported by facts.
|
7544
|
AP sources: Travel ban to extend to United Kingdom, Ireland.
|
The White House is expected to announce that the U.S. will broaden its European travel ban, adding the United Kingdom and Ireland to its list.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Ireland, Health, Michael Pence, General News, Politics, Financial markets, Business, Travel, Virus Outbreak, Europe, Nancy Pelosi, U.S. News
|
Under the restrictions, American citizens, green card holders and others are still allowed to return home to the U.S., but will be funneled to 13 airports and be subjected to health screenings and quarantine orders, according to two people familiar with the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity before the official announcement expected Saturday. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she and the Trump administration are close to agreement on a coronavirus aid package to reassure anxious Americans by providing sick pay, free testing and other resources, hoping to calm teetering financial markets amid the mounting crisis. Final details were being worked out, but the top House Democrat, who held daylong talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, expected an announcement Friday. The House could then swiftly vote. “We have — are near — to an agreement,” Pelosi said, emerging from her office at the Capitol shortly before 9 p.m. Thursday. The potential deal between Congress and the White House would cap a tumultuous week in which Washington strained for a comprehensive response to the outbreak that is testing the nation’s political, financial and health care systems. It builds on an emergency $8.3 billion package approved last week and is aimed at providing additional health and financial resources to arrest the sudden spread of the pandemic and the kind of economic fallout unseen in a generation. Pelosi promised in a letter to colleagues that a third package was yet to come. The new sick leave benefit would require businesses to provide up to 14 days of paid leave to workers who are home quarantined with the virus, with the federal government reimbursing them through tax credits. The bill enhances unemployment benefits for the jobless and boosts food and nutrition programs for working families, students and seniors. The late announcement was intended to boost confidence, Democrats said. “We felt that putting together something that the American people can see cooperation on between the two parties in this difficult moment would be a confidence builder,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-N.J., the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, joining Pelosi at the Capitol, “and I think that we approached it that way.” Meanwhile, the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court all declared themselves off limits to the public for now, symbols of a nation hunkering down. Democrat Joe Biden, President Donald Trump’s chief rival, criticized him for playing down the threat for weeks and promised if he becomes president to “always tell you the truth.” Amid a wave of closures and cancellations, the coronavirus question got personal for Trump and some members of Congress. Just days after meeting Trump and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., the communications chief for Brazil’s president, Fábio Wajngarten, tested positive for the coronavirus. A photo of the president, the senator and Wajngarten shows the trio shoulder-to-shoulder at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort last weekend. It was the first time someone infected with the virus was known to have been in close proximity to the president. Scott said he was isolating himself. Trump, 73, said he was unworried. “We had dinner in Florida at Mar-a-Lago with the entire delegation,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “But we did nothing very unusual. We sat next to each other for a period of time.” Asked whether he should be tested, Trump replied, “I am not concerned.” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said “the White House is aware of public reports that a member of the Brazilian delegation‘s visit to Mar-a-Lago last weekend tested positive for COVID-19” though; confirmatory testing is pending. She said: “Both the President and Vice President had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time.” GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was also at Trump’s club on the weekend, joined a growing list of lawmakers who have chosen to isolate themselves as a precaution. On Wednesday, Trump announced a month-long restriction on travel from most of Europe, set to begin at midnight Friday night. He said Thursday that he was considering other major restrictions, such as limiting travel to domestic hot spots like California and Washington state, without spelling out how he would manage such an extraordinary effort. The State Department issued a global advisory cautioning U.S. citizens to “reconsider travel abroad.” So far, the administration’s haphazard response and the stalemate in Congress have resulted in more uncertainty as the crisis roils the financial markets and rewrites daily life for Americans. Biden and Bernie Sanders, the other main contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, delivered their own speeches the day after Trump’s prime-time address to the nation. Biden called for free virus testing, temporary pop-up hospitals and paid leave for all Americans to help cover paychecks as workers self-quarantine, care for the ill or lose jobs over the virus. “No president can promise to prevent future outbreaks, but I can promise you this, when I’m president we will be better prepared, respond better and recover better,” Biden declared. Sanders also proposed swift federal intervention and money to help people suffering in their health or finances. As talks between Pelosi and Mnuchin continued, lawmakers from both parties expressed alarm after what they called heated and testy briefings with Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health, and other public health officials. Lawmakers were particularly frustrated that U.S. officials have tested relatively few patients. “We’re basically, in my opinion, flying blind,” said Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev. As classes, sports events, concerts and conferences were canceled across the nation, Trump said he will halt his signature campaign rallies, telling reporters he needs a “little separation until such time as this goes away.” Biden and Sanders said they would no longer hold large political gatherings and their staffs would work from home as the race for the presidency moved online. The storied Smithsonian said it was canceling all public events and will temporarily close its network of museums and the National Zoo, starting Saturday. And Trump proposed postponing this summer’s Olympics in Japan for a year, too. The financial markets endured another day of alarming slides and the Federal Reserve moved to try to ease the disruptions by announcing that it will sharply increase its purchases of short-term Treasury bonds. For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. The vast majority of people recover. According to the World Health Organization, people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe illness may take three to six weeks to be over it. While Trump said all European travel except from Britain would be cut off, there were clarifications and criticisms of the cornerstone of his attempt to curtail the crisis. Homeland Security officials said the new travel restrictions would apply only to most foreign nationals who have been in the Schengen Area at any point in the 14 days prior to their scheduled arrival to the United States. The area encompasses most European countries, among them France, Italy, German, Greece, Austria and Belgium. The restrictions don’t apply to legal permanent residents, immediate family of U.S. citizens or others identified in the proclamation signed by Trump. Vice President Mike Pence said the administration is also asking travelers returning to the U.S. from Europe to voluntarily quarantine for 14 days. But some health officials, and even a former high-ranking Trump administration official, suggested Trump’s European travel restriction was futile because the virus is already widespread on U.S. soil. “In two weeks, we will regret wasting time and energy on travel restrictions and wish we focused more on hospital preparation and large scale community mitigation,” Trump’s former homeland security adviser, Thomas Bossert, tweeted Thursday. Trump claimed falsely Thursday that the U.S. is currently screening all Americans and foreigners who are entering the country, saying, “people coming in have to be tested.” And he claimed that those who return are being forced to isolate themselves, adding: “It’s going to be a pretty strong enforcement of quarantine.” No widespread quarantine orders have been announced. ___ Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani, Lauran Neergaard, Martin Crutsinger, Laurie Kellman and Kevin Freking in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
9774
|
"A virtual ""walk"" through the colon could detect cancer earlier"
|
A story on virtual colonoscopy — especially a colonoscopy that projects images on the wall so that the doctor can “walk through” your intestines — makes for a great television news segment because of the colorful, 3-D imagery accompanying flashy computer animations. But what’s missing from the CBS news report (and the accompanying video segment) is any evidence backing up the headline claim that this technology could “detect cancer earlier” or that it will reduce the number of colorectal cancer cases. It doesn’t cite any studies or solicit the opinions of independent experts. Instead, the only source in this piece is the inventor of the technology. There also isn’t any mention of costs or any discussion on the limitations of the procedure. Let’s face it: nobody looks forward to a trip to the local endoscopy laboratory for colon cancer screening. The bowel prep is unpleasant and the very thought of the procedure, even under sedation, is met with dread by most. And so a technology that would reduce the need for bowel preparation and fasting has obvious appeal. But is the allure of the new technology matched by evidence that it identifies important lesions and saves lives as effectively as the established version? The answer to that question is crucial, and journalists writing on the topic have a duty to try to answer it. They should avoid inappropriate cheerleading that glosses over the outcomes that matter most. At the moment there are a number of methods that can be used for screening for colon cancer. All have advantages and disadvantages and may be appropriate in select patient populations. Colonoscopy (the physical kind) is the gold standard. Computed Tomography (CT) colonoscopy, the “virtual” alternative, has had the promise of a more exact method of screening since its introduction. But that promise has not been fulfilled yet, and it has not been recommended by medical experts as a standard. Reports covering the merits of a “high-tech” procedure should proceed with caution and clearly explain why the new technology is better than proven therapies and how its usage translates to better health outcomes for patients.
|
false
|
colon cancer,colonoscopy,virtual colonoscopy
|
Cost should always be a consideration in a discussion of a new technology. Screening tests are no exception There are approximately 100 million adults in the US over the age of 50 years according to the 2010 census report. That is a lot of screening, and the financial implications can loom very large. Although the cost of the test, in this case virtual colonoscopy, is important, it is only one piece of the equation. The removal of suspicious lesions cannot be done in the virtual world, so suspicious lesions identified virtually would require a physical colonoscopy, adding to the overall cost. According to the Colon Cancer Alliance, a CT colonoscopy costs between $400 – 800. This cost is not covered by Medicare and most commercial insurance companies. The piece states that virtual colonoscopy helps doctors view the organ in “remarkable detail.” Dr. Arie Kaufman, the only source quoted in the story, talks about how physicians can “view 100 percent of the surface including legions.” But what is missing is how more detailed imaging translates to better health outcomes. Are there any studies proving the link between virtual colonoscopy and more lives saved? Can virtual colonoscopy detect more abnormal growths than a regular colonoscopy? And what exactly are the benefits for patients if they opt for a virtual colonoscopy instead of the traditional option? In this 2005 study in the journal Radiology, researchers reported that CT colonoscopy helped detect a “substantial number… [of] clinically important extracolonic findings,” but this did not translate to improved health outcomes. Virtual colonoscopies still require patients to prepare for the exam, which may include drinking plenty of clear liquids, taking laxatives and swallowing foul-tasting oral solutions. The procedure also entails the insertion of a rectal tube and the pumping of air into the rectum. Furthermore, virtual colonoscopies are often not able to detect polyps smaller than 10 mm, although regular colonoscopies can detect polyps of all sizes. And virtual colonoscopies do not allow doctors to remove tissue samples or polyps from the colon, whereas traditional colonoscopies can. Since the benefits of the procedure aren’t made clear, we give the story a Not Satisfactory rating here. The story briefly mentions radiation exposure and the potential for the need for a follow up colonoscopy if a suspicious lesion is found. In reality almost one third of routine colonoscopies identify a suspicious lesion that is either removed or is biopsied. That means that roughly one in three people undergoing a bowel preparation for a CT colonoscopy will need to undergo a second round for removal or biopsy of a suspicious lesion. That is a significant downside that should have been emphasized in the story. The story does not cite any studies or research highlighting the merits of virtual colonoscopies. It includes enthusiastic statements about the detail being “remarkable” and that doctors can “walk through” the colon, with a supporting quote from one doctor. But where is the evidence? Research suggests that virtual colonoscopies have limits when detecting abnormal growths. The story claims, “such highly specific screening may allow doctors to detect more abnormal growths,” but this has not been proven. Studies have shown that virtual colonoscopies failed to detect lesions measuring 10 mm or more in 10 percent of patients. CT colonography also missed 15 percent of advanced cancers measuring over 6 mm. The story calls colorectal cancer “the second leading cause of death among the combined group of men and women who have cancer.” That’s accurate, but we wish the story had also provided a person’s lifetime risk of developing colon cancer, which at 5% is more reassuring. The CBS story quotes only one source, Dr. Arie Kaufman, and does not disclose the fact that he also happens to have invented the technology. An independent expert, who could have talked about the limitations of virtual colonoscopy and the benefits of traditional colonoscopy, would have been helpful. The American Cancer Society provides a comprehensive listing of screening methods for colon cancer based on the level of risk of an individual. The story mentions a standard colonoscopy as an alternative as well as DNA tests and stool sampling. The ability of a radiologist to take a virtual stroll through a patient’s bowel — i.e. the “walk-through colonoscopy” touted in the article — is perhaps unique to a single site. The story doesn’t establish whether or where such technology might be available outside of SUNY Stony Brook. But regardless of whether they provide the “walk-through” capability described here, most academic medical centers have the capability of performing a CT colonoscopy that’s the basis of this approach. Insurance coverage is a major consideration limiting its availability to the average patient Virtual colonoscopies are not exactly new, since the technology was first patented in 1996. In 2004, 3-D virtual colonoscopy was approved for colon cancer screening in the US by the Food and Drug Administration. It seems that what may be new here is the projection of 3-D images on the wall, providing an “immersive” experience for the physician performing the procedure. But the story doesn’t establish that fact or specify what exactly the news is here. The story includes an interview with Dr. Arie Kaufman, so it’s safe to say that it went beyond any news release.
|
10460
|
CT scans add to cancer risk
|
The report accurately reflects the implications of the explosive growth of CT scanning that carries a higher radiation dose than many other x-ray examinations. The news story does an efficient job of discussing the dilemma of how to approach a valuable diagnostic test with a new appreciation of risks. Where it falls short, however, is in providing a better context for the viewer. What type of study gave rise to the report? This was a statistical estimation of risk, extrapolating from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. How confident should the viewer be given this method? What are the risks to the individual of a CT scan, and how many extra cancers are we really talking about? Can the benefits of this test (versus alternatives) be quantified? Finally, identifying disinterested experts in this highly-technical field to put this dilemma into perspective would be helpful.
|
true
|
"The story mentioned that CT scans are faster and better at diagnosing certain problems than are other types of imaging. It did not, however, provide information about the costs of various types of imaging or whether there were differences in terms of costs covered by insurance. Since the story focused on the harms of the approach, quantifying the benefits of CT scans is not imperative in this case. The article fails to flesh out the quantification of the effect under study, namely additional risk of cancers. While the source study reports on ""attributable risk"" of cancer and cancer-deaths due to CT scanning, it would be helpful for the viewer to know what this means in terms of numbers of cancers and risk to the individual. The story mentioned that it was reporting on information in a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine. However they did not report on the nature of the study. They did not mention the methods used to estimated the additional risk due to CT radiation exposure. The source article mentions that a more definitive prospective observational study is ongoing. This story should have pointed out the possible limitations of the study. The story reported that the article it discussed estimated that the percentage of cancer caused by CT scans will increase from 0.4% to 2.0%. It did not, however explain that the content was extrapolated from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. It would have been useful to provide a framework to understand the relative significance of the reported on increase in number of cancers. How does it compare, for example to the numbers of cancers due to cigarette smoking? The reporter interviewed two sources in the story. One was the first author of the article being reported on. One appeared not to be involved in the study reported on. It would have been helpful to clearly identify the doctors beyond their names to explain why they were interviewed. Two other scanning methods -MRI and ultrasound – were briefly mentioned. The story did not include information about availability of CT scans (i.e. in hospital setting, in free standing imaging centers). However, the point of the story was that the technology is over used. While not meeting our usual standard of describing availability, the context of the news spot makes this less important. Although the story mentioned that patients ought to make sure that the doctor gives you ‘the least possible dose’, it did not inform the viewer that this option is not available on all CT equipment. The story was clear that it wasn’t reporting on a new approach but rather on the increased use of an existing diagnostic method. While mentioning that ‘many of these CT scans are unnecessary’ the story did little in terms of better enabling a viewer to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary scans. Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release."
|
|
23959
|
"Elena Kagan ""has published five scholarly review articles, mostly on administrative law and the First Amendment. These articles were mostly on technical and procedural issues."
|
Elena Kagan law articles not so easy to count
|
mixture
|
National, Kagan Nomination, Legal Issues, Pundits, Supreme Court, David Brooks,
|
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge, which means there are no legal opinions to analyze. So her scholarly writing has taken on heightened prominence. Kagan's writings have drawn an interesting mix of reviews. Some people say her record is highly regarded and substantial, while others say it's embarrassingly puny. One of the nay-sayers is New York Times columnist David Brooks, who wrote that Kagan has been so cautious and strategic in cultivating her career that she's, well, boring. As evidence of this, Brooks cited her academic record: ""She has become a legal scholar without the interest scholars normally have in the contest of ideas. She's shown relatively little interest in coming up with new theories or influencing public debate. ""Her publication record is scant and carefully nonideological. She has published five scholarly review articles, mostly on administrative law and the First Amendment. These articles were mostly on technical and procedural issues."" His description of her record caught our attention; we had read other reports that gave different numbers for her scholarly output. SCOTUSBlog, a respected blog about the Supreme Court, said Kagan wrote six major articles, while Eugene Volokh, a respected law professor from University of California at Los Angeles, described her publications on his blog The Volokh Conspiracy as ""four major articles"" and ""three shorter but still substantial pieces,"" which would be seven pieces. We set out to determine how many articles Kagan had written and what they were about. We soon discovered is that counting scholarly articles is not an exact science. When Kagan was being confirmed as President Obama's solicitor general, she submitted a list of her publications to the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee. That list is lengthy, citing 19 separate pieces. Some of these are obviously not ""scholarly review articles,"" such as short introductions for longer works, or memorials of people who have died. We did find five pieces of Kagan's that seem pretty indisputably to be original, scholarly publications: • ""Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine,"" Supreme Court Review, 2001 (co-written with David J. Barron) • ""Presidential Administration,"" Harvard Law Review, 2001 • ""Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.,"" University of Chicago Law Review 1993 • ""The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v St. Paul, Rust v Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion,"" Supreme Court Review, 1992 • ""Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,"" University of Chicago Law Review, 1996 There's also a fairly significant piece that we don't include above only because it's written in response to another law professor's article and might not be considered purely original. But it is substantial and it did appear in a respected law review. It is included in the SCOTUSblog tally. • ""When A Speech Code Is A Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints,"" University of California at Davis Law Review, 1996 There are also two lengthy book reviews Kagan wrote for law reviews. Volokh counts the first one. • ""Confirmation Messes, Old and New,"" University of Chicago Law Review, 1993 • ""A Libel Story: Sullivan Then and Now,"" Law and Social Inquiry 1993 We consulted with two law professors who served on hiring committees for law schools to get additional perspective on how law professors count scholarly articles. ""It's an interesting question, and there's a good deal of disagreement,"" said Richard Friedman, a professor of law at the highly regarded University of Michigan Law School. Hiring committees look for work that has had ""scholarly impact,"" Friedman said, which usually means other scholars or judges notice the work and comment on it. ""Some book reviews are pretty ambitious theoretically,"" Friedman said. ""I don't think there should be a hard, fast rule that says, 'Oh it's a book review, it doesn't count.' ... But a book review is probably going to count less."" Another law professor said productivity is also a top concern for hiring committees. ""The usual contours the discussion takes are over how much people have done over a period of time,"" said George Rutherglen, a professor at the highly rated University of Virginia Law School. ""You need to ask how long she was working as a law professor full-time."" This is particularly pertinent in Kagan's case, because she has not been a full-time scholar for much of her career. She currently serves as solicitor general, the attorney who argues the government's cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Before that, she was the dean of the Harvard Law School, and she also served as an attorney and adviser in the Clinton administration. Her career as a legal scholar was interrupted by the latter two positions. Deans are usually administrators and not expected to consistently publish major scholarly work, said both Friedman and Rutherglen. Brooks also described Kagan's articles were ""mostly on technical or procedural issues."" We reviewed Kagan's major articles to see if they seemed particularly procedural or technical from a lay person's perspective. One of them definitely did: ""Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine"" is about how Congress delegates policy decisions to official agencies. ""Presidential Administration"" was also long but less than thrilling, and concerned how ""presidential control over administration can serve pro-regulatory objectives."" We should note, however, that ""Presidential Administration"" has launched a fairly robust debate on the left about Kagan's views are on executive power. The blogger and civil rights attorney Glenn Greenwald has written that Kagan's article raises questions about her views in the wake of the George W. Bush's approach to executive power. Greenwald acknowledged that Kagan wrote the article before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; he thinks she should answer questions about the article. But Greenwald still called the article ""definitely a major piece of scholarship."" Kagan's three other major articles are about First Amendment law. ""Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.,"" ""The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality,"" and ""Private Speech, Public Purpose"" are fairly interesting discussions of how courts should consider First Amendment cases, when government tries to do things like suppress hate speech or enforce abortion gag rules. R.A.V. was the pseudonym of a teenager convicted under a hate speech ordinance for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. The Supreme Court found that the ordinance in question crossed the line from punishing behavior to punishing viewpoints. These articles did not seem particularly technical or procedural. Rutherglen praised these pieces as ""important contributions to the field,"" while Volokh wrote that the articles ""attack difficult and important problems."" Her most readable piece was her book review, ""Confirmation Messes, Old and New,"" in which she argued that Supreme Court nominees should be more forthcoming about their legal views during confirmation hearings. (Yes, we're readying our Flip-O-Meter on this one, once her own hearings start.) To be clear, whether Kagan's scholarly output should be considered substantial or scant is a legitimate area for debate and we're not trying to settle that question here. Instead, we wanted to know how much Kagan wrote and what she wrote about. Brooks said she wrote five ""mostly technical and procedural"" scholarly review articles. We found that there are several different ways to calculate how many law review articles Kagan has written; and some legal experts offer higher numbers. Finally, if Brooks only counts five articles, at least three of those were about significant First Amendment issues with broad impact, which is at odds with his description of the articles as ""mostly technical or procedural."" So"
|
2767
|
Amgen's cholesterol fighter succeeds in fifth late-stage study.
|
Amgen Inc said its experimental drug from a promising new class of injectable medicines succeeded in treating patients with genetically high cholesterol levels, marking the fifth successful clinical study of the drug.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Evolocumab met the main goal of a late-stage trial titled RUTHERFORD-2 by lowering “bad” LDL cholesterol levels when tested against a placebo on 329 patients. Amgen, the world’s biggest biotechnology company, is testing evolocumab widely on a variety of subpopulations. The RUTHERFORD-2 study included patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, an inherited condition that causes high levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol starting at birth. Specifically, patients in the study had heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, which is one of the most common genetic disorders affecting about one out of every 300 to 500 people worldwide, according to Amgen. The company on Tuesday reported positive results from a fourth late-stage study of evolocumab, for which it plans to begin seeking approvals this year. The drug is intended for people who cannot tolerate widely used statins, or who are unable to get their LDL levels low enough despite using high potency statins, such as AstraZeneca’s Crestor. Amgen’s shares closed at $120.89 on the Nasdaq on Thursday.
|
41728
|
"The EPA last year ""completed more Superfund hazardous waste cleanups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year."
|
In a July 8 speech dedicated to the environment, President Donald Trump made a series of misleading or false statements as he played up the U.S.’s environmental achievements, many of which predate his time as commander-in-chief.
|
false
|
air pollution, climate change, CO2 emissions, drinking water, environment, EPA, Green New Deal, lead, Paris Agreement, superfund,
|
In a July 8 speech dedicated to the environment, President Donald Trump made a series of misleading or false statements as he played up the U.S.’s environmental achievements, many of which predate his time as commander-in-chief.In remarks at the White House, the president and his top aides cast the administration’s environmental record in a positive light. “We’re making tremendous environmental progress under President Trump, and the public needs to know that,” said Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who was a lobbyist for coal and other energy companies. But many of the environmental victories Trump cited have been in the works for years or decades, such as the cleanup of Superfund sites or the court-ordered EPA regulations. The president spoke of “revising the past administration’s misguided regulations to better protect the environment and to protect our American workers,” without specifying the impact of his many regulatory rollbacks. Trump has declined to support or sought to undo many of President Barack Obama’s signature environmental policies, including the Clean Power Plan. By the EPA’s own calculations, Trump’s replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, provides very few carbon emissions reductions.The Trump administration has also proposed freezing fuel economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026 — an action the EPA says would increase CO2 emissions by 7.4 billion metric tons by the year 2100.The president also did not mention that he has proposed hefty cuts to the EPA’s budget each year, most recently proposing a 31% cut in fiscal year 2020 — including a 9 percent cut, or $109 million, to the Superfund program that Trump touted in his speech.The president falsely claimed that his administration last year completed a record number of Superfund cleanups. “We’ve refocused the EPA back on its core mission,” he said, “and, last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste cleanups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year. We have done tremendous work on Superfunds.”But there are several other years when the agency has removed more sites from the Superfund list than it did in 2018.By calendar year, 2018 had 17 full site deletions; by fiscal year, which ran from Oct. 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2018, there were 18. When including partial deletions, the tally rises to 22 for fiscal year 2018. This is the number the EPA likes to cite, noting that it is more deletions in any year since fiscal year 2005. An EPA spokesman told us this is what the president was referring to. But the figure is not a historical record.In calendar year 1996, the EPA removed 45 Superfund sites, or 34 when counting by fiscal year. Fiscal years 1997 and 2001 also each had more than 30 Superfund deletions. And every calendar year between 1995 and 2001 had at least 19 deletions. In 2017, there were just three calendar year deletions and two fiscal year deletions. So far in 2019, only one site has been deleted. As we’ve also noted before, Superfund cleanups often take decades to complete, so it’s inaccurate for Trump to take full credit for these deletions. In fact, of the 18 fully deleted sites in fiscal year 2018, all completed physical cleanup before 2016 and only two were made ready for reuse after 2016. The ready-for-reuse stage, regional EPA spokespeople previously told us, occurs when all of the remediation is complete and what’s left is contamination monitoring and paperwork.Trump did not once say “climate change” in his speech. But he did tout the nation’s progress over the past nearly two decades on reducing carbon dioxide emissions — even though Energy Information Administration data show energy-related CO2 emissions were 1.9% higher in 2018 than they were in 2016.Trump, July 8: Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth. Think of that. Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020. We’re doing a very tough job and not everybody knows it, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today to speak to you. Every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions.Trump’s statistic is accurate, but it’s misleading because it refers to an absolute reduction in emissions, rather than a percent reduction. Absolute reductions fail to account for differences in population size or starting levels of emissions, rendering international comparisons meaningless.The factoid may have come from the International Energy Agency, which noted in its 2018 report that despite rising in 2018, “emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14% and 800 Mt [million metric tons] of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.” (Note: While IEA data shows that peak emissions were in 2000, the EIA says that milestone occurred in 2007. Either way, the drop is around 14%. )While impressive, more than 10 other nations participating in the Paris Agreement have posted higher percent declines. IEA data, for example, shows Denmark’s emissions fell a whopping 34% between 2000 and 2016, while the United Kingdom and France posted declines of 29% and 20%, respectively.Many industrialized nations taking part in the Paris Agreement have no chance of besting the U.S. on this particular bragging right. That’s because most of these nations are small relative to the U.S., and their residents already produce relatively few emissions per capita.In some cases, it’s not even possible. In 2000, for example, France’s total emissions couldn’t have dropped by 800 million metric tons because they were only 365 million metric tons to begin with.As the IEA report highlights, Trump also omits the fact that CO2 emissions rose in 2018, which the EIA attributed to “weather and continued economic growth.”Finally, Trump took credit for expected emissions reductions this and next year. “Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020,” he said. “We’re doing a very tough job and not everybody knows it, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today to speak to you.”But according to the EIA, those drops are expected because of “milder weather … and, consequently, less energy consumption.” The agency says that even with two back-to-back declines, emissions are not projected to fall below 2017 levels.The president also highlighted some recent EPA regulations designed to protect children from lead exposure. The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there is no safe blood lead level in children. Trump, July 8: And for the first time in nearly 30 years, we’re in the process of strengthening national drinking water standards to protect vulnerable children from lead and copper exposure — something that has not been done, and we’re doing it. And last month, our EPA took the first major action in nearly two decades to reduce exposure to lead-contaminated dust.Trump may very well be the first administration in almost three decades to substantially update the lead and copper rule, a 1991 regulation pertaining to drinking water. A proposed rule is expected in July.But that doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the EPA, there were revisions to the rule in 2007 “to enhance implementation in the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement.” And the Obama administration conducted many of the preliminary actions, including a 2016 white paper outlining potential revisions. The Trump EPA repeatedly has delayed issuing the standards.Trump also presents the rule on lead dust as an administrative initiative. But the lead-dust regulation was court-ordered, and health advocates say the resulting standards don’t go far enough. The final lead dust rule, which the EPA announced on June 21 and has yet to take effect, lowers the amount of lead dust allowed on floors and window sills in childcare centers and homes built before 1978 — the year the federal government banned lead paint in homes.In December 2017, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to review the standards “in light of the obvious need.” The lawsuit was filed during the Obama administration. But the Trump EPA fought the petition in June of 2017, and according to the decision, offered “a vague intention to issue a proposed rule in four years and a final rule in six” — a timeline the court considered “unreasonable.” The court gave the EPA 90 days to produce a proposed rule and an additional year to produce a final rule.The new rule lowers the hazard levels, making them more stringent. But it kept in place higher clearance levels, or the standards that would have to be met after a lead removal project. This discrepancy has activists concerned that the regulation will fail to keep kids safe, according to E&E News, an energy and environment news site.Trump suggested that his administration was responsible for the U.S. placing first in drinking water rankings determined by university researchers.“And today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water,” Trump said, after mentioning several things he said happened since he was elected or became president.The White House told us Trump was referring to the 2018 Environmental Performance Index, which scores countries based on their performances in a number of categories covering environmental health and ecosystem vitality. It is jointly produced by Yale and Columbia universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum.The most recent EPI does show that the U.S. was tops in drinking water along with nine other countries. The drinking water indicator, the report says, is measured “as the proportion of a country’s population exposed to health risks from their access to drinking water, defined by the primary water source used by households and the household water treatment, or the treatment that happens at the point of water collection.”But America’s score is not based on anything Trump has done as president.The 2018 EPI report — which was published in January 2018 — says the data used for the sanitation and drinking water indicators predates the Trump administration. The EPI’s technical appendix designates 2016 as the year supporting the current scores for the drinking water category.Trump repeated his misleading and exaggerated claim that the Green New Deal will “cost our economy nearly $100 trillion.” As we have written, Trump is referring to a nonbinding resolution introduced in the House by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.As a “simple resolution,” Ocasio-Cortez’s measure would not cost anything. The House hasn’t taken up the resolution but, even if it passed, it would not go the Senate or to the president for his signature. It merely recognizes that climate change is a problem and calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions through a “10-year national mobilization.”In addition, the $100 trillion is a high-end, rounded up estimate that comes from a conservative nonprofit policy group and coauthored by John McCain’s chief economic adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. The estimate — which actually ranges from $51 trillion to $93 trillion between 2020 and 2029 — only includes costs, and doesn’t account for economic benefits or other effects. Experts have told us that attempting to put a specific price on the resolution is misleading, since the Green New Deal is so vague.The Senate resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, failed to get a single supporter in a procedural vote taken in March.In claiming that his administration is “proving” that “a strong economy and a vibrant energy sector” is compatible with “a healthy environment,” the president boasted that the level for particulate matter is “six times lower here than the global average.” The U.S. level is low, but the global average he cites is skewed by high levels of dust in countries located in North Africa and the Middle East. Trump, July 8: One of the main [measures] of air pollution — particulate matter — is six times lower here than the global average. So we hear so much about some countries and what everyone is doing. We’re six times lower than the average. That’s a tremendous number.The EPA told us that Trump was referring to a World Health Organization’s 2019 global air quality report on fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, which are particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller.Trump has a point. “The 10 countries with the lowest national PM2.5 exposure levels were the Maldives, the United States, Norway, Estonia, Iceland, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Brunei, and Finland. Population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations averaged 8 µg/m3 or less in these countries,” according to the 2019 report, which was based on 2017 data.The global average, weighted by population, was 46 micrograms per cubic meter, or ug/m3, which is about six times higher than the U.S. level of 7.4 ug/m3. However, the report also indicates that the global average is skewed by high levels of dust — not industrial pollution — in some countries.“The sources responsible for PM2.5 pollution vary within and between countries and regions,” the report said. “Dust from the Sahara Desert contributes to the high particulate matter concentrations in North Africa and the Middle East, as well as to the high concentrations in some countries in western sub-Saharan Africa.”The regional average levels were higher than the global averages in North Africa and the Middle East (55 micrograms per cubic meter) and the western sub-Saharan Africa (59 micrograms per cubic meter). That includes countries such as Niger (94 ug/m3), Egypt (87 ug/m3) and Chad (66 ug/m3).By contrast, the regional average for Western Europe was just 12 ug/m3, and includes four countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden — that had lower levels of PM2.5 pollution than the United States.
|
21326
|
An Environmental Protection Agency regulation that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2012, regulates dust.
|
Herman Cain: EPA to regulate dust in 2012
|
false
|
Georgia, Environment, Herman Cain,
|
"It was the kind of question that any politician who opposes big government would love to field during a GOP presidential debate. ""My question is, if you were forced to eliminate one department from the federal government, which one would you eliminate and why?"" asked a man from Arlington, Va., via YouTube during the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando. A moderator chose metro Atlantan Herman Cain to answer it, and to the delight of the audience, he turned his hypothetical ax on a favorite target of big government foes: the Environmental Protection Agency. ""Now, I know that makes some people nervous, but the EPA has gone wild. The fact that they have a regulation that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2012, to regulate dust says that they've gone too far,"" Cain replied. Dust? The EPA will start regulating dust in January? We contacted the Cain camp for evidence, but they didn’t reply. Fortunately, the EPA posted its reports on the issue online. Factcheck.org, a fact-checking operation similar to PolitiFact, looked into Cain’s comment as well. We found that the EPA has long regulated a category of air pollution called ""particulate matter,"" which includes dust. There’s no new regulation scheduled for Jan. 1, 2012. Particle pollution is a floating mix of solid particles and liquid droplets. Sometimes, the particles are visible, like smoke from a power plant, haze, or the dust that Cain mentioned. Other times, they’re so small they’re invisible to the naked eye. These particulates can be made up of any number of chemicals, and can come from a variety of sources such as smokestacks, fires or construction sites. A growing body of scientific evidence links particle pollution to a variety of health problems, including respiratory issues, lung disease, heart problems and even higher death rates, according to multiple independent reviews of the scientific literature as well as the EPA. A small number of studies have even linked naturally occurring dust storms to a rise in trips to the emergency room for cardiovascular problems, according to an EPA review of scientific studies. The EPA has regulated this form of air pollution since 1971 under the Clean Air Act, and requires air monitors in areas with populations greater than 100,000, according to state and federal documents. But it does not specifically single out farm dust for regulation. Since states have to comply with the regulations or risk losing federal money, they may institute rules for farm dust to get into compliance with the law, a lobbyist for the farm industry and news accounts confirm. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA reviews its particle pollution standards every five years. And that’s where the current dust-up over dust began. The EPA released its most recent policy assessment in April. It concludes that based on the newest research, it’s worthwhile to consider tightening some standards on larger or ""coarse"" particulates. This category includes dust from landfills, construction sites, agriculture and industrial sources such as steel mills. The agriculture industry and other groups objected, saying this suggestion doesn’t make sense for rural areas, where tractors and pickups kick up naturally occurring dirt in the fields or on unpaved roads. But both the EPA and regulation opponents agree that no regulation is in the pipeline, and it’s certainly not coming Jan. 1. Factcheck.org’s Sept. 23 story on the debate noted that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture in March that it was a ""mischaracterization"" that the EPA is trying to ""expand regulation of dust from farms."" Indeed, the EPA has not formally submitted new regulations for review, an agency spokeswoman told PolitiFact Georgia. Jackson said she would make a decision on whether to tighten the rules in July, according to a Reuters news story, but she has yet to do so. Even if the EPA were to submit such regulations today, it could take a year or so for them to go into effect, said Richard Krause, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. The EPA would have to make any proposal available for public review and comment, a process that could take some months. So to sum up: The EPA has been regulating large particulate matter, including dust, for four decades, but does not single out farm dust or require monitoring in more rural areas. EPA staffers and scientists concluded after an assessment of the most recent science that it’s worthwhile to consider tightening current regulations, but the EPA has not formally proposed any regulation, and even if they did so today, it could take a while for it to go into effect. So, Cain does have a point. The EPA does regulate dust under the Clean Air Act. But Cain’s language was very specific, and now that the dust has settled in the wake of the Republican debate, it’s clear his specifics were incorrect. Dust is regulated, but not at all in the way that Cain described. We therefore rate his statement ."
|
4257
|
Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.
|
For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Cancer, New Jersey, Health, Ovarian cancer, Lifestyle, Business
|
Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson’s Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J’s home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn’t reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don’t seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here’s what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there’s no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn’t use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it’s relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection — a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn’t mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there’s no proof talc, which doesn’t interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women’s health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. “Lord knows, with the amount of powder that’s been applied to babies’ bottoms, we would’ve seen something,” if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency’s position is that there’s not a clear connection. “It is very hard to establish causal relationships,” he said, adding, “A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer.” Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. “The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small,” Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma .
|
40837
|
Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year.
|
It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information.
|
unproven
|
health-tourism
|
Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS. This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS. Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year. It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information. Claim 1 of 3
|
10120
|
Cutting the fat–without incisions: New weight-loss surgery
|
"The segment reports on a novel approach to weight loss surgery that is incision-less. The procedure itself is apparently still under development and investigation. There was no indication of when it would be available or why it’s not yet available. The reporter does a lot of hand waving about the evidence for benefit with this procedure… it was called ""remarkable"" and ""exciting"" and noted to have fewer complications than other procedures, but no specific information was given about its impact on body weight, health, or risk of complications, including death. Perhaps these data aren’t yet available? If so, it’s worth emphasizing that this procedure is still experimental and needs more study to know if it is safe and truly effective. It is novel to have a weight loss procedure that is incision-less, but incision-less doesn’t mean ""without risk"" especially in this patient population. Overall, the story suggests that this is a risk-free way to lose weight and the only down-side is the cost — clearly this is not true and is a mis-representation of the risks involved in general anesthesia for any patient with severe obesity."
|
false
|
"One good thing about the piece: it acknowledged cost, stated that the cost was uncertain yet, but put it in the context of gastric band procedure – ""about $13,000 to $20,000."" No quantification of benefits. Unbelievably unhelpful. The story says ""Although there have been some complications, doctors say overall, the incisionless surgery is less painful and safer."" What exactly ae the complications? You can’t wave them off like that without any details. No clear data – only confusing comments. Early in the piece the reporter calls the results ""exciting"" and ""remarkable."" But later she says, ""The results aren’t quite as good as gastric bypass patients, but about the same result as the gastric band and with no cutting."" Viewers want to know: How much weight loss can be expected. Where does the data come from? What’s the quality of the evidence? No overt disease-mongering. Only one physician-user was interviewed in the segment. Where is the independent analysis of this approach? An incomplete comparison of this new approach with existing weight loss surgical procedures – incomplete largely because there is no data – no evidence – presented. The story says ""If all goes well, about a year and a half from now, this may end up being the most popular surgical way for obese Americans to lose weight."" Huh? On what basis is that a year and a half prediction made? On the word of the surgical innovators? We suppose the segment tried to establish the novelty of this particular surgical approach. But are they going to give network airtime to every new weight surgery approach? We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have been influenced by a news release. We do know it profiled just one prized patient at just one medical center."
|
|
11218
|
Life – now in ‘surround sound’: Ex-Miss America has 2nd implant to aid hearing
|
The story is largely anecdotal and it provides no quantitative evidence of the success of cochlear implants. We are also not told if multiple surgeries are ever necessary, or if there are any potential side effects of the surgery or implant. Also, the story does not mention that with cochlear implants, patients must work with an audiologist and/or speech therapist to learn or relearn how to make sense of certain sounds. The story does provide the cost of the implant; however, the costs and time associated with post-surgical audiology and speech therapy are not mentioned. Sources other than the former Miss American’s surgeon and audiologist are needed for a more balanced perspective on the device. A discussion of the pros and cons of the implant is also needed. The story mentions that the cochlear implants are typically covered by insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, and they are available for people who understand fewer than one-third of spoken words; however, the story does not discuss if the surgery needs to be performed by a specialist or if it is only available at certain medical centers. The story mentions John Hopkins Center for Hearing and Balance in the context of one person’s account following cochlear implant surgery, and that one person travelled from Atlanta to Baltimore for the procedure. So the availability issue is not adequately addressed. The story notes that cochlear implants have been available since the 1970’s, but they have improved in design and technology. The story provides a good description of the criteria necessary for consideration of a cochlear implant, but it does not discuss the option of no treatment. Some people in the deaf community may want to avoid the risks of surgery, or they may want to maintain current means of communication, such as lip reading and sign language. Cochlear implantation is generally safe, but complications from general anesthesia or the surgery itself are still a possibility.
|
false
|
The story does provide the cost of the implant, however, costs and time associated with relearning and interpreting sounds is not mentioned. A co-pay may still be necessary, even if covered by insurance. This cost or deductible might be a percentage of the implant and surgery, which at $40, 000+ would be significant to many patients. So, while this is a potentially misleading statement, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and grade it satisfactory on costs. This story is anecdotal and no quantitative evidence on the success of dual implantation is provided. The story does not mention potential harms of the surgery, or long-term side risks associated with the implant. The story is anecdotal and it provides no quantitative evidence of the success of cochlear implants, does not mention sif reoperation is ever necessary or the incidence of side effects of the surgery and/or implant. The story does not appear to be disease mongering and an estimate of cochlear implants worldwide in provided. Sources other than Heather McCallum’s surgeon and audiologist are needed for a more balanced perspective on the device. A discussion of the pros and cons of the implant and surgery is needed. The story provides a good description of the criteria for an implant, but the option of not having treatment is not discussed. The story also didn’t discuss other means of communication (such as lip reading and sign language) for the hearing impaired. Some people in the deaf community may want to avoid the risks of surgery, or they may want to maintain current means of communication, such as lip reading and sign language. Also, the story does not mention that with cochlear implants, patients must work with an audiologist and/or speech therapist to learn or relearn a sense of hearing and how to make sense of certain sounds. The story mentions that the implants are typically covered by insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid. However, the story does not discuss if the surgery needs to be performed by a specialist or if it is only performed at certain medical centers. The story only mentions John Hopkins Center for Hearing and Balance in the context of one person’s account of receiving a cochlear implant, and that one person traveled from Atlanta to Baltimore for the procedure. The availability issue was not adequately addressed. The story notes that cochlear implants have been available since the 1970’s but they have improved in design and technology. It also includes one surgeon’s estimate that “about 10 percent of the 100,000 people worldwide with implants have them in both ears.” We can’t be sure how much the story relied on a news release, although there was a Johns Hopkins news release announcing the ex-Miss American’s second implant and inviting reporters to sit in on the procedure, and offering interviews with the same patient, surgeon and audiologist who appeared in the story. Nonetheless, because we can’t be sure of the influence of the news release.
|
|
25747
|
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy “gave $400,000 to Republicans just this year” and has “between $30 and $75 million in assets of direct competitors to the United States Postal Service.”
|
Louis DeJoy was appointed postmaster general in May. Government documents show that he and his wife have tens of millions of dollars invested in companies that provide services similar to the USPS. Campaign finance data shows that DeJoy has contributed more than $440,000 to Republican causes since January 2020. The USPS inspector general is investigating DeJoy for potential ethics conflicts and reviewing some of his policy changes, such as eliminating overtime and slowing some mail delivery.
|
true
|
Ad Watch, Really American,
|
"As new coronavirus cases continue to rise across the country, public health officials have advised Americans to consider voting by mail this fall. But funding for the U.S. Postal Service is up in the air, and the USPS has warned states that it can’t guarantee all mail-in ballots will be counted in time for the November election. The White House isn’t helping. In an Aug. 13 interview with Fox News, President Donald Trump said he opposed including additional funding for the Postal Service — which has lost billions of dollars during the pandemic — in new coronavirus bailout legislation. Why? Because Democrats want to expand voting by mail. ""They want three and a half billion dollars for the mail-in votes,"" Trump said. ""They want $25 billion, billion, for the post office. Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots."" ""But if they don't get those two items that means you can't have universal mail-in voting because you, they're not equipped to have it."" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called lawmakers back early from their August recess to vote on legislation that would block the USPS from making operational changes. Trump has long derided the USPS as a waste of federal dollars. But an Aug. 12 ad from an anti-Trump political action committee claimed there may be ulterior motivations for the administration’s comments. ""This is Trump’s new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy,"" says a narrator in the ad, which was published by Really American on Twitter. ""A longtime Republican donor, DeJoy has given over $400,000 to Republicans just this year. Coincidentally, DeJoy and his wife have between $30 and $75 million in assets of direct competitors to the United States Postal Service."" ""That’s right — they own the competition. The man Trump put in charge of our post office has the most to gain from its destruction."" NEW VIDEO: Trump didn't choose Louis Dejoy to run the Post Office. He chose him to destroy it. #TrumpKillsUSPS pic.twitter.com/OOhJNOSnit The ad has more than 4 million views on Twitter, and similar claims have circulated widely on social media, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. But are they accurate? We reached out to the postmaster general’s office for a comment, but we haven’t heard back. We also haven’t heard back from Really American. So we dug into DeJoy’s financial records ourselves. We found that the postmaster general has donated more than $440,000 to Republican causes in 2020. DeJoy’s investments in USPS competitors are less certain, but government documents suggest he could own more than $75 million in assets. DeJoy was appointed postmaster general in May. Government documents show that he and his wife have tens of millions of dollars invested in companies that provide services similar to the USPS. DeJoy is the former chairman and CEO of New Breed Logistics, a contract logistics firm in North Carolina. The company helped the USPS process mail for more than 25 years. In 2014, DeJoy sold the company to XPO Logistics, Inc., for $615 million. XPO says it’s a ""top 10 global provider of transportation and logistics services"" and is valued at more than $7.5 billion. As part of the 2014 deal, DeJoy joined the board of XPO and agreed to use $30 million of his proceeds to buy restricted stock in the company. That brings us to the low point of the range mentioned in Really American’s ad. But what about the rest of the purported assets? DeJoy is married to Aldona Wos, a former U.S. ambassador to Estonia who has been nominated to serve as ambassador to Canada. The Washington Post reported in June that DeJoy and Wos hold ""between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in USPS competitors or contractors, according to Wos’ financial disclosure paperwork filed with the Office of Government Ethics."" A fact-check from USA Today estimated that the couple may have up to $75.8 million in assets. We requested Wos’ 85-page financial disclosure from the Office of Government Ethics to see for ourselves. Here’s a breakdown of Wos and DeJoy’s assets in logistics companies, as of 2019: XPO: $30.2-$75.5 million United Parcel Service: $115,002-$300,000 J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc.: $1,001-$15,000 Forward Air Corp.: $1,001-$15,000 Saia Inc.: $1,001-$15,000 The vast majority of DeJoy and Wos’ holdings are in XPO. However, whether or not XPO is a ""direct competitor"" to the USPS, as Really American claimed, is up for at least a little debate. A 2019 Securities and Exchange Commission filing indicates that, as of 2018, XPO’s ""peer group"" companies included UPS and J.B. Hunt. The Postal Service is not mentioned in the filing, but since XPO arranges more than 10 million last-mile deliveries per year, the company could benefit from a weakened USPS. Really American is correct to say that DeJoy has a financial interest in companies that provide services similar to the USPS. But is the postmaster general also a Republican donor, as the PAC claims? In a word: yes. According to the Federal Election Commission, DeJoy has contributed more than $440,000 to Republican causes since January 2020. Those causes include the Trump Victory committee, the North Carolina Republican Party, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the (Rep. Kevin) McCarthy Victory Fund. Congressional Democrats questioned DeJoy’s political and business ties soon after he was appointed in May. CNN reported Aug. 14 that the USPS inspector general is investigating DeJoy for potential ethics conflicts and reviewing some of his policy changes, such as eliminating overtime and slowing some mail delivery. We reached out to the Louis DeJoy and Aldona Wos Family Foundation for a comment, but we haven’t heard back. In an ad, Really American said DeJoy ""gave $400,000 to Republicans just this year"" and has ""between $30 and $75 million in assets of direct competitors to the United States Postal Service."" Data from the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Government Ethics confirms those claims. DeJoy and Wos’ holdings in XPO and UPS alone amount to between $30.3 and $75.8 million, and DeJoy has contributed more than $440,000 to Republican causes since January 2020. Whether XPO is a ""direct competitor"" to the USPS is up for debate, but the company could benefit from a weaker Postal Service. Meanwhile, the USPS inspector general is investigating DeJoy for potential ethics conflicts. The Really American ad is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.."
|
4633
|
Peter Frates, known for ice bucket challenge, laid to rest.
|
To honor Peter Frates — the former Boston College baseball player whose public battle with ALS helped make the ice bucket challenge a phenomenon — do as he did, the priest who officiated at his funeral said Friday.
|
true
|
Health, Boston, General News, Lou Gehrigs disease, U.S. News, Sports - General
|
“The best way to honor him is to try to imitate him,” the Rev. Tony Penna said during the Mass at the Church of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Frates died Monday at age 34. He was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a progressive nerve disease also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease that eventually results in total paralysis, in 2012. There is no cure. “Peter was aglow with the spirit of God,” Penna, director of campus ministry at Boston College, told hundreds of mourners who packed the church next to campus. Frates and his family did not come up with the idea of the ice bucket challenge, but when they got involved in 2014, it exploded on social media. Participants dump a bucket of ice water over their heads, post a video of it and ask viewers to make a charitable donation. The phenomenon has raised about $220 million worldwide, including $115 million alone for the Washington-based ALS Association. Much of the money has been poured into research and has already led to breakthroughs, the association said. Frates’ father, John, in his eulogy, recalled his son’s big ego — eliciting laughs from the mourners — and his giving nature. He told the story of his son taking the family truck and digging out the entire neighborhood after a snowstorm, even the new family who had just moved in. He refused to accept a penny from anyone. “The currency that Pete worked in was helping others,” his father said. He ended the service by urging people to stop grieving and continue the fight to find a cure for ALS. Frates’ funeral procession started in his hometown of Beverly, north of Boston, and passed his former high school, St. John’s Prep in nearby Danvers. Hundreds of current students at the all-boys Catholic school linked hands along the roadside as the procession passed. Some students wrote the numeral 3 — Frates’ jersey number at Boston College — in the snow on the school’s athletic fields. Frates’ survivors include his wife, Julie; daughter, Lucy; his father and his mother, Nancy; and siblings, Andrew and Jennifer.
|
9813
|
Drug Duo May Help Fight Aggressive Form of Breast Cancer
|
We gave this story the benefit of the doubt on several jump-ball scoring decisions. Benefits were vaguely described. Harms were vaguely described but not quantified so readers had no sense of the scope of potential problems. The saving grace was the input from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society, offering important independent analytical perspectives. Women with HER2-positive breast cancers hang on any news about potential progress. They deserve a more clear breakdown of harms and benefits than what was provided in this story. HER-2 positive breast cancer is an aggressive form of the disease. Earlier studies have suggested that women with the marker have a higher likelihood of recurrence than those without the HER-2 protein. This study is an early proof of concept study that was designed to determine if early and prolonged treatment with a standard chemotherapy drug and two drugs that block the HER-2 protein would result in better tissue response as measured by pathology. Importantly, the study was not designed to see if the combination would prolong the disease free interval or result in better 5 year survival. While the results are encouraging, additional studies are needed to see if the combination is successful.
|
mixture
|
breast cancer
|
Cost of Tykerb was estimated – about $4,000/month wholesale. No mention of Herceptin’s cost. Strange to include one but not the other since this was a story about a “drug duo.” Cost is always an important consideration in this type of story. This is especially true when the drug costs are so high. The drug costs for the combination regimen approaches $100,000 a year. Since the combination treatment is not standard, insurance coverage will be spotty at best. The first 1/3 of the story repeatedly referred to “response…massive improvement in response” but never really defined what that meant for lay readers. The story then said that the researchers could “see how the approaches affected survival” but later quoted Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society saying the question of overall survival has not been answered. This is terribly incomplete and confusing. There was a high level description of possible side effects from these drugs. But no sense of the scope of these problems was provided. More diarrhea? More frequent liver-enzyme alterations? Deaths have been reported? How much more? How many deaths? If you can quantify ill-described “response,” you can quantify the harms. The quote from Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society is the only saving grace on this criterion: The important question, however, has not been answered yet, Lichtenfeld said. That’s the effect on overall survival in using the two-drug approach. The researchers are continuing to evaluate that. No disease-mongering at play here. It may have been useful to note that 20-25% of all breast cancers are HER-2 positive. One independent source quoted. Drug company funding of the study was noted. There was no comparison given with past research about pre-operative chemotherapy attempts to alter the course of breast cancer outcomes. Readers have to connect the dots to figure out the availability of these drugs. We’re told that Tykerb was approved in 2007 and we’re told its retail price – so you can infer that it’s available. There was no overt description of the availability of Herceptin. We’ll call this satisfactory by a weak nod. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for at least offering this perspective: “Lapatinib (Tykerb) was approved for advanced breast cancer in 2007,” Baselga said. “The question we had was, what is the efficacy if we give it in early-stage breast cancer prior to surgery?” It does not appear that the story relied on a news release.
|
14897
|
"Marco Rubio Says Ted Cruz ""is a supporter of legalizing people that are in this country illegally"" and ""proposed giving them work permits."
|
"Rubio said Cruz ""is a supporter of legalizing people that are in this country illegally"" and ""proposed giving them work permits."" To the contrary, we found no sign of Cruz proposing to give work permits to immigrants living here without legal permission and no record of Cruz explicitly saying he favored giving such residents legal status."
|
false
|
Immigration, Texas, Marco Rubio,
|
"Florida’s Marco Rubio, asked by a reporter if Texan Ted Cruz is perhaps more serious about stopping illegal immigration, shot back that the freshman senators competing for the Republican presidential nomination share common ground. Rubio, who helped propel Senate approval of an immigration overhaul in 2013 that included a path to citizenship for immigrants already living here, replied at a South Carolina event Nov. 12, 2015: ""Ted is a supporter of legalizing people who are in this country illegally."" That’s kind of a head-snapper. Among presidential hopefuls, Cruz holds himself out as tougher than the rest against giving ground to people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. In September 2015, PolitiFact rated Cruz’s claim that he alone among 10 candidates (including Rubio) at the CNN Reagan Library debate never backed ""amnesty"" for immigrants. Research suggested he was the only one who had never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or another form of legal status. But Rubio suggested in South Carolina that when the Senate was debating its plan, Cruz was on board with giving immigrants legal status. ""In fact, when the Senate bill was proposed,"" Rubio said, Cruz ""proposed legalizing people that were here illegally. He proposed giving them work permits. He’s also supported a massive expansion of the green cards. He's supported a massive expansion of the H-1B program, a 500 percent increase. So, if you look at it, I don't think our positions are dramatically different."" Cruz has called for expanded legal immigration. In 2013, he unsuccessfully offered amendments to the Senate plan to quintuple H-1B visas, which are open to foreign workers with certain specialties, and to step up the number of green cards, which permit foreign nationals to live and work here permanently. The Cuban American lawyer talks up similar goals on his campaign website where his immigration proposals are preceded by this poke at the bipartisan ""Gang of Eight"" immigration effort that was joined by Rubio in 2013: ""When Establishment Republicans teamed up with Democrats to reward millions of illegal immigrants with amnesty,"" Cruz says, ""I engaged millions of men and women across the country. Together, we defeated President Obama’s attempt to pass amnesty."" So, is Rubio right that Cruz supports giving a legal status to people living here illegally — and even proposed work permits for them? Rubio camp cites Cruz’s comments at hearing Rubio spokesman Alex Conant, asked to explain how Rubio reached his conclusions, told us Cruz’s comments during the 2013 discussion about the immigration bill show he favors giving illegal immigrants living here some kind of legal status. By email, Rubio’s camp said an amendment offered by Cruz during the 2013 Senate deliberations demonstrates Rubio’s point. Ultimately, that’s not how we interpreted Cruz’s actions and statements during the 2013 debate that involved the Senate advancing an immigration plan that died without action in the House. Cruz’s actions, comments in 2013 Senate deliberations Let’s walk through what Cruz proposed, what he said about his proposal and whether he has otherwise embraced a legal status for immigrants living here without legal authorization. On May 21, 2013, Cruz issued a press release saying that he’d offered amendments to the Senate measure that day to ""ensure that illegal immigrants are not given a path to citizenship, and modernize, streamline and expand legal immigration by reforming the green card program."" In the release, Cruz’s office provided video of Cruz talking about his amendments during that day’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Per his unsuccessful proposal to remove the plan’s ""path to citizenship"" provisions, Cruz said at the hearing that in his view, for immigration reform to credibly fix ""the problem,"" border security should be toughened, legal immigration should be elevated, and ""there should not be a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally."" Cruz further said that if the path to citizenship were eliminated from the Senate plan, as he proposed, some 11 million residents living ""in the shadows"" would ""still be eligible for RPI status."" The Senate plan ultimately provided that immigrants in the country without legal authorization could apply for an envisioned Registered Provisional Immigrant program, which would result in a work permit also enabling a successful applicant to travel outside the U.S. and return. A person with RPI status for 10 years would be eligible to apply for permanent residency, as in a green card. Cruz continued: ""They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for"" green card ""status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective, to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows,"" Cruz said. Other Cruz comments According to a Bloomberg News story posted the day after Rubio commented on Cruz in South Carolina, the Texan said he laughed on hearing the """" idea that he supports giving work permits to people living here without legal permission. On the other hand, Rubio's campaign pointed out news stories that it described as demonstrating Cruz was amenable to giving immigrants legal status. In June 2013, Cruz told NPR News that if senators embraced his proposal stripping out the path to citizenship option, the ""11 million who are here illegally would be granted legal status once the border was secured — not before — but after the border was secured, they would be granted legal status. And indeed, they would be eligible for permanent legal residency. But they would not be eligible for citizenship."" Later, Cruz was described in September 2013 by the Texas Tribune as supportive of giving immigrants living here legal status--though not a way to citizenship. The story said: Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he (Cruz) stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay. ""The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,"" he said during a recent visit to El Paso. By phone, Brian Phillips, a Cruz campaign spokesman, told us that each example of Cruz mentioning work permits in the Senate plan amounted to Cruz simply explaining what would remain in the Senate plan if the path to citizenship element were yanked--and, Phillips said, Cruz never said he would vote for the plan, regardless. Other analysts Separately, Mark Krikorian, who advocated against the 2013 bill, told Bloomberg News that Cruz’s amendment to remove the path to citizenship element was a legislative tactic. ""You often introduce measures you hope will be poison pills if you're trying to kill a piece of legislation,"" said Krikorian who works for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that focuses on lessening immigration. We asked Chris Chmielenski of NumbersUSA, an advocacy group that promotes reduced immigration, about Rubio’s claim. Chmielenski, who closely monitored the Senate during the immigration debate, said by email he doesn’t think Cruz ""was ever willing to support legalization"" of immigrants living here ""before enforcement"" of border security. ""That's a different position from Rubio,"" Chmielenski said. By phone, Chmielenski said that there also was no Cruz amendment proposing to give work permits to people living here without legal authorization. Our ruling Rubio said Cruz ""is a supporter of legalizing people that are in this country illegally"" and ""proposed giving them work permits."" To the contrary, we found no sign of Cruz proposing to give work permits to immigrants living here without legal permission and no record of Cruz explicitly saying he favored giving such residents legal status. – The statement is not accurate."
|
2958
|
FDA rejects Actavis' contraceptive patch, seeks more data.
|
Actavis Plc said U.S. health regulators denied approval to its contraceptive patch for women and asked for more data.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration questioned the differences in size and formulation of the patch used in trials and the to-be-marketed patch. The generic drugs maker, which received a “complete response letter” from the FDA, said it planned to work closely with the agency to address the questions. Such letters typically lay out FDA concerns that need to be addressed before a treatment is approved. Actavis’ contraceptive skin patch is designed to provide continuous delivery of the hormone norethindrone, a type of progestin, during a once-weekly, seven-day dosing regimen. Progestin, the synthetic form of female sex hormone progestogen, inhibits ovulation and thickens the layer of mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot enter the uterus. The treatment will compete with Johnson and Johnson’s Ortho Evra, an estrogen/progestin combination contraceptive patch. Estrogen is another female sex hormone. A progestin-only patch can be safer than combination patches as high levels of estrogen are often linked to blood clotting disorders and an increased risk of cancer. The company also filed on Tuesday an application to market the generic version of Merck & Co Inc’s NuvaRing, a estrogen/progestin combination hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. Actavis said it may be the first applicant to file the application, which, if approved may entitle it to 180 days of generic market exclusivity. Shares of Dublin, Ireland-based Actavis were down 0.6 percent at $165.16 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday.
|
7503
|
White House hopefuls target Trump on coronavirus response.
|
Democratic White House hopefuls are seizing on President Donald Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus outbreak, calling it the latest evidence of his incompetence and warning that the crisis may only deepen as a result.
|
true
|
Health, Ebola virus, Politics, Joe Biden, Public health, Election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Pandemics, New York, Michael Pence, General News, Amy Klobuchar, Donald Trump
|
But some experts and Democrats warn that the candidates risk exacerbating a public health crisis if they go too far in politicizing the virus that causes the COVID-19 illness. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar all went after Trump during their CNN town halls Wednesday night. A number of the candidates have released their own pandemic policies, and Bloomberg is even airing an ad contrasting Trump’s response to the outbreak to his own handling of the aftermath of Sept. 11. It’s a potent political issue, as it gets at what Democrats see as two major potential weaknesses for Trump: questions about his competence as president and health care issues. “The threat from coronavirus and the chaos of the administration is front and center in everyone’s mind,” said Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic strategist and former spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Not talking about it means you’re missing voters who are deeply worried about the public health threat and deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s incompetence.” Warren, Klobuchar and Bloomberg have all released public health plans detailing how they’d address and prevent similar outbreaks as president. During their CNN town halls, Warren warned that the economic impact of the new coronavirus could get worse. She and Klobuchar slammed Trump’s decision to put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the coronavirus response, noting his controversial handling of an HIV outbreak in Indiana when he was governor. Biden has previously slammed Trump for “hysterical xenophobia and fearmongering” rather than respecting science on the issue. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, another 2020 Democratic hopeful, issued a statement Thursday night calling for Trump to allow her state to buy COVID-19 testing kits from Japan. She said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “failing to provide them.” “As an island state, with responsible leadership, we can keep this virus out. But, we won’t be able to do that without our state and federal leaders taking it much more seriously than they are right now,” she said. But sounding the alarm on the administration’s coronavirus response also holds risks. Florida Rep. Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, had a stark warning for Democrats. “Don’t open your mouth until you know what you’re talking about. This is politics. They need to listen to the scientists as well,” she said. That is a major criticism Democrats have lobbed at Trump — that he has botched his response and fostered more confusion by publicly contradicting the scientists in his administration about the severity of the virus. On Wednesday, the Republican president sought to minimize fears at a White House press conference in which he insisted the U.S. is “very, very ready” for an outbreak and predicted: “This will end … there’s no reason to be panicked.” But standing next to him, the health officials in charge of handling the outbreak predicted more cases are coming in the U.S. Democrats are not immune to the critique themselves, however. During Tuesday night’s primary debate, both Biden and Bloomberg made the erroneous claim that Trump cut funding for the CDC. While Trump proposed cuts to the CDC in his budget blueprint, he was overruled by Congress, and the eventual budget he signed included an increase in funding. Biden corrected his comments during Wednesday night’s CNN town hall but went on to warn that Trump “did not have a plan to deal with how you equip hospitals.” Bloomberg, meanwhile, criticized Trump at a Houston rally on Thursday, accusing him of “burying his head in the sand” and charging that “his failure to prepare is crippling our ability to respond.” But the public health system has a playbook to follow for pandemic preparation — regardless of who’s president or whether specific instructions are coming from the White House. Those plans were put into place in anticipation of another flu pandemic but are designed to work for any respiratory-borne disease. Jen Kates, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, warned that “any time political ideology starts to dominate the dialogue, it puts the public at risk.” “The history of good public health is that when things become politicized, we risk a good sound response and a response based on science and expertise,” she said. “This is a situation that’s changing by the moment, and that makes it all the more delicate.” Kates warned that there should be some “caution around not stoking panic and not using the partisan environment to steer away from basic public health messaging” — but acknowledged that will be tough “in a very partisan time, during campaign season.” Both parties are guilty of politicizing public health pandemics when they’re not the party in charge of the White House, she noted. During the Ebola outbreak in 2014, Republicans routinely slammed the Obama administration for similar critiques Trump is facing from Democrats — namely, that he was too slow to respond and didn’t appoint an adviser to coordinate the government’s response quickly enough. But Kathleen Sebelius, who served as Obama’s secretary of health and human services from 2009 to 2014, said Democrats have a lot more to criticize when it comes to Trump’s response. “We have the components of what could be a perfect storm. Are there ways to deal with it calmly and rationally? You bet. Is the United States well prepared? It seems like there are some gaps,” she said. She pointed to the fact that the initial White House funding request was just a fraction of what had been allocated for past viral outbreaks like Ebola, and Trump himself has largely left it up to Congress to sort out the details. She also noted that a number of key positions set up by Obama to deal with global pandemics have now either been eliminated or left vacant, and she called out Trump for contradicting his own scientists on the severity of the threat. Shalala agreed — but she warned Democrats to be “careful” to focus their critiques on the president and not the experts in the administration who are trying to tackle the crisis. “There are things that they can criticize, like the inadequate funding request and the president muddying the waters” at his press conference, she said, “but they shouldn’t be criticizing the agency heads and the very good scientist physicians that are trying to do their jobs.” But some Democrats say the conversation around the coronavirus is fair game because it gets at a much broader issue for Trump: questions surrounding his leadership. “Electing a president isn’t about a series of issue check boxes on a spreadsheet. It’s about the public’s confidence that you can lead the country, especially in times of crisis,” Ferguson said. “If we can’t demonstrate the fundamental failure of this administration to lead in this crisis, then we are not talking about the thing that people think about when electing a president.” ___ Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”
|
14855
|
Twenty-five percent of our kids in foster care are there because their parents are involved in drugs.
|
Our ruling Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services.o be True.o be True.
|
true
|
Children, Drugs, Poverty, Missouri, Vicky Hartzler,
|
"U.S. Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri , visited ABC 17’s ""This Week"" on Oct. 9, and was asked about ""Take Back The District,"" an anti-drug initiative she was launching. Hartzler said drugs posed a significant problem in her district. Employers, she said, tell her they cannot find an employee to fill a position because applicants can’t pass a drug test, while military recruiters say they have to turn away otherwise exceptional recruits because of drug use. Hartzler talked about her years teaching at-risk teenagers and cited a widespread drug problem in the United States and one of its most sobering effects: the displacement of children into foster care. ""Twenty-five percent of our kids in foster care are there because their parents are involved in drugs,"" Hartzler said. Certainly drug use by parents can lead to state intervention, but is the number of reported cases really this high? Foster care According to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, there are 397,122 children living in the foster system without permanent families. Hartzler has long been an advocate for the advancement of foster care, even co-publishing an article on its problems. Kyle Buckles, Hartzler’s communications director, pointed us toward the Green Book. Each year, statistics are compiled into the House of Representative’s Green Book, which is used to provide background material and data on the programs run by the Ways and Means Committee, including foster care. Foster care statistics Without considering alcohol, drug use by the parent was above 25 percent from 2010 through 2013, for which data is available. When alcohol is factored in, this number is more than 30 percent. Drug use is the second largest cause of the removal of children from their parent’s custody. The most prevalent circumstance for removal is neglect, which is present in over half of the cases in the United States — but it is important to remember that more than one factor may be cited in a particular case. For example, a child may be removed from his parents’ custody for neglect, parental drug abuse and child drug abuse. The problem appears to be getting worse. A 2009 study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that between the years 2002 and 2007, 12 percent of children between the ages of six to 11 were living with a parent who abused drugs or alcohol. Take Back the District Hartzler’s initiative has since met once to discuss the district’s drug issues. Her goal was to bring together law enforcement, parents, school officials, community leaders and citizens. The program met early on Oct. 19, where Hartzler, speakers and guests discussed the issuesand possible solutions to the problem and then diverted to a ""Faith-Based Rehabilitation and Ministry"" panel discussion. Our ruling Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services.o be ."
|
10646
|
Doubt Cited on Aspirin-Blood Thinner Combo
|
This story offers a good overview of the results of a trial that combined the blood thinner Plavix with aspirin to try to prevent heart attacks in people who don’t appear to have heart disease but who have conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The story describes key outcomes of the study, and includes a clear statement that the results do not change recommendations for patients who seem to benefit from the combination – “people who recently have had heart attacks or a procedure to unclog an artery.” This story stands as a good example of what can be included in a 700-word story.
|
true
|
Cost of Plavix is included in the story. The story not only provided good data on benefits, but also a definition of which type of patients benefited. Good, easily-understandable explanation of how the study was done. The opposite of disease mongering, this story explains the study’s questions of preventive benefit from the Plavix-aspirin combination, including one researcher’s quote: “You don’t use this drug for patients without coronary artery disease.” The story includes input from researchers, editorial writer, and from drug maker. However, it is not clear if the story included any input from any independent source not directly tied to the study. Story explains why researchers thought adding clopidogrel to aspirin might be helpful in a broader group of people. Does not appear to have relied on a press release.
|
|
26915
|
"Our new (health care) plans are up to 60% less expensive and better"" than Obamacare."
|
Trump said these are new plans that are 60% cheaper and better. But short-terms plans are not a new idea. Just how much cheaper they are depends on a lot of factors, experts told us. And it’s very hard to examine them in an apples-to-apples comparison with ACA plans, which cover far more and are required to accept all applicants. Given the limitations of short-term plans, they’re not better than ACA plans for most people, because policyholders could face potentially significant financial risk — or find their treatment needs are not covered. They’re definitely not better for people who qualify for federal subsidies to buy ACA insurance, especially those at the lower end of that income range, where the subsidies are larger. That said, a short-term plan may be better than going without coverage at all, particularly for a young or otherwise healthy person, whose income is above subsidy limits.
|
false
|
Health Care, Health Check, Donald Trump,
|
"In his wide-ranging State of the Union address, President Donald Trump returned to a favorite theme: the cost of health insurance. He cited the high cost of premiums for people who buy their coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and said his administration has provided new, less costly coverage. ""I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives. Our new plans are up to 60% less expensive and better,"" Trump told the lawmakers gathered at the Capitol. So we wondered, to which new alternatives was he referring? We reached out to the White House to ask. Spokesperson Adam Kennedy responded that the president was talking about short-term, limited-duration plans. But that got us thinking: Are they really less expensive and better? Or simply better than nothing? They are not. As background, short-term insurance plans have been around for decades in various iterations and are generally considered a stopgap solution for people between jobs or attending school. They provide some protections, usually paying a percentage of hospital and doctor bills after the policyholder meets a deductible. But they’ve always been a bit controversial. Unlike the ACA plans now available, short-term plans can bar people with health conditions from enrolling or exclude coverage for specific conditions or treatments. They also offer fewer benefits — meaning they are not required to comply with the health law’s mandated essential benefits requirement. So, for example, they don’t have to cover prescription drugs, or mental health services or substance abuse treatment — and many don’t. In addition, they can set annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Almost all exclude maternity care. If a person develops a health condition during the coverage term, insurers can look through their medical records and, in some cases, retroactively cancel the plans — or refuse to renew the coverage at the end of the policy’s term. The Obama administration restricted these policies, which still cannot be sold on the ACA marketplaces and do not qualify for subsidies, to a maximum coverage period of 90 days, down from the 364 days that applied previously. The Trump administration reversed that time-limit restriction in 2018 and built on it by allowing insurers to offer policies renewable for up to three years. Officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, said at the time that these short-term plans provide an alternative but aren’t a good fit for everyone. For instance, the Trump rules require the policies to carry a warning that they aren’t ""required to comply with federal requirements for health insurance."" They also state that consumers should ""check the policy carefully to make sure you understand what the policy does and doesn’t cover."" The White House pointed us toward a January 2019 report produced by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation as the source for the president’s assertion that these plans are 60% less expensive. It quickly becomes clear that the analysis is very wonky and complex. After all, it’s not easy to project what benefits insurers will include in short-term plans or what they will charge individuals, which can vary based on their health. Even the analysts called the estimating process ""challenging."" When it came right down to it, they hedged: Short-term plans are likely cheaper than the lowest-cost ACA plan for some consumers, but more expensive for others. For example, people who get a federal tax credit to buy ACA-compliant insurance or those who are older or less healthy would likely pay more in premiums for a traditional short-term plan, the analysts said. Conversely, those without subsidies, especially younger or healthier consumers, might pay as much as 60% less than they would for the lowest-cost plan through the ACA, the analysis concluded. Another study, not cited by the White House but done by the conservative Manhattan Institute, also listed caveats, but more robustly defended the plans as less expensive. Premiums for short-term plans are lower — in some cases, almost half the cost — of ACA plans, it concluded. But critics put these price tags in context. ""I don’t have a reason to suspect the 60% is wrong if they’re lining them up against ACA plans, but if you’re a health plan that doesn’t cover much, it’s easy enough to offer a cheap premium,"" said Sabrina Corlette, research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. The consensus is that the coverage short-term plans provide is not better than that of ACA plans. But it could be better than going without insurance entirely. ""Why not throw another option out there?"" said Doug Badger, senior fellow at the conservative Galen Institute. ""You might say this plan isn’t as good as that plan, but we may both agree that having this one is better than nothing."" He said that should be a decision made by consumers, who can weigh the pros and cons: ""They know their circumstances and risk tolerance."". Still, it’s a gamble, as no one knows what health conditions might befall them. A plan that doesn’t cover prescription drugs may be fine the first month, but if a serious illness crops up, it suddenly has unexpected costs. Others also note that short-term plans may have wider networks of doctors and hospitals than some ACA plans, giving consumers more options. ""In Texas, for example, you cannot buy an ACA plan that covers MD Anderson,"" the cancer center of the University of Texas, said Brian Blase, CEO of Blase Policy Strategies. Blase has advised Trump on his health policy efforts. ""The only way you can have such a plan that includes MD Anderson — unless you have employer coverage — is in a short-term plan."" Again, nice to have a wide network. But there’s a conundrum. Someone with cancer — attracted to a network because it includes MD Anderson — would be rejected by most short-term plans. That ability to reject applicants — or seriously limit coverage of their preexisting conditions — helps keep premiums down. But those are also the main reasons experts say the plans are not better than those offered under the ACA, which bars such limits. A preexisting condition is often defined as anything treated — or for which a ""prudent person"" should have sought treatment — during the previous 12 months to five years, depending on the insurer. ""If you have high blood pressure and, while on one of these plans, you have a heart attack, the plan could say that was a preexisting condition,"" said Corlette. State regulation of such plans varies widely, as do the coverage benefits and limits offered by various insurers. Some have limits listed in the fine print. While short-term plans have been embraced by regulators in some states, nearly half of all states have moved to limit them to less than 12 months. Four — California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have barred them altogether. Those states cite concerns about the effect on ACA premiums and the risk that consumers could be left hanging by the more limited nature of the short-term plans. Trump said these are new plans that are 60% cheaper and better. But short-terms plans are not a new idea. Just how much cheaper they are depends on a lot of factors, experts told us. And it’s very hard to examine them in an apples-to-apples comparison with ACA plans, which cover far more and are required to accept all applicants. Given the limitations of short-term plans, they’re not better than ACA plans for most people, because policyholders could face potentially significant financial risk — or find their treatment needs are not covered. They’re definitely not better for people who qualify for federal subsidies to buy ACA insurance, especially those at the lower end of that income range, where the subsidies are larger. That said, a short-term plan may be better than going without coverage at all, particularly for a young or otherwise healthy person, whose income is above subsidy limits."
|
40211
|
An eRumor comparing the number of gun-related deaths among soldiers killed in action in IRAQ with the number of gun related deaths in Washington DC . It concludes that the ratio of deaths per 100.000 in Washington DC was worse than the same ratio in Iraq and closes by saying that the US should pull out of Washington!
|
California Governor Gavin Newsom called a widespread electricity shutdown triggered by a power company to prevent wildfires “unacceptable”, as gale-force winds and dry weather posed a critical fire threat to the north of the state.
|
false
|
Humorous, War
|
Pacific Gas and Electric Co (PG&E) has imposed unprecedented shut-offs that left more than 730,000 homes and workplaces in northern California without power on the second day of planned outages. But as of late Thursday, power was restored to more than half of those who had lost it, PG&E officials said in a release. About 312,000 electric customers remained without power as of 10 p.m. officials said. Some of the state’s most devastating wildfires were sparked in recent years by damage to electrical transmission lines from high winds, with flames then spreading through tinder-dry vegetation to populated areas. Newsom, a Democrat, told a news conference on Thursday he did not fault the utility for shutting off electricity as a safety measure, but he described the outage as too broad and said it resulted from years of mismanagement by the utility. “We’re seeing a scale and scope of something that no state in the 21st century should experience,” Newsom said. “What’s happened is unacceptable and it’s happened because of neglect.” The remarks were the most pointed comments Newsom has directed at PG&E since the outages began early on Wednesday. Among the questions he raised was whether the utility was too large, with a service area covering more than 40 counties. He also faulted PG&E for putting what he called “greed” ahead of investments in its infrastructure to protect the electrical grid from dangerous winds. PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January 2019, citing potential civil liabilities in excess of $30 billion from major wildfires linked to its transmission wires and other equipment. PG&E Chief Executive Bill Johnson acknowledged that his company had left “millions of people” without a “fundamental service” they expect and deserve. “This is not how we want to serve you,” he told a media briefing in San Francisco, adding that PG&E “was not adequately prepared” for such a large power outage. As high winds moved south, a similar cut-off was under way by neighboring utility Southern California Edison, which warned that more than 173,000 customers could lose power in parts of eight counties, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Ventura. Residents, business owners and even public officials expressed frustration about the blackouts, which the utility began on a much smaller scale last year during times of high fire risk. “Northern California is not a Third World country,” the San Jose Mercury Statesman said in an editorial. “It’s unacceptable that the region is being forced to endure this level of disruption as the long-term strategy for dealing with the threat of wildfires.” PG&E, California’s biggest investor-owned utility, said power would be restored to areas once up to 77 mph (124 kph) winds die down and 2,500 miles (4,025 km) of transmission lines could be inspected. “We faced a choice between hardship or safety, and we chose safety,” Michael Lewis, PG&E’s senior vice president of electric operations, said in a statement. The National Weather Service said the hot gusty winds that usually hit northern California in October, sometimes called the “Diablo Winds”, would continue into Friday morning. Much of northern California, from San Francisco to the Oregon border, remains under a state “red flag” fire alert, although no major blazes have been reported. “As soon as the weather passes, PG&E will begin safety inspections with 6,300 field personnel and 45 helicopters standing at the ready once we get the all clear,” the utility said in a tweet on Thursday. Oakland supermarkets brought in refrigeration trucks to save food. Michael Wara of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment estimated the economic cost of the shutdown could reach $2.5 billion, with small businesses hit hardest as they typically lacked back-up generators. In Santa Rosa, a California wine country town where entire subdivisions were destroyed by a deadly 2017 wildfire, restaurateurs Mark and Terri Stark said they had to close one of their six restaurants after it lost power. “This is preventative medicine and medicine sometimes is not good to take,” said Mark Stark, 60, who lost one restaurant in the 2017 blaze. The fires in that region killed 46 people. “Those fires and what they caused are still very real for people in our ‘hood,” he said.
|
10239
|
For post-op complications, go back to the same hospital: study
|
This story summarizes an important study whose findings could affect the way rehospitalizations are handled. It suggests that returning to the same hospital where a surgical procedure was performed has tangible clinical benefits for patients. But the story focused on the study’s more sensational number — a 26 percent mortality drop — while making no reference to the more conservative 8 percent figure that emerged after the authors attempted to reduce confounding error. It also missed an opportunity to go further than the study did by providing some estimate — even an imperfect one — of the dollars and lives that might be saved if the study findings were confirmed and the authors’ recommendations were put into practice. Efforts to improve the quality of care provided in the hospital include reducing readmissions. It is known that these are costly and may represent inadequate care during the hospital stay or post-discharge planning. Indeed, Medicare now has penalties for hospitals that have high readmission rates. It is in this context that the current study suggests that when readmissions occur after surgery, whether the readmission occurs in the same hospital or not is associated with the likelihood of dying. The 26% lower death rate reported in the story probably overstates the benefits of returning to the same hospital. That’s because the comparison reflects some level of bias. For example, if the patient is too sick to travel across town to the original hospital, the ambulance may be forced to take that critically ill person to a different hospital — the death isn’t due to the other hospital but to the seriousness of the patient presenting there. Nevertheless, even a small reduction in death rates with readmission to the same hospital — if shown to be real — represents an important finding. The challenge is what policy levers to use to encourage readmissions to the same hospital. This is not necessarily an easy task.
|
false
|
Reuters
|
Alas, though the story contains some interesting information, it does not explore or speculate as to what the cost would be of returning most patients to an index hospital. It’s possible there would be downstream savings. Interestingly, in the U.S. hospitals may face a penalty from Medicare if they have high readmission rates. In that sense, they could have an incentive to discourage patients from coming back to the same institution. The story describes the authors’ finding of a 26 percent drop in 90-day mortality. But it fails to mention that the authors’ instrumental variable analysis — intended to reduce confounding — yielded just an 8 percent drop in mortality risk for those patients who were readmitted to the original hospital. Though less dramatic, it is still a potentially important finding. The story makes no mention of any downside that might be caused by returning patients requiring rehospitalization back to the hospital where the original work was done. It’s conceivable that policies encouraging people to go back to their original hospital could delay treatment of problems that can get worse without immediate care. For example, if someone travels for a procedure, getting back to the hospital for readmission could take longer than going to a local hospital. The story does note that going to the original hospital often results in more timely care, but the flip side was worth mentioning, too. The story gives a nice description of how the study was performed. However, it doesn’t cite any potential limitations to the work, and thus may give readers a misleading impression of the study’s strength. Here are a few limitations that were acknowledged by the study researchers and editorialists: Disease mongering was not an issue. The story included a quote from the editorial that accompanied the study. But this quote is not very informative. “Patients readmitted after surgery almost always have a postoperative complication, either medical or surgical.” The point of this criterion is to encourage critical evaluation of the research, so we’re hesitant to give credit for a quote that’s mostly superfluous. The editorialists did comment on some of the important limitations raised in the quality of evidence domain above, but the story didn’t use any of that text. The alternatives here are going to the same hospital or not. The piece emphasizes that this may be important, so we’ll give credit. The story could also have attempted to address what to do about these findings. What are the implications? The story mentions the ambulance driver or the patient traveling to another city for a procedure at a big name facility. The article implies that this situation could be changed, but doesn’t state how. This would require an initiative where insurers and payers decide that this is something important enough to address through policy changes. As noted above, seeking to ensure that patients who have undergone major surgery would be readmitted to the hospital where the initial surgery was performed would appear to be logistically difficult, at best. The story did not address that concern. The story doesn’t establish whether this is the first study of its kind or whether it builds upon previous research. The study authors noted that they found no prospective or retrospective studies that were applicable to the subject and were published between 1990 and February 1, 2014. But they also say that, while their data were being analyzed, two observational studies were published — containing conflicting results. The story doesn’t provide this context. The story also could’ve met the standard here by noting that there are policies in place that attempt to reduce readmissions. So the idea of focusing on readmissions as a way to improve care is not novel, although this study provides important new data on the issue. The story includes quotes from a telephone interview, so we can be sure it went beyond any news release.
|
9180
|
Blueberry concentrate improves brain function in older people
|
Following a very small study of 26 people, scientists at the University of Exeter claimed that drinking about two tablespoons of blueberry juice concentrate improved the brain function of 12 adults, partially based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) function tests. The study lasted only 12 weeks. The news release exaggerates the importance of such a brief limited study, and it doesn’t include any numbers that would help readers understand any changes that were observed. On the plus side, the release does disclose that the study received financial support and samples from a blueberry supplement manufacturer. The volume of nutrition advice hitting the daily news cycle is overwhelming readers’ capacity to keep up and sort the evidence-based news from the purely promotional. News releases like this tend to straddle both the good and the bad. While fruits and vegetables are uniformly considered healthful, this claim of brain changes from a few tablespoons of blueberry concentrate is backed by very thin “evidence” from a very preliminary and limited study. We wish the release had explained the limitations of small, short duration studies. We’ve seen this before and described some of the problems in a blog post on why readers need to be skeptical about nutrition claims relating to brain health — and how you can’t eat your away out of dementia risk. Moreover, these sorts of releases and news stories further perpetuate the notion that supplements provide remarkable and clinically meaningful health benefits despite the fact that with almost no exceptions, the research has not borne this hope out.
|
false
|
blueberry juice,cognitive function,University of Exeter
|
There is no mention of the cost of this blueberry concentrate. According to the manufacturer’s website, a 473ml bottle of BlueberryActive Concentrate sells for £17.99 British pounds, or $21.85 in US dollars. Thirty blueberry capsules cost $13.35 in US dollars. The release gives us the broadest brush about benefits, but does not provide numbers or quantify how much improvement occurred. It states that “brain blood flow, brain activation and some aspects of working memory were improved in this group of healthy older adults” and “Compared to the placebo group, those who took the blueberry supplement showed significant increases in brain activity in brain areas related to the tests.” How much improvement was there? How did brain activity change before and after taking the supplement? But even with those numbers, brain activity is not a clinically meaningful measure. It’s a surrogate end point, not a measurable clinical benefit. There was no statement about harms, not even a statement declaring there are none. The study from the get-go wasn’t sufficiently powered (meaning it didn’t have enough study volunteers) to detect changes in cognitive performance. The published report notes that: “Cognitive function was assessed, as a secondary outcome, although the study was not sufficiently powered to detect changes in cognitive performance.” How many more people would have been required to provide sufficient power? What limited the researchers from taking the time to recruit them? There was no disease mongering. The release included the important fact that a commercial enterprise selling blueberry juice concentrate and blueberry capsules provided the samples and some of the funding for the study. The published paper states the authors declared they had no conflicts of interest. The release could have included some of the other factors that are known to reduce risk of dementia including exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and moderating any alcohol use. We know blueberry juice is widely available but what about the concentrated blueberry juice used in the study? The study does not make a claim of novelty, and includes this statement about previous research: “Previous research has shown that risk of dementia is reduced by higher fruit and vegetable intake, and cognitive function is better preserved in healthy older adults with a diet rich in plant-based foods.” We think the headline is not justified by the evidence presented. “Blueberry concentrate improves brain function in older people.” The statement makes it sound as if this single study of 12 people proves a functional improvement that is permanent, and that is not proven by the limited 12-week study. We also question whether the markers that were used — blood flow and brain activity during tests — can be reliably linked to a permanent change in the individual’s cognitive ability.
|
29563
|
A series of widely-shared photos show the effects that the Fukushima Nuclear DIsaster had on marine life.
|
What's true: The Fukushima nuclear disaster had lingering negative effects on wildlife. What's false: A series of photos show the direct effects the nuclear disaster had on marine life.
|
false
|
Uncategorized, fukushima, nuclear, ocean
|
In February 2016, a series of photos purportedly showing the ill effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster had on marine life was widely shared on social media. A popular Facebook post, which appeared to be a rewrite of an article published by web site Superstation95 in October 2015, reported that North Americans were eating seafood filled with “cancerous tumors”: Americans and Canadians have been eating radioactive fish filled with bloody, cancerous tumors, as a result of contamination with radiation in the Pacific ocean from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. While the Daiichi meltdowns and subsequent radiation releases did have a major effect on aquatic life, these photos do not illustrate those effects. For instance, the lead photo of the article, purportedly showing the “bloody” and “cancerous” tumors caused by nuclear radiation, was actually taken in 2004, years before the Fukushima disaster started leaking radiation into the sea: Superstation 95 touted these images as undeniable proof of Fukushima’s effect on seafood: The government and the nuclear power industry claim we have nothing to worry about. When you see the photos below, you may want decide for yourself if they’re telling the truth. The article then shows a picture of “cancerous tumors in salmon” purportedly linked to a rise in nuclear radiation in oceans: Again, however, the above-displayed image was taken prior to the Fukushima disaster. The image also does not show cancerous tumors, or any type of tumor at all. Instead, it was lifted from Wikipedia, and shows a salmon infected with with Henneguya salminicola, a myxosporean parasite. Another misleading photo featured University of Alberta scientist David Schindler holding a fish with a growth. The article reported that this image depicted a fish “showing classic signs of radiation-caused cancerous tumors,” but Schindler said that the fish was taken from the Athabasca River watershed, which is downstream from an oil sands industrial development — not a nuclear plant: In addition to spreading misinformation about the effects that the Fukushima disaster had on marine life, Superstation95 attempted to revive a long-debunked rumor that sharks don’t get cancer: Well, when they swim around the Pacific Ocean nowadays, the radiation is so terrible that even sharks are getting cancer! Recently, researchers in Australia noticed a large tumor protruding from the mouth of a great white shark, as well as another mass on the head of a bronze whaler shark. The tumor on the Great White was a historic first. The above-displayed image was taken in 2013, and while it was an unusual sight -— the first time a tumor was spotted on a great white shark — there is no evidence that the tumor was caused by radiation from Fukushima or anywhere else. Rachel Robbins, shark biologist at the Fox Shark Research Foundation who studied the animal, said that while the cause of the tumor was unknown, industrial pollutants may have been a contributing factor: Scientists have known for more than 150 years that sharks get cancer. And yet the belief persists that the animals don’t suffer from the disease. That misconception is promoted in part by those who sell shark cartilage, who claim that the substance will help cure cancer, said David Shiffman, a shark researcher and doctoral student at the University of Miami. But no studies have shown that shark cartilage is an effective treatment, and the demand for the material has helped decimate shark populations, researchers say. […] In total, scientists have now documented tumors in at least 23 species of sharks, including the two in the new study, Robbins said. “The main take-home message from the study is that it adds to the growing evidence of tumor formation in sharks, contrary to popular belief that sharks do not suffer from such anomalies,” Robbins told LiveScience. […] It’s unknown what caused the tumors in the great white or bronzer shark. However, reports of cancerous tumors in marine animals, especially mammals, have steadily increased over the past 20 years, raising concerns that industrial pollutants or human activities may trigger the cancers, according to the study. Beluga whales have been recorded to suffer from cancer, and in areas near aluminum smelting plants, cancer is the second leading killer of the whales, the study noted. Another misleading photo used to illustrate the effects of nuclear radiation featured a coral trout with skin cancer: The web site reports that “the only explanation for a fish getting human-like skin cancer is exposure to radiation.” While that may be technically true, the researchers who discovered the above-displayed fish told Live Science that the fish probably got skin cancer due to UV radiation, not nuclear radiation: The first case of skin cancer in a wild marine fish population looks eerily similar to the melanoma that plagues humans, researchers report today. Coral trout living on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are directly beneath the Antarctic ozone hole, the world’s largest, which is the result of the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere that normally protects humans from harmful UV rays. “Further work needs to be carried out to establish the exact cause of the cancer, but having eliminated other likely factors such as microbial pathogens and marine pollution, UV radiation appears to be the likely cause,” study researcher Michael Sweet, of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. The following images were presented with little to no explanation, although they were, presumably, included in the article in order to imply to readers that these animals had all been victims of the Fukushima disaster: The above photograph of shrimp was taken in 2012 in the Gulf of Mexico, and was lifted from an Al Jazeera story about the effects of the BP oil spill. This photo of a starfish was taken in 2006 — long before the Fukushima disaster — and appears on a Wikipedia page. This photo of a “juvenile male Northern Fur Seal” was taken in 2009 — again, before the Fukushima disaster — and has nothing to do with radiation. According to Getty, the image shows combat wounds. This photo of a polar bear with alopecia was taken in Alaska in 2012. While researchers said that this disease has been found in both wild and captive animals, they do not know the cause. The United States Geological Survey speculated that the lesions may have been caused by numerous factors, including “man-made and natural biotoxins, radiation, contaminants, auto-immune diseases, nutritional, hormonal and environmental factors.” However, SuperStation95 did use one photo that was directly tied to the radiation leaked from the Fukushima power plant. In August 2011, researchers detected cesium-137 and cesium-134 in 15 tuna caught off the coast of California: While it’s true that the above-displayed bluefin tuna did show signs of radiation from Fukushima, the study’s author, Daniel Madigan, said that the levels did not come close to exceeding safety limits: But upon analysis, the researchers found signals from Fukushima—isotopes called Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 — in all 15 samples they tested. When the team tested for the isotopes in bluefin tuna that migrated to California before the disaster and yellowfin tuna that are native to California waters, the radioactivity wasn’t present, which indicated that it came from Fukushima, Fisher said. The amount of Cesium 134 and 137 detected in the fish “didn’t come close to exceeding safety limits,” Madigan said, noting that what was in the fish, per gram, is lower than the amount of naturally occurring radioactive potassium found per gram in a banana. The article published by Superstation95 on 15 October 2015 (and subsequent posts on social media) used half-truths, misleading statistics, and unrelated photos in order to convince its readers that they had been ingesting radioactive seafood. While the Fukushima disaster certainly had effects on the environment and marine life, they are not adequately demonstrated by the photographs circulating in social media, nor by Superstation95.
|
10943
|
Review raises questions over benefits of cutting salt
|
This is a story about the information published in a recent Cochrane reviewing what has been shown to result from the reduction of dietary salt intake along with the opinions of several diverse thought leaders in the field about the review. The review found that small reductions in salt intake by people with normal blood pressure, high blood pressure, or a diagnosis of heart failure reduced blood pressure but did not show a demonstrable difference in the risk of developing heart disease or dying prematurely. The authors of the study indicated that the data available involved too few people and too small a reduction in salt intake to show heart health benefits. The guidelines mentioned and the experts in the field who were interviewed shared the point of view that excess salt was detrimental. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide and it is therefore of interest to know what lifestyle changes are effective in reducing this risk. Salt restriction is currently considered an important public health measure for reducing the burden of heart disease.
|
true
|
Reuters Health
|
Not applicable. Costs not in question in this context. The news of this piece is that, not withstanding the recommendations of many guidelines and experts, the recently published Cochrane review failed to demonstrate that a small reduction in dietary salt intake decreased the chance of developing heart disease or dying prematurely. Not applicable in this story about reducing salt consumption. The story reported on the conclusion drawn in a Cochrane Review about the failure to demonstrate health benefit resulting from reduction in dietary salt intake and then provided comments from several experts in the field to refute those conclusions. The story included comments from the lead study author indicating that the data were were limited by the small sample sizes in the studies and because the reductions in salt may have been too small to make a difference. This story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Quotes from several independent sources were included as part of this story. There was no mention in this story about what is known about other means of reducing the risk of developing or dying of heart disease. A brief mention – even one additional sentence – about the importance of smoking cessation, exercise, and other dietary changes would have provided perspective. Not applicable. The availability of salt is not in question. The story reported on the results of a recently published Cochrane review. It indicated that several guidelines included recommendations for reductions in salt intake and while the experts quoted were in agreement that reducing salt intake was beneficial, the results of this most recent review is that the data do not support this claim. Good context provided. This story does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
4643
|
Mental health care summit: Local officials must lead effort.
|
Federal officials say Louisiana leaders must take the lead in addressing mental health care for their own communities.
|
true
|
Mental health, Health, Bill Cassidy, Louisiana, Baton Rouge
|
The Advocate reports national and local politicians, law enforcement, health care experts and social services professionals attended a summit Tuesday in Baton Rouge hosted by Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. They agreed providing mental health services to keep patients out of emergency rooms and jail is vital, but the speakers said it must be a bottom-up effort. Cynthia Kemp says she had worked toward better service in Arlington, Virginia, roughly a decade ago, raising about $800,000 for a jail diversion program and crisis intervention team. She’s now with the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Cassidy says communities need to leverage local money to collect federal grant assistance. ___ Information from: The Advocate, http://theadvocate.com
|
35283
|
"A photograph shows a flyer posted for an ""End the Lockdown Rally"" in Staten Island."
|
NYPD has been tasked by Mayor Bill de Blasio to issue fines for people who are not social distancing.
|
true
|
Fauxtography, COVID-19
|
Over the weekend of April 17-19, 2020, protesters across the U.S. turned out for rallies urging a loosening of social distancing restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. At that time, social media users shared a photograph of a flyer for an “End the Lockdown” rally that seemed aimed at achieving the worst possible outcome in encouraging that participants need not wear masks, should bring their children along, and attend even if they were already sick: The cropping of the image seen above cut off the top portion of the poster, which identified it as referring to a “Liberate Staten Island” rally. We don’t know at this time whether the flyer was on the level or whether it was intended as a spoof of the reckless attitudes of some protesters, but we can verify that at least a few such flyers were posted around Tottenville, a neighborhood on the South Shore of Staten Island, as reported by the Staten Island Advance: Fliers promoting an “End the Lockdown Rally” were spotted at the CVS on Page Avenue, and on the corner of Main Street and Amboy Road. The promotional material said the rally would take place Sunday morning at 11 a.m. on the Conference House lawn in Tottenville. “No mask needed. Bring your children. Non-essential workers. If you’re sick still come, it’s your right!” stated the fliers. The instructions were followed by the phrase “Keep America Great!” and “#MAGA,” which stands for President Donald Trump’s original campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”
|
6938
|
About 15,000 strike at University of California hospitals.
|
About 15,000 medical workers on Tuesday started a three-day strike at five University of California medical centers amid a dispute over pay raises and job security, forcing the cancellation and rescheduling of thousands of surgeries and outpatient appointments, officials said.
|
true
|
Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, University of California, Health, Outsourcing, Strikes, California
|
The workers that included radiology technicians, respiratory therapists and pharmacy workers picketed the medical centers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Irvine and Davis. They rang bells, wore green-shirts and carried signed that said “End Outsourcing.” Another 24,000 other California union workers, ranging from truck drivers to gardeners and cooks, were striking in sympathy, said John de los Angeles, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299. Emergency rooms remained open at the hospitals but officials said the strike would still affect thousands of patients. The UC San Francisco hospital rescheduled more than 4,000 appointments at its medical center and two associated clinics and rescheduled 241 surgeries, including “pretty high-risk” gynecological and colorectal operations, said chief operating officer Sheila Antrum. Ten patients, including children, were sent to other hospitals, she said. The hospital had 500 temporary employee replacements on hand, including respiratory therapists, social workers, pharmacists and housekeepers, she said. “My focus here is that we get through everything with the usual great care we have,” she said. The union said some of its workers would keep working despite the strike to ensure patient safety, and it also has a “patient protection task force,” a group of emergency services staffers who are prepared to cross the picket lines if they are needed to work because of a medical crisis, de los Angeles said. Patient care workers have been without a contract since December. Talks and mediation efforts have stalled, and the university plans to impose new employment terms next month, de los Angeles said. The union wants the university to stop outsourcing low-wage work that it claims is fueling widening income, racial and gender gaps for workers at UC’s hospitals, clinics campuses and research facilities. The same issue prompted a three-day walkout by 53,000 UC workers last May, including custodians and cafeteria workers. Nurses and other medical workers walked out then in sympathy. “They’re destroying what were once career pathways to the middle-class for our state’s diverse population and are damaging the quality of service that we provide to students, patients, and everyday Californians,” Monica De Leon, vice president of AFSCME Local 3299′s Patient Care Technical Unit, said in a statement. A University of California statement said union leaders spread false information about outside service contracts and that the number of unionized patient care workers increased nearly 19 percent over the past five years while outsourcing contracts had stayed relatively flat. The employment deal to be implemented next month would grant 3-percent-a-year raises for the next 4 years for patient care and service staff, as well as offering a health plan at the same rates as other UC employees with similar salaries. The union, however, is demanding an “unrealistic and unreasonable” 8 percent annual wage increase that is nearly triple what other UC employees have received, UC Office of the President spokeswoman Claire Doan said in a statement. The statement accused union leaders of “throwing a tantrum ... putting their agenda above the needs of patients, students and the public.” But de los Angeles, the union spokesman, said the new employment terms do nothing to deal with the threat of replacing union jobs with cheaper outside contractors who are ill-paid and lack benefits. “What good is a raise if our job is allowed to be outsourced tomorrow?” he said.
|
32859
|
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the sale of cannabidiol (CBD) oils because a drug company is interested in marketing them.
|
The wildly inaccurate representation wasn’t out of line with the untrustworthy content practices associated with Natural News. Prior articles published on that site asserted that welfare recipients would be forced to receive RFID chip implants, that Chipotle’s foodborne illness outbreaks were the work of pro-GMO bioterrorists, that doctors were responsible for more deaths than guns in America, that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a warning urging Americans not to get the flu shot, that a Johns Hopkins scientist blew the lid off the hidden risks of influenza vaccination, and (perhaps most bizarrely) that the government was engaged in a program to utilize aerosolized “thought control” vaccines on the population. All but two of these claims were advanced by “Health Ranger” Mike Adams.
|
false
|
Uncategorized, alternative medicine, CBD, FDA
|
On 20 March 2016, the disreputable alternative health web site Natural News published an article claiming the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had “just” outlawed cannabidiol (CBD) oils by claiming that “all plant molecules now belong exclusively to Big Pharma”: Although the article was later substantially edited, its original version was republished verbatim to alternative news blog The Event Chronicle on 21 March 2016. The original article, which was credited to Natural News‘ “Health Ranger” Mike Adams, stated: Hemp oil extracts containing CBDs (cannibidiols) are such a threat to the pharmaceutical industry that the FDA is now invoking totally insane justifications for outlawing them. CBDs are non-psychoactive compounds found naturally in hemp plants. They work so well as powerful natural medicine that people everywhere are realizing CBDs work better than pharmaceuticals for treating epilepsy, seizures, neurological disorders and other serious health conditions (including HIV infections). So the FDA has just launched a massive regulatory assault against CBDs by invoking the most insane logic you’ve ever heard … The FDA just criminalized one of the most miraculous healing medicines in the world by handing it over to Big Pharma[.] In other words, the FDA just handed Big Pharma an absolute monopoly over CBDs (hemp oil extract) by ridiculously claiming such natural products are “adulterated” with molecules (CBDs) that the FDA says might one day become a drug. The relationship between digital articles and social media is such that a large share of the reading audience is exposed only to the headline of any given article and not its full text. One estimate from 2014 suggested that as many as four in ten people only read an item’s title, a figure which could be far higher when multiplied by Facebook. Thus, Adams’ claims led many to infer that the FDA had indeed issued an immediate, sweeping ban on CBDs (a product popular among chronic pain sufferers). The original article contained several links that readers might have presumed corroborated its claims. The first relevant link was to a 19 February 2016 article which in no way indicated that the FDA had banned CBDs; it simply reported on warning letters sent by the FDA to CBD oil manufacturers with respect to “impermissible” label claims: The debate over hemp CBD’s legal status continues after FDA sent eight warning letters to manufacturers of CBD dietary supplement and food products earlier this month. The warning letters cite impermissible health claims used to market the products, as well as CBD’s invalid status as a dietary ingredient due to its presence in two drug applications currently under consideration. On February 4, FDA sent warning letters to eight companies marketing CBD foods and dietary supplements, partially on the basis of impermissible medical claims used in marketing materials. These include suggestions that CBD may be used to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and more. The next link pointed to a nearly month-old article published by the Cannabusiness web site on 22 February 2016. Cannabusiness‘ coverage appeared to describe CBDs labeled and marketed in a manner that violated FDA labeling regulations: This continues the FDA’s ongoing battle against unapproved CBD products. In April of 2015, the FDA issued six similar warnings to companies with varying amounts of CBD. Pain Bomb, one of the companies in question, was issued an FDA warning February 4th, 2016. Members of the FDA wrote “PainBomb violated the FDC [Food, Drug, and Cosmetic] Act by misbranding its products. The diseases for which PainBomb marketed its products cannot be self-diagnosed or self-treated by people other than health care professionals. For this reason, PainBomb’s instruction labels informing users whether and how to use its products violate the FDC Act.” The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, otherwise known as the FDC Act, requires scientific information to demonstrate that a drug is safe. Pain Bomb allegedly violated section 201(g)(1)(B) of the FDC Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)]. The FDA gave Pain Bomb only 15 business days to correct all foregoing violations. Cannabusiness linked to a 16 February 2016 article published by legal blog Above The Law, which concisely explained why the FDA was sending letters to CBD oil vendors: In April 2015, the FDA sent warning letters to six companies whose products allegedly contained CBD. The FDA warned these companies about marketing and selling unapproved drugs to diagnose, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases in humans or animals. The FDA sent out a fresh round of warning letters to eight new companies. The FDA’s February 4th letter to PainBomb, LLC about the company’s “PainBomb+CBD” products is representative of the letters, and it states … PainBomb’s websites and accompanying literature seek to sell drugs covered by section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [(the “FDC Act”)] [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)] because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. PainBomb violated the FDC Act by misbranding its products. The diseases for which PainBomb marketed its products cannot be self-diagnosed or self-treated by people other than health care professionals. For this reason, PainBomb’s instruction labels informing users whether and how to use its products violate the FDC Act. Notably, the FDA in no way issued a ban of any description on the sale of CBD oils. Rather, the agency stepped in to warn several manufacturers that their products could not be marketed or labeled as “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” without further FDA oversight. And as it happens, section 201(g)(1)(B) of the FDC Act pertains to the labeling of products under its governance: The term “drug” means … (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals[.] Warning letters dated 4 February 2016 were published by the FDA to their web site, and the manner in which the agency alleged the CBD manufacturers were in violation of the FDC Act (i.e., marketing their products as dietary supplements) was clearly described: The claims on your websites establish that the products are drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)] because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. As explained further below, introducing or delivering these products for introduction into interstate commerce for such uses violates the Act. You can find the Act and FDA regulations through links on FDA’s home page at www.fda.gov. Although you market “Bluebird Botanicals Bulletproof CBD Blend,” “US Hemp Wholesale 25% CBD Hemp Oil Supplement” (aka “Gold Label CBD Hemp Oil”), “Plus CBD Oil,” “Endoca Hemp Oil,” and “Tasty Hemp Oil Tasty Drops” as dietary supplements, FDA has concluded based on available evidence that CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)]. Under that provision, if an article (such as CBD) has been authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public, then products containing that substance are outside the definition of a dietary supplement. There is an exception if the substance was “marketed as” a dietary supplement or as a conventional food before the new drug investigations were authorized; however, based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that this is not the case for CBD. Several examples of such labeling or marketing were included in the letters, many of which clearly appeared to violate the cited regulations: “CBD is as effective as traditional medications in treating schizophrenia. This latest research supports earlier theories that CBD could be effective as an antipsychotic medication …” The FDA concluded by ordering the companies to rectify their labeling and marketing practices (not by mandating that the products be withdrawn from the market): You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. In summation, the FDA’s warning involved how the products were marketed and labeled (as drugs intended to cure, prevent, or treat a medical condition), and not the legality of the products themselves. At some point between 20 March 2016 and 23 March 2016, Natural News significantly edited the original article, with Adams disingenuously maintaining that his use of the rather unambiguous term “outlawed” had been misconstrued by readers to mean that the products in question had been “outlawed”: MAJOR CORRECTIONS: I’m issuing a huge correction / clarification to this story after speaking with people in the hemp industry. They’ve pointed out that my article, although posted with the best intentions to help keep CBDs legal and readily available, was freaking out CBD retailers who thought some sort of new law had been passed outlawing CBDs. In no way did I intend to disrupt CBD retailers with that article! My only goal was to sound the alarm of how to FDA is attempting to destroy this entire industry, and help create a backlash that would keep natural medicine legal in America. So I’ve decided to post a serious correction / clarification to this story to make sure nobody misreads what I’m asserting here, and I apologize for any misconstruing of my intention in posting this … Essentially, my use of the term “outlawed” in the title of my original article was misconstrued. By “outlawed,” I meant the FDA essentially writes its own “regulatory laws” and has posted a clear statement on its own website which states that CBDs cannot be sold as a dietary supplement. This is a regulatory attack on hemp extracts, but it is not technically a law that was passed by Congress. I regret my choice of the word “outlawed”, and I will be more careful in my choice of words when covering this issue in the future. In the article below, I have replaced any reference to “outlawing” with the more accurate terminology of “regulating out of compliance” or similar language. Despite lengthy edits, the article remained factually inaccurate, claiming that the FDA asserted CBD oils were “adulterated products”: Now the FDA has begun sending warning letters to CBD makers, claiming they are in violation of FDA regulations because they are selling “adulterated products.” Adulterated with what, exactly? CBDs, of course! “The debate over hemp CBD’s legal status continues after FDA sent eight warning letters to manufacturers of CBD dietary supplement and food products earlier this month,” reports Nutritional Outlook. “The warning letters cite impermissible health claims used to market the products, as well as CBD’s invalid status as a dietary ingredient due to its presence in two drug applications currently under consideration.” Another commonly reproduced bit of verbiage held (without substantiation) that the impetus behind the FDA actions was a drug company’s interest in CBDs: The FDA just outlawed CBDs and hemp oil extracts by invoking a totally insane regulation you won’t even believe. Because a drug company is investigating CBDs for use as a medication, the FDA now says it is illegal for CBDs to be sold in any dietary supplement. While the FDA did send letters to CBD oil manufacturers in February 2016, the letters addressed marketing and labeling claims that violated the FDC Act. In the letters, the FDA simply required that CBD oil manufacturers cease cited labeling and marketing practices, but didn’t “outlaw” the products nor demand the vendors withdraw their oils from the market.
|
42065
|
A viral image shows four newly elected Democratic congresswomen with terrorist imagery and an “Impeach Trump” poster.
|
A tropical cyclone was forecast to move across the northwestern Bahamas in the coming days, potentially bringing more rain and wind to islands already devastated by Hurricane Dorian, the U.S. National Hurricane Center warned on Thursday.
|
false
|
The Miami-based hurricane center issued a tropical storm warning for islands including hurricane-hit Abacos and Grand Bahama, saying the system could become a tropical depression or storm before making landfall as early as Friday. Hurricane Dorian slammed into the Bahamas on Sept. 1 as a Category 5 storm, one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record to hit land, packing top sustained winds of 185 miles per hour (298 km per hour). The tropical cyclone was not expected to bring anywhere near that level of devastation, but was capable of winds of 30 miles per hour and 2 to 4 inches of rain through Sunday, according to the hurricane center. Aid groups rushed shelter material to residents living in the shells of former homes or whose homes had been stripped of their roofs. “We’re seeing plastic tarps go out all over the islands, and that’s extremely important because now you’ve got another tropical storm coming,” said Ken Isaacs, vice president of programs for U.S. relief organization Samaritan’s Purse. The prime minister of the Bahamas, Hubert Minnis, on Wednesday said the official death toll was 50 but was expected to rise. Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said he believed “hundreds” were dead on Abaco “and significant numbers on Grand Bahama,” the Nassau Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday. Minnis said there were problems coordinating aid due to the level of devastation and he was trying to remove “bureaucratic roadblocks.” With 1,300 people still missing, according to the Bahamian government, relief services are focused on search and rescue as well as providing life-sustaining food, water and shelter. Officials have erected large tents in Nassau to house those made homeless by Dorian and plan to erect tent cities on Abaco capable of sheltering up to 4,000 people. A flood of aid has caused bottlenecks at docks and airports, creating “a lot of delays” in relief supplies, said Nat Abu-Bonsrah of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, the global humanitarian organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Due to a shortage of functioning vehicles and facilities on Grand Bahama, the group turned to church members to lend their cars and kitchens for its program providing hot meals to over 400 people a day in Freeport. “We’ve not been able to reach them as much as we want,” he said of efforts to get hundreds of hygiene kits to survivors. Groups like Samaritan’s Purse, with their own aircraft or logistics chains, said they had not encountered issues with coordination or government red tape. “I think we’re accomplishing our mission, any roadblocks we have right now are our own,” said Dennis Clancey, a field operations manager for relief group Team Rubicon, which has deployed mobile medical units to treat patients.
|
|
3477
|
UN AIDS agency fires whistleblower after misconduct probe.
|
The United Nations’ AIDS agency has fired two staffers for financial and sexual misconduct, including a whistleblower whose allegations of being sexually assaulted sparked months of turmoil at the organization. Last March, Martina Brostrom publicly accused a senior UNAIDS director of forcibly kissing her and trying to drag her out of a Bangkok elevator in 2015. She also said he had sexually harassed her on other occasions.
|
true
|
Sexual misconduct, AP Top News, International News, General News, Health, United Nations, Europe
|
But before those allegations became public, Brostrom herself and a supervisor were being investigated by U.N. officials for their own sexual and financial misconduct, as revealed in an Associated Press story in April. Brostrom had previously reported the assault to her family and friends almost immediately after it occurred in May 2015 and to senior UNAIDS officials on several occasions later that year and the following year, according to her lawyer, Edward Flaherty. Internal documents obtained by the AP showed U.N. officials had “evidence” Brostrom and a supervisor had taken part in “fraudulent practices and misuse of travel funds.” Among other charges, the two were reprimanded for “abusing U.N. privileges by requesting special U.N. rates for the purpose of booking hotels for sexual encounters.” UN investigators also wrote that they found evidence suggesting the pair routinely used their work email accounts “to exchange messages with explicit sexual language, profanity and nudity.” Brostrom said that she was fired from UNAIDS last week in an act of retaliation for reporting that she had been sexually assaulted. “I spoke up about what happened to me and what was happening in UNAIDS. As a consequence, I have suffered tremendously,” she said in a statement. Brostrom’s supervisor was also terminated. Brostrom was credited by some for starting a #MeToo movement at the U.N. and her complaint that she was sexually assaulted led to two inquiries — a U.N. investigation that concluded there was insufficient evidence to support her claims and an independent assessment of the agency’s management that found a culture of impunity and “defective leadership.” In an email on Saturday that did not identify Brostrom by name, agency spokeswoman Sophie Barton-Knott said that “two staff members were dismissed from UNAIDS after an independent investigation concluded beyond reasonable doubt that they had misused UNAIDS corporate funds and resources and had engaged in other misconduct, including sexual misconduct.” Barton-Knott said the investigation began eight months before one staffer filed allegations of being sexually assaulted. She said any claims the employee was fired as payback for lodging sexual assault claims were “baseless and misleading.” Brostrom’s lawyer, Flaherty, said she will be appealing her dismissal. “She categorically denies the allegations,” he said in an email. The ongoing scandals have been a damaging distraction for UNAIDS, an agency at the center of multibillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded U.N. efforts to end the global AIDS epidemic by 2030. The virus affects more than 37 million people worldwide and kills more than 900,000 people every year.
|
21669
|
"Michele Bachmann's legislative record is ""offering failed amendments."
|
Tim Pawlenty said Michele Bachmann's legislative record is 'failed amendments'
|
true
|
National, Candidate Biography, Voting Record, Tim Pawlenty,
|
"It's not every state that has two candidates running for president, but this year Minnesota has both Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann competing for the Republican nomination. But the state's ""Minnesota nice"" reputation doesn't seem to apply to presidential politics. Bachmann, a member of Congress, has been attacking Pawlenty, a former two-term governor, for not being conservative enough. Pawlenty, meanwhile, has said Bachmann has few legislative accomplishments and wasn't known for getting results. We checked part of Bachmann's attack in separate fact-check. She accused Pawlenty of saying in 2006 that ""The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive."" We looked into the history of Pawlenty's comments and rated her statement . Here, we're looking at Pawlenty's response. He said that while he was ""elected twice in a very blue state, Congresswoman Bachmann was giving speeches and offering failed amendments,"" among other things. Pawlenty also said in an interview on July 10, 2011, that Bachmann's ""record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent."" Here, we wanted to check Pawlenty's statement about Bachmann's record of accomplishment. Is it as thin as he suggests? To check, we turned to the federal legislative database THOMAS, media accounts and other public records. We found Pawlenty was largely correct: Bachmann does not have many legislative victories under her belt. Instead, Bachmann seems to prefer offering legislation that makes a bold statement. This year, she proposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent, stripping President Barack Obama's health care law of funding, overturning new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and repealing the financial regulatory overhaul that passed just last year. None of those bills has received a vote from the full U.S. House of Representatives. Bachmann has served in Congress since 2006, and hasn't sponsored anything that's become law. Her most successful proposals were a 2008 resolution expressing support for agencies that provide services to foster children and a 2009 resolution to designate September as ""National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month"". (Hydrocephalus is a buildup of fluid inside the skull, leading to brain swelling, which can be fatal.) Both measures were approved by the House but not the Senate. We went looking for other accounts to either confirm or refute Pawlenty's charge. (We contacted Bachmann's campaign for comment and didn't hear back.) We knew from previous reporting that sometimes a legislator's bill is incorporated into other larger legislation with a different sponsor. We wanted to make sure were weren't missing giving Bachmann credit for a case like this. Instead, we found more confirmation that her legislative record is thin. Here's how POLITICO summarized its review of her record: ""Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she's sponsored signed into law, and she's never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann's amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator."" MinnPost.com, a nonpartisan Minnesota-based news website, concluded: ""She has had a few amendments passed, among the most famous of which aimed to prevent groups like ACORN from sitting on a proposed consumer advisory panel on financial protection and making them ineligible for certain federal grants. But most of her legislation, like her health-care reform bill that would make all health care costs tax deductible and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, has been introduced and referred to committee, never to be heard from again."" In February 2010, the St. Cloud Times newspaper of Minnesota asked Bachmann about her legislative achievements. Here's the question and her response: St. Cloud Times: ""Name three bills or amendments that you have gotten passed that are the most beneficial to the people of the 6th Congressional District."" Bachmann: ""I was involved in a foster care amendment to support and encourage people in foster care. It is a very important issue. Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-La.) and I are working on the Haiti situation. We are trying to put together initiatives so that children can actually go into homes and not stay in institutions their whole life. I was able to pass this resolution honoring people in foster care. I am in the deep minority in Congress and a fairly new freshman, so I don't have substantive bills that I have passed. I would love to. The very first bill I introduced was the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act."" We should note that Bachmann's point about being in the minority has some merit. It's often difficult if not impossible for legislators in the minority to get bills passed. But Republicans did regained the majority this year. Also, she's right that new members of Congress often don't get legislation passed, though Bachmann was in her second term when she made her comments to the St. Cloud Times. But even Bachmann supporters seem to admit that passing legislation isn't really her thing. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told POLITICO that Bachmann has had ""a profound effect on the debate,"" comparing her with Winston Churchill. ""It doesn't mean you always win. In fact, as we know, Churchill lost and lost and was a voice of reason in Great Britain for a long time before people finally realized he was right,"" Gohmert said. Finally, we checked in with two political watchers in Minnesota to see if we were missing anything from Bachmann's record. ""Pawlenty more or less got it correct in terms of saying her legislative record is insubstantial. She has never been known for doing real legislative work or in really moving legislation. She is better at giving speeches,"" said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University who studies Minnesota politics. And though Bachamnn was in the legislative minority for a time in Congress, Schultz said, she never chose to create a legislative record. ""Thus, it did not surprise me that once this year she became part of a majority in the House, she opted to run for president. I do not think she was prepared actually to govern and do real legislative work."" Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College, said that Bachmann ""has defined herself during her political career as a public advocate, not an executive or legislator. Her goal has been to draw bright rhetorical lines and marshal support for her purist conservative positions."" In ruling on Pawlenty's statement, he said that Bachmann's record was one of ""failed amendments"" and ""nonexistent."" There's a little bit of exaggeration there. In addition to failed amendments, she had failed bills, and those measures did, in fact, exist, even if they didn't pass. But his larger point that Bachmann hasn't had many legislative accomplishments is correct."
|
21765
|
The [Georgia] General Assembly took away the Atlanta Board of Education’s oversight of the superintendent.
|
Georgia pol says Atlanta school board had no oversight power
|
false
|
Georgia, Education, Ralph Long,
|
"An alarming state report released last week blamed teachers, administrators and former Superintendent Beverly Hall for a widespread test-tampering scandal in the Atlanta Public Schools system. The report attracted national headlines and punchlines from some prominent comedians. To our surprise, Ralph Long, a state representative from southwest Atlanta, added another group to the culpability list: the Georgia General Assembly, the body Long currently serves. ""The General Assembly took away the Atlanta Board of Education’s oversight of the superintendent,"" Long, a Democrat, said at a news conference. Long was referring to Senate Bill 204, which passed in 2003, six years before he joined the General Assembly. The bill gave the superintendent the power to hire the school district’s general counsel and chief financial officer. It also imposed ethics guidelines for school administrators and the board. The bill’s chief sponsor: then-Sen. Kasim Reed, who is now Atlanta’s mayor. Long has been critical of Reed’s role in the ongoing school district crisis. Long has accused the mayor, who by law has no oversight of Atlanta schools, of solely serving the interests of the city’s business community and the influential Metro Atlanta Chamber. Long was one of the few public officials to side with Reed’s opponent, Mary Norwood, in the 2009 Atlanta mayoral runoff election, which Reed won by less than 1 percentage point. Reed defended the bill Monday in an interview with Channel 2 Action News. The mayor said it was an effort to streamline operations at a time some community leaders complained the district couldn’t keep a superintendent because of board micromanagement. Reed also took a verbal jab at Long. ""He’s looking for 15 minutes of fame out of the awful crisis that’s impacting our children,"" Reed said. Long defended his point to PolitiFact Georgia, saying the legislation left the board essentially toothless. Stacking the deck, were the words Long used to describe the overwhelming influence that Hall was given over APS. Long said he’s considering a bill that would revive the board’s authority to hire a general counsel and CFO. ""The board didn’t have any power,"" said Long. We wondered if Long’s comments about the bill added up. The state report outlines in exhaustive detail a ""culture of fear"" inside APS for teachers and administrators to produce higher student scores on statewide tests. Hall was named national superintendent of the year by one influential education group for Atlanta’s markedly improved test scores and higher graduation rates. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution questioned irregularities in some scores as far back as 2001, and ramped up its investigative reporting into the matter over the past two years. The state report concluded 178 educators, including three dozen principals, participated in systematic cheating on state curriculum tests. Nearly half of them confessed to wrongdoing. Senate Bill 204 supporters said the legislation was necessary to insulate the superintendent from micromanaging by the board. Atlanta board member Emmett Johnson, who is still on the nine-member board, made that argument to the AJC in 2003, noting that the city school district had five superintendents in 10 years. The board had overseen the chief financial officer and general counsel positions since the 1970s, as part of the so-called ""Atlanta compromise"" that brought the city its first black superintendent. Critics worried at the time that board ceded too much of its authority. The bill still gave the board power to fire the superintendent. It also gave the board and the superintendent the dual authority to adopt districtwide academic standards. Additionally, they had the power to track progress toward ""student learning goals and the academic content and performance standards."" Doesn’t this prove the school board had oversight power? No way, said Long. Long maintained that some board members felt they couldn’t stand up to Hall, who was being supported by Atlanta’s business community, which typically bankrolled winning school board candidates through a political action committee called EduPAC. ""That’s a lot of intimidation, and people who don’t recognize that are naive,"" said Long, who called on Hall to resign in August. Reed said the bill strengthened Hall’s power, but argued the board’s oversight ""remained exactly what it was."" He said many districts considered it a ""best practice"" to have the general counsel and CFO report to the superintendent. We talked about this with Warren Fortson, who served as the general counsel to APS for 22 years, until he retired in the early 1990s. Fortson said he argued against SB 204 because ""it builds a wall between the board and the administration."" Still, he said, the APS board had oversight. Fortson said Long’s claim was too broad. ""They have oversight of the superintendent,"" Fortson said of the APS board. ""A board has the authority to call in the superintendent for almost anything."" SB 204 gave more authority to the superintendent. However, it still gave the board the oversight authority over the superintendent. The board also had consent power over hiring and firing a CFO (Sec. 4-101) or general counsel (Sec. 2-111). Long said state lawmakers ""took away"" the Atlanta school board’s oversight of the school superintendent. It did not. But it did somewhat diminish the board’s power. Long’s statement contains an element of truth, but it ignores critical facts that we believe would give people a different impression."
|
9127
|
Mount Sinai researcher identifies best practices for cochlear implant hearing preservation
|
Wikipedia This news release on a study of surgical techniques for cochlear implants and their long-term effects offers very little detail for assessing the study’s validity and relevance. A close reading of the study itself contains much useful detail, as well as important cautions that needed to be covered in the release. An omission on the authors’ conflict of interests with device manufacturers and some inaccuracies about the study (misstating the number of patients involved, for example) leaves the release with some room for improvement. Having cochlear implants to preserve hearing is vital for many patients, so it is important to assess which types of implant or surgical techniques are best to maintain hearing over the long term. This release, however, doesn’t go very far in answering these questions.
|
false
|
cochlear implant,Mount Sinai Hospital
|
Surgery can be costly itself as well as all the related expenses that follow from it so knowing the overall costs is very important. No costs are mentioned. Two types of benefits are discussed in the news release. The study looked at 230 patients (it was actually 196 patients but 225 implants) with “every type of cochlear implant, including three FDA-approved implants that use different types of electrodes to stimulate the auditory nerve.” The benefits were not quantified but we are told that the researchers “found that electrodes designed with no wire (called lateral wall electrodes) performed the best in maintaining residual hearing in the inner ear, compared to electrodes made with wire.” How much better? We don’t know. The other benefit compares “cochleostomy” (which requires drilling into the bone to get inside the inner ear) versus the “round window” approach and “the round window approach had a much better chance of keeping their residual hearing in the long term.” How much better? We aren’t told. Drilling into your ear to implant a device can involve harm. As for harms, we learn of them only obliquely with this phrase: “the non-wire electrodes were less traumatic, causing less injury and minimizing fractures inside the inner ear.” Are we to presume that the wire electrode implants can be “more traumatic?” More detail was definitely needed here. The favored “round window” approach is also considered safer given that the news release reports that “the cochleostomy approach causes fibrosis and scarring, leading to hearing loss over time,” according to the lead researcher. How much harm? We don’t know. The news release provides no information about the quality of the evidence. Was this an observational study? A clinical trial? Reading the published study, we see a number of sources of potential bias, including the fact that patients were not randomized to electrode type or surgical approach. If one wonders if the experience of the surgeon might be a factor, the study noted that since they are a high volume center, which performs many cochleostomies, then “inexperience with this surgical approach is unlikely to impact results.” The study also lost patients to follow up, likely underestimating hearing preservation rates. It would have been good to include this in the news release. No obvious disease mongering here. We know that the lead researcher is with the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai (NYEE) and Mount Sinai Beth Israel, as well as the Center for Hearing and Balance and Ear Institute at Mount Sinai Health System and that he had a team of researchers from Vanderbilt University. The release doesn’t tell us if any any of the researchers or their institutions have any conflicts of interest in either the surgical technique or the type of cochlear implants studied in this trial. According to the published study, four of the authors, including the first author and the senior author, have financial conflicts of interest in the form of consulting arrangements with cochlear device companies. There are a variety of ways to treat hearing loss besides cochlear implants but, outside of the mention of oral steroids (with no detail given), none are mentioned. Are these types of surgeries or cochlear implants available anywhere in the US? We have no idea from reading this news release. The news release doesn’t tell us anything about the novelty of the wireless cochlear implants nor that of the “round window” (where surgeons open the membrane without bone removal or drilling in the inner ear) and “cochleostomy” (which requires drilling into the bone to get inside the inner ear). Are these new procedures? What other research has been done on them? Where is the context that establishes the place of these in the current landscape of hearing-preservation technologies? The release doesn’t engage in sensational language. But absent any numbers to describe the benefits or details about the evidence and what makes any of the approaches novel, the release doesn’t explain what makes this study a “breakthrough.”
|
2681
|
Obese have worse sexual health despite less sex.
|
Obese women have four times as many unplanned pregnancies as healthy-weight women despite having less sex, and obese men are more likely to have sexual diseases despite fewer partners, scientists said on Wednesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
In a study showing how obesity can harm sexual health, French and British researchers also found that obese women are less likely to ask for contraceptive advice or use the pill, and obese men are more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction. With obesity epidemics overwhelming many wealthy nations and threatening increasing numbers of developing countries, experts said the public health impact of the findings was important. In the United States, for example, two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese. “In public health terms, the study lends a new slant to a familiar message: that obesity can harm not only health and longevity, but your sex life,” Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a specialist in psychosexual medicine at Britain’s Ipswich Hospital, wrote in an editorial on the study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The research, led by Professor Nathalie Bajos of France’s National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), is the first major study to investigate the impact of being overweight or obese on sexual activity and other factors such as sexual satisfaction, unintended pregnancy and abortion. The authors surveyed the sexual behavior of 12,364 men and women aged between 18 and 69 years in France in 2006. Around half of them were normal weight, with a body mass index (BMI) of 18.5 to 25, around 2,500 of them were overweight, with a BMI of 25 to 30, and around 750 of them were obese, with a BMI over 30. Compared to normal weight men, obese men were 70 percent less likely to have had more than one sexual partner in the past year and two and half times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction. Obese men under 30 years old were far more likely to have had a sexually transmitted disease. Sexual dysfunction was not linked to BMI in women, but obese women under 30 years old were less likely than women of normal weight to seek contraceptive advice or use oral contraceptives and were also more likely to report an unplanned pregnancy. The study also found that obese women were five times as likely to have met their partner on the internet, more likely to have an obese partner, and less likely to view sex as important for personal life balance. Bajos said social pressure, low self-esteem and concerns about body image may help explain these findings. Goldbeck-Wood said there was evidence that doctors find it difficult to discuss sex and weight issues with patients, but she said they must be more prepared to do so: “We need to understand more about how obese people feel about their sex lives, and what drives the observed behaviors and attitudes.”
|
36107
|
Four in ten cancer patients lose their life savings after starting treatment.
|
Do Four in Ten Cancer Patients Really Lose Their Life Savings?
|
true
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
An October 11 2019 Imgur repost of a Bernie Sanders tweet appeared alongside the caption “this is how you know he would fight for the people if he is elected our president”:That tweet read:It’s not coincidental that the top health care CEOs made $1.1 billion last year while 4 in 10 cancer patients lose their life savings due to treatment.Our system is designed to take money from sick people and put it in the pockets of rich executives.We need Medicare for All.The claim was originally tweeted by Sanders on October 10 2019, and it was accurately reflected by the screenshot. However, Sanders did not include a citation.A second portion of the tweet claimed that this was not an accident, but rather was an intentional transfer of wealth from individual Americans to those profiting from cancer treatment. That portion of the tweet was more opinion, making it more difficult to definitively fact-check.However, the first part, about four in ten cancer patients, was verifiable. An October 2018 press release for a study that appeared in the American Journal of Medicine explained:Researchers assessed how patients’ net worth and debt changed two and four years post-diagnosis. The study authors controlled for demographic and clinically related variables, economic factors, mortality, and cancer-specific characteristics. Across the population, the average patient saw a loss of $92,098. Financial insolvency extended to 38.2 percent after four or more years.An October 18 2018 Big Think item with the headline “42% of new cancer patients lose their life savings” reported:Of the 9.5 million cancer diagnoses studied between 2000–2012, researchers discovered that 42.4 percent of patients (median age 68.6±9.4 years) spent all of their money, averaging $92,098. This follows disturbing news from earlier this year that 40 percent of Americans can’t afford to pay $400 in case of an emergency. The math is not adding up.Insider.com reported that almost half of cancer patients went bankrupt due to treatment:After tracking 9.5 million cancer patients from 2000 to 2012, researchers also learned that 62% of all cancer patients are in debt because of their treatment, and 55% of them owe at least $10,000.Overall, the total medical costs for cancer are $80 billion in the US.That article noted that insurance was not a complete failsafe against financial disaster for people diagnosed with cancer:From high deductibles to large copayments, cancer patients can end up with a huge stack of bills.In addition, 40% to 85% of all cancer patients have to quit working while undergoing treatment, which creates a financial burden that can last for six months or longer.In the same month, Advisory.com featured a story with a similar headline: “42% of cancer patients their spent entire life savings in 2 years after diagnosis.” The article went on to note that researchers had estimated that patients’ average net worth “fell by $92,098 after two years and by $51,882 after four years.” The claim was also discussed on YCombinator, where one commenter detailed the experiences of a family member:I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see:– Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.– Her insurer started calling her incessantly, insisting that she join some sort of program where they would “help” her make decisions about her care. It undermined the confidence she had in her doctors and the decisions she was trying to make, which is a terrible feeling for anyone to go through when they are sick with cancer and trying to survive.– There were a series of insurance “land mines” on the horizon – forget to renew this thing on this random date 2 months from now? You’ve lost your insurance.The whole healthcare and insurance system is a dark pattern, even for working adults who are fully covered.Many of the articles referenced the same aforementioned study, which was published in the American Journal of Medicine in October 2018. Titled “Death or Debt? National Estimates of Financial Toxicity in Persons with Newly-Diagnosed Cancer,” the research examined the financial effects on Americans undergoing cancer treatment:Across 9.5 million estimated new diagnoses of cancer from 2000–2012, individuals averaged 68.6±9.4 years with slight majorities being married (54.7%), not retired (51.1%), and Medicare beneficiaries (56.6%). At year+2, 42.4% depleted their entire life’s assets, with higher adjusted odds associated with worsening cancer, requirement of continued treatment, demographic and socioeconomic factors (ie, female, Medicaid, uninsured, retired, increasing age, income, and household size), and clinical characteristics (ie, current smoker, worse self-reported health, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease) (P<.05); average losses were $92,098. At year+4, financial insolvency extended to 38.2%, with several consistent socioeconomic, cancer-related, and clinical characteristics remaining significant predictors of complete asset depletion.That study began by referencing Breaking Bad, a popular drama about a mild-mannered teacher diagnosed with cancer who goes on to become a drug kingpin in order to finance his treatment:Breaking Bad is a critically acclaimed American television show about Walter White, who is diagnosed with lung cancer. Even though Walter worked two jobs and had health insurance, he still could not afford his medical care. To pay for his cancer treatment and to protect his family from financial burden, Walter illegally synthesized and sold methamphetamine. Although this is a fictional story, it highlights the reality of the economic burden of cancer in America.Numerous confounding factors are referenced in the study. Among them was the exclusion of cancer patients who do not recover, in which case the costs of end-of-life care are not tallied:Depending on cancer type and stage, costs range between 20-100k during the first year after diagnosis, but the average cost increases to over 60k at the end of life. This evidence suggests that terminally ill patients experience worse financial toxicity. Notably, [study authors] did not assess the financial toxicity experienced during end of life care because they omitted the ~30% of the cancer patients who died during the study. Consequently, the study does not examine the significant financial toxicity associated with fatal cancers.Differences made by the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare) did not seem to dramatically affect the findings, despite its passage during the years researchers examined in the study. The law is mentioned once, in the course of referencing various disenfranchised groups, although researchers noted that having insurance had a protective effect:Additionally, by relying on the HRS, Gilligan et al. were not able to comment on financial toxicity in disenfranchised groups, such as homeless or undocumented patients. Undocumented immigrants have the lowest rate of health insurance in America, thus increasing their risk of financial toxicity due to cancer. This is because they are not eligible for Affordable Care Act exchanges or Medicaid benefits. Undocumented immigrants can get health coverage through their employers, however most take low paying jobs that do not offer health insurance. Similarly, 60% of the homeless people in the U.S. are uninsured … Multiple reports, including the Gilligan et al. study, show that private insurance is protective against financial toxicity.Insurance also posed different risks to the insured patients whose data appeared in the study:Among patients enrolled in copayment assistance programs, 20% took less medication than prescribed, 19% filled half of their prescriptions, and 24% did not fill prescriptions. Over 7% of the patients in these programs delayed procedures, testing, chemotherapy or clinic visits.Finally, the study found that costs were increasing and that the myriad difficulties cited were likely to worsen:Unfortunately, direct medical costs are expected to increase by 40% for patients by 2020, thus exacerbating the financial burden of medical care for cancer patients in the United States.The key finding upheld Sanders’ tweet:[Researchers] reported that over 42% of patients fully depleted their assets and over 30% incurred debt (consumer, mortgage or home equity) by the second-year of their diagnosis.That 42 percent of patients in the study represented the four in ten cancer patients that Sanders referenced — although technically it might be more accurate to say 4.2 out of ten patients would “deplete their assets” (in other words, “lose their life savings”) to pay for the necessary treatments. Thirty percent of study participants incurred debt, and the study omitted the 30 percent of patients who did not recover and died — presumably patients who incurred end of life costs and who certainly became unable to financially contribute to their households. Sanders’ claim was based on peer-reviewed research published in a medical journal, not polling or broad estimates, a claim which was thus quite well-supported.
|
18026
|
"Marijuana is ""less toxic"" than alcohol."
|
"An ad from the Marijuana Policy Project claims marijuana is ""less toxic"" than alcohol. Our job as fact-checkers in this case is not to decide whether marijuana is good or harmful. We're focused on whether the drug in its natural form is ""less toxic"" than alcohol. In that regard, science and statistics present a strong case."
|
true
|
Drugs, Health Care, Florida, Marijuana, Marijuana Policy Project,
|
"Just as fans were filing into the Brickyard 400 NASCAR race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, a big television screen by the entrance displayed a pro-pot ad with the headline ""A new beer?"" The ad, which opens with smiling young adults hoisting their brew mugs, drew outrage from lots of sources, including the St. Petersburg-based Drug Free America Foundation. The TV screen company, Grazie Media, pulled the ad after a few hours. The ad said: ""If you’re an adult who enjoys a good beer, there’s a similar product you might want to know about, one without all the calories and serious health problems. Less toxic so it doesn’t cause hangovers or overdose deaths. And it’s not linked to violence or reckless behavior. Marijuana. Less harmful than alcohol and time to treat it that way."" In this fact-check, we decided to focus on the idea that marijuana is ""less toxic"" than alcohol. ""I don’t see how this could be a more open-and-shut case,"" Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which produced the ad, told PolitiFact Florida in an email. ""If you consume too much alcohol in a sitting or over the course of your life, you can die. If you consume too much (marijuana) in a sitting or over the course of your life, you do not die. What more could be needed to prove marijuana is ‘less toxic’ than alcohol?"" Yet, as a rebuttal, some health professionals say it’s a matter of picking your poison. ""It’s like trying to compare different weapons. Both have the potential to cause harm,"" said Dr. Scott Teitelbaum, professor and vice chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine, at University of Florida. ""I don’t know that there’s a clear answer."" For starters, the term toxic can be vague. Dr. Cynthia Lewis-Younger, medical director of the Florida Poison Information Center in Tampa, said toxic can be ""anything that causes harm. It is possible to drink enough water to poison yourself. It’s more related to the dose than anything else."" The Marijuana Policy Project’s claim that marijuana is ""less toxic"" rankles some health professionals and anti-drug organizations who criticize the inference that using the drug is okay. Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, said she wants the public to realize that ""these are two drugs that are both addictive and impairing and they both create unsafe situations."" Briefly, here’s a look at how the National Institute on Drug Abuse describes each drug. Alcohol is produced by the fermentation of yeast, sugars and starches and while it may start as a stimulant in small doses, NIDA describes it as a central nervous system depressant that is rapidly absorbed from the stomach and small intestine into the bloodstream. Intoxication can impair brain function and motor skills and heavy use can increase risk of certain cancers, stroke, and liver disease. Marijuana is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of leaves, flowers, stems and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. When marijuana is smoked, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to the brain and other organs. Activists on both sides of the marijuana issue can find studies that back up their claims about the health impact of smoking weed. NIDA states in an email that the effect of marijuana can depend on the person (their biology) who’s using it, the amount and under what circumstances. ""Claiming that marijuana is less toxic than alcohol cannot be substantiated since each possess their own unique set of risks and consequences for a given individual,"" according to an agency email statement. Statistics certainly paint a grim picture of the lethal impact of alcohol abuse. The Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reports that there were 41,682 deaths attributed to alcohol in 2010, the last year with the most exact statistics. That breaks down to 15,990 deaths attributed to alcoholic liver disease and 25,692 other alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides. The center doesn’t have any reports of marijuana listed as a cause of death. In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking, the CDC reports on its website. ""Alcohol in excess is probably the No. 1 cause of toxicities from drugs of abuse in the world simply because it’s most widely used,"" Lewis-Younger said. Robert Gable wrote in an American Scientist article in 2006 that ""simply tallying the number of people who die or who show up at emergency rooms is, by itself, meaningless,"" because that figure is influenced by the number of people using the substance. Yet the Marijuana Policy Project’s Tvert said Gable’s eight-year study on recreational drugs bolsters their assertion. Gable, a retired professor of psychology at Claremont Graduate University in California, compared the toxicity of 20 abused substances using reports of experimental human and animal research and on published data of overdose fatalities. He compared the drugs by developing a safety ratio -- the ratio of an effective dose (eliciting a ""relaxed affability"") to a lethal dose. ""Two drinks makes you buzzy, 20 drinks puts you in the emergency room or the morgue,"" Gable said in a phone interview. ""Ten is the safety ratio"" for alcohol, among the most toxic recreational drugs, he said. The least physiologically toxic substances -- those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death -- included marijuana when ingested. He couldn’t find any cases of documented deaths from smoked marijuana ""so the actual dose is a mystery."" ""No drug is good for teenagers,"" he said, ""but when it comes to the chances of immediate death by chemical toxicity, marijuana is about a hundred times less toxic than alcohol or cocaine."" Dr. Ihsan Salloum, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, notes: ""People could argue it (marijuana) is a weaker chemical in terms of toxicity, but it does have its consequences. It doesn’t mean marijuana is harmless."" Experts say one concern is the impact of marijuana on the brain, particularly for teens who start smoking early. Teitelbaum says marijuana can ""flip"" adolescents predisposed to mental problems into having a psychotic disorder. A 2012 study from Duke University, the University of Oregon, King’s College London and the University of Otago (New Zealand) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ""Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological Decline from Childhood to Midlife,"" examined the potential relationship between the long-term use of marijuana and declines in IQ scores. The study was based on data from more than 1,037 individuals followed from birth until age 38 and determined those who began using cannabis before age 18 and became persistent users (more than once a week) suffered the greatest decline in mental functioning (an average of eight IQ points) that didn’t improve once they stopped. Those who started using marijuana when they were adults didn’t show the same decline. Another concern has come up in recent years. The use of synthetic marijuana, often called Spice, has become a problem, and health professionals caution that it’s vastly different from natural marijuana and more toxic. ""Many Spice smokers have experienced agitation, paranoia and mental illness,"" JoAnn Chambers-Emerson, certified specialist in poison information/educator at the Florida Poison Information Center in Tampa, wrote in an email. ""Some Spice smokers have ended up having a stroke, heart attack, seizures and kidney failure. Synthenetic marijuana, however, is not marijuana. Our ruling An ad from the Marijuana Policy Project claims marijuana is ""less toxic"" than alcohol. Our job as fact-checkers in this case is not to decide whether marijuana is good or harmful. We're focused on whether the drug in its natural form is ""less toxic"" than alcohol. In that regard, science and statistics present a strong case."
|
28736
|
Navy sailor Kristian Saucier was held to a different standard of prosecution for improper handling of classified information than Hillary Clinton.
|
Kristian Saucier was pardoned by President Donald Trump in March 2018. In June 2018, his lawyer announced that Saucier intended to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law.
|
mixture
|
Politics, election 2016, hillary clinton
|
A 4 October 2016 debate between vice presidential candidates Mike Pence and Tim Kaine led to renewed interest in the August 2016 conviction of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier on charges he mishandled classified information: During the debate, Pence and Kaine sparred over whether Kaine’s running mate, Hillary Clinton, received favorable treatment in comparison to service members prosecuted for similar accusations. The relevant exchange was widely reproduced in coverage of the debate and occurred when moderator Elaine Quijano posed a question about Syria, and Pence interjected to ask if he could discuss cybersecurity. That digression quickly turned to mention of Clinton’s e-mail server controversy, and launched a dispute over whether it was true American service members had been prosecuted for similar actions: PENCE: First, Donald Trump just spoke about this issue this week. We have got to bring together the best resources of this country to understand that cyber warfare is the new warfare of the asymmetrical enemies that we face in this country. And I look forward if I’m privileged to be in this role of working with you in the Senate to make sure that we resource that effort. KAINE: We will work together in whatever roles we inhabit. PENCE: We have an intelligence, sir (ph). But I will also tell you that it’s important in this moment to remember that Hillary Clinton had a private server in her home that had classified information on it [moderator interjects] about drone strikes, e-mails from the president of the United States of America were on there. QUIJANO: Right. PENCE: Her private server was subject to being hacked by foreign … [CROSSTALK] QUIJANO: I’d like to ask you about Syria, Governor. PENCE: We could put cybersecurity first if we just make sure the next secretary of state doesn’t have a private server. [CROSSTALK] KAINE: And all investigation concluded that not one reasonable prosecutor would take any additional step. You don’t get to decide the rights and wrongs of this. We have a justice system that does that. And a Republican FBI director did an investigation and concluded that … [CROSSTALK, MODERATOR INTERJECTS] PENCE: If your son or my son handled classified information the way Hillary Clinton did [moderator interjects] one hundred thousand of them children — Governor … PENCE: … they’d be court martialed. KAINE: That is absolutely false and you know that. PENCE: Absolutely true. KAINE: And you know that, Governor. QUIJANO: Governor … PENCE: It’s absolutely true. QUIJANO: Gentlemen, please. Among the individuals citing Saucier’s conviction in response to the dispute was Kathleen Saucier, the serviceman’s mother. Saucier published a Facebook post to a conservative blog’s page objecting to Kaine’s denial that Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified e-mail would have resulted in a court martial if she were a member of the military: Please explain Kaine’s responses … my son is Kristian Saucier the navy sailor going to prison for mishandling classified information — taking 6 photos in a classified area of a submarine — there is no evidence he ever transmitted or shared any of these photos: On 6 October 2016, Kathleen Saucier also appeared on Fox News to discuss her frustration about the debate segment: Saucier took particular issue with an exchange during the VP debate in which Gov. Mike Pence argued that if a military member handled classified info the way Clinton did they would face “court-martial.” Sen. Tim Kaine fired back, in defense of Clinton, that Pence’s statement was “absolutely false,” citing the FBI’s decision not to pursue charges. Saucier said she’s “grateful” that Pence brought up the subject, noting that the photos in her son’s case were classified at a lower level than some materials found in Clinton’s emails. “I feel strongly that [Pence] was trying to be silenced by both Senator Kaine and the moderator that basically asked them to go on to something else,” she said. Kristian Saucier’s legal troubles began well prior to Clinton’s e-mail scandal, when photographs on a phone he at one point possessed were discovered by a landfill supervisor and shown to a friend of his in the Navy. According to the Navy Times, Saucier was arrested 28 May 2015 on charges “he took and retained pictures of classified spaces and knowingly destroyed evidence to disrupt an ongoing investigation.” Early reports indicated Saucier’s intent in taking the photographs was a central concern of prosecutors, and Saucier was one of several sailors alleged to have violated a then-new ban on personal devices in classified spaces: On a March day in 2012, the supervisor at the town dump in Hampton, Connecticut, saw an LG cellphone resting atop a dumpster. Deciding he needed a new cell phone, he powered it on … It was the beginning of an unlikely series of events that led to the Justice Department filing charges that could put Machinist Mate 1st Class Kristian Saucier behind bars for 20 years. Prosecutors say the 10-year Navy vet used his cell phone to snap pictures of the classified engineering spaces on the attack submarine Alexandria, raising questions about his intentions to share them. It’s the latest case where sailors are accused of violating the submarine force’s ban on personal electronic devices; the ban was adopted to prevent sailors from photographing sensitive spaces … Saucier, a 28-year-old native of Arlington, Vermont, had been remodeling his home and making regular trips to the dump. When the supervisor opened the pictures on the phone, he discovered photos of Saucier, whom he recognized, along with several detailed pictures of what looked like a Navy ship. The supervisor showed the photos to his buddy, a retired Navy chief, who took them to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, who then looped in the FBI, and it was off to the races. The photos that raised red flags at NCIS and the FBI included images of various control panels, a panoramic view of the reactor compartment and a panel that showed the condition and exact location of the submarine at the time the photo was taken. The FBI alleged that “an engineer could determine significant design characteristics of a U.S. nuclear submarine” from the images on Saucier’s phone. Investigators considered an intent of espionage, a charge Saucier’s lawyers strongly contested. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) further alleged Saucier had destroyed evidence in order to avoid prosecution, but the Bureau did not present any evidence he had attempted to disseminate the photographs (all captured while he was on duty) of classified equipment or spaces: Saucier pleaded “not guilty” to charges he took and retained pictures of classified spaces and knowingly destroyed evidence to disrupt an ongoing investigation. Saucier’s attorney said his client denies any wrongdoing and is “vehemently denying the charge of espionage.” … Saucier told the FBI in an interview that the phone was his but that he didn’t take the pictures, according to the criminal complaint. The FBI alleges that after the interview, Saucier went home and smashed his laptop, a camera and an SD card. Pieces of the laptop were found in the woods behind Saucier’s grandfather’s house in another part of the state, according to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI … So far, prosecutors have not presented any evidence that suggests Saucier tried or intended to share the photos to foreign agents. Three witnesses attested to knowledge of Saucier’s possession of the images, and the FBI alleged Saucier attempted to destroy the evidence that he had taken them: During the interview, the FBI asked him about his personal computer and other electronic devices he took with him on deployment, according to the complaint … Immediately following that interview, he returned to his home and, according to the witness at his home that day, he grabbed his camera and the laptop the FBI had asked about, took them to the basement and smashed them to bits inside a plastic bag. Saucier then told the witness not to talk because the witness would be in trouble too for seeing the images. At the time of that report, the case was still in its exploratory phases. On 27 May 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release stating that Saucier had pled guilty to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of classified material. Espionage was not mentioned as an element of his plea, and Saucier was not court-martialed: Kristian Saucier, 29, of Arlington, Vermont, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the District of Connecticut to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information. According to court documents and statements made in court, from September 2007 to March 2012, Saucier served as a machinist’s mate aboard the USS Alexandria … On at least three separate dates in 2009, Saucier used the camera on his personal cellphone to take photographs of classified spaces, instruments and equipment of the USS Alexandria, documenting the major technical components of the submarine’s propulsion system. On Jan. 19, 2009, Saucier took two photos, one of the auxiliary steam plant panel and the other of the reactor compartment viewed through a portal. On March 22, 2009, Saucier took two photos that, when placed side by side, provided a panoramic array of the maneuvering compartment, the room from which the propulsion system of the boat is operated. On July 15, 2009, Saucier took two photos documenting the reactor head configuration of the nuclear reactor and a view of the reactor compartment from within that compartment. Saucier had a secret clearance and knew that the photos depicted classified material and that he was not authorized to take them. He retained these photos and failed to deliver them to any officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it … Judge Underhill scheduled sentencing for Aug. 19, 2016, at which time Saucier faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. He is released on a $100,000 bond. The debate didn’t mark the first instance of Kristian Saucier’s charges and conviction being compared to Clinton’s private e-mail server investigation. At Saucier’s August 2016 sentencing hearing, his lawyers argued for a sentence of probation and maintained that Clinton’s contemporaneous FBI investigation and the Bureau’s ultimate decision not to indict her ought to be taken into account. Prosecutors argued the defense was “grasping … at straws” in drawing a comparison to Clinton, as well as to other sailors of similar rank punished less severely for taking photographs on the ship. Saucier’s attorneys pointed to uneven prosecution of offenses relating to classified information and cited specifics of the Clinton e-mail investigation, while several witnesses asserted Saucier was definitely aware his actions constituted a serious offense: “The defendant is grasping at highly imaginative and speculative straws in trying to … draw a comparison to the matter of Sec. Hilary Clinton based upon virtually no understanding and knowledge of the facts involved, the information at issue, not to mention any issues if [sic] intent and knowledge,” prosecutors wrote [in a court filing]. Saucier’s defense attorney argued in a submission that it would be unfair to impose a prison sentence on his client when Clinton’s email account was found to contain eight chains with “Top Secret” information and 36 with “Secret” information. Prosecutors and the FBI closed that investigation without filing charges against Clinton or anyone else … The contrast is fueling longstanding complaints that senior officials accused of mishandling classified information often get little or no punishment, while more junior-ranking offenders can be hit with severe consequences … [T]he defense notes that two of the sailor’s shipmates took similar photos in the same sub and received far more modest punishment, including a $560 docking of pay and — in one instance — a one-grade reduction in rank. One of those sailors is expected to be commissioned as an officer soon. However, prosecutors say those episodes involved sailors who each took a single “selfie” in the engine room “while Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor.” “They are not the type of photographs that one would take to commemorate one’s service,” prosecutors said. Although Director of the Undersea Warfare Division for the Chief of Naval Operations Rear Admiral Charles Richard argued on behalf of the Navy for a severe sentence in a victim impact statement, the prosecution was impeded by the low level of classification of the photographs: [T]he most sensitive photos Saucier took have been classified as “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of classified information, although they are also separately restricted as nuclear-related information … While prosecutors say Saucier’s conduct risked “potentially grave damage” to national security and the Navy claims “a serious and lasting adverse impact” from the sailor’s actions, those kinds of phrases are more typically applied to information the government safeguards as “Secret,” corresponding to data whose disclosure is expected to cause “serious” damage to national security, or “Top Secret,” corresponding to “exceptionally grave” damage to national security. On 19 August 2016, Saucier was sentenced to one year in prison, six months of home confinement, and fined $100, far less than the six-year sentence the prosecution sought. Saucier’s attorney surmised that the Clinton investigation may have influenced the lighter sentence, and Saucier’s shipmates urged the judge to consider varying penalties applied for similar behavior: Although relieved, Rinckey does say that “it could be argued here that depending on what your name is, that’s the type of justice you get in the United States.” Rinckey says he’s not sure if the judge was swayed by significant media attention comparing Saucier’s case with the Clinton email controversy. “He cryptically made some comments about selective prosecution and how that didn’t play any factor. Do I think it may have? Sure. But I think there was enough mitigation that the judge was able to depart from the sentencing guidelines [on that basis alone],” he says. Scott Nelson, Saucier’s chief petty officer aboard the Alexandria through mid-2009, wrote a letter to the court that the order had collapsed aboard the submarine. “There was no real discussion of legal ramifications of minor security violations, nor was there any significant enforcement of policy for most minor mistakes,” Nelson wrote, adding that typical punishments including demotion or pay loss “could also be suspended at the commanding officer’s discretion for sailors with great potential to overcome the mistake, as was the case with our sailor of the year who received a DUI.” Both Kristian Saucier and Hillary Clinton were federally investigated over alleged mishandling of classified information: Saucier was charged and sentenced to prison, while Clinton was controversially not indicted by the DOJ after a lengthy investigation. Shipmates of Saucier and some members of the public have contrasted the cases to suggest that Saucier faced harsher penalties for a lesser offense, but intent was the core of the FBI’s recommendation not to indict Clinton, while several witnesses testified that Saucier was fully aware his actions were prohibited.
|
2286
|
Residents in soggy Seattle rebel against the sun.
|
Seattle’s mayor is losing sleep over the unusually hot, dry weather that is causing a run on air conditioners and fans in the famously rainy city.
|
true
|
Environment
|
Washington state’s largest metropolis sweated through its hottest June on record, going fortnights without even a drizzle. Seattleites jokingly refer to the month of “Juneuary” for the wet and cold they usually endure before longer, dryer sunny days arrive in July, typically persisting into September. This summer, however, they have shrugged off the rain gear and flannel and taken to drinking “iced” lattes. Many, including Mayor Ed Murray, find themselves oddly yearning for the cloud cover on which Rain City’s identity was forged. Murray said the heat has kept him up at night in his brick Tudor-style house, which he has nicknamed the “little Dutch oven.” “Obviously people in Seattle love a little more sun but also nothing is built for it,” Murray said. “I miss my rain.” With an estimated 662,400 residents, the Emerald City, as the city is nicknamed, lies between the brackish Puget Sound and the Cascade Mountains which squeeze moisture out of east-bound fronts moving over the city. It is so dry in the state that a wildfire is burning in a rainforest on the Olympic Peninsula and Governor Jay Inslee issued a statewide drought emergency in May as the snowpack in the mountains fell to historic lows. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport received just 0.23 inches (0.58 cm) of rain for June, down from the normal 1.57 inches (3.98 cm). To be sure, drought conditions are affecting cities down the U.S. West Coast, which is embroiled in a particularly fierce wildfire season that has prompted water-use and burn restrictions. Seattle’s public utility downgraded the water supply outlook from “good” to “fair” on Wednesday amid higher-than-usual water consumption and record-low stream flows into reservoirs, urging residents to limit plant-watering. Murray said the city had enough water and energy this year but was being pushed to the limit. “A second year with such little snowpack would be a crisis,” he said, referring to the affect on the broader region’s cold, clear salmon rivers and bountiful farms and orchards. While the current situation is “mega extreme in terms of our temperatures,” it is unlikely that it is caused by human-induced global warming because the heat-wave is due to an unusual large-scale air pattern, University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor Clifford Mass said. Relief is forecast heading into the weekend, with a chance of rain on Sunday and cooler temperatures in the week ahead, Mass said. But overall the summer will be warmer than normal as Seattle enters it driest period of the year. Meanwhile, parched lawns have turned beige and the city opened cooling shelters. At local hardware stores, air conditioning units and fans have been flying off the shelves; one Lowes store sold 16 air-conditioning units in a matter of minutes after it opened. “This is Sicily in Seattle, with nearly 16 hours of daylight,” Seattle-born author Timothy Egan wrote in the New York Times on July 3. Some people have embraced the dry skies and sun. “Everybody is a bit nicer. People say ‘Hi’ to each other. It’s not the hanging their head when they walk by each other,” said Nicole Sullivan, a management consultant who has used the heat as an opportunity to take her paddle board on Shilshole Bay on balmy evenings. “How do we re-market ourselves if we are not ‘Rain City’ or the ‘Emerald City,’?” Mayor Murray deadpanned. “If we’re not green anymore, what’s going to be our new color?”
|
35753
|
"Texting ""USPS"" to 50409 engages a service called ""Resistbot"" and generates a letter of support for the Postal Service that is sent to a user's political representatives."
|
A political crisis surrounding the Postal Service inspired some novel campaigning techniques in August 2020.
|
true
|
Politics
|
In August 2020, amid an ongoing political crisis in the U.S. surrounding the Postal Service and mail-in ballots, readers asked Snopes to examine widespread claims that by texting “USPS” to the number 50409, an individual could send a letter to their local political representatives expressing support for the Postal Service. The COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic prompted millions of Americans to consider voting by mail, rather than in person, in 2020. But cuts at the Postal Service caused a slowdown in deliveries that meant millions of ballots were at risk of not being counted. U.S. President Donald Trump admitted he was pushing back against a fresh infusion of funding for the Postal Service, on the basis that mail-in ballots would disproportionately favor the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, fueling a partisan battle, with Democrats demanding a properly funded, well-functioning Postal Service. On Aug. 15, 2020, Democratic Congressional candidate Allen Ellison tweeted that “If you text USPS to 50409 they will send letters to your senators and representative in support of the postal service. It literally takes under a minute.” A similar exhortation posted on Facebook read: “Pushback pressure is working. Text USPS to 50409. This one-word text will automatically send a letter to your local representatives using Resistbot and urge them to take action. Thanks.” The process is not quite as straightforward as described in the meme above, but it is true that texting “USPS” to 50409 does begin a relatively quick process under which, on your behalf, a bot sends letters to your federal political representatives based on the mailing address you provide. We tested the bot on Aug. 18, 2020, using the SMS utility on a cellphone and providing a real name and address in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District. (The creators of “Resistbot” state that the same process works on Apple’s iMessage, Facebook’s Messenger, Twitter, and the encrypted text message app Telegram.) The following is a step-by-step breakdown of how the bot works: First, the user texts “USPS” to 50409. The bot automatically and immediately replies, asking if the user wants to electronically sign a “Support the USPS” letter and send it to the user’s political representatives. It also offers to show a sample of what the letter will look like: When the user replies with “SAMPLE,” the bot replies with a link to a screenshot of the form letter and asks if the user would like to sign it: After the user confirms, the bot then asks for a first and last name and a mailing address: The bot adds the user’s name to the petition and the mailing address allows it to identify the user’s congressional district. The bot then automatically sends the letter via email to the corresponding members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate:
|
39713
|
This email is an alert to California or Texas drivers of several new laws to be aware of that the email says go into effect on July 1, 2007.
|
A List of New California Laws effective July 1
|
false
|
Crime / Police, Government, Warnings
|
Whoever put this email together was either intentionally ignoring the facts or summarizing some of the gossip about new California traffic laws. Note: New laws regarding the use of cell phones do go into effect in California in July, 2008. Details about that are listed at the bottom of this article. It didn’t take long for someone to start circulating it as applying to Texas and Georgia and more states will probably be added along the way. Most of it is not true. The Texas Department of Public Safety quickly issued a release saying that there were not any new laws scheduled to go into effect in July, 2007. That left the California question to be dealt with. We’ll go through each of the items one at a time, but first there are not statewide mandated penalties for traffic fines in California. There are guidelines from what is called the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule but local jurisdictions make their own decisions on fines for traffic citations. You may have discovered that on your own if you’ve gotten a traffic ticket for the same violation in different California cities or counties. You did not necessarily get the same fine. If you want to know what the typical fines are in your area, call your local traffic court. 1. Carpool lane – 1st time $1068.50 starting 7/1/07 (The $271 posted on the highway is old). Don’t do it again because 2nd time is going to be double. 3rd time triple, and 4th time license suspended In 2007, the recommended fine for a first time car pool violation was $380. Repeat offenders can expect to pay more, but nothing near the amounts represented in this email. 2. Incorrect lane change – $380. Don’t cross the lane on solid lines or intersections The Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule said $134 for a typical infraction. 3. Block intersection – $485The Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule said $175. 4. Driving on the shoulder – $450 The Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule said $134. 5. Cell phone use in the construction zone. – Double fine as of 07/01/07. Cell phone use must be “hands free” while driving There was no law in California during 2007 restricting the use of cell phones in the car. There was such a law going into effect in July, 2008. There was no “double fine” as of 7/1/07 because there was no law in effect regarding cell phones. The new California law does not mention construction zones although penalties for traffic violations are higher if they occurred in a highway construction or maintenance area. 6. Passengers over 18 not in their seatbelts – both passengers and drivers get tickets. The California Mandatory Seat Belt Law requires all passengers to use some kind of restraint. Children under 6 and weighing less than 60 pounds are required to be in “specified child passenger restraint system,” typically a car seat. Everybody older than 6 must wear seat belts. At this writing the fines range from less than $100 for a first offence to more than $300 when it’s kids who are not buckled in. According to the California Highway Patrol any adults in a vehicle who are not wearing seatbelts are subject to citation, not just the driver. The driver will be held accountable for any children not restrained.7. Speeders can only drive 3 miles above the limit The speed limit is the speed limit. There is no legal definition allowing a driver to go 3 miles per hour above that. 8. DUI = JAIL (Stays on your driving record for 10 years! ). At the time of this writing a first offense for driving under the influence in California results in anywhere between 96 hours and 4 months in jail. a fine, and a six-month suspension of the license. Those are the court penalties. There are separate penalties to the Department of Motor Vehicles. As of January 1, 2007 a driving under the influence conviction will be on a person’s record for 10 years. 9. As of 07/01/07 cell phone use must be “hands free” while driving. Ticket is $285. They will be looking for this like crazy – easy money for police department By law all drivers in California must be using hands-free cell phones as of July 1, 2008. The fine was $20 for the first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense. The exceptions are for emergency use, drivers of emergency vehicles, and drivers of commercial vehicles can use the push-to-talk type wireless phones until July 1, 2011. Here is a list of questions and answers from the California Highway Patrol regarding the new cell phone laws for July 1, 2008: Wireless Telephone Laws FAQs Two new laws dealing with the use of wireless telephones while driving go into effect July 1, 2008. Below is a list of Frequently Asked Questions concerning these new laws. Q: When do the new wireless telephone laws take effect? A: The new laws take effect July 1, 2008 Q: What is the difference between the two laws? A: The first prohibits all drivers from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. (Vehicle Code (VC) §23123). Motorists 18 and over may use a hands-free device. Drivers under the age of 18 may NOT use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle(VC §23124). Q: What if I need to use my telephone during an emergency, and I do not have a hands- free device? A: The law allows a driver to use a wireless telepho ne to make emergency calls to a law enforcement agency, a medical provider, the fire department, or other emergency services agency. Q: What are the fines if I’m convicted? A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. According to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, with the addition of penalty assessments, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190. Q: Will I receive a point on my drivers license if I’m convicted for a violation of the wireless telephone law? A: NO. The violation is a reportable offense: however, DMV will not assign a violation point. Q: Will the conviction appear on my driving record? A: Yes, but the violation point will not be added. Q: Will there be a grace period when motorists will only get a warning? A: NO. The law becomes in effect on July 1, 2008. Whether a citation is issued is always at the discretion of the officer based upon his or her determination of the most appropriate remedy for the situation. Q: Are passengers affected by this law? A: No. This law only applies to the person driving a motor vehicle. Q: Do these laws apply to out-of-state drivers whose home states do not have such laws? A: Yes Q: Can I be pulled over by a law enforcement officer for using my handheld wireless telephone? A: YES. A law enforcement officer can pull you over just for this infraction. Q: What if my phone has a push-to-talk feature, can I use that? A: No. The law does provide an exception for those operating a commercial motor truck or truck tractor (excluding pickups), implements of husbandry, farm vehicle or tow truck, to use a two-way radio operated by a “push-to-talk” feature. Q: What other exceptions are there? A: Operators of an authorized emergency vehicle during the course of employment are exempt as are those motorists operating a vehicle on private property DRIVERS 18 AND OVER Drivers 18 and over will be allowed to use a hands-free device to talk on their wireless telephone while driving. The following FAQs apply to those motorists 18 and over. Q: Does the new “hands-free” law prohibit you from dialing a wireless telephone while driving or just talking on it? A: The new law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving. Q: Will it be legal to use a Blue Tooth or other earpiece? A: Yes, however you cannot have BOTH ears covered. Q: Does the new hands-free law allow you to use the speaker phone function of your wireless telephone while driving? A: Yes. Q: Does the new “hands-free” law allow drivers 18 and over to text page while driving? A: The law does not specifically prohibit that, but an officer can pull over and issue a citation to a driver of any age if, in the officer’s opinion, the driver was distracted and not operating the vehicle safely. Text paging while driving is unsafe at any speed and is strongly discouraged. DRIVERS UNDER 18 Q: Am I allowed to use my wireless telephone hands free? A: NO. Drivers under the age of 18 may not use a wireless telephone, pager, laptop or any other electronic communication or mobile services device to speak or text while driving in any manner, even hands free. EXCEPTION: Permitted in emergency situations to call police, fire or medical authorities. (VC §23124). Q: Why is the law stricter for provisional drivers? A: Statistics show that teen drivers are more likely than older drivers to be involved in crashes because they lack driving experience and tend to take greater risks. Teen drivers are vulnerable to driving distractions such as talking with passengers, eating or drinking, and talking or texting on wireless phones, which increase the chance of getting involved in serious vehicle crashes. Q: Can my parents give me permission to allow me to use my wireless telephone while driving? A: NO. The only exception is an emergency situation that requires you to call a law enforcement agency, a health care provider, the fire department or other emergency agency entity. Q: Does the law apply to me if I’m an emancipated minor? A: Yes. The restriction applies to all licensed drivers who are under the age of 18. Q: If I have my parent(s) or someone age 25 years or older in the car with me, may I use my wireless telephone while driving? A: NO. You may only use your wireless telephone in an emergency situation. Q: Will the restriction appear on my provisional license? A: No Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in? A: NO. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation. Q: Can a law enforcement officer stop me for using my hands-free device while driving? A: No. For drivers under the age of 18, this is considered a SECONDARY violation meaning that a law enforcement officer may cite you for using a hands-free wireless phone if you were pulled over for a nother violation. However, the prohibition against using a handheld wireless telephone while driving is a PRIMARY violation for which a law enforcement officer can pull you over. Updated 3/15/08 Comments
|
5514
|
Tutu urges regulated euthanasia after campaigner’s arrest.
|
Terminally ill people should have the right to a “dignified assisted death,” former South African archbishop Desmond Tutu said Friday, following a murder charge against a local campaigner for the legalization of euthanasia.
|
true
|
Desmond Tutu, Health, Africa, Arrests, South Africa, Euthanasia
|
Lawmakers “should engage, enable and appropriately regulate” the choice of how and when to die for people who are close to death, the 86-year-old Nobel laureate said. He has previously said he would like the option of choosing an assisted death and does not want to be kept alive at whatever cost. “Just as I have argued for compassion and fairness in life, I believe that terminally ill people should be treated with compassion and fairness when it comes to their death,” Tutu said in a statement after the arrest this week of Sean Davison, who founded DignitySA, a right-to-die group. “This should include affording people who have reached the end-stages of life the right to choose how and when to leave Mother Earth.” Davison, who was released on bail, is accused of assisting in the 2013 suicide of friend Anrich Burger, who was left quadriplegic after a car crash. Medically assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is illegal in South Africa, but in recent years there have been growing calls for it to be legalized. DignitySA said it was awaiting more information about the accusations against Davison. The group does “not assist individuals with dying (assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia) however wrong we believe it is that some people die in conditions of intractable and unbearable suffering,” it said, adding that Davison “has a private and professional life outside DignitySA and, like any good citizen, he takes responsibility for his choices.” Davison is a professor in the biotechnology department and head of the forensic DNA laboratory at the University of the Western Cape, DignitySA says on its website. He served five months under house arrest in New Zealand after pleading guilty to assisted suicide following the death of his terminally ill mother there, according to the group. An earlier charge of attempted murder was dropped. Tutu, an anti-apartheid campaigner who has spoken out on human rights long after the 1994 end of white minority rule in South Africa, has been hospitalized several times in recent years because of infections linked to past treatment for prostate cancer. “I believe in the sanctity of life, and that death is part of life,” he said. “Alongside the wonderful palliative care that exists, the choices available to the terminally ill should include dignified assisted death.” ___ Follow Christopher Torchia on Twitter at www.twitter.com/torchiachris
|
30523
|
Abandoning the Common Core set of standards for English and mathematics caused a Florida charter school's test results to go from mediocre to outstanding.
|
What's true: Students at the Mason Classical Academy in Naples, Florida, did rank highly among schools in the local district for English Language Arts and Mathematics in 2017, and their scores improved from the year before. What's false: The school never adopted Common Core in the first place, so the improvement in results was not linked to Common Core. In Mathematics, four public schools that participate in Common Core ranked above the Mason Classical Academy.
|
false
|
Science, common core, education, florida
|
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, commonly known as Common Core, has provoked almost endless debate since the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama introduced it in 2010. Critics say the program — which entails a set of national standards for English and mathematics among K-12 students — is too rigid and does not allow individual states, school districts, and schools enough leeway or freedom to improvise and make adjustments in how they teach their students. To that end, the conspiracy theorist web site YourNewsWire.com seized upon on what appeared to be an argument for abandoning Common Core, in the example of an independent charter school in Florida. In July 2017, the blog posted an article with the headline “Florida School Ditches Common Core — Soars to Number One.” The article read, in part: A school in Florida that dumped the Common Core program in favor of traditional teaching methods has soared to the number one position in the State’s top schools list, according to government statistics. Earlier that summer, good test results by students at the Mason Classical Academy in Naples, Florida also prompted articles by FreedomProject.com (a web site that promotes classical education and “Judeo-Christian values”) and the disreputable “alternative health” blog NaturalNews.com, which wrote, “Florida school dumps common core then skyrockets to number one in English Language Arts, with 90 percent scoring proficient.” The clear message in all these reports was that a decision by the school to abandon the Common Core standards had caused its students’ statewide test results to improve dramatically. In reality, the Mason Classical Academy has never used Common Core; therefore, the improvement in its students’ test results between 2016 and 2017 could not have had any connection to Common Core. As its principal, David Hull, wrote in 2014: Which is more critical, a solid education or passing state tests? Can we accomplish delivering both? Is it ethical to focus more on state standards than a rigorous curriculum influenced by one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, Hillsdale College? Are we able to accomplish our mission with state mandates and Common Core breathing down our necks? Do we have our students practice for state tests on computers because tests are now computer-based? Are our students at an automatic disadvantage because we choose paper and pencil over keyboards and mice? These are difficult questions to answer, and ones that will be revealed only by time. In 2017, Hull revisited the issue, comparing Common Core to Big Brother: The general theme of the original article argues that MCA is a charter school that has abandoned Common Core, and doing so catapulted the school to number one status. The pursuit of truth requires humility, so I therefore must admit, although the argument is on the right track, the author misses much of the bigger picture. Common Core is not solely responsible for America’s less-than-stellar educational performance. Common Core is more like a placebo fighting a long ignored infection. But while placebos have often worked to bring therapeutic relief to people, Common Core has not accomplished what is necessary to repair public education. What ails our system is mainly due to progressive education, and the cure requires more than a placebo. If one is looking for a simple answer to why Common Core is bad, then my opinion is this: CC is bad because it favors teaching skills over knowledge, and it helps perpetuate the decline of Western Civilization mainly through the sidelining of quality literature and history instruction … If we are in want of educational reform, then we must see the faults of education for what they truly are. Common Core does harm education in many ways, but it is not the root cause. Progressive education is the root cause, and the problems stemming from it have compounded in countless ways throughout far too many schoolhouses across the country, both public and private. I know that many will take offense to what was written here, but the tales must be told. Furthermore, while the school’s students did have outstanding results in English Language Arts in 2017, their mathematics results were not quite as good, though still among the best in the Collier County school district. FreedomProject.com reported that when it comes to the statewide Florida Standards Assessment, the Mason Classical Academy “scored number one in English Language Arts (ELA) in the county, with 90 percent of its third graders scoring proficient.” This is only partly true. The school’s third-graders did rank first among 33 schools in the county for English, as did the fifth-graders, although the fourth-graders ranked 7th. When it comes to mathematics, the second discipline relevant to Common Core, the school’s students didn’t perform as well. In 2017, the Mason Academy ranked fifth in the school district across all three grades with, on average, 81 percent of students receiving a score of at least “proficient” across all three grades. The four schools that outperformed the Mason Classical Academy on Florida Standards Assessment mathematics testing in 2017 — the basis of the argument put forward by FreedomProject.com and others — were all public schools implementing the Common Core set of standards. This significantly undermines the causal connection that FreedomProject.com and others made between higher test results and the absence of Common Core.
|
13461
|
"Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine ""want to shut down shale, and shut down natural gas."
|
"Trump said that Clinton and Kaine ""want to shut down shale, and shut down natural gas."" Trump's campaign points to Clinton's statements that she wants to put restrictions on the fracking process used to extract natural gas from shale, and she wants to move the world away from petroleum sources as quickly as possible. But a review of Clinton's statements also make clear that she supports natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. Her restrictions would not shut down fracking or natural gas production. Because the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
|
mixture
|
Environment, National, Climate Change, Economy, Energy, Jobs, Public Health, Regulation, Water, Donald Trump,
|
"The weekend before the first presidential debate, Donald Trump went to Roanoke, Va., to talk about energy. ""Here, in Virginia, we are going to end the war on American energy and on our miners. Hillary Clinton says she wants to put the miners out of work,"" Trump said. ""Clinton and (vice presidential candidate Tim) Kaine also want to shut down shale, and shut down natural gas. What they've done is incredible."" Shale has become a dominant source of fossil fuels in the United States, thanks to a controversial process known as fracking. It wrings natural gas out of bedrock in a process that was once not considered profitable for extracting oil or natural gas. The process is efficient enough that the country's dependence on petroleum imports has declined precipitously. We wondered if the Clinton team wants to shut down fracking and the natural gas it produces. Trump's evidence Natural gas, composed mostly of methane, is extracted from shale rock by injecting it with pressurized water, sand and chemicals. Supporters note that burning it produces far less pollution than other types of fossil fuel. Critics say the process can cause earthquakes, water contamination and the unwanted release of methane, a gas renowned for trapping heat, which makes it a big player in climate change. When we contacted the Trump campaign, spokesman Jeff Wood sent us to a transcript of the March 6, 2016, Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Mich., where Clinton and her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, were asked about fracking. Sanders said he opposed it unconditionally. Clinton, who had come under fire by Sanders for her support of the technology, was less absolute. ""I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one,"" Clinton told the crowd. ""I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using."" ""So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,"" she continued. ""And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met."" When we looked at this issue previously, we found evidence that Clinton had been supportive of fracking as secretary of state. She promoted it for Latin America, China, India and the European Union. In a 2009 speech, Clinton said: ""Now, I know that in some places it's controversial. But natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today, and a number of countries in the Americas may have shale gas resources."" She did, however, call for ""smart regulations"" on the practice. In an April debate against Sanders in Brooklyn, N.Y., Clinton was asked about her past statements as secretary of state. Clinton characterized natural gas as a ""bridge"" between dirty fuels, such as coal, and clean renewable energy, and said she was promoting it to other countries as a way to get European countries away from Russian sources. ""So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can,"" she said. Shut down fracking? Only a minority of states have banned fracking. Vermont was the first in 2012 and New York followed in 2014. Maryland has a moratorium on the practice through next year. Some municipalities have banned it as well. As for places with the unwanted release of methane — known as ""fugitive emissions"" — a 2015 study found that would apply to roughly one in 25 facilities. On the issue of water pollution, fracking critic Robert Howarth of Cornell University has estimated that 4 percent of production wells pollute water. And a 2015 EPA study said there were 151 cases of fracking spills in 11 states between 2006 and 2012.. When it comes to disclosing the chemicals used in the process, the impact of Clinton's rules would not be large. According to the American Chemical Society, 26 of the 28 states where fracking is done already have some disclosure rules, although those rules may not provide complete disclosure because they often drilling companies to protect what are regarded as trade secrets. It seems likely that if Clinton's ideas were put in place, drillers in the remaining two states could simply disclose the ingredients of their fracking solution the way drillers in other states have. When we asked the Clinton campaign about Trump's allegation, spokesman Josh Schwerin directed us to her campaign website and this statement: ""Switching to natural gas has avoided thousands of premature deaths and more than 100,000 asthma attacks by improving air quality, while creating good paying jobs and careers and helping reduce U.S. carbon pollution to its lowest level in 20 years,"" Clinton is quoted as saying. ""With strong safeguards in place, natural gas can play an important role in our transition to a clean energy economy . . . As President, I will ensure natural gas production is safe and responsible in those communities that choose to pursue it."" The Clinton campaign said she and Kaine agree on fracking and natural gas. Our ruling Trump said that Clinton and Kaine ""want to shut down shale, and shut down natural gas."" Trump's campaign points to Clinton's statements that she wants to put restrictions on the fracking process used to extract natural gas from shale, and she wants to move the world away from petroleum sources as quickly as possible. But a review of Clinton's statements also make clear that she supports natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. Her restrictions would not shut down fracking or natural gas production. Because the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context,
|
1818
|
Hoopsters put circus-inspired spin on cardio workout.
|
It has been a circus prop, a toy and a 1950s fad, and now the hula hoop is making a comeback as a workout tool that fitness experts say provides an effective cardio and even meditative workout.
|
true
|
Health News
|
A new generation of hoop activists is putting another spin on the hoop, which ancient Greeks fashioned from grapevines and used to exercise the hips. Circus hooper Marawa Ibrahim, known professionally as Marawa the Amazing, lives a nomad’s life performing and teaching hula hooping around the world. “Fitness hooping is what I’m really into. Even at circus school I developed a workout using core muscles to push the hoop,” said Ibrahim, who can spin 133 hoops simultaneously and has appeared on the UK reality show “Britain’s Got Talent.” The 32-year-old Australian said anyone, regardless of age or fitness level, can keep the hoop spinning but choosing the right size hoop is essential. “You can’t hoop with a kid’s hoop. When you were a kid you were half as tall,” she said, adding that a hoop should reach to the hips, at least. “I used to teach a gym class of overweight women. I made hoops that were almost up to their armpits and they could do it.” Proper technique also means balance. Even the pros can develop lopsidedness, she said, so spin in both directions in order to tone the body evenly, head to toe. Kelly Strycker is the director of Chicago Hoop Dance, a community-based collection of performers, teachers and students who practice hooping as a form of moving meditation similar to Yoga, or Chi-gong, the Chinese system of exercise and breath control. “There definitely is a circus overlay in hoop dance,” said Strycker, adding toned muscles and weight loss are common benefits. “It tends to be a fitness workout because of the nature of the movement.” Strycker said hoop dancing, which includes elements of yoga, attracts mainly women between 25 and 60 who want a fitness routine they will do. Her classes, held at venues including parks and beaches around Chicago, include 20 to 25 minutes of yoga moves, lunges and squats, and hooping for the wrists, hands, shoulders, legs, hips and waists. “The meditative aspect is in the rhythm, the rocking movement that stimulates the heartbeat, the back and forth,” she said. Dr. Cedric X. Bryant, chief science officer at the American Council on Exercise (ACE), said a 2011 ACE-sponsored study found that hooping could burn up to 600 calories an hour. “We found that just by the nature of movement it did a pretty effective job,” Bryant said. “The only downside is if one had difficulty mastering movement. But larger hoops reduce the learning curve.” Ibrahim said a hoop, unlike a trapeze, is portable and fun. “Walk up to any kid and they’ll have a go at it,” she said. “Everyone’s happy.”
|
3905
|
Legislation, order aim to save Medicaid to Schools funding.
|
New Hampshire is taking steps to salvage federal money for schools that provide mental health counseling, speech therapy and other services to students, Gov. Chris Sununu and other state officials said Wednesday.
|
true
|
Medicaid, General News, Legislation, Mental health, New Hampshire
|
The Medicaid to Schools program allows schools to be reimbursed by the federal government for services provided to Medicaid-eligible students. While it once applied only to special education students, the state expanded the program in 2017, and it now covers thousands of students from virtually every district. The program is in jeopardy, however, because under new federal guidance issued in July, those providing the services must be licensed by a medical board, not just credentialed by the state Department of Education. To address that issue, Sununu signed an executive order Wednesday to temporarily speed up the licensing process, and bipartisan legislation is being drafted to create a permanent change. “This is not just a legislative solution, it’s not just a solution through rules, it’s not just a solution at the federal level,” Sununu said. “It’s really just making sure the boards are part of the process, and making sure all the stakeholders have been part of the process.” The Department of Health and Human Services also has been working with community mental health centers and other providers to determine how they might help schools. Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester, said that in his city, part of the problem was getting medical providers to officially order the services. “It wasn’t that the service couldn’t be provided in the school,” he said. Senate Majority Leader Dan Feltes, a Democrat running for governor, called the order a publicity stunt. Ït barely puts a band-aid on the self-inflicted damage caused by the Sununu administration and does nothing to address the root cause of the problem — the governor’s ill-advised, fiscally irresponsible rulemaking that is costing New Hampshire students, schools and property taxpayers millions of dollars,” he said in a written statement.
|
881
|
Deployment of second Ebola vaccine would not be quick fix, experts warn.
|
The resignation of Congo’s health minister in the midst of the country’s worst Ebola outbreak could clear the way for a second experimental vaccine to be deployed. But the new shot would likely take months to win the trust of frightened locals and show results, health officials say.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Oly Ilunga, who opposed using the vaccine developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, resigned as minister on Monday after being bumped off the Ebola response team. The World Health Organization recommended the two-dose shot to complement a vaccine by U.S. drugmaker Merck, which has proved highly protective but is in relatively short supply. Proponents, including medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) and the Wellcome Trust, said the new vaccine could be deployed to areas not yet affected by Ebola to create a firewall against the virus, which the WHO declared an international health emergency last week. But Ilunga said the J&J vaccine had not been proven effective and could confuse people in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where wild rumours are hampering the response. “Congolese have the right to have the gold standard, the best vaccine,” he told Reuters on Thursday, in his first public comments since resigning. “They don’t need to be the subject of experimentation.” “You can’t have a group of promoters, producers of the vaccine (and) university researchers wanting to introduce the vaccine without contacting the health authorities,” he said, without elaborating further. Paul Stoffels, J&J’s chief scientific officer, denied there were any efforts to secretly introduce the vaccine and said the company had been in full communication with Congolese authorities. But scepticism about new medicines can resonate strongly on a continent where some pharmaceutical trials have faced accusations in the past of failing to obtain informed consent and providing subpar care to participants. For example, some U.S. government-funded trials of HIV drugs in the 1990s were accused of double standards for giving placebos to women in Africa when effective therapies existed, a practice that is not generally allowed in the United States and other Western nations on ethical grounds. Researchers defended the use of placebos as scientifically necessary. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, an epidemiologist and Ebola expert named to lead Congo’s response team, dismissed Ilunga’s concerns and said authorities would revisit whether to deploy a second vaccine. However, he downplayed the importance of the decision. “I don’t think that a vaccine is what’s holding back the response,” he told Reuters, noting that previous Ebola outbreaks had been contained quickly without a vaccine. “We could use or not use. It won’t change the evolution of the epidemic,” he said. The nearly year-long outbreak has infected more than 2,500 people and killed more than 1,700, numbers topped only by a 2014-16 outbreak in West Africa that killed more than 11,300. This month, a case was detected in Goma, a city of 2 million on the border with Rwanda, heightening fears about the spread of the haemorrhagic fever. Efforts to contain it have been undermined by mistrust of health workers and violence by armed militias. Treatment centres have been attacked. Local campaigners say people are scared and confused about the various medicines being used. In addition to the vaccine, four experimental treatments are being given to Ebola patients. All are still unlicensed, which means they can only be used in clinical trials overseen by Congo’s health ministry. “We should not introduce a second vaccine when we don’t yet have scientifically-proven conclusions from the one currently being tested,” said Matina Mwanack, the administrator of an advocacy group in the eastern Congo city of Butembo called Families United Against Ebola. “(We) have suffered a lot from the lack of needed information about the vaccines and treatments being tested.” Omar Kavota, who heads a group of religious and political leaders in eastern Congo, said “introducing a second vaccine would amplify rumours”, including over why some patients got one while others received the second. Muyembe said communicators had been appointed to make the process more transparent. Proponents of a second vaccine argue it can only be tested in a live outbreak, since it would be unethical to deliberately infect trial volunteers. They propose deploying it where the disease has not yet spread, while the Merck vaccine continues to be used to protect contacts of suspected cases. “Both vaccines should work hand in hand,” said Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of the scientists who first discovered the Ebola virus. Since the West African outbreak, J&J has tested its vaccine on more than 6,000 volunteers in a dozen trials, confirming its safety and ability to generate an immune response. It requires two injections 56 days apart - another obstacle cited by Ilunga - in an area where fighting causes frequent displacement, but should last longer. “The goal is to give a long-term safe profile for people who may never be exposed to Ebola,” said J&J’s Stoffels, adding that 1.5 million doses were available. Josie Golding, head of epidemics at the Wellcome Trust, said “we could run out of Merck vaccines” if the outbreak extends into a second year. Health authorities have already begun using smaller doses to ration supplies. Congo’s health ministry disputes there is a shortage of the Merck vaccine. The company said it expects to have about 900,000 doses available over the next six to 18 months, in addition to the 195,000 doses it has already donated. The ministry has also considered potential vaccines developed by China’s CanSino Biologics and the Russian research institutes Rospotrebnadzor and Gamaleya, but those discussions are less advanced. (GRAPHIC: In Africa, a virus spreads: tmsnrt.rs/2ReWwZU)
|
11145
|
Alcoholics see hope in new pill
|
First, this story was a shortened version of the original Associated Press story (The Houston paper trimmed the last 9 paragraphs of the original.) Still, even as is, the article provided a very good outline of the results from a recently published study on a clinical trial designed to examine whether Topamax has merit for the treatment of alcoholism. It addressed every one of the criteria that we believe ought to be included in a story on a medical treatment. While presenting the potential for hope, the article was very grounded. It was clear to indicate that the medication had common side effects that were sufficiently noxious that 20% of the people taking the medication discontinued doing so. It was also apparent from the story that not everyone using the medication was successful at eliminating alcohol consumption. By providing numbers, it was also clear that the average number of drinks per day was only slightly less for those taking the medication than those taking the placebo. Good job!
|
true
|
"The story provided an estimate for the cost of the treatment as well as the reminder that the costs for the doctor’s visit also needed to be factored in. The story provided some idea of the magnitude of benefit from the use of this drug – significantly more people using this medication were able to abstain from drinking entirely for at least 28 days out of the 98 days of the study. Similarly, there was also a reduction of the average 11 drinks per day to 6 1/2 drinks per day for those using this medication as compared with 7 1/2 for those in the placebo group. The inclusion of the anecdotal report of someone who remained sober years after taking the drug implies a duration of effect well beyond the duration of this study: 3 1/2 months. While there is no formal exaggeration of the effect, a cheery anecdote may falsely raise expectations in the reader. The story did mention some of the unpleasant side effects that people taking the drug experienced; although it did not provide information about how frequently they occurred, it mentioned that 20% of the people dropped out of the study which provides a composite of sorts. The story did a fine job reporting on the results of the study; it is clear from the story that only 15% of the people who took the drug quit drinking during the course of the study but that the difference in the average number of drinks per day though lower in the drug treated group, were really not very different than that of the placebo group. While there is no ""disease mongering"" in the sense of exaggerating the scope of the problem, there is implication in this report that the drug under study is more widely applicable than the study demonstrates. The study author was quoted as saying you ""can come in drinking a bottle of scotch a day and get treatment without detox."" In this study, patients who experienced significant withdrawal symptoms with cessation were excluded, as were those who had multiple unsuccessful attempts in the past to stop drinking in inpatient programs. Experts in the field who were not associated with this study were quoted in the story. In addition, the story clearly indicated that the study was funded by the maker of the drug. Although the story did not name names, it did mention that there were three other medications currently approved for use in the treatment of alcoholism. The story couched one benefit for use of the study drug as something for people who want to see their ""own doctors, rather than enter a rehab clinic to dry out."" This is misleading as it makes it seem as though for the other medications currently approved for the treatment of alcoholism, it is necessary to attend a specialized alcohol treatment program. The story did not mention any 12-step programs that some use for treating alcoholism. The story made clear that the drug Topamax is not FDA approved for the treatment of alcoholism but that physicians are free to prescribe it for such use. The story was clear that this is a new use for a prescription medication currently on the market for other uses. Does not appear to rely on a press release."
|
|
28202
|
An elementary school in Fresno, California, forced a third-grader to remove a cap bearing Donald Trump's campaign slogan.
|
The debate was made moot not long after the controversy began when the Autry family’s dog tore the controversial hat to pieces.
|
true
|
Politics, donald trump, middle school, school dress codes
|
As the 2016 school year and the election primary cycles wound to a close in California, they inevitably congealed into political brouhahas that entangled even young students. One such controversy involved the case of third-grader Logan Autry and his “Make America Great Again” hat: Third-grader Logan Autry, 9, said officials at Powers-Ginsburg Elementary School in Fresno told him to remove his “Make America Great Again” hat because it could stir “negative emotions” in other children. The red baseball cap with the phrase printed in white capital letters has become almost synonymous with the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The principal told me to take it off, and I still didn’t take it off,” Autry [said]. “And she said it was against the dress code to wear the hat, but I looked in the dress code and it was not against it.” The Fresno Unified School District’s dress codes for the 2015-2016 school year are fairly easy to track down online, and they haven’t changed much (if at all) from those of previous years: Any apparel, hair style, cosmetic or jewelry, even if not specifically mentioned below, which creates a safety concern, draws undue attention to the wearer, or tends to distract from the educational process is prohibited unless addressed elsewhere in this regulation. Additionally, the following items are specifically prohibited: What many stories didn’t mention was that Logan Autry wore the hat for several days before the school, seeing it as a potential distraction, intervened and told him to remove it: Our job as educators is to facilitate a safe learning environment where we encourage robust conversations of diverse and thoughts. We are proud that in this case, our school achieved that goal by allowing the student to wear his hat for several days. However, it is also our responsibility to take precautions when the discourse begins to impact our school climate and interrupt school operations. Logan told reporters that wearing the hat at school is his First Amendment right. However, the right to free speech is interpreted (by courts and others) somewhat differently in public schools than outside them. The National Coalition Against Censorship has a rundown of how the First Amendment is interpreted within the classroom: Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the right to free speech and expression can sometimes be subordinated to achieve legitimate educational goals. (See discussions of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District v. Fraser.) A school is not comparable to a public park where anyone can stand on a soapbox, or a bulletin board on which anyone can post a notice. While students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines), speech is not quite as free inside educational institutions as outside. This does not mean that students and teachers have no First Amendment rights at school. Quite the contrary. But within the educational setting, the right to free speech is implemented in ways that do not interfere with schools’ educational mission. Students cannot claim, for instance, that they have the right to have incorrect answers to an algebra quiz accepted as correct, nor can teachers claim a right to teach anything they choose. Other quotes from Logan present a fuller picture of the third-grader’s political views: He already has the shirt and tie down, and practices speeches about Trump on the playground. “I’ve told them his policies on illegal immigration, and our second amendment, and our first amendment and all of our amendments that need to be protected which are not going to be an amendment at all if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets elected,” said Autry.
|
8123
|
'Stay at home' New Zealand PM urges ahead of coronavirus lockdown.
|
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern urged New Zealanders on Tuesday to reduce contacts to a bare minimum to help fight the coronavirus, as the country prepared for a one-month lockdown.
|
true
|
Health News
|
New Zealand’s cases of the coronavirus crossed the 100 mark this week as the government imposed self-isolation for everyone, with all non-essential services, schools and offices to be shut for a month from midnight on Wednesday. New Zealand has fewer infections than many other countries but Ardern’s government wants to move fast to halt the spread. It was one of the first to force all arriving travellers into self-isolation and to ban indoor and outdoor gatherings. Cases in neighbouring Australia have soared to 1,886 but it has yet to announce a nationwide lockdown. “Simplest thing is to stay at home ... that’s how we will save lives,” Ardern told a news conference at parliament. “The underlying principle of an alert level 4 is to reduce contact between people to the bare minimum,” she said. Parliament will sit on Wednesday to impose the state of emergency and lockdown, she said. The prime minister said the lockdown would give the country of about 5 million people a good chance of beating the virus but it would only work if everyone followed the restrictions. New Zealand has a total of 155 confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, the disease associated with the coronavirus, with four local transmission cases. It has had no deaths. Under the lockdown, people can go out for a walk or take their children out but they have to keep a distance of 2 metres from others. They can also go to supermarkets. On Tuesday, office staff were preparing to work from home while students moved out of their hostels and cafes shut down. Domestic airports and other regional transport services were choked as people headed home before the lockdown. In the capital of Wellington, ferry services going from the North Island to the South Island were packed, as were supermarkets with people stocking up with food despite government assurances the country will be well supplied. Retail banks agreed to offer a six-month principal and interest payment holiday for mortgage holders and small business customers, the finance minister, Grant Robertson, said. “A six-month mortgage holiday for people whose incomes have been affected by COVID-19 will mean people won’t lose their homes as a result of the economic disruption caused by this virus,” Robertson said. The government and banks would also implement a NZ$6.25 billion ($3.62 billion) business finance guarantee scheme for small and medium-sized businesses, he said. The scheme will include a limit of NZ$500,000 per loan and will apply to firms with a turnover of between NZ$250,000 and NZ$80 million per annum. The government will carry 80% of the credit risk, with the other 20% to be carried by the banks, Robertson said. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) had decided to reduce banks’ core funding ratios to 50% from 75%, further helping banks make credit available.
|
9401
|
Less-invasive heart valve replacement tied to better quality of life
|
This story reports a meta-analysis of 20 studies that measured functional and quality-of-life outcomes for patients who underwent a minimally-invasive procedure called transcatheter aortic valve replacement, or TAVR, to fix a narrowing of the aortic valve. The story spells out several study limitations and included multiple expert perspectives. But, it may have confused readers because in several places it used medical terminology that relates to blood vessel surgery, not heart valve surgery. And, by not discussing risks or costs of the surgery, the story could leave readers with the impression that the surgery is low-risk and cheaper than alternatives. Aortic stenosis, a condition that decreases blood flow from the heart, occurs in about 2% of people over 65 years, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine. In the last decade the introduction of minimally invasive TAVR procedures — which involve inserting a replacement valve in place of the damaged one via a catheter — have provided a treatment option for patients at high risk for open-heart surgery due to advanced age or other medical conditions. Selection criteria for the procedure is expected to broaden to treat lower risk groups, according to the authors of this analysis, who say their review “provides evidence that benefits for functional capacity and (health-related quality of life) have been maintained.”
|
false
|
surgery
|
There’s no mention of the cost. TAVR procedures averaged $55,136 in 2013, 8.4% higher than open-heart surgery, according to research covered by MedPage Today. TAVr procedures are more expensive due to the high cost of the device. While it can be difficult to report on a complex synthesis of data, more numbers were needed to give readers a sense of the scale of improvements patients experienced. The story says after patients “could walk significantly further in six-minute walking tests used to assess their functional capacity. On average, they added almost 42 meters (138 feet) to their performance before” the procedure. But, according to the study appendix, this 6-minute walk statistic was based on only 4 studies and, more importantly, was not considered a clinically important difference. The story also also says patients “reported clinically meaningful improvements in their quality of life and their ability to complete daily tasks after surgery.” But there is no data to explain how that was measured. The story portrays this procedure as minimally invasive and less risky than traditional surgery, but does not describe any risks. Although TAVR is considered to be lower risk than surgeries that cut open the heart, it’s long-term durability is unknown because the procedure has only been approved in the U.S since 2011. Minimally invasive TAVR is still risky. The rate of death within 30 days ranges from 1 to 4%, for example, and it increases the risk of a stroke or heart attack, in addition to other potential vascular and valvular complications, according to UpToDate.com. This is a strong point of the story, which says: Overall, the current analysis included 2,775 patients from a total of 20 previously published studies on outcomes for this type of surgery. Participants were 82 years old, on average, and they were typically considered high-risk surgical patients due to either advanced age or other medical issues. The smaller studies in the analysis ranged in size from 36 to 484 patients, and most of them followed patients for as long as six to 12 months after surgery. One limitation of the current analysis is that many of these smaller studies were not controlled experiments designed to prove whether or how transcatheter aortic valve replacement might improve quality of life, lead study author Nicola Straiton of the University of Sydney and colleagues note in Age and Ageing. No disease-mongering here. However, the story doesn’t give any idea of how common this condition is–which would have been helpful to include. The story quotes two experts who weren’t involved in the analysis, which is good. However, both have received payments from companies that make heart valves, according to CMS’ Open Payments search tool. Those connections were not disclosed in the story. The story discusses alternatives this way: People who don’t get this type of minimally invasive surgery may instead get a more invasive procedure that involves surgeons cutting open the chest to repair a damaged valve. Surgeons may also perform what’s known as angioplasty, which uses a catheter to insert a tiny balloon and inflate it to open the valve; sometimes surgeons will also insert a stent, or tiny wire mesh cage, to keep the artery propped open. While this is an attempt to explain the other type of surgery, it uses terms that apply to heart vessel surgery, not valve surgery (“angioplasty,” and “keep the artery propped open.”) The story doesn’t discuss how widely available these procedure are. The story helpfully quotes outside experts who say the analysis supports the idea that transcatheter aortic valve replacement can help ease symptoms and be a viable option even for elderly patients who tend to be at high risk for surgery. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
26184
|
“According to the CDC, so far this year, Florida has had 1,762 deaths from COVID-19 and 5,185 from pneumonia. Average pneumonia deaths in Florida from 2013-2018 for the same time period are 918.”
|
The CDC’s running tally of deaths for a given year can count multiple causes for each death. The single underlying cause is reflected in finalized year-end data issued the following year. The deaths in the 900 range refer to cases where pneumonia was the final underlying cause of death. But the number cited for 2020 includes deaths where pneumonia is one of the causes listed on the death certificate. Government officials have said that the national data on COVID-19 deaths is likely an undercount.
|
false
|
Florida, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"The COVID-19 death toll has become a political football. Democratic politicians and groups suggested on social media that government officials have misidentified COVID-19 deaths as pneumonia cases in an effort to conceal the true coronavirus death count. ""According to the CDC, so far this year, Florida has had 1,762 deaths from COVID-19 and 5,185 from pneumonia. Average pneumonia deaths in Florida from 2013-2018 for the same time period are 918. Probably just a coincidence, yeah?"" stated a May 27 Facebook post by the New Florida Majority, a liberal group. The post included a photo of Gov. Ron DeSantis. The group got the information from a viral tweet by Kellen Squire, an ER nurse in Virginia. According to the CDC, so far this year, Florida has had 1,762 deaths from #COVID and 5,185 from pneumonia.Average pneumonia deaths in Florida from 2013-2018 for the same time period are 918.Probably just a coincidence, yeah? The tweet drew tens of thousands of likes and shares over the next few days and was echoed by Democratic political figures. Former party chairman Howard Dean accused Florida of ""cooking the books."" That doesn’t appear to be what happened. While some of the numbers in the post are in the ballpark, the way Squire compared them creates a misleading picture. Doctors in the field say the opposite This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Squire, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017, told us he drew his information from a Reddit thread showing death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The r/coronavirus thread said Florida’s pneumonia deaths were in the 900 range between 2015 and 2018, but jumped above 4,000 this year. Squire ran with those numbers for his tweet, pulling in CDC estimates for Florida deaths from COVID-19 and pneumonia this year. (The data for 2019 has not yet been finalized.) But that comparison doesn’t work, said Bob Anderson, the chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch in the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. The issue is the way causes of death are coded in CDC data. If the death certificate mentions both COVID-19 and pneumonia, both codes are included in CDC data for the current year, and the death will be allocated to both categories in the CDC’s provisional surveillance system, which keeps a rough running tally of deaths in a given year. In 2021, when the CDC finalizes the data and reports national statistics for 2020 cases, it will focus on the underlying cause of death, and assign only one cause to each death. In a case where both pneumonia and COVID-19 are reported on the death certificate, the underlying cause will almost always be COVID-19, Anderson said. In recent years, the number of Florida residents whose underlying cause of death was pneumonia was in the 900s through this point in the year. (When Anderson looked at a separate category of deaths that occurred in Florida, which includes residents and visitors, the numbers were slightly higher.) For the 5,185 figure that Squire tweeted, ""many of them actually are pneumonia due to COVID-19, or pneumonia due to other conditions such as influenza,"" Anderson said. ""But the fact is those with pneumonia due to COVID-19 would be counted in both COVID-19 and pneumonia category"" in the provisional data. So what these posts did was take the 900 figure, which referred to cases in recent years where pneumonia is the underlying cause of death, and compare that to a broader category of cases this year where pneumonia is mentioned on a death certificate, data which is provisional at this point. That said, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government's leading infectious-disease specialist, and other medical experts have said the government’s COVID-19 death toll is an undercount. There are several reasons why a COVID-19 death might not be reported as such, including that a test was not available or that the person died at home. ""It is likely we are underestimating the number of deaths at this point from COVID-19, but it’s going to vary from state to state,"" Anderson said. A spokeswoman for the New Florida Majority, which posted the claim on Facebook, pointed to an article by The Daily Beast about undercounting of COVID deaths in Florida and elsewhere. Florida’s public data reporting about COVID-19 deaths has drawn scrutiny. In May, a state Department of Health employee said she was pressured to manipulate data and was fired. A spokeswoman for Gov. Ron DeSantis said the employee had been insubordinate and the state denied any manipulation of the data. However, county medical examiners have reported higher death counts than the state. A Facebook post said, ""According to the CDC, so far this year, Florida has had 1,762 deaths from COVID-19 and 5,185 from pneumonia. Average pneumonia deaths in Florida from 2013-2018 for the same time period are 918. Probably just a coincidence, yeah?"" Each number here stems from actual data, but the post makes comparisons between them that are misleading. Pneumonia deaths in Florida are up this year compared with some recent years, but the tweet ignores that the CDC’s provisional data for this year counts some deaths for now as being caused by both pneumonia and COVID-19. Finalized 2020 data released next year will list only one underlying cause of death."
|
6676
|
‘This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,’ surgeon general says.
|
Federal health officials issued a national warning Thursday against marijuana use by adolescents and pregnant women, as more states legalize the increasingly potent drug for medicinal and recreational use.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Alex Azar, Health, General News, Marijuana, Politics, Science, Donald Trump
|
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Surgeon General Jerome Adams made the announcement, with Azar calling marijuana “a dangerous drug.” Officials said President Donald Trump has donated $100,000 — one-quarter of his annual government salary — toward a digital campaign to raise awareness of the risks. Trump has forgone his official salary since taking office. The warning comes as legal marijuana has grown into a $10-billion industry in the U.S. with nearly two-thirds of states legalizing it, mainly for medical uses. Possessing small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The list includes California, Colorado, Michigan and Maine. Federal law still treats it as a controlled substance akin to opioids. Adams said science shows that marijuana is harmful to the developing brains of teenagers and to the human fetus. The drug has also gotten stronger, with a three-fold increase in the concentration of the active ingredient THC in cultivated plants over the last 20 years. “This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,” Adams said. The American Medical Association said it strongly supports the government’s effort, adding that it for some time it has been recommending against marijuana use by teens, pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding. The surgeon general said his advisory is a direct result of scientific research that runs counter to changing social mores. “Marijuana use is a risk to the developing brain,” Adams said. “Over time there has been a change in attitudes about marijuana creating a false sense of security.” While the White House has made the opioid epidemic a top policy and political priority, marijuana previously had not gotten such high-level attention. Federal officials say they fear the trend toward legalization may make it more enticing for teenagers to try marijuana. It’s a commonly used drug among youths, they said, along with alcohol and e-cigarettes. No states allow recreational marijuana use by teens. States with medical marijuana programs, Illinois among them, generally allow use by minors with consent from a legal guardian and certification from a doctor. Adams said that for teens it carries a risk of affecting brain development, which continues in the 20s. Frequent marijuana use by teenagers is associated with changes in parts of the brain that are involved with attention, memory, decision-making and motivation. Among pregnant women, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with about 7% reporting they had used it within the past month in a 2017 study. Some women use it to help with morning sickness. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics advise women not to use marijuana during pregnancy, and to discontinue the drug if they find out they are pregnant. HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir said pregnant women taking marijuana to relieve morning sickness should stop. “If you have morning sickness, talk to your physician,” said Giroir. “There are FDA-approved drugs to help with morning sickness. Taking marijuana for morning sickness has never been shown to be safe and effective.” The government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse is paying for several studies on marijuana use in pregnancy, including one involving women who have chosen to continue using the drug to treat morning sickness despite warnings. While some studies have suggested that marijuana may be harmful to the developing brain, the evidence isn’t conclusive, explained NIDA Director Nora Volkow, who said she strongly supports the surgeon general’s warning. “We cannot close our eyes and say this is not happening. It’s happening,” said Volkow. It would be a missed opportunity not to continue the research to find conclusive evidence on how the drug affects the fetus, she said. “My view is that the way that you change things is by providing evidence,” she added. ___ Associated Press Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this article.
|
41873
|
Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime.
|
For many months, President Donald Trump, his White House staff and his personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani, repeatedly made false, misleading and contradictory statements about illegal payments that were made during the 2016 campaign to silence two women who claimed to have extramarital affairs with Trump.
|
false
|
campaign finance laws,
|
For many months, President Donald Trump, his White House staff and his personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani, repeatedly made false, misleading and contradictory statements about illegal payments that were made during the 2016 campaign to silence two women who claimed to have extramarital affairs with Trump.The string of falsehoods and misrepresentations was exposed on Aug. 21, when Cohen admitted that he arranged — “at the direction of” Trump — payments totaling $280,000 to the women.Cohen admitted to paying $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and to receiving $420,000 from the Trump Organization to reimburse him for the payment, plus expenses and a bonus.In addition, Cohen admitted to “causing” another corporation — believed to be American Media Inc., owner of the National Enquirer — to pay $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal. In exchange, AMI received the rights to her story of an extramarital affair with Trump with the express purpose of killing McDougal’s story and preventing it from influencing the election, according to the plea agreement.Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign finance law violations. Under federal law, individuals such as Cohen cannot make a contribution that exceeds $2,700 per election, and corporations, such as the Trump Organization and AMI, cannot make campaign contributions.Below are two timelines that record the false, misleading and contradictory statements made by Trump, Cohen, Giuliani and others about the payments to Daniels and McDougal.The timelines show, for example:We start with the $130,000 payment to Daniels, a story that was first reported by the Wall Street Journal at the start of this year.Jan. 12 — The Wall Street Journal writes that Michael Cohen arranged a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. The White House, Cohen and Daniels — in a statement put out by Cohen on behalf of Daniels — all deny the affair and/or hush money.“These are old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election,” the White House says in a statement to the Journal.“Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” Daniels says in a statement released by Cohen. “If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading about it in my book.” (Daniels would later deny that she signed the statement. )“These rumors have circulated time and again since 2011. President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence, as has Ms. Daniels,” Cohen tells the Washington Post.Jan. 18 — Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah aboard Air Force One tells the press that questions about the payment to Daniels were “answered during the campaign.”Reporter: This is an issue that hasn’t really gotten much attention amidst everything else, but nonetheless, this woman named Stephanie Clifford, goes by the name “Stormy Daniels,” she says that she had an affair with the president. She spoke on record about it to a magazine. They say that she took a polygraph test. What is the president’s response to her allegations?Shah: This allegation was asked and answered during the campaign, and I’ll point you to those comments.Reporter: Was there some kind of settlement, some kind of hush money that was paid?Shah: Like I said, this matter was asked and answered during the campaign, and anything else could be directed to Michael Cohen.Jan. 30 — Appearing on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” Daniels denies signing a statement put out by Cohen on Jan. 12 in which she said she did not receive “hush money” from Trump. “That does not look like my signature does it,” Daniels says. “I do not know where it came from.”Feb. 13 — Cohen issues a statement to the New York Times claiming that he paid Daniels and falsely saying he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization.“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Cohen’s statement says. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”March 7 – At a press briefing, a reporter asks White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders “did the president approve of the payment” to Daniels, and Sanders says that the president “made very well clear that none of these allegations are true.”Reporter: Sarah, you’ve said repeatedly that we’ve addressed our feelings on that situation, in regards to the Stormy Daniels payment. But specifically, can I ask, did the president approve of the payment that was made in October of 2016 by his longtime lawyer and advisor, Michael Cohen?Sanders: Look, the president has addressed these directly and made very well clear that none of these allegations are true. This case has already been won in arbitration. And anything beyond that, I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel.Reporter: When did the president address, specifically, the cash payment that was made in October of 2016 to —Sanders: The president has denied the allegations against him. And, again, this case has already been won in arbitration. Anything beyond that, I would refer you to outside counsel.Reporter: But did he know about that payment at the time, though?Sanders: Jeff, I’ve addressed this as far as I can go.Reporter: I’m not talking about the actual allegations, but about the payment. Did he know about the payment at the time?Sanders: Not that I’m aware of. And, again, anything beyond what I’ve already given you, I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel.March 26 — A day after Daniels appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to discuss her alleged affair with Trump, the White House deputy press secretary says that “the president strongly, clearly, and has consistently denied these underlying claims.”Reporter: Thanks, Raj. One more for you just on the Stormy Daniels incident. I’m sure my colleagues have more questions on that. Could you state, categorically, that the president, his campaign, and the Trump Organization did not violate federal law — specifically, election law — regarding that payment?Shah: Well, I can speak for only the White House, and I can say, categorically, and obviously, the White House didn’t engage in any wrongdoing. The campaign or Mr. Cohen —Reporter: (Inaudible question. )Shah: Yeah. The campaign or Mr. Cohen can address anything with respect to their actions. With respect to that interview, I will say the president strongly, clearly, and has consistently denied these underlying claims. And the only person who’s been inconsistent is the one making the claims.April 5 — In a brief exchange with reporters on Air Force One, Trump denies knowing about the payment to Daniels:Reporter: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?Trump: No. No. What else?Reporter: Then why did Michael Cohen make those if there was no truth to her allegations?Trump: Well, you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. And you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.Reporter: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?Trump: No, I don’t know. No.April 9 — The FBI executes a search warrant at Cohen’s home, office and hotel room.April 26 — In an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Trump says Cohen — whom he refers to as a “good guy” — handles a “tiny, tiny little fraction” of his overall legal work. Trump says Cohen represented him on the “crazy Stormy Daniels deal,” but the president goes on to falsely claim that Cohen did “absolutely nothing wrong” because the payment wasn’t made by campaign funds. (In a previous story, we explain why it could still be a campaign violation even if campaign funds were not used. Federal law states that a personal loan or “anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is a contribution,” whether or not it is repaid. )Steve Doocy: Mr. President, how much of your legal work was handled by Michael Cohen?Trump: Well, as a percentage of my overall legal work a tiny, tiny little fraction. But Michael would represent me and represents me on some things — he represents me, like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal. He represented me and you know from what I see he did absolutely nothing wrong. There were no campaign funds going into this — which would have been a problem.May 2 — In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Giuliani discloses for the first time that Trump repaid Cohen, but makes the false claim that the payment was “perfectly legal” because campaign funds weren’t used. He also claims the president “didn’t know about the specifics” of the payment.Giuliani: That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.Hannity: They funneled the payment through [Cohen’s] law firm.Giuliani: Funneled it through the law firm and the president repaid it.Hannity: Oh, I didn’t know he did. There’s no campaign finance law?Giuliani: Zero.Hannity later in the interview asks if Trump knew about the payment.Hannity: Do you, the president didn’t know about this?Giuliani: He didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this. Like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along. (Giuliani’s full remarks about the $130,000 payment begin at the 11-minute mark of the video. )After the Hannity interview, Giuliani falsely tells the Washington Post later that night that Trump reimbursed Cohen through a $35,000 monthly retainer, beginning in January or February 2017. “The repayments took place over a period of time, probably in 2017, probably all paid back by the end of 2017,” Giuliani says. (Giuliani’s claim about the legal retainer is false. In announcing the plea agreement with Cohen, the Department of Justice would later say, “In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.”)May 3 — Trump tweets that the payment to Daniels had “nothing to do with the campaign,” (contrary to Cohen’s subsequent guilty plea statement), and falsely claims Cohen “received a monthly retainer.”Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are…..— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018…very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,……— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018…despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018Sanders, the White House press secretary, is asked at a press briefing why Trump “was not truthful with the American people” when the president on April 5 denied knowing anything about the Daniels payment or where the money came from. Sanders says that “the president didn’t know at the time, but eventually learned” about the payment.Reporter: And secondly, on another topic in the news today. Can you explain why the president, when he spoke — when he answered questions from reporters a few weeks ago about the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, why the president was not truthful with the American people and with the people in this room?Sanders: As Mayor Giuliani stated — and I’ll refer you back to his comments — this was information that the president didn’t know at the time, but eventually learned.May 4 — In remarks to reporters, Trump falsely denies that he changed his story about payments made to Stormy Daniels. Specifically, he tells reporters to “go take a look at what we said” on April 5 — which is when the president denied knowing anything about the payment or where the money came from.Reporter: Mr. President, why did you change your story on Stormy Daniels?Trump: I’m not changing any stories. All I’m telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth. And to be bringing up that kind of crap, and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time — that’s all you want to talk about. You’re going to see —Reporter: But you said —Trump: Excuse me —Reporter: on Air Force One that you did not know (inaudible).Trump: No, but you have to — excuse me. You take a look at what I said. You go back and take a look. You’ll see what I said.Reporter: You said, “No,” when I asked you, “Did you know about the payment?”Trump: Excuse me, you go take a look at what we said. But this is a witch hunt like nobody has ever seen before. And what they should do is look at the other side, where terribly bad things have happened, where terribly bad things have been done.Aug. 21 — Cohen admits in open court that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels “at the direction” of Trump without mentioning Daniels or Trump by name. He pleads guilty to campaign finance violations, telling the judge that illegal payments were made to two women “for the purpose of influencing the election.” Cohen’s attorney would later confirm that the payments were made to Daniels and McDougal at Trump’s direction.Cohen: With and at the direction of the same candidate, I arranged to make a payment to a second individual to keep the individual from disclosing the information. I used a company under my control to make a payment of $130,000 later repaid to me by the candidate. I participated in this conduct for the purpose of influencing the election.Aug. 22 — Trump tweets that Cohen has decided to “make up stories in order to get a ‘deal’” with federal prosecutors. He falsely claims that the two campaign finance violations “are not a crime.” Cohen admitted to paying or causing payments totaling $280,000 to keep two women silent during the campaign and being repaid for one of the payments by the Trump Organization. Under federal law, individuals such as Cohen cannot make a contribution that exceeds $2,700 per election, and corporations, such as the Trump Organization, cannot make campaign contributions.In an excerpt of an interview with Fox News, “Fox & Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt asks the president if he knew about the payments to Daniels and McDougal. “Later on I knew. Later on,” he says, without saying exactly when. He goes on, again, to falsely claim that there was no campaign finance law violation because the payments were not made by the campaign.Nov. 4, 2016 — The Wall Street Journal publishes a story saying, “The company that owns the National Enquirer, a backer of Donald Trump, agreed to pay $150,000 to a former Playboy centerfold model for her story of an affair a decade ago with the Republican presidential nominee, but then didn’t publish it, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the matter.” The Journal reports that Karen McDougal signed the agreement with American Media Inc. in August 2016.Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks tells the Journal: “We have no knowledge of any of this.” She says, according to the newspaper, that the claim of an affair between McDougal and Trump was “totally untrue.”AMI, whose chairman and CEO, David J. Pecker, is friends with Trump, denies that this was an instance of “catch and kill” — paying for the exclusive rights to a story with no intention of publishing it. “AMI has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump,” the company says in a statement to the Journal.Feb. 16, 2018 — The New Yorker publishes a story on McDougal’s alleged affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007 and the contract with AMI. A White House spokesperson tells the magazine: “This is an old story that is just more fake news. The President says he never had a relationship with McDougal.”July 23 — In a press briefing, a reporter asks if the president still denied that he had a relationship with McDougal. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders says, “Once again, the president maintains that he’s done nothing wrong, and I would refer you to Rudy Giuliani for all questions on that matter.”July 24 — CNN obtains an audio recording from Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, of Cohen and Trump discussing the payment to McDougal in September 2016. “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David [Pecker],” Cohen says in the recording. The two men discuss arranging a payment. “We’ll have to pay,” Cohen says, and Trump seems to say, “pay with cash,” though the recording is muddled. Aug. 21 — Cohen pleads guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations in federal court. Cohen says in court: “On or about the summer of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office, I and the CEO of a media company at the request of the candidate worked together to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign from publicly disclosing this information … under which she received compensation of $150,000.”The Department of Justice press release on the plea says that in August 2015 Cohen and “one or more members of the [Trump] campaign” were involved in an offer by “the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine” to “help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.”The press release says that in June 2016 “Woman-1,” who is McDougal, attempted to sell her story of an affair. “At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story,” the DOJ release says. The agreement with McDougal was struck on Aug. 5, 2016.
|
10209
|
Self-Adhesive Dressing Generates Electrical Current That Promotes Healing, Reduces Infection Risk
|
Electroceutical Wound Dressing. Image: VomarisThis release describes research involving a specialized bandage that directs electrical stimulation to tissue to promote healing of chronic wounds. Researchers state that the electric field disturbs the ability of some bacteria to develop biofilms which can hamper wound healing and thwart antibiotics. Such bandages would be a boon to patients with problems of chronic wound healing, according to researchers. Unfortunately, the release doesn’t give us much information about how the latest research findings (from an animal study) differ from previous work, or how this technology improves on the wireless electroceutical devices (WED) already FDA cleared for in use in humans. The release would have benefited from information on the cost of the bandages, a summary of potential harms, and more quantification of benefits and description of the evidence. Another short-coming was the lack of transparency about the latest research in relationship to previous work funded by a WED manufacturer and Ohio State researchers, who also led this study. [Editor’s note: Earle Holland, one of three reviewers of the release, is a former senior science communications officer at Ohio State University. While on staff he was not involved in communications concerning Ohio State’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS). He has since retired and has no relationship now with the University.] As the release mentions, millions of Americans suffer from chronic wounds, due largely to conditions such as diabetes, obesity and pressure ulcers, commonly referred to as “bed sores,” afflicting countless elderly in nursing homes. Chronic wounds are a serious challenge to health professionals and their patients so as new technology becomes available to improve and speed healing, it is welcomed as a major improvement to public health. Wireless electroceutical dressing (WED) is one component in a growing field of medicine called electroceuticals which encompasses medicine that employs electrical stimulation to affect and modify functions of the body. The FDA has already cleared at least one WED, marketed under the trade name Procellera by Vomaris Innovations. That device is green-lighted for treating wounds such as pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, burns, surgical incisions and graft sites.The WED technology has undergone many research studies in recent years with results published in numerous journals. It would have been nice if the release had clarified Ohio State researchers’ roles in developing Procellera, the earlier WED product.
|
mixture
|
Academic medical center news release
|
In general, if a product is far from deployment, an estimate of its cost could seem premature. However, this release contains the following statement: “The patch’s design significantly advances existing FDA-approved wireless electroceutical dressing (WED) that harnesses the body’s innate response to injury to help wounds heal.” And if it’s not too soon to make a declaration like that, it’s not too soon to estimate what the cost might be. The release might have looked to the cost of existing FDA-approved WEDs to suggest an estimate. For example, this 2015 article on WED in Advances in Wound Care journal by Ohio State University researchers suggests a cost-savings over other wound care methods by reducing the number of dressing changes required per week. No quantification of benefits is provided. A scientist is quoted as saying the research takes the technology “to the next level” and that they have “optimized the bandage’s design and the amount of electrical current delivered” allowing “electric fields and currents to penetrate more deeply into wounds, and really get to where these biofilms may be hiding,” but offers no data to support the claims. In comparing the technology to traditional dressings, the release states that “infected wounds covered by the experimental bioelectric dressing healed better and more quickly than those covered with a plain dressing that is commonly used in the care of wounds today.” We aren’t given any data on what “healed better” and “more quickly” actually means. The release doesn’t mention any potential harms from the technology. According to an article in DermatologyTimes, “Patients who are allergic or sensitive to silver, zinc and/or polyester should avoid using Procellera. In addition, patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiogram or electroencephalogram should avoid using Procellera.” The information was provided by a physician-consultant to the manufacturer. While the release begins by suggesting that chronic wound patients may be getting “good news” soon about this research, it’s not until the eighth paragraph that we learn that the study being touted used animal models rather than human patients. Stating that reported work was done using animal models is a key point that should be emphasized early in any news story or news release, not buried more than half-way through the text. The explanation later in the release stating that the researchers are “hoping to begin testing the new technology in patients before the end of the year to determine optimal treatment duration and more about the healing effects of electrical fields on skin cells on a molecular level,” suggests that the conclusion of the human trials may be a long way off. The release does not engage in disease mongering. It also puts chronic wounds in context by stating how many Americans may be affected. The release identifies the funder of this work as the National Institute of Health, and notes that “the team already has interest from several industry partners.” The release compares the new technology to plain dressings but without comparative data. It states, “Early results, which were presented at the Wound Healing Society’s Annual Meeting in April 2016 indicate that infected wounds covered by the experimental bioelectric dressing healed better and more quickly than those covered with a plain dressing that is commonly used in the care of wounds today.” It might have been more meaningful to compare this new WED against existing WEDs. The release makes it clear that this research of an “advanced” WED is experimental and the technology has not yet been tested in humans. There’s a strong implication that the bandages won’t be available anytime soon. As the news release points out, FDA-approved WEDs already exist on the market. What is the real novelty here? We are told: “The patch’s design significantly advances existing FDA-approved wireless electroceutical dressing (WED) that harnesses the body’s innate response to injury to help wounds heal.” But the release never explains what these significant advances are. The opening paragraph of the news release calls the research a “potentially transformative solution” to a serious health problem. It says the “design significantly advances existing FDA-approved wireless electroceutical dressing” and that “the U. S. Department of Defense is very interested in the dressing.” These statements are basically editorial comment not backed up by any data or supporting information.
|
31869
|
A man was charged with a DUI for drinking too much caffeine.
|
Because of prosecutors’ previous statements and the fact they dropped the DUI charge despite finding caffeine present in Schwab’s blood, they did not prosecute him over accusations he had been drinking coffee and driving. Schwab will still face one count of reckless driving.
|
false
|
Crime, caffeine, dui, police
|
On 26 December 2016, The Free Thought Project posted a story claiming that a man was arrested and charged with a DUI due to the presence of caffeine in his blood, implying his legal troubles were the result of merely drinking too much coffee: 38-year-old Joseph Schwab has been fighting a DUI for over a year, despite the fact that he was not under the influence of any illegal drugs at the time, he did, however, test positive for caffeine. The outrageous-sounding story was picked up by multiple media outlets. However, the Solano County District Attorney’s office said the case is being mischaracterized. Ken Kramer, chief investigator for the D.A.’s office, told us prosecutors initially believed Joseph Schwab, 36, was under the influence of a substance that did not readily turn up on laboratory toxicology tests, and that Schwab has not been charged with driving under the influence of caffeine: The District Attorney’s Office is continuing to investigate the case by consulting with experts to determine what substance contributed to the defendant’s impaired driving. As of 28 December 2016, the D.A.’s office dropped the DUI charge — but Schwab is still being charged with reckless driving: At the time the case was filed, the DUI Unit filed the DUI charge based upon the observations and opinion of the officer that the defendant was under the influence of a combination of substances, including a stimulant and a depressant. The officer’s observations included the defendant’s erratic and reckless driving, his demeanor at the time of the traffic stop, and his performance on a number of field sobriety tests. According to the D.A.’s office, Schwab was driving on an interstate highway in Solano County (which is in California’s Bay Area) when he cut in front of an on-duty officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: The officer then observed the same driver erratically weaving in and out of traffic almost causing several collisions. The officer initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. During the traffic stop, the driver, Joseph Schwab, was contacted and the officer observed the defendant to be highly agitated, “amped up,” and his pupils were dilated. The officer noticed a number of work out supplements in the vehicle. The officer administered several standardized field sobriety tests, which are used routinely to determine impairment. Based upon the defendant’s performance of the field sobriety tests, the officer believed the defendant was too impaired to operate a motor vehicle and he was arrested for misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code Section 23152(e) and Vehicle Code Section 23103. The officer offered the defendant to submit to a drug recognition evaluation, but he declined. We were unable to reach Schwab’s attorney, Stacey Barrett, but she told the Guardian that she believed charges should be dropped because she has not received evidence that Schwab was under the influence of any substance other than caffeine: I have not been provided with any evidence to support a theory of prosecution for a substance other than caffeine at this time. Nor I have received any statements, reports, etc documenting any ongoing investigation since the [toxicology report] dated 18 November 2015.
|
22801
|
Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.
|
Health clinic executive says Rhode Island has the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England
|
true
|
Rhode Island, Economy, Health Care, Poverty, Marie Ghazal,
|
"The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone. If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly. If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see. And because people who don't have insurance are seven times more likely to skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else. So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, began an opinion column in The Providence Journal by asserting that ""Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England."" She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders. We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large. When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information from a story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It was based on a map developed by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between. Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group. We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching. When we contacted CDC, they directed us to state-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call. According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of 4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance. But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance. However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine. For additional context, we looked at the percentages going back to 1995 (excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website). It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent. By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance. Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate. More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average. Because of those omissions."
|
35324
|
"The Simpsons"" television show predicted the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and ""murder wasp"" incursion in a 1993 episode."
|
What's true: Some similarities to events of 2020 are evident in the episode — the spread of an illness believed to have originated in Asia and an insect with a homicidal name. What's false: However, the events are only loosely connected and are more commentary on past events than predictors of future ones, according to a co-writer on the show.
|
mixture
|
Fauxtography
|
The animated television comedy series “The Simpsons” has been said, in its 30-plus years on air, to have predicted numerous events that came to pass only well after particular episodes that referenced them had aired — everything from the common autocorrect feature on phones, tablets and computers to the 2019 fire at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Many of those so-called “predictions” were simply hoaxes (created by altering screenshots or misrepresenting the timing of episodes), and even those that might have rung true weren’t astonishingly remarkable for a show that lampoons American culture, society, and many aspects of the human condition — “anticipated” might be a better word than “predicted” for such cases. Nonetheless, in April 2020 a 1993 episode of “The Simpsons” was claimed to have predicted both the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease and the incursion of “murder hornets” into the U.S. — events that were prominent news items some 27 years after “The Simpsons” episode in question originally aired: Shit the simpsons really did predict 2020 pic.twitter.com/dadM5jvLrB — Eddie D’ohgrou (@didgeridougrou) May 6, 2020 This item is “true” in the sense that the referenced clip is unaltered and dated correctly, but the predictive powers attributed to it are rather weak. The episode this clip was taken from, “Marge in Chains,” originally aired on May 6, 1993. In that episode, Springfield was hit by an outbreak of “Osaka Flu,” transmitted via an infected worker in Japan who boxed up packages of Juice Looseners to be shipped to customers in the U.S.: When townspeople gather at Dr. Hibbert’s medical clinic to demand a cure for the Osaka Flu, the doctor informs them that the only useful treatment for the illness is bed rest, and that anything he gave them would just be a placebo. The gathered crowd then tips over a nearby truck in search of “placebos,” thereby breaking and unleashing a crate full of “killer bees”: Although some similarities to events of 2020 are evident here — the spread of an illness believed to have originated in Asia and an insect with a homicidal name — they’re rather loosely connected and are more commentary on past events than predictors of future ones, as “Marge in Chains” co-writer Bill Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter (THR):
|
4518
|
Costs forcing some hospitals to stop delivering babies.
|
Last month’s closing of the obstetrics unit at the Marshalltown hospital was only the most recent in Iowa’s rural communities, which has forced some expectant mothers to skimp on prenatal care and undergo frantic trips when labor commences.
|
true
|
Iowa, Health, General News, Marshalltown, Prenatal care, Public health
|
Since 2000, 34 of Iowa’s 118 community hospitals have closed their birthing units, according to the Iowa Department of Public Health. There have been two so far this year, down from eight closures last year — the most in a single year. Most of those closures have happened at smaller facilities than the 49-bed Marshalltown hospital. Iowa’s aging population is a key reason for these closures, Dr. Stephen Hunter, vice chairman of obstetrics at the University of Iowa Hospital & Clinics in Iowa City, told Iowa Public Radio . “Some rural counties have lost as many as 40 percent of their population in the last three decades,” Hunter said. “That’s a lot of people gone, unfortunately. That leaves a system that’s not adequate for those that remain in those counties.” Hunter said the state is also facing a severe shortage of OB/GYNs and family practice doctors who practice obstetrics. And, he said, Medicaid reimbursements are so low for obstetrics that hospitals can’t support the service. According to figures from the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Medicaid reimbursed it about one-third of what commercial insurance plans did for services such as ultrasounds and deliveries last year. Competition from bigger hospitals in bigger cities presents a business challenge, too. “There simply aren’t enough women choosing to deliver locally,” UnityPoint Health President Jenni Friedly said. “This is a problem that has been going on for a long time. . There are enough women becoming pregnant, but they are going elsewhere to deliver. It’s clear OB/GYN patients are already selecting Ames and Des Moines for their care.” Stephanie Trusty, a nurse who tracks birthing trends for the state, told the Marshalltown Times-Republican that “some of these birthing units are beautiful. They’re like a four-star hotel.” But does the loss of birthing units at the smaller hospitals and consolidation of birthing services affect health outcomes? A 2017 University of Minnesota study said the loss of labor and delivery units in smaller, more remote counties is linked with a decrease in prenatal care and increase in out-of-hospital and preterm births. The Iowa Public Health Department and the University of Iowa are keeping watch for any such problems, but so far have not seen any sizable incidence, Trusty said. Hansen Family Hospital CEO Doug Morse in Iowa Falls told Iowa Public Radio that hospital officials decided labor and delivery care were too expensive to continue in the aging, rural community with a declining birth rate. After three months of public meetings, Morse said, hospital officials opted to use half the money they would save to turn the unit into a mental health program for seniors. “It really did become fairly clear that people recognize that this wasn’t necessarily ... delivering babies isn’t necessarily a service that matches an elderly population,” he said. The closing of the birth unit at the Iowa Falls hospital forced Jessica Sheridan to change her plans to have her baby born there, just five minutes from her home. She established relationships with doctors in Ames, an hour away, where her daughter was delivered in mid-December. “We were lucky. It was nice weather,” Sheridan said.
|
5779
|
Maine health grants seek to boost vulnerable communities.
|
A group that promotes access to health care in Maine says it’s providing grants to organizations that support marginalized groups, including American Indian tribal members.
|
true
|
Health, Access to health care, Maine, General News
|
The Maine Health Access Foundation says it’s giving $525,000 to seven groups, including the Aroostook Band of Micmacs and Wabanaki Public Health. Foundation president and chief executive officer Barbara Leonard says health metrics such as life expectancy and quality of health care vary significantly within different communities in Maine. Leonard says the grants are designed to help by “strengthening the organizations within the communities that experience the challenges.” That’s why the grants are called Health Equity Capacity Building grants. Others receiving grants include Mabel Wadsworth Center, Survivor Speak USA, Together Place Peer Run Recovery Center, New England Arab American Organization and Somali Bantu Community Association.
|
5410
|
Ken Burns turns his attention to the Mayo Clinic.
|
After spearheading an epic, 18-hour documentary on the Vietnam War, acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns has turned to more personal subject matter — one that knows him very intimately, too.
|
true
|
New York, Entertainment, Movies, North America, Health, Dalai Lama, Ken Burns
|
Burns tackles the famed Mayo Clinic in his next film, exploring the history of the innovative Rochester, Minnesota-based hospital that has been dubbed “The Miracle in a Cornfield.” It has treated luminaries such as the Dalai Lama — and Burns. The first time Burns went, he was immediately impressed by the level and detail of his medical care, like the patient was at the center, not the doctor. “I began to get curious about why this was so different from any other health care experience I’d had,” he said. The result is the two-hour documentary “The Mayo Clinic: Faith, Hope, Science,” which starts with the hospital’s birth during a tornado in 1883 and ends with the modern-day Mayo, state-of-the-art facilities over several campuses that treat up to 14,000 patients in 24 hours. “The Mayo is just a quintessentially American story, just as baseball is a quintessentially American subject, as are the national parks, the Civil War,” Burns said. “And this was a story firing on all cylinders, at least as far as I felt. And it was a story that I don’t think had been fully understood.” The documentary — directed by Burns, Erik Ewers and Christopher Loren Ewers — features the voices of Tom Hanks, Sam Waterston and Blythe Danner, as well as familiar touches: Peter Coyote narrates, there’s rousing music by Aaron Copeland and Scott Joplin, and evocative slow-scans of old photographs known as “the Ken Burns effect.” The film is part of a documentary film empire Burns has on tap. Upcoming are works on the history of country music, Ernest Hemingway, Muhammad Ali, Benjamin Franklin and the American Revolution, as well as deep dives into crime and punishment in America and civil rights during President Lyndon Johnson. “I’m plotted out to 2030 — God and funding willing,” he said with a laugh. “As much as I’d like to believe that I pick projects, in fact I think they pick me. And they pick me because they’re just quintessential American stories, whatever they might be.” Burns has built a reputation for capturing sweeping historic moments with intimate details of peoples’ lives, tackling topics ranging from the Brooklyn Bridge to baseball, from Mark Twain to jazz. His films make the past come alive: Burns was once escorted out of an Alabama church by state troopers from people still upset by the Civil War’s outcome. The Mayo film begins with the unusual collaboration by Dr. W.W. Mayo — “a doctor who worshipped Darwin,” Burns said — and a group of Franciscan nuns who began working with Mayo to help tornado victims in 1883. The hospital adopted a salary-based model of teamwork — not based on ordering tests or a revolving door of patients — that is said to encourage innovation, time with patients and collaboration. In the film, Tom Brokaw and John McCain endorse its methods. So does co-director Erik Ewers, who started the project not as a Mayo patient but ended up one. He had been suffering from intestinal problems for 20 years and had been given seven different diagnoses without finding relief. While he was filming the Mayo documentary, its doctors reached out. “They diagnosed it in two days,” Ewers said. Burns calls Mayo’s formula a “secret sauce” — one that also manages to have poor patients get free care — and hopes it can offer answers to America’s health care problems. “We were making a film about the history the Mayo Clinic, but realized that in their story and in their example might be a way for us all to re-enter a conversation about the essential question: What do we owe each other in terms of taking care of each other?” he said. Burns’ inimitable visual style is sometimes mocked, but the filmmaker isn’t in a rush to embrace flashy special effects, something he calls “all sizzle and no steak.” He admits to dragging his heels on embracing digital cameras and computer editing because he simply liked splicing film stock. But that doesn’t mean he’s inflexible — he used drones in the Mayo film. “There’s a lot of sleek hares out there who are racing past the turtle that we are,” he said. “We make long films. And if you’re going to watch a long film, we have to make sure that we honor the attention you’re giving to us with an equal care in the crafting of it.” The work is painstaking. For the documentary on country music, he estimates his team has pored over 100,000 photographs and scanned 60,000 of them — only to use less than 3,000. “I use the analogy of maple syrup: It takes 40 gallons of sap to make one gallon of maple syrup,” Burns said. By delving into America’s past so much, Burns has learned a lot about human nature, but he dislikes the cliche that history repeats itself. He prefers to quote Mark Twain, who said “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” His work has given him hard-won perspective. When people during the financial crisis in 2007 began evoking the Great Depression, Burns knew his history. He replied that if animals in the zoos were being shot for food, then it was an apt analogy. “That’s what history can do. It’s a kind of an armor or at least a thermal layer that protects you from the chill of the present moment,” he said. ___ Mark Kennedy is at http://twitter.com/KennedyTwits
|
2412
|
E-cigarettes: a burning question for U.S. regulators.
|
At the Henley Vaporium, one of a growing number of e-cigarette lounges sprouting up in New York and other U.S. cities, patrons can indulge in their choice of more than 90 flavors of nicotine-infused vapor, ranging from bacon to bubble gum.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The lounge, located in Manhattan’s trendy Lower East Side, features plush seating, blaring rock music, and fresh juice and coffee. A sprawling sign on one wall lists all the carcinogens that e-cigarette users avoid by kicking their smoking habits and using the e-devices instead. But the growing popularity of e-cigarettes has not escaped the notice of the industry’s critics, who have stepped up calls for new regulations, including bans on their use in public places, even though the scientific evidence about exposure to their vapors remains inconclusive. Selling for about $30 to $50 each, e-cigarettes are slim, reusable, metal tubes containing nicotine-laced liquids that come in exotic flavors. When users puff on the device, the nicotine is heated and releases a vapor that, unlike cigarette smoke, contains no tar, which causes cancer and other diseases. The product, introduced in China in 2006, has become a worldwide trend at least in part because it may help smokers of regular cigarettes break the habit. “It’s an addiction - not everyone can quit cold turkey,” said Nick Edwards, 34, a Henley employee who says he kicked a 15-year cigarette habit the day he tried his first e-cigarette. “E-cigarettes give you a harm-reduction option.” That’s one reason why the market for e-cigarettes is expected to surge, reaching $2 billion by the end of 2013 and $10 billion by 2017, according to Bonnie Herzog, an analyst at Wells Fargo Bank in New York. Herzog said the U.S. market alone could top $1 billion this year. She predicts that by 2017 e-cigarettes sales will overtake sales of regular cigarettes. That estimate does not take into account the impact of potential government regulations on sales. E-cigarettes may help smokers save money too. Edwards, for one, says he cut his $60 monthly cigarette bill in half when he switched. On top of the cost of the device, the smoking liquids cost around $10 per refill. Despite the perceived benefits, critics worry that the addictive nicotine found in e-cigarettes could lure more people into smoking and discourage others from quitting all together. “Essentially e-cigarette companies are selling nicotine addiction,” said Dr. Neil Schluger, chief scientific officer for the World Lung Foundation, which advocates for tobacco control. “Once you have them addicted to nicotine, you can sell them all sorts of things, including conventional cigarettes,” he said. “This is a giant Trojan horse.” In the United States, such concerns have led to calls for increased government regulation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently has no regulations on e-cigarettes, but it is expected to release rules this month that would extend its “tobacco product” authority over the devices. New FDA rules could follow. “Further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes and other novel tobacco products,” said Jenny Haliski, an FDA spokeswoman. To be sure, no one is expecting the federal government to go as far as Brazil, Norway and Singapore, where the devices are banned outright. In the United States, Utah, North Dakota, Arkansas and New Jersey have already passed legislation outlawing e-cigarettes wherever smoking is prohibited. Other jurisdictions are considering new rules of their own. New York City could decide as early as next week whether to prohibit e-cigarette use in public places. Under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who leaves office January 1, New York was one of the first cities to ban cigarette smoking in public places, and its decision could influence Chicago and other cities that are considering a similar controls. The outcome is crucial for tobacco companies, which are banking on the devices to make up for a sharp decline in sales of regular cigarettes in the United States. Smoking among U.S. adults dropped to 18 percent in 2012 from 24.7 percent in 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reynolds American Inc, which makes Camel cigarettes, began selling its Vuse vapor cigarettes in Colorado retail stores in July and plans on expanding nationwide by mid-2014. Other companies have also dipped into the e-cigarette business, too. Last year Lorillard Inc, maker of Newport cigarettes, acquired the best-selling blu eCigs brand, while Altria Group Inc, best known for the Marlboro brand, followed suit in August with the launch of MarkTen e-cigarettes. “As society is transforming, so must the tobacco industry,” said Reynolds spokesman Richard Smith. “It’s just good business sense.” The arrival of Big Tobacco could mean fierce competition for small e-cigarette companies that do not have the resources or experience to deal with tight government regulation. But many e-cigarette companies say Big Tobacco is late to the game and has a lot to catch up on. “They are going to need to boost up their game if they want to compete,” said Christina Lopez, a saleswoman at Smokeless Image, an e-cigarette shop that sells smaller brands in Hoboken, New Jersey. To be sure, there is still a dearth of scientific evidence about the safety of e-cigarettes and their effectiveness in helping smokers quit. For regulators, the big question is, are e-cigarettes a treatment for would-be quitters or “gateway” products to nicotine addiction? Supporters say some e-cigarettes allow users to slowly reduce their nicotine intake and wean themselves off nicotine completely. A study published in the September issue in Lancet, the British medical journal, said the e-cigarettes are as effective as nicotine patches for smokers trying to quit. Worldwide, conventional cigarette addictions kill 6 million people a year, in part because of the 250 harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke, which can cause cancer, heart disease and stroke, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But e-cigarettes may not be harmless, either. Nicotine addictions, fed by smoking, chewing tobacco or e-cigarettes, can cause high blood pressure, disrupt heart rhythms and lead to obesity and diabetes. Electronic devices that feature fruit and candy flavors are even more worrying, critics say, because they could introduce children to smoking. E-cigarette vendors say the sweet flavors make the process of quitting smoking less painful. “By taking a sort of ‘Willy Wonka,’ fun approach to a serious matter, it breaks down people’s perceptions of e-cigarettes,” said Talia Eisenberg, owner of the Henley Vaporium, referring to the fictional candy maker. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 10 percent of high school students surveyed reported using e-cigarettes in 2012, up from 4.7 percent in 2011. About 60 percent of current users are over 35 years old, and 43 percent are college-educated, according to Reynolds American. Twelve states, including New York, have passed laws preventing e-cigarette sales to minors. At a hearing on the proposed New York City ban on e-cigarette use in public places, Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said allowing it could glamorize all types of smoking and encourage teenagers and children to take up the cigarette habit. “While more research is needed on electronic cigarettes, waiting to act could jeopardize the progress we have made over the last few years,” he said.
|
28009
|
People have been buried alive by mistake.
|
Some have been buried alive to serve the dead in the next life. In Africa, for example, two live slaves (a man and a woman) were interred with each dead Wadoe headman. The man was given a bill-hook to use to cut wood for fuel in the next life, and the woman cradled the dead chief’s head in her lap. In 1849, an observer at the funeral of King Thien Tri of Cochin, China, reported that along with rich and plentiful grave goods, all of the king’s childless wives were entombed with his body, thus guaranteeing he’d be henpecked throughout eternity but would at least get his meals on time.
|
true
|
Horrors, buried alive, death, Gruesome Discoveries
|
Don’t quit your shuddering just yet. Live burial is not unheard of; it has always been a real (albeit distant) possibility. Indeed, it’s conceivable the first burials of humans were accidental, live ones: Ill and wounded hunters were left in caves with the entrances sealed off to keep out wild animals while the rest of the hunting parties continued after their prey. It was hoped that once the victims had regained their strength, they would push the barriers out of the way and rejoin the group. Some died in those caves, however Example: [Percy Russell, 1906] PREMATURE BURIAL To die is natural; but the living death Of those who waken into consciousness, Though for a moment only, ay, or less, To find a coffin stifling their last breath, Surpasses every horror underneath The sun of Heaven, and should surely check Haste in the living to remove the wreck Of what was just before, the soul’s fair sheath, How many have been smothered in their shroud! How many have sustained this awful woe! Humanity would shudder could we know How many have cried to God in anguish loud, Accusing those whose haste a wrong had wrought Beyond the worst that ever devil thought. The still-living have been consigned to an eternal dirt nap often enough that fears of premature burial are based on fact as much as on lore. Numerous cases of interments and almost interments dot history. In the first century, the magician Simon Magus, according to one report, buried himself alive, expecting a miracle — a miracle that didn’t happen. On Iona, in the sixth century, one of St. Columba’s monks, Oran, was dug up the day after his burial and found to be alive. Legend has it when he told his fellows he had seen heaven and hell, he was promptly dispatched and re-interred on grounds of heresy. And the 13th-century Thomas a Kempis, the reputed author of the great devotional work The Imitation of Christ, was never made a saint because, it was said, when they dug up his body for the ossuary they found scratch marks on the lid of his coffin and concluded that he was not reconciled to his fate. In the late 16th century, the body of Matthew Wall was being borne to his grave in Braughing, England. One of the pallbearers tripped, causing the others to drop the coffin, thus reviving the dear departed. Wall lived on for several more years, dying in 1595. He celebrated his ‘resurrection’ every year. In the early 17th century, Marjorie Elphinstone died and was buried in Ardtannies, Scotland. When grave robbers attempted to steal the jewelry interred with her, the deceased surprised the heck out of them by groaning. The robbers fled for their lives, and Elphinstone revived, walked home, and outlived her husband by six years. Marjorie Halcrow Erskine of Chirnside, Scotland, died in 1674 and was buried in a shallow grave by a sexton intent upon returning later to steal her jewelry. While the light-fingered sexton was trying to cut off her finger to retrieve a ring, she awoke. In her additional years of life after her first burial, she went on to give birth to and raise two sons. No one knows what happened to the sexton. The 17th century saw a number of premature burials. Collapse and apparent death were not uncommon during epidemics of plague, cholera, and smallpox. From contemporary medical sources, William Tebb compiled 219 instances of narrow escape from premature burial, 149 cases of actual premature burial, 10 cases in which bodies were accidentally dissected before death, and 2 cases in which embalming was started on the not-yet-dead. Some instances were especially heartbreaking. In the 1850s, a young girl visiting Edisto Island, South Carolina, died of diphtheria. She was quickly interred in a local family’s mausoleum because it was feared the disease might otherwise spread. When one of the family’s sons died in the Civil War, the tomb was opened to admit him. A tiny skeleton was found on the floor just behind the door. [British Medical Journal, 1877] A correspondent at Naples states that the Appeals Court has had before it a case not likely to inspire confidence in the minds of those who look forward with horror to the possibility of being buried alive. It appeared from the evidence that some time ago, a woman was interred with all the usual formalities, it being believed that she was dead, while she was only in a trance. Some days afterwards, when the grave in which she had been placed was opened for the reception of another body, it was found that the clothes which covered the unfortunate woman were torn to pieces, and that she had even broken her limbs in attempting to extricate herself from the living tomb. The Court, after hearing the case, sentenced the doctor who had signed the certificate of decease, and the Major who had authorized the interment each to three month’s imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter. A recent “not quite all the way over the line yet” news story comes from 1993: Sipho William Mdletshe might as well be dead, as far as his fiancee is concerned. Declared deceased after a traffic accident in Johannesburg, South Africa, Mdletshe, 24, spent two days in a metal box in a mortuary before his cries alerted workers, who rescued him. But Mdletshe is heartbroken, because his fiancee, who also was hurt in the crash, doesn’t believe his story and refuses to see him. She thinks he’s a zombie who returned from the dead to haunt her. In 1994, 86-year-old Mildred C. Clarke spent ninety minutes in a body bag in the morgue at the Albany Medical Center Hospital before an attendant noticed the bag was breathing. She’d been found sprawled on her living room floor, cold and motionless, with no detectable heartbeat, breath, or other signs of life. She was also as stiff as a board. The coroner didn’t have to think twice about declaring her dead. She apparently did not agree with his verdict, and, with care, lived a week longer. Okay, so it happens. But how common an occurrence is it? In 1896, T.M. Montgomery, who supervised the disinterment and moving of the remains at the Fort Randall Cemetery, reported that “nearly 2% of those exhumed were no doubt victims of suspended animation.” These days, getting accidentally buried alive in the United States or Canada borders on the impossible. Embalming procedures will finish off anyone not quite all the way through the Pearly Gates, and the families of deceased citizens of both those countries overwhelmingly opt to have their loved ones embalmed. (Contrary to popular belief, embalming is not mandatory in the United States. Corpses carry little disease risk — we pose a much greater threat to the public health while we’re still breathing, bleeding, and shedding skin. Proof of this lack of danger is found in the Centers for Disease Control’s study into the risk factors inherent to workers in the funeral business — they found those who deal with cadavers have no greater mortality rate than the general population, nor does their occupation appear to hold special danger of infection. Moreover, despite the claims of the funeral industry, normal embalming does not kill all disease-causing organisms in a cadaver. One study found common pathogens (including the tuberculosis bacillus) still present in 22 of 23 cadavers within 24 to 48 hours of embalming. Other infectious organisms are virtually unaffected by normal embalming, including those that cause anthrax, tetanus and gas gangrene.) There have been deaths by embalming. In 1837, Cardinal Somaglia was taken ill, passed out, and was thought to have died. Preparations were begun immediately to embalm this very important church official. When the surgeon/embalmer cut into the chest to instill embalming materials, he could see the cardinal’s heart still beating. Worse, at this point, the cardinal awoke from his stupor and wisely pushed the knife away from his chest. His effort was to no avail, though — the chest incision killed him. Sometimes the presumed corpse’s ‘still living’ status is only discovered when someone sets about to perform a post-mortem. A 1996 newspaper article reports: In 1984, a post-mortem examination was being conducted in a mortuary in New York. When the pathologist made the first cut the “corpse” leaped up and grabbed him by the throat. The pathologist died of shock.The case of Daphne Banks, who was pronounced dead on New Year’s Eve [1995] but showed signs of life when she got to the mortuary, is by no means unique. From the time of Plato to the present there are many well-documented accounts of the dead coming back to life. The Reverend Schwartz, a missionary, was brought back to life by hearing his favourite hymn played at his funeral. The mourners were surprised to hear his voice from the coffin joining in the singing. Nicephorus Glycas, the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Lesbos, laid in state in his church for two days while mourners filed past his coffin. Suddenly he sat up and demanded to know what everybody was looking at. The discovery that a corpse still has some life left in him isn’t a new phenomenon: [Stowe’s Annals, 1587] The 20 of Februarie [1587], a strange thing happened to a man hanged for felonie at Saint Thomas Waterines, being begged by the Chirugeons of London, to have made of him an anatomie, after he was dead to all men’s thinking, cut downe, throwne into a carre, and so brought from the place of execution through the Borough of Southwarke over the bridge, and through the Citie of London to the Chirugeons Hall nere unto Cripelgate: The chest being opened there, and the weather extreme cold hee was found to be alive, and lived till three and twentie of Februarie, and then died. One of the most famous of such cases is that of Anne Greene who, after being hanged for a felony on 14 December 1650, was sent to the anatomy hall to be used for dissection. She awoke and lived on for many years afterwards. Rapist-murderer William Duell was hanged at Tyburn in November 1740 and taken for dissection. The assistant noted the deceased was breathing and had a faint pulse. Although he was in great pain, two hours later the dead man was sitting in a chair drinking wine. He was sent back to prison and later exiled for life. Around the same time, Professor Junkur of Halle University received a sack with the body of a hanged criminal to be used for dissection. The body was dumped in his house after dark when the professor had already gone to bed. During the night, the professor was awakened by the figure of a naked and shivering man holding an empty sack. The professor decided to help the man escape further punishment and some years later encountered him on the street, a wealthy merchant with a wife and two children. Not every anatomist was so kind-hearted. The Newgate Calendar quoted the surgeon who worked on an eighteenth century German criminal as saying: I am pretty certain, gentlemen, from the warmth of the subject and the flexibility of the limbs, that by a proper degree of attention and care the vital heat would return, and life in consequence take place. But when it is considered what a rascal we should again have among us, that he was hanged for so cruel a murder, and that, should we restore him to life, he would probably kill somebody else. I say, gentlemen, all these things considered, it is my opinion that we had better proceed in the dissection. Okay, so it was (and still is) possible to be buried alive or to meet your maker on a post-mortem table. The prospect is chilling, and numerous people have gone to great lengths to make sure it doesn’t happen to them. The practice of ‘waking’ the dead (having someone sit with the deceased from the time of death until burial in case he ‘wakes up’) began out of this concern. Especially in bygone days when a number of illnesses could cause the sufferer to slip into a coma and thus make it appear all life functions had been snuffed out, the danger of overly hasty interment was real. (Edgar Allan Poe’s macabre short stories, most notably “Premature Burial,” certainly helped increase such fears among the general populace.) Some went so far as to specify in their wills they wanted special tests performed on their bodies to make sure they were actually dead. Surgical incisions, the application of boiling hot liquids, touching red-hot irons to their flesh, stabbing them through the heart, or even decapitating them were all specified at different times as a way of making sure they didn’t wake up six feet under. Some opted for being buried with the means to do themselves in, and guns, knives, and poison were packed into coffins along with the deceased. The screams of a young Belgian girl who came out of a trance-like state as the earth fell on her coffin so upset Count Karnice-Karnicki, Chamberlain to the Czar and Doctor of the Law Faculty of the University of Louvain, that he invented a coffin which allowed a person accidentally buried alive to summon help through a system of flags and bells. Patented in 1897, this hermetically-sealed coffin had a tube, about 3.5 inches in diameter, extending to a box on the surface. The tube was attached to a spring-loaded ball sitting on the corpse’s chest. Any movement of the chest would release the spring, opening the box lid and admitting light and air into the coffin. To signal for help, a flag would spring up, a bell would ring for half an hour, and a lamp would burn after sunset. Similar “life-signaling” coffins were patented in the United States. Those old-fashioned devices might sound quaint and out of place in modern society, but concern over live burial has prompted the redirection of newer technologies to take the place of red flags and whistles: Evangelist Mary Baker Eddy has long been rumored to have been interred along with a functioning telephone. That bit of popular lore likely grew out of a misremembering of the circumstances of her burial. After she died at her home in Boston, in December 1910, her body was kept at the general receiving vault at Mount Auburn Cemetery in nearby Cambridge for several months while her monument was being constructed. Because she was a world renowned figure and there was some fear of thievery, a guard was hired to stay with the body until it was interred and the tomb sealed, and a telephone was installed at the receiving vault for his use during that period. There was never a phone at the monument, inside or outside. The same rumor is associated with Aimee Semple McPherson, another famous evangelist. She was buried in 1944 in Los Angeles’ Forest Lawn Memorial Park. McPherson used a telephone on the stage of her Angeles Temple to keep in contact with her radio crew during sermons, and this may have contributed to the rumor. More likely, people confused her with Mary Baker Eddy. In 1995 a $5,000 Italian casket equipped with call-for-help ability and survival kit went on sale. Akin to beeping devices which alert relatives to an elderly family member’s being in trouble, this casket is equipped with a beeper which will sound a similar emergency signal. The coffins are also fitted with a two-way microphone/speaker to enable communication between the occupant and someone outside, and a kit which includes a torch, a small oxygen tank, a sensor to detect a person’s heartbeat, and even a heart stimulator. Those worried about premature burial would do well to consider Point #10 of “Short Reasons for Cremation,” a 12-point pamphlet circulated in Australia at the turn of the century: Cremation eliminates all danger of being buried alive. History does record some instances of deliberate live burial. It was a method of execution employed in Roman times for vestal virgins who broke their vows of chastity, and some medieval monks and nuns were also thus punished for the same crime. Plutarch described the process for vestal virgins: . . . a narrow room is constructed, to which a descent is made by stairs; here they prepare a bed, and light a lamp, and leave a small quantity of victuals, such as bread and water, a pail of milk, and some oil; so that body which had been consecrated and devoted to the most sacred service of religion might not be said to perish by such a death as famine. The culprit herself is put in a litter, which they cover over, and tie her down with cords on it, so that nothing she utters may be heard. They then take her to the Forum… When they come to the place of execution, the officers loose the cords, and then the high priest, lifting his hands to heaven, pronounces certains prayers to himself before the act; then he brings out the prisoner, being still covered, and placing her upon the steps that lead down to the cell, turns away his face … the stairs are drawn up after she has gone down, and a quantity of earth is heaped up over the entrance to the cell … This is the punishment of those who break their vows of virginity. Medieval monks and nuns who broke their vows of chastity were often walled into small niches, just barely large enough for their bodies. They also were given a pittance of food and water, and the grim benediction Vade in Pacem (Depart in Peace).
|
36584
|
More Americans die every year from a lack of affordable healthcare than by terrorism or at the hands of undocumented immigrants.
|
Are More Americans Killed Annually by Lack of Affordable Healthcare Than by Terrorists or Undocumented Immigrants?
|
true
|
Fact Checks, Politics
|
On December 20 2018, the Facebook page “Teanderthal Party” posted the following meme about healthcare, “illegal immigration,” terror attacks, and the mortality rate in the United States:It stated:FACT:More Americans die every year from lack of affordable healthcare than from terrorist attacks and illegal immigration combined.Teanderthal Party didn’t share any commentary alongside the meme, nor was it accompanied by any citations, sources, or even references backing the point the page was attempting to convey by sharing the meme. Presumably, its creators singled out “illegal immigration” and “terrorist attacks” as common political fears in the United States, and it aimed to suggest that those concerned about those dangers were possibly likelier to die from lack of access to healthcare services. (But without additional context, that remains a guess as good as any. )Regardless of the page’s editorial intent in sharing the meme, its claims remained fact-checkable — to a degree. However, questions remain: If fact-based resources were consulted to compose the meme, did its creator simply reference 2018 (the year in which it was posted to the page)? Was it created and based upon an earlier year? And how far back should we go to examine the claim’s truthfulness?Further, did the meme intend to reference terrorism-related deaths of Americans within the United States, or did it include Americans killed while visiting other countries? Were combat deaths involving the Islamic State (for example) included in the creation of the meme? And with respect to the number of “Americans [who die] … from illegal immigration,” did it mean people murdered by undocumented immigrants, or something else? With such nebulous benchmarks, answering these questions was a dicey prospect.Finally, the precise meaning of dying “from lack of affordable healthcare” was undefined. Would such a number encompass people who succumbed to illness or injury because they were unable to pay for treatment, people whose health declined because they did not maintain any form of medical insurance, or some other category? Would any other scenario be included in the calculation of deaths due to a lack of affordable healthcare?Although vague, the meme pinpointed three metrics of debatable description with which we will try to approximate a truth rating:The first number might be the easiest of the bunch, due to related research appearing from time to time in the news. Fact checkers PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have both tackled variations of the claim, the latter with no rating, while the former assigned a “” decision to a claim no one died from a lack of access to healthcare.Figures from the American Journal of Public Health [PDF] published in 2009 often serve as a benchmark number for deaths linked specifically to a lack of health insurance in American adults. In their study, “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” researchers provided several numbers in different years prior to 2009, estimating that 46 million Americans were uninsured. For the year 2000, researchers estimated 27,424 deaths due to a lack of health insurance among adults in the United States. For 2005, using the same methodology, they calculated between 35,327 deaths in non-elderly people and 44,789 deaths overall.The study was conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, and was based on data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a September 2009 Harvard Gazette article about the findings, researchers said that the larger 44,789 figure was conservative at the time of its publication:Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance.“Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”A major change to policy in the United States took place between the publication of those figures in 2009 and the meme’s circulation in December 2018 — the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known colloquially as “Obamacare”) in March 2010. At the time the paper quoted above was published, 46 million American citizens lacked health insurance.We were unable to locate a one-to-one comparison of estimated deaths from lack of health insurance after passage of the Affordable Care Act, but research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in September 2017 indicated that 28 million Americans were uninsured at that point. Using the American Journal of Public Health figures of 46 million uninsured Americans and 44,789 deaths for 2005 (published in 2009), we calculated a .097 percent mortality rate. Applying that ratio to the 28 million uninsured Americans referenced in September 2017, 27,160 uninsured Americans could be expected to die of the same general cause.Although figures on deaths due to a lack of health insurance in several given years were relatively easy to find, the other two metrics proved far harder to decisively pin down. Nevertheless, it seemed possible to arrive at a simple “true or false” based on disparity alone.The question of how many Americans are killed annually by undocumented immigrants has come to the forefront of the public discourse, most notably when President Donald Trump referenced a completely unsubstantiated figure of 63,000 American deaths at the hands of undocumented immigrants since September 11, 2001.The Washington Post located the origin of the 63,000 murders figure in June 2018:We traced that number back to its source. On May 5, 2006, [Rep. Steve] King posted an article on his official website in response to national pro-immigration protests held that month. The post is a catalogue of anti-immigrant scaremongering … he explained the math behind his numbers.“The crimes that are committed by those who enter this country illegally are in significantly greater numbers than the crimes that are committed by American citizens,” King said, “to the extent that 28 percent of the inmates in our prisons in the United States are criminal aliens, 28 percent.”That figure he got from a Government Accountability Office report issued in April 2005 …King figured (admitting that [his referenced] number would go up or down a percentage point or two):“That means then that criminal aliens are committing 28 percent of the crimes in the United States. And so that means 28 percent of the murders, 28 percent of the rapes, 28 percent of the violence and the assaults and battery, first- and second-degree murder and also manslaughter attacks are committed by criminal aliens.”In other words, since 28 percent of the prisoners were immigrants in the country illegally, they must also therefore have committed 28 percent of each and every crime! Quod erat demonstratum. Recognizing that this sounded like a lot even at the time, King rationalized it by asserting that for every undocumented immigrant in the country we know about, two or three sneak in without our knowing it. Here’s how we know that’s not true.There is an almost impossibly large number of problems with King’s argument.The first is that, of course, crime is not evenly distributed among populations. If 10 percent of prisoners are named John, that doesn’t mean that people named John commit 10 percent of murders. Many of those undocumented immigrants in federal custody were probably there for a very specific type of crime: felony immigration violations. Very, very few native-born Americans were there for that. In fact, in 2014, half of criminal arrests were for immigration violations. Since the GAO data are only for federal prisoners, that’s significant. (It’s also worth noting, as a reader did, that federal prisoners make up only a small percentage of the entire prison population. )The Post concluded that “King seems to have basically made the number up more than a decade ago,” adding that the Congressman did not even stick with the same figure himself in later reference to the subject:In 2011, King presented a resolution that offered a different calculus.“According to the Government Accountability Office,” it read, “there have been 25,064 homicide arrests of criminal aliens since 1955.”That’s about 1.2 per day.We were unable to locate any trustworthy estimate for the number of Americans killed (intentionally or not) by undocumented immigrants in any given year. And even if that number had been correct instead of specious, 63,000 deaths divided by 17 years equals 3,706 deaths annually — a figure dwarfed by the lowest number of deaths from lack of health insurance by any metric in any year.There is no basis whatsoever to assume the “63,000 since 2001” figure was based in anything at all, but if we apply King’s second formula (1.2 per day) to an annual basis, we get 438 deaths a year, which we can round up to 500 for comparison purposes.Finally, we come to the number of Americans killed annually in terrorist attacks. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) provided figures [PDF] for the number of Americans killed both on and off American soil in terrorist attacks between 1995 and 2016. In that 21-year period, START calculated 3,393 deaths in total in the United States, 3,277 American fatalities on US soil, and 3,658 total American fatalities due to terrorism abroad.Those figures included all deaths during the attacks of September 11, 2001, which totaled 2,902. Averaging the largest number of the three (3,658) per year without adjusting for the outlying events of a single large-scale attack provided a figure of 174 deaths. Subtracting 9/11 from the larger figure and again calculating the number provided an annual average of 36 Americans killed by terrorists each year.In summation, the lowest number of estimated deaths among Americans due to a lack of health insurance in any given year (regardless of the Affordable Care Act’s passage in 2010) totaled more than 27,000. We found no solid figures for the number of Americans killed by undocumented immigrants in any given year, but even the incorrect number of 3,706 annual deaths based on the baseless 63,000 deaths-since-9/11 figure did not approach the number of deaths from lack of access to affordable healthcare. And combining that inaccurately large number with the unadjusted number of terrorism-related deaths (174 deaths per year), the highest comparative total was 4,881 deaths due to undocumented immigrants and terrorism. But once again, the latter two numbers were far likelier under 700 deaths total combined, versus 27,000 deaths on the first count.The meme’s statement that more people die every year from a lack of affordable healthcare than terrorist attacks or “illegal immigration” is true any way you slice it. The latter two numbers in any permutation (even when wildly inflated) come nowhere near matching the very credible figures informing the healthcare deaths estimate, and that remains true regardless of the meme’s extremely poor explanation of its own claims.
|
9232
|
Clinical Study Verifies HSRx OTC Drug Product For Joint Pain Delivers Faster And More Effective Treatment Results Than A Current Market Leading Product
|
An Arizona company, HSRx Group, claims it has an over-the-counter (OTC) topical analgesic that is superior to a competitor’s joint relief tablet in relieving joint pain and improving range of motion. But the release contains no evidence from the “independent clinical study” it references in the headline and text. No study authors are named in the news release, and contrary to a statement in the release, no further information on the study is available on the company website. We reached out to the company to ask for a copy of the research but received no reply. An online search of Osteo-Rx, the product that’s the subject of the release, led to several sites selling the product in the supplement category, not as an OTC drug. Unlike approved OTC drugs, supplements are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Adding to the confusion, the news release calls the product a topical analgesic, which indicates it’s a cream, but sites selling Osteo-RX online only have it pictured in tablet form. Osteoarthritis is prevalent among those past middle age. With more and more baby boomers hitting their senior years, joint pain is a growing concern. OTC interventions for joint pain — solutions that work — are welcome and important. But in this release, claims suggest scientific credibility but they do not represent genuinely credible scientific research. Many readers may be fooled by a sentence in the release claiming that the drug’s benefit has been “proven by independent clinical research.” We looked behind the curtain and asked — where is the study? Who are the authors? When was it published? What does it prove? People in pain from arthritis deserve the real evidence — not empty and misleading PR releases.
|
false
|
HSRx Biopharmaceutical,joint pain
|
The release does not contain any cost information of interest to people suffering from joint pain. The chief financial officer, Frank Parise, mentions money only in relation to his company’s fundraising efforts: “We are actively seeking the best-suited licensees having resources and marketing expertise to maximize sales for each of our products in the U.S. and globally.” A bottle of 120 tablets of Osteo-Rx sells for $19.99 on the company’s website. The release provides incomplete and potentially misleading information regarding benefits. The benefits are never given in specific numbers but only as X times the amount the other drug provided. Examples: “After 48 hours, the average pain reduction for OsteoRx™ users was nearly three times greater than for patients using the competing brand. At seven days, average pain reduction was more than three times greater than the competition. After 14 days of treatment, average pain reduction was more than twice as large as the competition.” “After just 24 hours, patients using OsteoRx™ experienced an average improvement in range of motion that was more than twice as large as the competition. At 72 hours, OsteoRx™ results were nearly five and a half times better. After 14 days of treatment, the average improvement was still nearly twice as large as the competition.” That’s like claiming if the other drug provided a smidgen, this drug provided 2 smidgens. Not very good evidence. The release does not discuss any potential harms of the topical cream or tablet — or whatever it truly is. The release describes the study as “randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study” that enrolled 60 patients with mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the knee. Measurements in the level of pain and range of motion in the affected knee were recorded over a 14-day period for each patient. But just as noted above under the benefits criterion, the evidence from the trial is described in very vague terms, with no hard numbers describing the outcome. In the absence of any study authors or link to a study publication, or even self-published research on the company’s website, the reader cannot find any evidence backing up the claims made in the release. There is no disease mongering. We aren’t told who sponsored the referenced clinical trial, just that it was performed by an “independent clinical research organization.” The release should have provided information about where the trial was conducted, by whom, and whether there was any conflict if the study was funded by the manufacturer of the product. The release compares two competing commercial products for arthritis pain, but does not provide the wider context that pain treatment encompasses many therapies including drugs, gentle exercise, weight loss, acupuncture and many others. The point of the release appears to be an advertisement for a product that is already available. The supplement was readily found online. The release suggests newsworthiness by stating the subject product outperformed another. We are not told the ingredients for either product so it’s impossible to judge the novelty of this combination with the limited information provided. The headline is unjustifiable. It refers to a “clinical research study” which is never identified or referenced. Due to the absence of the clinical study, the claims of pain relief and increased range of motion are also unjustifiable.
|
14611
|
In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
|
"Sanders said, ""In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."" When it comes to brand-name drugs, which yield the highest profit for the pharmaceutical industry, studies support Sanders' claim -- although not always on a drug-by-drug basis. In addition, the differences in price can be dramatic because the U.S. health care system is so splintered, and Medicare is prohibited by law from using its market share to bargain for lower prices. We found one study comparing the United States and Canada that found exceptions for generic drugs, where the profit margin is much lower and which make up a much smaller share of prescription drug spending."
|
true
|
National, Economy, Health Care, Bernie Sanders,
|
"One theme Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly touched on during his run for the Democratic nomination for president has been the high cost of prescription drugs. His comment during the Feb. 11 Democratic debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was typical as he rattled off a list of problems with the U.S. health care system: ""In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."" We asked the Sanders campaign for the source of his claim. We didn't get a response. So we searched on our own. One organization that tracks such things is the International Federation of Health Plans, based in London. Their latest price report, from 2013, lists eight common drugs. Compared with England, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Canada, U.S. prices were far higher, sometimes dramatically so. Consider Nexium, the medicine widely used to treat acid reflux. A prescription that would cost $60 or less in other countries costs, on average, $215 in the United States. And that's just the average. Prices vary widely in this country: In 5 percent of the cases, the cost was $395. ""What Bernie says is true. There's nowhere that pays the same price as America,"" said Tom Sackville, the federation's CEO. In addition, ""there is this huge variation in price across America. Anything above the average is quite unjustified. When you get up to the 95th percentile, you're talking grand robbery."" The findings were similar in an April 2013 study published in the journal Health Affairs, which looked at the prices of brand name drugs in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, France, Canada and Australia. In each of the three years studied -- 2005, 2007 and 2010 -- U.S. prices were consistently higher. The one exception: Switzerland. In addition, researchers found that, between 2005 and 2010, ""the gap between the United States and other countries seemed to widen."" And it wasn't just new drugs being embraced first in the United States that was driving up costs. They concluded that ""prices for older products rose faster in the United States than in other countries."" But Joel Farley of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Eshelman School of Pharmacy cautioned that the rule doesn't always apply to generic drugs. A 2008 comparison of 19 generic drugs found that some U.S. prices were lower than Canadian prices. ""In some cases it has to do with availability,"" he said. In other cases, a country may set the drug price low and in that fixed-price market ""there's no incentive to go lower."" The Wall Street Journal published an analysis in December that concluded 98 percent of 40 top branded drugs were more expensive in the United States than in England. In Norway, 93 percent of the 40 top branded drugs cost less than in the United States. And in Ontario, a comparison of 30 drugs showed that U.S. prices were also higher for 93 percent of the products. Why are the brand name prices so much lower in other countries, and why is there so much variation in the United States? Big customers can negotiate big discounts. So the countries with socialized medicine have a lot of leverage at the negotiating table, the experts told us. In the United States, hospitals, wholesalers and insurance companies all do their own negotiations. The Veterans Administration can -- and does -- negotiate dramatically lower prices. Under Medicaid, the drug companies are required to provide their medicines at a price that's as low as it is for any of their regular customers. But Medicare has been prohibited by law from negotiating lower prices since 2006, and that's a huge chunk of the U.S. health care industry. (When Barack Obama was first running for president, he promised to repeal that Bush-era restriction, but then backed off in an attempt to get passage of the Affordable Care Act.) The pharmaceutical industry says it needs the extra income to pay for research to keep new, desperately needed drugs coming. But with everyone getting a bargain, Americans are financing that research for the rest of the world, experts told us. Yet there's another way to look at the issue, said Amitava Dasgupta, a clinical toxicologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The tablet that costs a dollar in the United States may only cost 20 cents in India, but that drug is far more expensive to the average person in India because their income is so much lower. ""The U.S. subsidizes research for the world,"" he said. ""But I would look at that as philanthropy."" Our ruling Sanders said, ""In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."" When it comes to brand-name drugs, which yield the highest profit for the pharmaceutical industry, studies support Sanders' claim -- although not always on a drug-by-drug basis. In addition, the differences in price can be dramatic because the U.S. health care system is so splintered, and Medicare is prohibited by law from using its market share to bargain for lower prices. We found one study comparing the United States and Canada that found exceptions for generic drugs, where the profit margin is much lower and which make up a much smaller share of prescription drug spending. But on balance,"
|
12305
|
I helped win one of the biggest private lawsuits against Medicare fraud in history. The government declined to pursue the case, so my firm did, and we recovered $324 million for taxpayers.
|
An Oklahoma judge on Friday said Johnson & Johnson must pay that state $465 million for fueling the opioid epidemic through the deceptive marketing of painkillers, down from his original award of $572 million.
|
true
|
Georgia, Health Care, Medicare, Stacey Evans,
|
The decision by Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman in Norman, Oklahoma, came in the first case to go to trial out of 2,700 nationally by states, counties and cities seeking to hold drug companies responsible for the deadly epidemic. Balkman reduced the amount he had awarded in August by $107 million after agreeing with New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J that he had made a math error. J&J said it will appeal, and that the award and finding of liability were “neither supported by the facts nor the law.” A spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said that office is reviewing the decision and will formally respond within the next few days. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following a non-jury trial, Balkman ruled in August that Oklahoma had proven that J&J engaged in misleading marketing about the benefits of painkillers, and that their addictive risks caused a public nuisance in the form of the opioid crisis. Hunter had sought to have J&J pay $17 billion to help fund addiction treatment and other services to repair damage from the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. Balkman, however, awarded only enough money for one year of programs, saying Oklahoma failed to support its claims regarding the need to abate the epidemic in future years. Following the August ruling, Oklahoma asked Balkman for permission to return to his courtroom annually to prove those costs, but Balkman on Friday maintained his prior ruling. J&J, meanwhile, argued that it deserved a $355 million credit, reflecting pre-trial settlements by the drugmakers Purdue Pharma LP and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Balkman concluded on Friday that state law did not allow such credits. Last month, J&J and four other companies proposed a $48 billion settlement framework to resolve all of the opioid cases they face, with J&J paying $4 billion. Lawyers for the local governments have opposed the proposal. If approved, the settlement would let J&J resolve some of the thousands of product liability lawsuits it faces. The company also faces litigation over whether its baby powder causes cancer, a claim it denies.
|
26206
|
“With retail, people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors” for long periods of time.
|
N.C. Gov. Roy Cooper faced pushback for loosening restrictions on retail stores but not worship services. Cooper's reasoning: sitting around others for long periods of time is more dangerous than walking by someone in a store. While the world's top health organizations haven't compared those exact scenarios, experts generally agree with him.
|
true
|
Religion, North Carolina, Coronavirus, Roy Cooper,
|
"North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper eased pandemic restrictions on retail stores before doing so for churches -- a move that prompted pushback from some members of the faith community. Non-essential stores and indoor church services were both initially forbidden to operate under Cooper’s stay-at-home order. When Cooper launched Phase One of reopening North Carolina, he allowed some stores to open but didn’t allow churches to hold services indoors. Experts generally agree that traditional church customs such as singing, passing around bulletins and even sharing food would make worship services especially dangerous during the coronavirus outbreak. But Cooper’s critics argued for a chance to worship while being responsible. During a press conference on May 12, Cooper said his decision was based on science. ""We know that inside it is much more likely that you’re going to transmit this virus, particularly when you’re sitting or standing in one place for a long period of time, and this is across the board. And some people are trying to compare this with retail. With retail, people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors."" Since then, a judge’s ruling has enabled indoor church services in North Carolina. A US District Court Judge allowed for a restraining order on Cooper’s rules, and Cooper said he won’t appeal. Still, we wondered which is more dangerous: sitting in a building with the same group of people for a prolonged period, or walking around a building with an ever-changing group of people? The answer isn’t simple. Is it possible that a church could practice social distancing well enough to prevent virus spread? Yes. Is it also possible that one shopper could linger too long around another shopper who’s infected? Also yes. Because of those variables, the country’s top health organizations told us they haven’t compared the two environments enough to say whether one is more dangerous than another. However, experts do believe that sitting in one place for a long time does pose a threat -- while shopping usually allows people the physical freedom to avoid someone who might be infected. For this fact check, we reached out to the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is directed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. None of the groups offered specifics on which scenario is more dangerous. The WHO doesn’t categorize activities by risk because each scenario ""depends on a range of factors, from the local transmission scenario that is occurring, to prevention measures adopted by individuals to the IPC procedures in place in these public spaces,"" said Ashley Baldwin, a regional spokeswoman. Fauci’s group responded similarly: ""I’m not aware that this is anything our researchers have explored,"" NIAID spokesman Ken Pekoc said. The CDC hasn’t compared them either, CDC spokeswoman Kate Grusich said. ""CDC has not compared locations or settings for COVID-19 transmission, so we can’t comment on these questions at this time,"" she said. But the CDC does emphasize the risk of time spent around other people in close proximity. Kelly Haight Connor, communications manager for North Carolina’s health department, responded to PolitiFact questions on Cooper’s behalf. She pointed out several instances where the CDC warns against large gatherings of people. The CDC’s webpage on social distancing says ""COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period."" The CDC, which acknowledges the ""risk of gatherings,"" also offers guidance for churches hoping to hold services during the pandemic. Recommendations include: scheduling multiple services, with enough time between each to allow for cleaning and disinfecting high-touch surfaces, promoting social distancing, limiting the sharing of materials, considering holding services and gatherings in a large, well-ventilated area or outdoors. The novel coronavirus travels through respiratory droplets expelled when someone coughs, sneezes or talks. Without definitive studies comparing the likelihood of spread in two environments, we turned to experts for their opinion. Karen Hoffmann, the immediate past president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, told PolitiFact that the ability to walk away from someone is key. And if you do pass someone in an aisle at Target, experts believe you’re less at risk than someone sitting still in a confined space. ""I would not worry about walking by someone,"" Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University, told Slate. ""Even in a health care setting, contact is defined by being near someone for a certain amount of time,"" Adalja said. ""I would not worry about these fleeting encounters. The virus isn’t airborne—droplets need to get from one person to another."" Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told us she generally agrees. ""Reports from indoor spaces (restaurants, offices) suggest that both physical proximity and duration of exposure are important for transmission,"" Rasmussen said in an email. ""So sitting still around others in close physical proximity is probably higher risk than incidentally passing by someone in a store, but the risks aren’t quantified because there are a lot of variables that can impact this."" A recent NPR article categorized 14 different activities by their level of risk for infection. Worship services? ""High risk."" Going shopping? ""Risk varies."" ""Crowds with high density lead to substantial increase in risk,"" said Dr. William Miller, an epidemiologist at Ohio State University. ""The major mitigating factor is that people don't mingle in a single place for long."" While churches may be able to mitigate coronavirus spread, there are multiple examples of churches failing to take precautions -- and thus becoming the source of small outbreaks. A church revival in Hopkins County, Kentucky was linked to at least 30 cases and three deaths, according to The Courier Journal. Officials in California connected 71 cases to one church in a suburb of Sacramento, The Guardian reported. The Washington Post recently listed several examples in a story about the dangers of worship during the pandemic. On its Facebook page, the CDC on May 19 used a rural Arkansas church as an example of how fast coronavirus can spread in group settings. The CDC reported that two people with coronavirus symptoms attended the church in early March. ""Of the 92 church members who attended the gatherings, 35 were later confirmed to have COVID-19, which led to three deaths. Through contact tracing, an additional 26 confirmed cases were identified in the community,"" the CDC’s Facebook post says. ""This outbreak highlights the potential for widespread transmission of COVID-19 during in-person, faith-based events."" The CDC posted a report on the Arkansas outbreak on its website. Cooper said shopping isn’t as likely to spread coronavirus as church services because ""people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors."" The world’s leading health organizations have not offered a risk comparison between shopping and attending a worship service in part because there are so many variables. However, generally speaking, experts are definitely less worried about spaces where people can move freely than they are about spaces where people sit near each other for long periods of time."
|
41934
|
"Wrote that climate scientists have predicted “global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020,"" but observed temperatures have been only “half as high.” "
|
In an op-ed for Fox News, Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House science committee, made a host of false and misleading claims about climate change and related issues.
|
false
|
climate change, extreme weather, global warming,
|
In an op-ed for Fox News, Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House science committee, made a host of false and misleading claims about climate change and related issues:Smith, who announced his retirement from Congress when his term ends this year, primarily argued in his March 12 op-ed that the House Science, Space and Technology Committee — unlike “climate alarmists” — “follows the scientific method, which welcomes critiques, avoids exaggerated predictions, and relies on unbiased data.”Yet his op-ed is filled with scientifically inaccurate claims. Let’s take a look at them one by one.Smith took a quote by Stephen Schneider, a professor at Stanford University who died in 2010, out of context when he claimed the climate scientist “has said, ‘…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.’ ” Smith added, “His message is clear: never express doubt and never accept any critiques.” That was not Schneider’s message.The quote comes from an article published in Discover magazine’s 1989 issue. Schneider, who also served as a co-author or lead author on all five IPCC reports, provides the full quote from that article in an editorial he wrote for the American Physical Society’s newspaper in 1996. (We verified this quote’s accuracy with a microfilm version of that issue of Discover. )Schneider, Oct. 1989, Discover: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.Smith ignores that Schneider said scientists are “ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth … which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.” But Schneider went on to say that talking to the media presents a “double ethical bind” where scientists need to also “make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”Similar to Smith, others have interpreted Schneider’s quote as advocating being dishonest with the media, but Schneider concludes by saying his “hope” is that climate scientists would be both “effective” and “honest” in the public eye.In his 1996 editorial, Schneider says that he was “telling the Discover interviewer” about his “disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media.” With soundbites, “nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., ‘being honest’) or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., ‘being effective’),” he wrote.“To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion,” he added.It’s also worth mentioning that Schneider welcomed critiques of his work, contrary to what Smith claimed.“[A]ll good scientists are skeptics and should be challenging every aspect of what we do that has plausible alternative hypotheses,” he wrote in an email to a colleague, according to a biography by the National Academy of Sciences. In that email, Schneider discussed a paper he had published early in his career that supported a theory of global cooling. We’ve written about the theory of global cooling before, explaining how scientists discovered the world was warming, not cooling, after conducting more research.“I personally published what was wrong (with) my own original 1971 cooling hypothesis a few years later when more data and better models came along and further analysis showed [anthropogenic global warming] as the much more likely,” Schneider wrote in the email. “[F]or me that is a very proud event — to have discovered with colleagues why our initial assumptions were unlikely and better ones reversed the conclusions — an early example of scientific skepticism in action in climatology.”When we reached out to Smith’s office for comment by email, a committee spokesperson told us Schneider’s quote was “presented with appropriate context and conveys the meaning of his words accurately.”But Schneider himself has said such characterizations misrepresent his words. And that’s the case in Smith’s op-ed as well. Smith also made a couple of faulty claims about global temperatures. For one, he claimed that global warming predictions scientists made in the 1970s “are so far off” observed temperatures.Smith, March 12: Since the late 1970s, climate scientists have told the American people that global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020. However, actual satellite temperature observations do not support these predictions. Observed temperatures were less than half as high as the climate models’ predictions. When the predictions are so far off, we should not make policy decisions based on them.We couldn’t find any support for Smith’s claims, and his office didn’t provide us with any solid support either. The spokesperson said that “climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consistently predict temperatures that are higher than the temperature[s] that are observed by satellites.” The spokesperson also pointed us to March 2017 congressional testimony by John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, that questions the validity of IPCC models and humans’ contribution to global warming. The IPCC reports only date back to 1990, not the 1970s. More importantly, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report, published in 2013, took a look at previous IPCC report predictions and found that “the trend in globally averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections.”Regardless, the globe had already warmed about 1 C between 1901 and 2016, according to a 2017 report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. NASA provides a similar figure — about 1.1 C since the late 19th century.It’s also unclear why Smith only cites satellite temperature observations. When we asked his office, the spokesperson responded, “The op-ed noted satellite data to demonstrate that this is one piece of the observational puzzle that demonstrates a discrepancy between the predictive models and the actual observations.”But scientists monitor global temperatures by integrating data from a variety of sources, including ocean buoys, ships, land-based stations and satellites. In fact, satellite data only supplement land and ocean based temperature measurements, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says.Data from all of these sources are “processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change,” NOAA explains. “The warming trend … is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change.” So satellite data, along with land and ocean data, confirm the trend, NOAA says. Smith made one other faulty claim related to global temperatures. He said research out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology “shows that the [Paris] agreement would decrease warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100 – over 80 years from now – and only if all 195 countries completely abided by the agreement.”Smith’s office told us he meant to use the figure 0.2 C. But one of the authors of the MIT report has said that figure is “cherry-picked.”We’ve written about this topic before, when President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt made similar claims when the president announced the U.S. would pull out of the Paris Agreement.As we explained previously, the 0.2 C estimate doesn’t consider the full potential effect of the Paris Agreement. The MIT report assumed countries participating in the agreement wouldn’t further strengthen their commitments to combat climate change after 2030. But one central goal of the Paris Agreement is for countries to strengthen their commitments over time.The Paris Agreement also builds on other commitments made by the countries party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. John Reilly, the MIT researcher, argued in a Washington Post op-ed that it’s the “cumulative effect” of all commitments made under this framework that’s the “relevant number, not 0.2 degrees.” Reilly pointed to one analysis by the climate modeling nonprofit Climate Interactive that found this cumulative effect would be a reduction of 0.9 C by 2100, compared with business as usual.Smith made a few faulty claims about the link between extreme weather and warming as well, all of which we’ve written about before.To start, Smith said, “Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed that they have ‘low confidence’ in climate change contributing to extreme weather.” That’s not what the IPCC said. Instead, it has different levels of confidence for different extreme weather events.We’ve made this point repeatedly in articles, including one that looked at a similar claim Smith made back in 2015.Smith’s spokesperson pointed us to a 2012 IPCC report, which says, for example, that scientists have “medium confidence” that human influences have contributed to extreme precipitation globally and an “increase in length or number” of heat waves in many regions. But the report has “low confidence” that there’s been “increases in tropical cyclone activity” globally.The report clarifies that “low confidence” doesn’t mean there definitively haven’t been changes in a particular extreme event. Rather, it means the data don’t give scientists enough confidence to say one way or the other.But the 2012 IPCC report is dated. About a year ago, we wrote about the varying levels of confidence scientists have when linking global warming to various extreme weather events, based on a 2016 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report authors have high confidence when linking global warming to an increased likelihood of extreme heat events, for example, but medium confidence when linking it to an increased likelihood of droughts and extreme rainfall.This brings us to another claim about extreme weather Smith made in his March 12 op-ed.Smith said that “the historical record disproves” climate scientists who have “tried to link [recent hurricanes] and climate change,” adding, “Hurricane landfalls in the United States since 1900 are on a steady decline.”For support, the spokesperson again referred us to the 2012 IPCC special report. That IPCC report looks at hurricane activity in general, not hurricane landfalls. As already noted, it does say scientists have “low confidence” that there have been “increases in tropical cyclone activity” globally.However, a 2017 U.S. Global Change Research Program report says scientists have “medium confidence” that there’s a link between human activity and increased hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean, where hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. originate.2017 Global Change report: Human activities have contributed substantially to observed ocean–atmosphere variability in the Atlantic Ocean … and these changes have contributed to the observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s.To be clear, climate scientists don’t say climate change causes intense hurricanes to occur, but evidence suggests it makes them more likely to occur, an important distinction we’ve made previously. So while the link between warming and hurricane activity is not as solid as the link between warming and other extreme weather events, such as heat waves, there is still evidence to suggest warming has an impact. Lastly, Smith claimed in his op-ed: “Examination of patterns of other extreme weather events in the United States shows that a changing climate does not increase the frequency of these events,” adding, “U.S. wildland fires are decreasing in frequency.” But scientists look at the total acreage of fires -– not the number of fires -– to evaluate links with global warming. And the total acreage has increased since at least the 1980s.Kari Cobb, a spokesperson for the National Interagency Fire Center, explained to us by email: “It’s important to look at the acreage burned over the number of fires reported because that is what is indicative of fire behavior.” The “acres burned can be tied to environmental factors like climate and availability of fuels,” such as dry leaves, brush or grass. But the number of fires “does not provide a correlation to most environmental factors that truly affect fire.” In other words, “All it provides is how many of fires were reported, not how that fire behaved or moved across the landscape,” she said.We also spoke with Cobb for an article we wrote back in October that looked at whether global warming is linked to the increase in the total acreage of wildfires in the West — an increase that dates back to at least the 1980s. As we pointed out in that piece, researchers say a hot and dry summer — conditions more likely in a warmer world — caused widespread wildfires in Western states last year. But land use changes dating back to the 1800s have also played a role.When we asked Cobb in October what role climate change plays in the severity and length of the fire season, she pointed to “longer summers, higher temperatures, decreased precipitation, and longer episodes of drought.” She added, “The combination of these changes has increased the availability of dry fuels and the ease at which fire ignites and spreads.” Overall, Smith’s Fox News piece twisted the words, findings and methods of climate scientists, making it what we’d call an error-filled op-ed.
|
4027
|
Food poisoning linked to hard-boiled eggs in food service.
|
Pregnant women, people over the age of 65 and people with weakened immune systems should throw away store-bought hard-boiled eggs because of a food poisoning outbreak linked to a Georgia company, health officials said Thursday.
|
true
|
Food poisoning, General News, Health, Poisoning, U.S. News
|
They said the same goes for products like egg salad that contain hard-boiled eggs. Seven people in five states have been reported ill so far, including someone who died in Texas, officials said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said peeled, hard-boiled eggs sold in bulk by Almark Foods are the outbreak’s likely source. The eggs were sold to retailers and food service operators in plastic pails and could be used in products like salads. The CDC said retailers and food service operators should wash and sanitize any surfaces that may have come in contact with the eggs or packaging, since listeria can spread easily. The warning does not apply to Almark’s hard-boiled eggs sold directly to consumers. Nor does it apply to eggs hard-boiled at home or in restaurants and stores. The CDC also said people at higher risk for listeria should confirm whether a store or restaurant is using Almark’s eggs before buying or ordering products with hard-boiled eggs. If the store or restaurant does not know, officials say not to buy the product. Pregnant women and people with cancer are 10 times more likely than others to get a listeria infection, while people on dialysis are 50 times more likely, the agency said. People who are 65 and older are four times more likely. A person who answered the phone at Almark Foods in Gainesville, Georgia, said the company did not have any comment. The company has four manufacturing facilities and delivers nationwide, according to its website. In a letter to the FDA in August, Almark said it had taken corrective actions after two swabs taken by the agency in February at its facility tested positive for listeria.
|
7895
|
UK's Royal Mint making coronavirus protective gear for health staff.
|
The Royal Mint, the world’s largest maker and supplier of coins, said on Friday it has started manufacturing visors for Britain’s medical staff to protect them from coronavirus.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Engineers at the Mint created the visors after finding a basic design online and developing medically approved prototypes within 48 hours at their production site in Wales. The first visors are already in use at a hospital in Wales and mass production will start on Saturday morning, with several hundred coming on the first day and increasing numbers after that. The Mint says it can produce thousands of visors per day if it can get enough parts and is now appealing to manufacturers across the UK to help it source enough clear plastic, which is currently in short supply. The simple design comprises a clear plastic shield which covers the worker’s face, held in place by a piece of elastic. Britain’s publicly funded national health service, the NHS, has received much public support during the coronavirus outbreak, with government health authorities adopting the slogan “Stay Home, Protect The NHS, Save Lives”. People all over the country took to their balconies and doorsteps on Thursday evening to applaud health workers who are battling the spread of the coronavirus. “My sister works for the NHS and it really focuses your mind on the challenges they are facing,” said Leighton John, director of operations at the Royal Mint. “We set our engineers the task of developing essential medical equipment which could be easily made on site – within seven hours they’d created a medical visor, and within 48 hours it was approved for mass manufacture,” John said. As the virus sweeps the country, the Mint is the latest in a number of companies taking on new operations as part of a nationwide effort to support the NHS. Vacuum cleaner company Dyson was recruited to supply hospitals with 10,000 medical ventilators designed at breakneck speed ahead of an expected surge of cases, and outsourcer Capita announced on Friday it was working with the government to provide coronavirus testing sites.
|
1852
|
Best face forward: chin implants surge in popularity.
|
Over the last year Dr. Darrick Antell has performed up to three or four chin implants a day, reflecting a national trend that has seen chin augmentations emerge as the fastest growing plastic surgery trend of 2011.
|
true
|
Health News
|
After about a 45-minute outpatient procedure and a bill ranging from $3,500 to $7,500, New York-based Antell’s patients emerge with what he said is a confidence boost: an athletic, youthful look from a more prominent chin. “People want that leading lady, leading man look,” said Antell, who is also an assistant clinical professor of surgery at Columbia University. “If you look at people in the limelight, they all have strong chins and it’s a part of the profile that has long been overlooked,” he said. Chin implants surged by 71 percent in 2011 as more than 20,600 adults went under the knife to sharpen their jaw lines, up from roughly 12,000 the year before, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Strong chins are associated with leadership, confidence and honesty, Antell said, not to mention some powerful men and women. “Romney’s got a great chin,” Antell said of the presidential hopeful. “Obama has a pretty good chin. Bill Clinton has a very good chin.” Chin implants surgery increased more than breast augmentation, Botox and liposuction combined last year with both men and women opting for the procedure in nearly equal numbers, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Chin augmentation, or actually making the chin protrude more, increased among all patients over the age of 20, with the most significant increases in patients 40 and older, according to the society. Facial aging tends to appear first on the chin and jaw line and surgery provides a quick change, experts said. They also point to video chat and online photo technology as driving forces behind the escalating numbers. Posting pictures on Facebook, online dating sites and the increasingly prevalent use of video chat technology like Skype and FaceTime make it harder to hide a person’s least favorite feature or perceived flaws, said Dr. Malcolm Roth, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the head of plastic surgery at Albany Medical Center in New York. “We tend to not look at what we don’t like,” said Roth. “I think there is a heightened awareness to how we look to the outside world.” The surgery is even appealing to people out of work, according to Roth, who said the cost hasn’t deterred some who say it gives them more confidence at job interviews. Chin augmentation can be done by putting a semi-solid implant on top of the chin, by moving bone to reconstruct the chin or simply by using a needle and syringe for an injection to enhance the chin, Roth said. The procedure leaves minimal scarring from a very small incision and is sometimes coupled with micro-liposuction to trim a so-called double chin, enhancing the neck and jaw line even further. Recuperation is easy and patients can typically be back to normal routines in a matter of days, Roth said. Despite the chin implant boom, breast augmentation still reigns as the most popular cosmetic procedure. The surgery costs about $10,000 more than 307,000 procedures were performed in 2011, statistics showed. Antell said he expects the chin implants trend to continue, largely because of the quick recovery and low complication rate. He added that other similar, smaller scale procedures at a younger age are also likely to climb. “This is an operation that whispers, it doesn’t shout,” said Antell. “Most people are not looking for huge changes, they are just hoping to look a little better, the best they can.”
|
582
|
India's smog-bound capital suffers most hazardous air so far this year.
|
Air pollution in New Delhi and surrounding towns reached the worst levels so far this year on Sunday, with authorities in the world’s most polluted capital city having already declared a public health emergency and ordered the closure of schools.
|
true
|
Environment
|
The air quality index, measuring levels of PM 2.5, tiny particulate matter in the air, deteriorated to above 900, way over the 500-level that qualifies as “severe-plus”. Aside from the harm it was doing to the lungs of some 40 million people living in the capital region, the smog was so bad more than 30 flights were diverted from Delhi airport due to poor visibility. Roads looked deserted as large numbers of people stayed home, rather than expose themselves to the noxious atmosphere outside. “Pollution has reached unbearable levels across north India,” Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s chief minister said in a message on twitter. The government environment monitoring agency SAFAR warned that no relief was expected for the next one to two days, as humidity resulting from unexpected light rains overnight had exacerbated pollution, already driven by higher the seasonal crop stubble burning by farmers in the surrounding states. “Wind speed is picking up and it could take 24 to 48 hours before the pollution level reduces to a level of around 500,” Mahesh Palawat, vice president of Skymet, a private weather forecasting agency, said. Anything above 400 on the AQI poses a risk for people with respiratory illness and can also affect even those with healthy lungs. Doctors were reporting a spike in patients with respiratory related issues, according to Sachin Taparia, head of Local Circles, a Delhi-based private consultancy that conducts surveys on government policies and programs. “Delhi has turned into a gas chamber as the pollution levels hit the ‘severe+’ category,” Taparia said. A survey of 17,000 people in the Delhi region by his consultancy found that 40% want to get out of the Delhi region because of the failure to control pollution. Authorities in Delhi on Friday declared a public health emergency and closed schools and all construction activity. From Monday, the city government will also restrict the use of private vehicles on the capital’s roads under an “odd-even” scheme based on license plates. “The temporary restrictions on private vehicles will have a negligible impact as we face the most hazardous situation,” said Skymet’s Palawat. Delhi’s Kejriwal, and the chief ministers from the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana, urged the federal government to do more to combat the pollution. On Monday, according to a lawyer, the Supreme Court is likely to hear a petition on Monday from the environment agency, looking for ways to make state governments to take tougher action against farmers to curb the stubble-burning. Politicians have been reluctant to upset their farming constituencies. According to SAFAR, satellite pictures had captured more than 3,000 incidents of stubble burning last week in neighboring states, contributing to 44% of Delhi’s pollution.
|
3528
|
Illinois reports its fifth death connected to vaping.
|
A fifth Illinois resident has died after being hospitalized with a vaping-related lung injury.
|
true
|
Public health, Health, General News, Illinois, Vaping, Injuries
|
The Illinois Department of Public Health on Thursday did not release any information about the victim, nor when or where the death occurred. According to the department, 187 people in Illinois, ranging from 13 years to 75 years old have experienced lung injuries after e-cigarette use. Public Health director Dr. Ngozi Ezike says it is important that people not use e-cigarettes or vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The highest risk for lung injury associated with the use of e-cigarettes appears to be among those who use THC containing products. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says as of Nov. 20, there have been 2,290 reported cases of lung injuries resulting from e-cigarette use nationwide, with 47 deaths.
|
11197
|
Shift in Treating Breast Cancer Is Under Debate
|
This story provides an excellent discussion of the role patients and physicians can play in evaluating risks and benefits of chemotherapy, and determining just how much of a survival benefit a potentially toxic treatment will provide. Several breast cancer experts and sources other than the study authors provide perspective on the novel idea of less chemotherapy for women who may not benefit as much from certain treatment regimens. Tailored chemotherapy, including no treatment at all, might be an option for women who would obtain only a small benefit from more aggressive treatment. This debate includes discussion of Dr. Donald Berry’s subgroup analysis of several large studies on breast cancer recurrence and survival benefit of chemotherapy for tumors fueled by estrogen (estrogen-receptor positive) and those not fueled by estrogen (estrogen-receptor negative). Established clinical guidelines based on current evidence suggest that most women with invasive breast cancer should not forgo chemotherapy. Many physicians are cautious about changes in practice at this time, but some are already presenting the new data to patients and allowing them to weigh the pros and cons of treatment for their particular type of breast cancer. The story discusses two randomized controlled trials currently enrolling patients. These studies will provide more definitive data on chemotherapy regimens and help physicians and patients make more informed choices about chemotherapy. The story does not provide enough information on the potential short-term and long-term harms of chemotherapy. There is only anecdotal evidence from one woman who developed nerve damage. Common short-term side effects of chemotherapy can include nausea and vomiting, hair loss, and fatigue. Younger women may also experience early menopause and infertility as a result of certain chemotherapy regimens. Potential, though rarer, serious long-term side effects may include: bone disorders, heart problems, blood clots and nerve problems. Overall, this was a well-done article on a very controversial issue.
|
true
|
There is no discussion of the cost of chemotherapy and no mention of potential cost savings for women who might not benefit as much from treatment; however, this is not very relevant to this story, as there is a suggestion that less treatment might be better, with a cost savings implied. Again, Dr. Berry’s subgroup analysis of several large chemotherapy trials, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, was mentioned but the story didn’t give quantified details. The combined absolute benefit of chemotherapy for disease free survival at 5 years was 22.8% for estrogen-receptor-(ER) negative women compared with 7.0 % for estrogen receptor positive women treated with tamoxifen. The 5-year absolute survival benefit of chemotherapy for women with ER-negative tumors was 16.7 % vs. 4.0% for ER-positive women treated with tamoxifen. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the discussion warrants a satisfactory score. The story does not provide enough information on the potential short-term and long-term harms of chemotherapy. There is only anecdotal evidence from one woman who developed nerve damage. Common short-term side effects of chemotherapy can include nausea and vomiting, hair loss, and fatigue. Younger women may also experience early menopause and infertility as a result of certain chemotherapy regimens. Potential, though more rare, long-term side effects are more serious and may include: bone disorders, heart problems, blood clots and nerve problems. No mention of evidence from Dr. Berry’s analyses, however, the story provides an excellent overview of the changes in the field and the role patients and physicians need to play in evaluating individual risks and benefits of chemotherapy, including determining just how much of a survival benefit a potentially toxic treatment will provide. The story discusses two randomized controlled trials currently enrolling patients. These trials should provide more definitive data on chemotherapy regimens and help physicians and patients make more informed choices about whether chemotherapy might benefit them. No evidence of disease mongering. This story discusses the idea of less treatment – not more – since it may not be as beneficial as once thought. The annual incidence of women who currently undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer is provided, as well as estimates of women who may or may not obtain a life-saving benefit from this treatment. Many sources of information are cited and these are from trusted organizations of cancer research and information (e.g. National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society). Dr. Berry, the lead author of the main study discussed, receives funding from several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, Novartis and Bristol-Myers, however, the study was not funded by these companies. Excellent discussion of chemotherapy treatment decision process, including discussion that no treatment is also an option. Certain chemotherapy treatments may carry serious risks and only small benefit for some women. For other women the benefit is greater, though this must still be weighed against the risks of treatment. The story makes it clear that adjuvant chemotherapy is widely used in breast cancer treatment. Established clinical guidelines based on current evidence suggest that most women with invasive breast cancer and lymph node involvement should not forgo chemotherapy. Physicians are cautious about changes in practice at this time, but some are already presenting the new data to patients and suggesting that chemotherapy may be tailored to a patient’s type of breast cancer. The story describes more tailored (often less) chemotherapy as a newer idea for women who may not benefit as much from more aggressive treatment. This idea is based on recent data regarding the benefit of chemotherapy for tumors fueled by estrogen (ER-positive) and those not fueled by estrogen (ER-negative). No evidence this information is taken solely from a press release. There are several sources cited other than the study authors, and these sources provide perspective on the idea of less chemotherapy for women who may not benefit as much from certain regimens.
|
|
6513
|
Science Says: Get used to polar vortex outbreaks.
|
It might seem counterintuitive, but the dreaded polar vortex is bringing its icy grip to parts of the U.S. thanks to a sudden blast of warm air in the Arctic.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Arctic, Science Says, North America, Environment, Weather, Science, U.S. News
|
Get used to it. The polar vortex has been wandering more often in recent years. It all started with misplaced Moroccan heat. Last month, the normally super chilly air temperatures 20 miles above the North Pole rapidly rose by about 125 degrees (70 degrees Celsius), thanks to air flowing in from the south. It’s called “sudden stratospheric warming.” That warmth split the polar vortex, leaving the pieces to wander, said Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, a commercial firm outside Boston. “Where the polar vortex goes, so goes the cold air,” Cohen said. By Wednesday morning, one of those pieces will be over the Lower 48 states for the first time in years. The forecast calls for a low of minus 21 degrees (minus 29 Celsius) in Chicago and wind chills flirting with minus 65 degrees (minus 54 Celsius) in parts of Minnesota, according to the National Weather Service. The unusual cold could stick around another eight weeks, Cohen said. “The impacts from this split, we have a ways to go. It’s not the end of the movie yet,” Cohen said. “I think at a minimum, we’re looking at mid-February, possibly through mid-March.” Americans were introduced to the polar vortex five years ago. It was in early January 2014 when temperatures dropped to minus 16 degrees (minus 27 Celsius) in Chicago and meteorologists, who used the term for decades, started talking about it on social media. This outbreak may snap some daily records for cold and is likely to be even more brutal than five years ago, especially with added wind chill, said Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private weather firm Weather Underground. When warm air invades the polar region, it can split the vortex or displace it, usually toward Siberia, Cohen said. Recently, there have been more splits, which increase the odds of other places getting ultra-cold, he said. Pieces of the polar vortex have chilled Europe, Siberia and North America this time. (It’s not right to call the frigid center of cold air the polar vortex because it is just a piece or a lobe, not the entire vortex, said University of Oklahoma meteorology professor Jason Furtado.) When the forces penning the polar vortex in the Arctic are weak, it wanders, more often to Siberia than Michigan. And it’s happening more frequently in the last couple decades, Furtado said. A study a year ago in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society looked at decades of the Arctic system and found the polar vortex has shifted “toward more frequent weak states.” When the polar vortex pieces wander, warmth invades the Arctic, Alaska, Greenland and Canada, Masters said. While the Midwest chills, Australia has been broiling to record-breaking heat. The world as a whole on Monday was 0.7 degrees (0.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1979-2000 average, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer. Some scientists — but by no means most — see a connection between human-caused climate change and difference in atmospheric pressure that causes slower moving waves in the air. “It’s a complicated story that involves a hefty dose of chaos and an interplay among multiple influences, so extracting a clear signal of the Arctic’s role is challenging,” said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. Several recent papers have made the case for the connection, she noted. “This symptom of global warming is counterintuitive for those in the cross-hairs of these extreme cold spells,” Francis said in an email. “But these events provide an excellent opportunity to help the public understand some of the ‘interesting’ ways that climate change will unfold.” Others, like Furtado, aren’t sold yet on the climate change connection. Northern Illinois University meteorology professor Victor Gensini, who has already felt temperatures that seem like 25 degrees below zero, said there’s “a growing body of literature” to support the climate connection. But he says more evidence is needed. “Either way,” Gensini said, “it’s going to be interesting being in the bullseye of the Midwest cold.” ___ Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears . ___ 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.
|
8385
|
New York Governor sounds optimistic note as coronavirus numbers improve.
|
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday that a recent drop in hospitalizations and other improving metrics indicated the state may be past the peak of its coronavirus crisis and on a path toward stabilizing its battered healthcare system.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Cuomo’s cautiously upbeat report at a daily briefing came as the daily death toll across the state, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, dropped to 540 on April 17, down from 630 a day earlier and the lowest in more than two weeks. The governor said total hospitalizations of patients being treated for COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus, came to 16,967, a drop of more than 1,300 over the past three days. Intubations and admissions to intensive care units also continued on their downward trend. “If you look at the past three days, you could argue that we are past the plateau and we’re starting to descend which would be very good news,” Cuomo said. He said, however, that about 2,000 infected people were newly admitted to hospitals on Friday, which he characterized as “still an overwhelming number,” and reiterated that he would take a cautious approach to reopening businesses and schools. Cuomo repeated a call for the federal government to help coordinate and provide funding for the mass testing that he and other governors have said is needed to determine when it is safe for people to go back to work. Providing new details on the challenge, Cuomo said a survey of labs in his state revealed an inability to procure the chemical reagents needed to run the tests on machines supplied by private manufacturers like Roche Holding AG. “They bought the machine, they have the machine, they have the test, but they need the reagents to do a higher volume of tests,” Cuomo said, adding that makers like Roche are struggling to get the reagents from China. “That’s the logjam we are in.” New York disclosed 7,090 new positive cases over the last 24 hours for a total of 236,732 cases, while deaths increased by 540 to 13,362, marking by far the largest number of fatalities of any state. Even with stabilizing numbers, Cuomo said the pandemic was taking a severe emotional and economic toll on people, and estimated the impact on society would prove to be the biggest challenge facing the country since World War Two. “On every level this is a terrible experience, Cuomo said. “It is as tumultuous a time as we have ever seen.”
|
9551
|
Brain Implant Restores Sense Of Touch To Paralyzed Man
|
President Barack Obama fist-bumps the robotic arm of Nathan Copeland during a tour at the White House Frontiers Conference in Pittsburgh, Pa. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) Researchers published results of an experiment that allowed a single paralyzed patient to “feel” in a limited way through a robotic arm, via the addition of electrodes implanted in his brain. It is an fascinating technology, and one that many people will read about. But, this is a story about a case study involving one man and an experimental device. Such an anecdote needs lots of backstopping, since many patients may never benefit from the incremental experiment being reported. We’ve seen this sort of story before – as here from BuzzFeed. What’s missing in this story is more detailed caveats on how preliminary this technology is, and how there are many, many unknowns with this kind of research. A single patient had limited success at feeling objects due to brain implants combined with a robotic arm. Many millions of people live with amputations or paralysis, and for those readers, this story skimps on some key points. For reference, the AP did a better job of giving context and quoting someone apart from the authors of the journal article about the limitations of this research–and included the illuminating detail that the patient doesn’t get to keep the arm; he’s back to how he was before the experiment began. Also, this older story from NOVA on prostheses for amputees did a great job on discussing uncertainties of “state-of-the-art” devices.
|
mixture
|
anecdotes over evidence,paralysis
|
The story states: “At the moment, they [robotic arms with touch sensitivity] are still too expensive, too bulky and too finicky to be used outside a laboratory setting.” While the story could have helped provide more context by explaining the cost of the experimental surgery on the patient–even without speculating on the cost of the robotic arm itself–this is enough to merit a satisfactory rating. The story doesn’t overstate the benefits to this one patient. It explains that the benefits seen here–the sense of “touch” provided to this paralyzed individual through a brain-computer interface–does not replicate what most of us might think of as a complete sense of touch. For example, one quote says “we’re really not at the point where we could, say, get him to feel the difference between silk and burlap.” We did feel the headline strays over the line a bit, by claiming “implant restores sense of touch.” What is needed here is more qualification that this is just one patient, and given the variability in spinal cord injuries, it’s really unknown how this will play out for other people. We also took issue with the ending quote of the story that states we’re “on the verge of something here that’s going to transform lives.” This needs to be hedged with the reality of the slow pace of the scientific and medical research process. The story does not describe any harms that may lurk in future applications of surgical implants to communicate with a potential robotic arm. The most obvious way to approach this would be to talk about risks of neurosurgery generally; accidental destruction of healthy tissue, for example, or stroke. But there may be others related to the technology–essentially there are a lot of unknowns when the patient test group is one individual. The story does make clear this is a laboratory result for a single man. But: How exactly did researchers measure what was gained by the patient? What are the limitations? And, as we explained in the benefits criterion, the story could have done a better job stressing how preliminary these findings are, perhaps by more thoroughly explaining the future steps this kind of research requires before it’s a mass-market device, and how similar technologies created similar excitement early on but never came to pass. Bottom line: It was a case study, not a controlled trial, and the multiple limitations inherent in a case study needed more mention. There was no disease mongering. The story did not quote anyone outside the Pittsburgh team that collaborated on this project. The story does not give readers any sense of what else is out there for an amputee, including other prosthetics such as one from 2014 that provides “sensory” info without need of a brain implant. (The electrodes are implanted in the patient’s arm.) It also does not provide context that many people with upper limb amputations choose to use less-high-tech prosthetics because these last longer and are more durable or because they cost less. The story makes clear this patient is the first to receive this treatment in an experimental setting, so it is clear that this is not available except in a laboratory. The novelty is well-established by the story’s explanation of the experimental therapy. The story contains quotes that were not in the original news release.
|
22065
|
A gallon (of gasoline) delivered to the front lines for our troops in Afghanistan cost more than $400.
|
Rep. Marcy Kaptur says gasoline for troops in Afghanistan costs $400 a gallon
|
true
|
Afghanistan, Ohio, Energy, Marcy Kaptur,
|
"When President Obama announced that Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta would replace Robert Gates as Defense secretary, Rep. Marcy Kaptur took the the pages of ""Politico"" to offer him advice. In suggesting that the Defense Department needs to cut back on its use of petroleum products, the Toledo Democrat said: ""Even before the oil companies and Wall Street speculators drove up the price of gasoline close to $4 a gallon, the landed cost of a gallon delivered to the front lines for our troops in Afghanistan cost more than $400."" PolitiFact Ohio already thought gas prices in Ohio were outrageous, but the idea of spending $400 per gallon boggles the mind. So we decided to look into the claim by Kaptur, a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Pentagon. We started with Kaptur’s office. Her staff said she gleaned her information from testimony delivered to her subcommittee. A 2009 report in The Hill, a Washington publication, recounted some of that testimony. The Pentagon comptroller’s office gave appropriators that statistic to explain the high cost of keeping troops in Afghanistan. It factors in the transportation and security costs of transporting the fuel into areas with a lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks. ""It turns out that when you factor in the cost of transportation to a coastal facility in Pakistan, or airlifting it to Kandahar - and then you add the cost of putting it in a truck, guarding it, delivering it to the battlefield, and then transferring that one gallon into a piece of equipment that needs it - in extreme cases that gallon of gasoline could cost up to $400,"" Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a 2009 Naval Energy Forumin Virginia. One U.S. Army official has said the ""fully burdened"" cost of transporting fuel into remote areas can be as high as $1,000 per gallon. ""In some places you have to fly it in by plane or by helicopter and drop off bladders of fuel,"" Kevin T. Geiss, program director for energy and partnerships in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment told Army News Service. ""Those costs can be an additional $20, $40 or even $200 a gallon."" High fuel costs in military battlegrounds predate U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A May 2001 Defense Science Board report cites the true cost of military fuel at ""$17.50 per gallon for USAF worldwide tanker-delivered fuel, and hundreds of dollars per gallon for Army forces deep into the battlespace."" Retired Army Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson, who handled military logistics operations for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq during 2006 and 2007, offers a slightly different picture -- that the cost of bringing gasoline to troops in Afghanistan actually works out to be at least $30 per gallon, and is possibly as high in the mid-40s. He told a Capitol Hill Briefing on fuel convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq that it cost about $13.88 per gallon to transport a gallon of gas to troops in Iraq when he worked there in 2007, and the amount has risen since then to $17.44 cents per gallon. He explained that it’s more expensive to bring gas to Afghanistan because ""Iraq is a land of six lane highways from one end to the other"" while ""Afghanistan is perhaps the most isolated country in the entire world."" He said the $400 per gallon figure for gas that others have cited for Afghanistan applies only when fuel must be brought by aircraft to the most remote areas. ""If we’re flying water up there, it’s $400 per gallon, or toothpaste or whatever,"" Anderson said. ""Anything that flies is expensive."" Retired Air Force Lt. General Norman R. Seip, who spoke at the same event, described the $400 per gallon cost as a ""worst case scenario,"" that accounts for a tanker providing airborne refueling to a cargo plane. He said the lower figures are more reasonable. So where does that leave Kaptur’s statement? Numerous sources have said it can cost as much as $400 per gallon to provide gas for troops in Afghanistan. That the statistic seems to be a high end number is a piece of information that provides clarification."
|
1910
|
Petri dish to dinner plate, in-vitro meat coming soon.
|
Scientists are cooking up new ways of satisfying the world’s ever-growing hunger for meat.
|
true
|
Environment
|
Dutch scientist Mark Post displays samples of in-vitro meat, or cultured meat grown in a laboratory, at the University of Maastricht November 9, 2011. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir “Cultured meat” — burgers or sausages grown in laboratory Petri dishes rather than made from slaughtered livestock — could be the answer that feeds the world, saves the environment and spares the lives of millions of animals, they say. Granted, it may take a while to catch on. And it won’t be cheap. The first lab-grown hamburger will cost around 250,000 euros ($345,000) to produce, according to Mark Post, a vascular biologist at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, who hopes to unveil such a delicacy soon. Experts say the meat’s potential for saving animals’ lives, land, water, energy and the planet itself could be enormous. “The first one will be a proof of concept, just to show it’s possible,” Post told Reuters in a telephone interview from his Maastricht lab. “I believe I can do this in the coming year.” It may sound and look like some kind of imitation, but in-vitro or cultured meat is a real animal flesh product, just one that has never been part of a complete, living animal — quite different from imitation meat or meat substitutes aimed at vegetarians and made from vegetable proteins like soy. Using stem cells harvested from leftover animal material from slaughterhouses, Post nurtures them with a feed concocted of sugars, amino acids, lipids, minerals and all other nutrients they need to grow in the right way. So far he has produced whitish pale muscle-like strips, each of them around 2.5 cm (1 inch) long, less than a centimeter wide and so thin as to be almost see-through. Pack enough of these together — probably around 3,000 of them in layers — throw in a few strips of lab-grown fat, and you have the world’s first “cultured meat” burger, he says. “This first one will be grown in an academic lab, by highly trained academic staff,” he said. “It’s hand-made and it’s time and labor-intensive, that’s why it’s so expensive to produce.” Not to mention a little unappetizing. Since Post’s in-vitro meat contains no blood, it lacks color. At the moment, it looks a bit like the flesh of scallops, he says. Like all muscle, these lab-grown strips also need to be exercised so they can grow and strengthen rather than waste away. To do this Post exploits the muscles’ natural tendency to contract and stretches them between Velcro tabs in the Petri dish to provide resistance and help them build up strength. Supporters of the idea of man-made meat, such as Stellan Welin, a bioethicist at Linkoping University in Sweden, say this is no less appealing than mass-producing livestock in factory farms where growth hormones and antibiotics are commonly used to boost yields and profits. And conventional meat production is also notoriously inefficient. For every 15 grams of edible meat, you need to feed the animals on around 100 grams of vegetable protein, an increasingly unsustainable equation. All this means finding new ways of producing meat is essential if we are to feed the enormous and ever-growing demand for it across the world, Welin told Reuters in an interview. “Of course you could do it by being vegetarian or eating less meat,” he said. “But the trends don’t seem to be going that way. With cultured meat we can be more conservative — people can still eat meat, but without causing so much damage.” According to the World Health Organization, annual meat production is projected to increase from 218 million tonnes in 1997-1999 to 376 million tonnes by 2030, and demand from a growing world population is seen rising further beyond that. “Current livestock meat production is just not sustainable,” says Post. “Not from an ecological point of view, and neither from a volume point of view. Right now we are using more than 50 percent of all our agricultural land for livestock. “It’s simple maths. We have to come up with alternatives.” According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, industrialized agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The report, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, said the meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and this proportion is expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries like China and India eat more meat. Hanna Tuomisto, who conducted a study into the relative environmental impacts of various types of meat, including lamb, pork, beef and cultured meat, said the lab-grown stuff has by far the least impact on the environment. Her analysis, published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal earlier this year, found that growing our favorite meats in-vitro would use 35 to 60 percent less energy, emit 80 to 95 percent less greenhouse gas and use around 98 percent less land than conventionally produced animal meat. “We are not saying that we could, or would necessarily want to, replace conventional meat with its cultured counterpart right now,” Tuomisto, who led the research at Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, said in a telephone interview. But she said cultured meat “could be part of the solution to feeding the world’s growing population and at the same time cutting emissions and saving both energy and water.” While experts in the field agree that within several years, it may be possible to produce in-vitro meat in a processed form — like sausages or chicken nuggets — producing more animal-like products such as pork chops or steaks could be a lot more complex and may take many more years to develop. Post, who is financed by an anonymous private funder keen to see the Dutch scientist succeed, hopes to hand the world its first man-made hamburger by August or September next year, but for the moment he admits what he has grown is a long way from a mouth-watering meal. He hasn’t yet sampled his own creation, but reviews from others are not great. A Russian TV reporter who came to his lab tried one of the strips and was unimpressed. “It’s not very tasty yet,” Post said. “That’s not a trivial thing and it needs to be worked on.” But with the right amounts and right types of fat, perhaps a little lab-grown blood to give it color and iron, Post is confident he can make his Petri dish meat look and taste as good as the real thing. He also hopes the ability to tweak and change things will mean scientists will ultimately be able to make meat healthier — with less saturated and more polyunsaturated fat, for example, or more nutrients. “The idea is that since we are now producing it in the lab, we can play with all these variables and we can eventually hopefully turn it in a way that produces healthier meat,” he said. “Whereas in a cow or a pig, you have very limited variables to play with.” ($1 = 0.727 Euros)
|
15938
|
"The children coming across the southern U.S. border ""were never examined after they got here and quarantined if they had a disease. They were just sent out across the country. Many of them had measles ... We now have an outbreak of it all because of our immigration policy."
|
Limbaugh pinned the current measles outbreak on the Central American children who flooded the southern border in 2014. Limbaugh said they were never examined and that many had measles. Limbaugh provided no evidence that this is true. Probably, because no evidence exists. The children who came in from Central America were examined and vaccinated as part of a standard routine. There is no data that links this or any other outbreak of measles to those immigrants, who are vaccinated at about the same rate as Americans. This claim lacks any basis in fact.
|
false
|
Immigration, Public Health, PunditFact, Rush Limbaugh,
|
"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh says the focus on vaccinations in the wake of the measles outbreak is a ""leftist Democratic trick"" to divert attention from the president’s ""DOA"" budget plan. And to the extent that the measles outbreak is real, Limbaugh said Feb. 3, 2015, it was all the fault of the White House anyway. ""We have a vaccination problem for one reason: Barack Hussein Obama and his open borders immigration policy, which opened the southern borders to children sick, healthy, you name it, poor, ill-educated, just tens of thousands of kids flooded the southern border all of last year. ""They were never examined before they got here. They were never examined after they got here and quarantined if they had a disease. They were just sent out across the country. Many of them had measles."" Other conservative voices have linked measles to illegal immigrants. The conservative website The Blaze wrote about Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., who said the disease was brought into the country by ""illegal aliens."" The common thread in these statements is the idea that these children were never examined, that they had measles, and Washington took no precautions before allowing them to stay. None of that holds up, however. In fiscal year 2014, over 68,000 unaccompanied minors presented themselves at the border. The crisis spurred a flurry of activity, largely by two government agencies, the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. Homeland Security set up new processing centers and HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement looked after the children until their fates were resolved. Contrary to Limbaugh’s assertion, the federal government did examine these kids. The protocol, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, was to provide ""vaccinations to all children who do not have documentation of previous valid doses of vaccine."" Limbaugh also claimed that these children were never quarantined if they had a disease. The reverse is true. ""Children receive additional, more thorough medical screening and vaccinations at ORR shelter facilities,"" according to the refugee resettlement Web page. ""If children are found to have certain communicable diseases, they are separated from other children and treated as needed."" Latin America outdoes the United States Further undermining Limbaugh’s case (we reached out to his show and did not hear back) are the vaccination rates for the key countries involved in the influx of unaccompanied minors -- El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. The latest data from the World Health Organization runs through 2013. As this table shows, over the past four years, the vaccination rates among those countries are on par or exceed the rate in the United States. Country Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination rate: 4-year average El Salvador 92 percent Guatemala 90 percent Honduras 94 percent Mexico 95 percent United States 92 percent With vaccination rates this high, epidemiologists say there is no particular reason to point to children from these countries as the source of a measles outbreak. What we know about the outbreak As a final point, the information on the measles cases this year reported to health departments fails to suggest a link to immigrant children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that most of the 102 cases stem from exposures at Disneyland in California. California health officials report that 59 cases emerged directly or indirectly from the amusement park. The core group was made up of 40 people who worked at or visited the park. Neither the CDC nor the California Department of Health have traced the outbreak to one of the young people who entered the country last year. In fact, assistant surgeon general Anne Schuchat said in a news conference that ""we assume that someone got infected overseas, visited the parks and spread the disease to others."" Past measles outbreaks have not been linked to Central America. Last year, Ohio saw 382 measles cases. According to state health officials, that began when unvaccinated travelers came back from the Philippines and spread the disease within the local Amish community. The CDC said nearly 80 percent of the cases that year were among people who chose not to be vaccinated due to their religious beliefs. Our ruling Limbaugh pinned the current measles outbreak on the Central American children who flooded the southern border in 2014. Limbaugh said they were never examined and that many had measles. Limbaugh provided no evidence that this is true. Probably, because no evidence exists. The children who came in from Central America were examined and vaccinated as part of a standard routine. There is no data that links this or any other outbreak of measles to those immigrants, who are vaccinated at about the same rate as Americans. This claim lacks any basis in fact."
|
10197
|
Using CT scans to see plaque in coronary arteries
|
Are there experts who urge people to have their heart arteries scanned for evidence of calcium deposits, even if they don’t have signs of disease? You bet. Are there other experts who warn against undergoing tests that may promise more than they deliver? Yup. Is pitting one expert against the other going to show readers who is right? Not likely, based on this point-counterpoint debate over coronary artery calcium screening. This story demonstrates the pitfalls of presenting scientific issues as though they were political debates. This sort of “equal time” treatment gives the impression that there is equal evidence backing each side. Failing to give readers appropriate context makes the sparring claims almost impossible to judge. Allowing two experts to advocate their points of view is better than presenting just one side of a contentious matter, but in this case, the lack of context and explanation is likely to leave readers feeling bewildered and helpless. Screening has a natural appeal. After all, who wouldn’t want to have a health crisis prevented, rather than treated after the fact? However, determining the balance between potential benefits (Does a test actually help people prevent an illness or death?) and potential harms (Does the test expose people to costs and side effects of testing and treatment?) is complex and individual. News stories should attempt to clarify how people can interpret the available evidence so that it applies to their own situation.
|
mixture
|
"The story says that the test costs a few hundred dollars. It would have been helpful to point out the cumulative cost of the repeated screening schedule used by those who recommend using the test for screening. Also, the discussin of insurance coverage is conflicting – saying, in one place, ""insurers won’t pay for this test"" and in another ""That’s why Medicare has decided to pay for it in a majority of states."""
|
|
5154
|
Giraffes move closer to endangered species protection.
|
Nations around the world moved Thursday to protect giraffes as an endangered species for the first time, drawing praise from conservationists and scowls from some sub-Saharan African nations.
|
true
|
Global trade, AP Top News, Geneva, International News, General News, Wildlife, East Africa, Africa, Science, Travel, Europe
|
Thursday’s vote by a key committee at the World Wildlife Conference known as CITES paves the way for the measure’s likely approval by its plenary next week. The plan would regulate world trade in giraffe parts, including hides, bone carvings and meat, while stopping short of a full ban. It passed 106-21 with seven abstentions. “So many people are so familiar with giraffes that they think they’re abundant,” said Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy for the Wildlife Conservation Society. “And in Southern Africa, they may be doing OK, but giraffes are critically endangered.” Lieberman said giraffes were particularly at risk in parts of West, Central and East Africa. The Wildlife Conservation Society said it was concerned about the multiple threats to giraffes that have already resulted in population decline, citing habitat loss, droughts worsened by climate change and the illegal killings and trade in giraffe body parts. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, hailed the move, noting that giraffes are a vulnerable species facing habitat loss and population decline. A key African conservationist said it could help reverse drops in giraffe populations, as the move would help better track numbers of giraffes. “The giraffe has experienced over 40% decline in the last 30 years, said Maina Philip Muruthi of the African Wildlife Foundation. “If that trend continues, it means that we are headed toward extinction.” Still, not all African countries supported the move. “We see no reason as to why we should support this decision, because Tanzania has a stable and increasing population of giraffes,” said Maurus Msuha, director of wildlife at the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. “Over 50% of our giraffe population is within the Serengeti ecosystem, which is well protected. Why should we then go for this?” CITES says the population of wild giraffes is actually much smaller than that of wild African elephants. “We’re talking about a few tens of thousands of giraffes and we’re talking about a few hundreds of thousands of African elephants,” said Tom De Meulenaar, chief of scientific services at CITES. He said the convention was intended to specifically address the international trade in giraffes and their parts. “With fewer giraffes than elephants in Africa, it was a no-brainer to simply regulate giraffe exports,” said Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. The U.S. is the world’s biggest consumer of giraffe products, conservationists said. Sanerib said it was important for the U.S. to act on its own as well. “It’s still urgent for the Trump administration to protect these imperiled animals under the U.S. Endangered Species Act,” she said in a statement. The meeting in Geneva comes after President Donald Trump’s administration last week announced plans to water down the U.S. Endangered Species Ac — a message that could echo among attendees at the CITES conference, even if the U.S. move is more about domestic policy than international trade.
|
18667
|
In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication.
|
"After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" Strictly speaking, Walker’s statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill."
|
true
|
Health Care, Public Health, State Budget, Wisconsin, Scott Walker,
|
"In the wake of mass shootings in Wisconsin and around the country, it may have been alarming to hear Gov. Scott Walker explain why he proposed more spending for mental health care in his 2013-2015 budget. ""Nationally, serious mental illness costs at least $193 billion a year in lost earnings,"" Walker said during his Feb. 20, 2013, budget presentation. ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" In the course of his remarks, Walker used two different terms -- ""serious mental illness"" and ""serious psychological distress."" He used the second to illustrate lack of care. Is he correct that only half of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" receive care? Backdrop: mass shootings Walker didn’t mention mass shootings in his budget address, but he alluded to them two weeks earlier when he revealed his plan to boost mental health spending by $29 million over two years. The National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin praised the spending boost, which would be done from several different pots of money.But the advocacy group said Walker’s rejection of a federal proposal to expand Medicaid ""reflects a shallow understanding"" of ""crucial means to affordable mental health care for Wisconsin residents."" In revealing his plans, the governor stopped short of drawing a clear link between treating mental illness and preventing mass shootings, but indicated his plan took on greater urgency after mass killings in 2012. Those incidents included the shooting deaths of six worshippers at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee and of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. To be clear, only about 1 percent of people with mental illness considered to be severe are regarded as dangerous. But a 2011 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report found that this group can pose a dilemma for policy-makers, who lack the data to develop a sound system for dealing with it. Walker’s budget, which could be modified by the Legislature, includes $12.6 million to treat more patients who have been committed to mental hospitals, $10.2 million to expand community-based care programs for people with severe mental illness and $3.8 million for more coordination of care for children with behavioral issues. Walker’s evidence When we asked Walker’s office for evidence to back his claim, we were initially referred to a January 2013 report by his Department of Health Services. The report estimated, based on a federal survey of American adults, that in 2011, 49 percent of the 1 million adults in Wisconsin who had ""any mental illness"" did not get treatment. Any mental illness refers to people who have a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder."" The disorder causes impairment -- ranging from mild to moderate to substantial -- in carrying out major life activities. The 49 percent figure cited in the health department’s report might appear to support Walker’s claim. But his claim about Wisconsin didn’t use the term mental illness. It used the phrase ""serious psychological distress."" We pointed out the difference to Stephanie Smiley, spokeswoman for the department. She then cited federal survey data showing that over a two-year period -- 2010 to 2011 -- an estimated 51 percent of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" did not get treatment in the previous year. (She also said that in 2008-2009, 31 percent of state adults with serious mental illness got treatment.) So, the 51 percent figure about serious psychological distress appears to back Walker’s claim. But let’s understand serious psychological distress as compared to serious mental illness, given that mental illness was the focus of Walker’s comments and his proposed spending increase. Other evidence Based on definitions pertaining to adults from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which oversees the surveys Walker cited: there are differences between serious mental illness -- the first term Walker used in his budget speech -- and serious psychological distress, which he mentioned second. Serious mental illness refers to a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder"" that involves substantial impairment in carrying out major life activities. Serious psychological distress refers to how a person responds to six questions in a federal survey about whether they feel nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed, ""that everything was an effort"" and ""no good or worthless."" Experts we consulted said that serious mental illness was a more precise term used to identify a person after thorough diagnosis and that serious psychological distress was an intentionally vague term used by researchers doing surveys. ""It kind of casts a wider net,"" Annabelle Potvin of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin said of the serious psychological distress term, which she said indicates a need for a person to get a mental health assessment. Serious psychological distress can encompass people anywhere on a scale from mild to serious mental illness, but tends to be lower on the scale. That’s according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Tim Connor, who evaluates mental health programs across the state; and Walter Laux, behavioral health division director of Community Advocates, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit agency. Indeed, the state Department of Health Services, in a 2010 report, also made a distinction. Serious psychological distress is a ""non-specific category of distress"" characterized by a ""mood or anxiety disorder and a lesser degree of functional impairment than serious mental illness."" It is considered to be ""an indicator of possible serious mental illness, with similar but less strict inclusion criteria."" In other words, people with serious psychological distress might have mental illness, but that distress is generally regarded as lower on a scale than serious mental illness. Our rating After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" Strictly speaking, Walker’s statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill."
|
28959
|
"Multiple social media rumors circulated on Back to the Future Day (21 October 2015): that Michael J. Fox was arrested for ""insider sports betting,"" that Nike delivered a pair of self-tying sneakers, and that the Biff Tannen character was based on Donald Trump."
|
A minor-league Manhattan businessman very well could have appeared on the radar of two Hollywood producers, but the “prediction” of Trump by Back to the Future appeared to be retrofitted to 2015’s current events, not prescience on the part of the filmmakers in 1985.
|
mixture
|
Entertainment, back to the future, bob gale, donald trump
|
On 21 October 2015, social media users marked what informally came to be known as “Back to the Future Day” — the then-distant date to which Michael J. Fox (as Marty McFly) traveled in the 1987 film Back to the Future II. Amid memes, retrospective articles, and a multi-day trending streak of chatter about Marty McFly’s return, several rumors about the Back to the Future (BTTF) trilogy, its legacy, and its stars circulated via social media. Given the general celebratory mood and heightened interest, some of those claims spread further and faster than they might have on any other day: Claim: Actor Michael J. Fox was arrested on charges of “insider sports betting.” Rating: FALSE On 21 October 2015, the web site Stubhill News published an article titled “Breaking News: Michael J Fox Arrested for Insider Sports Betting”: Michael J Fox was arrested Wednesday morning in relation to insider sports betting on DraftKings. Fox aroused suspicion after achieving a statistically-impossible, perfect record on the site under the username NoChicken. Authorities found an unusually worn copy of a sports almanac which was just recently printed and which has markings cataloging winning bets Fox has placed since the late 80’s. “The operating theory is that the Back to the Future films were really documentaries from an original, prime timeline,” said NASA astrophysicist Barry Manilow. “The implications are heavy. It is suspected that we are living in an alternate 2015, as there are no flying cars and there are only four Jaws movies. We can only assume that we are forever stunted as a society. The amount of lives lost due to our lack of progress in technology and medicine is unfathomable. Worst of all, instead of hoverboards, this sad reality is limited to the Swagway.” Most readers managed to pick out the multiple humorous references contained therein: the username “NoChicken,” the use of a “sports almanac” (both nods to BTTF), and “astrophysicist Barry Manilow.” Moreover, a disclaimer on Stubhill News advises viewers: If you think Stubhill News is real news, you’re going to have a bad time. Claim: Nike sent Michael J. Fox its first pair of self-lacing sneakers, which will retail in 2016 with proceeds to be earmarked for Fox’s Parkinson’s Disease foundation. Rating: MIXTURE On 21 October 2015, ABC News published an article titled “Nike Sending First ‘Back to the Future’ Self-Tying Shoes to Michael J. Fox.” According to the network, Nike confirmed that Fox had been sent a pair of what they described as “self-lacing” sneakers. However the company was tight-lipped about the details, adding only that future versions of the product would be available at “auction” and promising further information in 2016: Nike says that the future is here. The first person to receive a pair of the company’s “Back to the Future” self-lacing shoes is the franchise’s star Michael J. Fox, according to a Nike designer. “We started creating something for fiction and we turned it into fact, inventing a new technology that will benefit all athletes,” Nike president and CEO Mark Parker said in a statement today. The company said the 2015 Nike Mag is a limited edition release and will only be available via auction, with all proceeds going to the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. Additional details will be released in the spring, Nike said. At this point, little is known about the sneakers purportedly gifted to Fox. The Michael J. Fox Foundation published an eight-second video in which the actor modeled the shoes: Michael J. Fox models the first self-lacing @Nike Mag pic.twitter.com/bgPWM5CKBE — michaeljfox.org (@MichaelJFoxOrg) October 21, 2015 So Nike says they gave Michael J. Fox a pair of self-lacing sneakers; but how (well) those sneakers work is unknown, and their auction-only availability suggests they exist only as an expensive limited edition and not as practical model expected to be widely available any time soon. Claim: A Back to the Future II writer based the character of Biff Tannen on real estate mogul Donald Trump. Rating: MIXTURE As Back to the Future Day approached, social media users inevitably drew parallels between the film’s predictions of life in 2015 and the reality of today’s 2015. Among the memes that arose in the weeks leading up to 21 October 2015 was one drawing comparisons between the movie’s principals and real-life figures, such as those likening eccentric scientist Doc Brown to Bernie Sanders and ruthless businessman Biff Tannen to Donald Trump: #berntothefuture pic.twitter.com/9zpzHJcAol — Amplified (@AmplifiedYT) October 16, 2015 On 21 October 2015, The Daily Beast published an article titled “‘Back to the Future’ Writer: Biff Tannen Is Based on Donald Trump.” That piece quoted Back to the Future screenwriter Bob Gale on the purported inspiration for Tannen’s character: So, Bob Gale — writer of Back to the Future Part II and man who helped predict the IMAX theater and the self-checkout line — in these past few months, were you thinking what we’re all thinking? “We thought about it when we made the movie! Are you kidding?” he says. “You watch Part II again and there’s a scene where Marty confronts Biff in his office and there’s a huge portrait of Biff on the wall behind Biff, and there’s one moment where Biff kind of stands up and he takes exactly the same pose as the portrait? Yeah.” Of course, in the movie, Biff uses the profits from his 27-story casino (the Trump Plaza Hotel, completed in 1984, is 37 floors, by the way) to help shake up the Republican Party, before eventually assuming political power himself, helping transform Hill Valley, California, into a lawless, dystopian wasteland, where hooliganism reigns, dissent is quashed, and wherein Biff encourages every citizen to call him “America’s greatest living folk hero.” “Yeah,” says Gale. “That’s what we were thinking about.” Notably, Gale did a lot of talking around the film’s October 2015 anniversary. But when CNN hosted a Back to the Future Q&A in July 2015, Gale had this to say about the inspiration for Tannen and McFly: They were archetypes, with character bits drawn from people we knew, as well as some excellent contributions from actors Michael J. Fox and Tom Wilson. Prior to that, Tannen’s inspiration was partially credited to a separate person with whom creators Gale and Robert Zemeckis had both clashed: Biff Tannen was named after a Universal Pictures executive named Ned Tanen who had been particularly rude to Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale during a script meeting about the film I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978). The notion that Trump formed the total or partial basis for Tannen appeared seemingly out of the ether. Although the Wikipedia page devoted to the character prominently featured that explanation, an archived version from 16 October 2015 made no mention of it. Trump was somewhat notable in 1985 (even rating a GQ cover), but his persona then didn’t match very well with the character of Tannen. Trump’s later grandiose, reality-show style brand had yet to develop (and while his style had always been somewhat garish, it was never very similar to Tannen’s): It’s true that Gale claimed in October 2015 that Biff Tannen was based (entirely or in part) on Donald Trump. It’s even possible that Gale believed that the character’s inspiration hinged on a real-life figure who (in his view) came to closely match Tannen in 2015. But Trump was a relatively minor celebrity in 1985, known mostly in the New York City area as a real estate developer. Trump’s reality TV show The Apprentice was still many years away, as was any serious indication Trump would ever leave real estate to enter politics. If Trump indeed crossed Gale and Zemeckis’ minds when Tannen was being developed in the years prior to the 1985 film, neither thought to mention it until after Sanders/Trump comparisons began appearing on social media in late 2015.
|
23662
|
"Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."
|
Fox News handling Sherrod story defended by 'Weekly Standard's' Stephen Hayes
|
true
|
Agriculture, National, Race and Ethnicity, Pundits, This Week - ABC News, Stephen Hayes,
|
"Washington and the nation were captivated a week ago by the controversy over Shirley Sherrod, a once-obscure U.S. Agriculture Department official who became a villain, and then a victim, over the course of 24 hours. Because the story began and ended so quickly, we were unable to fact-check it at the time, but here's a recap of what happened. Andrew Breitbart, a conservative provocateur, started things off July 19, 2010, when he posted a video on one of his websites, BigGovernment.com, that seemed to show Sherrod, who is black, telling an NAACP audience that she had discriminated against a white farmer. After conservative bloggers raised an outcry about Sherrod's apparent revelation, the NAACP moved to condemn Sherrod, and senior Agriculture Department officials quickly pressured Sherrod to resign. But within hours, it came out that the video had been selectively edited, and the uncut version made clear that Sherrod had actually been telling the story about the white farmer to explain how she had overcome her own prejudices. She ended up helping save the family's farm, and the farmer and his wife took to the airwaves to defend Sherrod. The Agriculture Department then reversed itself, with Secretary Tom Vilsack making a heartfelt apology and asking Sherrod to return to the department. Sherrod also received a personal call from President Barack Obama. This whirlwind of charges and counter-charges prompted a round of soul-searching by most of those involved in the episode, including those in government, advocacy groups, the blogosphere and the media. One question that quickly emerged was how culpable Fox News was. In the past, Fox news commentators have often beaten the drum on stories critical of Democrats, liberals and the Obama Administration, so to some who were sympathetic to Sherrod, Fox seemed like a plausible villain. They took as evidence a July 20, 2010, CNN interview with Sherrod, in which she explained how, while driving through Georgia, she was forced out by Cheryl Cook, the deputy undersecretary. When Cook called her cell phone, Sherrod recalled telling Cook, ""'Cheryl, I've got a three-and-a-half-hour ride to get into Athens.' She called me a second time, (saying,) 'Where are you now?' I said, 'I'm just going through Atlanta.' She called me again and I said, 'I'm at least 45 minutes to an hour from Athens. She said, 'Well, Shirley, they want you to pull over to the side of the road and do it (formally resign), because you're going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.'"" Beck, of course, is an outspoken conservative commentator with popular talk show on Fox. The question of Fox's role came up during the July 25, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week. Host Jake Tapper cited a commentary by Josh Marshall of the liberal website Talking Points Memo. ""Breitbart got a piece of video he knew nothing about and published it with a central claim that he either made up or made no attempt to verify,"" Tapper quoted Marshall as writing. ""To use terminology of infectious disease, Fox was the primary vector of this story. And to the best of my knowledge, there's been not only no disciplining of anyone in the newsroom, but as far as I can see, no retraction, apology, or even discussion of their primary role in an obvious smear. This is a journalistic felony, really, the worst kind of thing that journalists can ever do, a reality only compounded by the fact that they refuse to admit not only culpability but even that they did anything wrong."" For a reaction, Tapper turned to Stephen Hayes, a senior writer with the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, who was a member of the show's roundtable that week. ""Stephen, do you think that ... liberals are unfairly using this to try to discredit conservative journalists?"" Hayes responded, ""Yes, of course, they are. Look, the timeline doesn't work. I mean ... Howard Kurtz, at CNN and the Washington Post wrote that the timeline simply doesn't work. She actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" We thought it would be worthwhile to check the transcripts and see whether it's correct that Sherrod ""actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" The earliest on-air comment we could find came the toward the end of the 8 p.m. hour, during an airing of The O'Reilly Factor, a talk show hosted by pugnaciously conservative host Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly told viewers that ""speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod."" He then showed a clip of Sherrod saying, ""I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."" When the clip ended, O'Reilly said, ""Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance. We are requesting an explanation from the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, and will keep you posted. By the way, the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."" While it's safe to assume that O'Reilly was unaware of Sherrod's ouster at the time he aired those comments -- why would he call for her ouster if it had already happened? -- his producers apparently found out as the segment was underway, because as O'Reilly was speaking, Fox aired an on-screen notice that said, ""Sec. Vilsack has accepted Sherrod's resignation."" A few minutes later, during the 9 p.m. hour of Fox, O'Reilly's fellow conservative host, Sean Hannity, began his show with an alert that Sherrod had resigned. So, based on the Fox transcripts as well as Sherrod's own account in the CNN interview, Hayes appears to be correct that Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" Indeed, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic, reported that ""after a news meeting Monday afternoon (July 19), an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said, 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.'"" But we think it's worth mentioning two additional points. First, it's clear from O'Reilly's on-air comment that at least one Fox commentator was preparing to make hay over the Sherrod controversy before she resigned -- it's just that the Agriculture Department beat Fox to the punch by ousting her first. If officials above Sherrod had spent more time reviewing her case instead of forcing her to the side of the road, O'Reilly at least, and possibly other Fox hosts, were ready to take up the call for her to be ousted. Second, Fox's television network may not have discussed Sherrod before she was ousted, but there's evidence that two of its web affiliates did mention the story. Media Matters for America -- a liberal group that tracks alleged media bias and regularly spars with both Fox and Breitbart -- located a FoxNews.com story posted around noon on July 19 that began, ""Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy."" Media Matters wrote that FoxNews.com credited BigGovernment.com with posting the video, and added that ""FoxNews.com is seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA."" While Media Matters said that the article is no longer available on FoxNews.com, it provided a screenshot. Not long after that post went up at FoxNews.com, Media Matters said, Fox Nation -- an online community for news and commentary that's affiliated with Fox News -- posted the link to the Sherrod clip on BigGovernment.com under the headline, ""Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer."" All told, it seems clear to us that the USDA ousted Sherrod in order to forestall the possibility that commentators on Fox's cable channel would start calling for her resignation, not because Fox commentators had actually begun to do so. Still, two Fox web affiliates mentioned the controversy before Sherrod's ouster, and the fact that O'Reilly called for her resignation without knowing that she was already out of a job suggests that Fox was already beginning to pounce. On balance, these two caveats persuade us to drop Hayes' otherwise accurate statement that Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this"" by a notch to ."
|
2941
|
FDA lifts hold on studies testing Cell Therapeutics' cancer drug.
|
Cell Therapeutics Inc said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lifted a hold imposed in June last year on studies testing the company’s blood cancer drug.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The company’s shares rose about 3 percent to $1.97 in premarket trading on Thursday. Cell Therapeutics said it received the notification from the regulator on December 26. The FDA placed the hold after a patient treated with a combination of the drug, tosedostat, and a chemotherapy drug died of a heart muscle infection. Under the hold, the company could not enroll new patients in any trials of tosedostat. The regulator asked for more information on all heart-related events in patients treated with the drug. Tosedostat is being tested in mid-stage trials in the United States and European Union on elderly patients with two forms of blood cancer - acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.