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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3537
|
State reports first death from vaping-related lung injury.
|
Massachusetts health officials are reporting the state’s first death from a vaping-related lung injury.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Public health, Charlie Baker, Massachusetts, Vaping, Injuries
|
The state Department of Health said Monday it reported the death of a woman in her 60s from Hampshire County to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The department didn’t identify the woman but said she’s among 121 suspected cases of vaping-related lung injuries reported to the state since last month. The agency says nine of the cases have been confirmed as vaping-associated lung injuries and ten of them are probable cases. At least 39 of the cases have been ruled out. Gov. Charlie Baker declared a public health emergency and imposed four-month statewide ban on sales of vaping products on Sept. 24. That ban is being challenged in federal and state court.
|
8603
|
Nurses must be protected from abuse during coronavirus pandemic: WHO, nursing groups.
|
Authorities must protect nurses and other health workers from harassment and attacks compounding the already heavy toll they are paying in the pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) and top nursing officials said on Tuesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Some 100 medical workers are reported to have died from the disease so far, including many nurses, Howard Catton, ceo of the International Council of Nurses, told a news briefing. The world’s 28 million nurses, 59% of all health workers, were overstretched before the crisis began, the WHO, the Nursing Now campaign, and Geneva-based council said in the first “State of the World’s Nursing Report”. Some have become targets out of people’s fear of contagion. “We have picked up reports around the world of abuse, harassment of health workers, we had one case of somebody being spat on as well. It is completely unacceptable, reprehensible,” Catton said. He called for governments to have a “zero tolerance approach” to such abuse and to ensure that public health messages are clear and fact-based. Giorgio Cometto of WHO’s health workforce department said it was a relatively new phenomenon “whereby health workers are seen as a potential risk, as a potential threat as opposed to being a solution to the current crisis”. “This really reinforces the need to have adequate communication for the public as well as specific measures to be put in place to protect health workers particularly in the context of the response to the current pandemic,” he said. Baroness Mary Watkins, chair of Nursing Now, said nurses have been attacked previously during outbreaks of Ebola and the AID-HIV epidemic. Referring to COVID-19, she said: “We have not had active violence that I know of in the UK, but we have had people trying to take nurses’ badges because they have been allowed to go into supermarkets early to buy food before going on their shift... That seems to have had a stop put to it. “But there has been a very very clear directive from the police in many countries that attacking a health care worker is unacceptable. We need to keep pressure up,” Watkins added. There is still a global shortage of nearly 6 million nurses, mainly in low- and lower-middle income countries, where the number of new recruits barely keeps pace with population growth, the report said. Nurses are particularly lacking across Africa, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Venezuela, it added.
|
30825
|
Service station customers are getting stuck by HIV-loaded syringes affixed to gas pump handles.
|
Rumors that service station customers are getting stuck by HIV-loaded syringes affixed to gas pump handles are a hoax.
|
false
|
Horrors, aids scares
|
A hoax urging service station customers to exercise caution when pumping gas appeared first on the Internet in early June 2000: [Collected via e-mail, 2000] My name is Captain Abraham Sands of the Jacksonville, Florida Police Department. I have been asked by state and local authorities to write this email in order to get the word out to car drivers of a very dangerous prank that is occurring in numerous states. Some person or persons have been affixing hypodermic needles to the underside of gas pump handles. These needles appear to be infected with HIV positive blood. In the Jacksonville area alone there have been 17 cases of people being stuck by these needles over the past five months. We have verified reports of at least 12 others in various states around the country. It is believed that these may be copycat incidents due to someone reading about the crimes or seeing them reported on the television. At this point no one has been arrested and catching the perpetrator(s) has become our top priority. Shockingly, of the 17 people who where stuck, eight have tested HIV positive and because of the nature of the disease, the others could test positive in a couple years. Evidently the consumers go to fill their car with gas, and when picking up the pump handle get stuck with the infected needle. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO CAREFULLY CHECK THE HANDLE of the gas pump each time you use one. LOOK AT EVERY SURFACE YOUR HAND MAY TOUCH, INCLUDING UNDER THE HANDLE. If you do find a needle affixed to one, immediately contact your local police department so they can collect the evidence. PLEASE HELP US BY MAINTAINING A VIGILANCE AND BY FORWARDING THIS EMAIL TO ANYONE YOU KNOW WHO DRIVES. THE MORE PEOPLE WHO KNOW OF THIS THE BETTER PROTECTED WE CAN ALL BE. [Collected via e-mail, 2006] East Coast – Warning! In Florida and other places on the East Coast a group of people are putting HIV/AIDS infected and filled needles underneath gas pump handles, so when someone reaches to pick it up and put gas in their car, they get stabbed with it. 16 people have been a victim of this crime so far and 10 tested HIV positive. Instead of posting that stupid crap about how your love life will suck for years to come of you don’t re-post, post this. It’s important to inform people, even if you don’t drive, a family member might, and what if they were next? CHECK UNDER THE HANDLE BEFORE YOU GRAB IT!!! IT MIGHT SAVE YOUR LIFE! Tell as many people as you can about this serious issue! [Collected via Facebook, January 2013] IN Florida and other places on the East Coast a groups of people are putting HIV/AIDS infected and filled needles underneath gas pump handles, so when someone reaches to pick it up and put gas in their car, they get stabbed with it. 16 people have been a victim of this crime so far and 10 tested HIV positive. Instead of posting that stupid crap about how your love life will suck for years to come if yo udon’t re-post, post this. It’s important to inform people, even if you don’t drive, a family member might, and what if they were next? CHECK UNDER THE HANDLE) In common with other AIDS-infected needle scares (e.g., syringe attacks in movies houses and dance clubs and contaminated needles in payphone coin returns), this rumor plays upon our fear of contracting a dread disease through the pursuit of ordinary and harmless activities. There is no Abraham Sands with the Jacksonville Police Department: someone just invented a name to make this “warning” look authoritative. No newspaper stories from that city made any mention of Sands, which is unusual (to say the least) about a department’s spokesperson; Jacksonville is served by a sheriff’s office, not a police department; a phone call to the Jacksonville Sheriff produced the response that they’d never heard of Abraham Sands; and he wasn’t listed with the rest of the personnel on the City of Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office web site. No news stories out of Florida confirmed the e-mail’s claim that 17 people had been injured by these attacks, the City of Jacksonsville Sheriff’s Office said the whole thing was a hoax, and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta stated they were not aware of any cases where HIV had been transmitted by a needle-stick injury outside of a health care setting: Besieged with phone calls and electronic mail, officials in Jacksonville are trying to quell an e-mail hoax that claims hypodermic needles concealed in gas pumps are responsible for spreading the virus that causes AIDS.The Sheriff’s Office has received more than 1,000 phone calls and e-mails from people around the country trying to confirm the information. The e-mail, titled “A dangerous prank going around,” is purported to be from a “Capt. Abraham Sands” with the “Jacksonville Police Department.” The Sheriff’s Office has never had a Capt. Abraham Sands and has no idea where the message originated. Also, there have been no reports of needles hidden in gas pumps, said John Turner, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Office. And the Jacksonville Police Department ceased to exist in 1968 when it was merged with the Sheriff’s Office as part of consolidation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have no reported cases of AIDS from needle-stick injury to anyone outside the health care field. People are also calling the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, whose small staff answered about 200 phone calls on Tuesday alone. Because police is part of the fund’s name, people from as far away as California are calling, assuming it is part of the police department in Jacksonville. The Sheriff’s Office intelligence unit also has looked into the Internet message to see if anything could be done to stop the rumor. The message is a nuisance but not illegal, Turner said. “We live in a world now where crazy things happen and people want some assurance,” said spokesman Harry Reagan. Although there have been a few isolated reports of copycat pranksters leaving needles in public places (including gas pumps, such as an incident in May 2017) in the wake of this hoax, none of those incidents has involved a needle bearing any traces of HIV. No matter how it is reworded, the “Captain Abraham Sands” message is naught but anotherhoax dreamed up by someone intent upon enjoying the sight of people thrown into a panic over nothing.
|
9579
|
How often should you get a mammogram? It depends on whether you have dense breast tissue, experts say
|
This news story reports on a study, described in the Annals of Internal Medicine, that was designed to clarify the role of breast tissue density in calculating the risk of breast cancer mortality, and thus help physicians and women over 50 make better informed choices about how frequently to have mammograms. The story overall does a fair job of summarizing the main points about the study’s conclusions, and about the ongoing confusion, contradictions, and controversy surrounding best practices for “breast screening intervals.” It could have been clearer at the outset that the key conclusions related to triennial screening should apply solely to women over 50 at average or low risk of breast cancer. It could also have done a better job of bringing in outside commentary and interpretation from those not directly involved in the study, noting the weaknesses of “modeling” systems in general, and offering more detail about the potential physical and psychological harms unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Most worrisome, though, was that the news story used direct passages from the news release, without attribution. This, paired with the lack of outside commentary, is not what we consider rigorous journalism. Over the past 30 years, as mammography technology and cancer treatments became more refined, health policymakers, physician groups, and breast cancer advocacy organizations and politicians have been at the eye of a constant storm of changing and often controversial claims and recommendations related to the need for and frequency of mammography screening. The situation has been particularly confusing and anxiety-producing for older women without the known risk factors for increased risk of breast cancer. A big part of the problem in efforts to find clarity — both for clinicians and women — has to do with the expense, difficulty and ethical issues in designing studies to do so; and the fear factor that drives the choice to have more and more screening, even if the evidence points to the benefits of less less. Consequently, rigorous and peer-reviewed research that adds scientific heft to risk calculations are instantly newsworthy and can, over time, significantly change practices and behaviors.
|
mixture
|
breast cancer,mammography
|
The article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. Some critics of those suggesting less frequent screening for some groups of women argue that such efforts want to cut costs at the expense of women’s health and lives. Evidence-based guidelines are winning over some hearts and minds, but hardly all. In any case, it behooves news organizations to at least acknowledge the financial cost issue and put it in perspective. This article did not and although it noted the improvement in data collection wrought by digital mammograms in recent years, it also did not note the increased cost of digital (and now 3D) mammography over conventional screening methods. The article did a pretty good job of presenting the complicated data modeling and reasons for the recommendations regarding breast density risk calculations and screening intervals. But it needed some actual numbers to quantify the benefits. In this case, it’s the number breast cancer deaths averted. As the study abstract stated, “breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted).” The article mentions overdiagnosis and a couple of its consequences. To better communicate harms, it could have used some outside expert commentary about the numerous risk factors and comfort levels women and their physicians have when considering the frequency of mammography; and about the fact that there are no definitive answers about the ideal screening protocol for any individual woman. The article also should have included specific information from the journal article about the economic costs of biopsies and other enhanced screening. While it’s hard to quantify the emotional and psychological costs to women who undergo biopsies that are found to be negative, it is possible to quantify the economic costs to a person and to the larger healthcare system. The story went into some detail about the epidemiological “modeling” and the outcomes simulations the researchers used. But it didn’t really place that in the context of wider research. For example, the editorial accompanying the study noted “modeling and registry data are not randomized trials, but each of these study types can provide critical information that extends our knowledge base.” The story also should have explained that the model needs to be validated before we know whether the recommendations are accurate. As the editorial also points out: “It will be important to track outcomes in women who undergo alternative screening frequencies to validate this approach.” The article also should have noted that determinations of breast density, BI-RADS, are not uniform. Recent papers have found a lack of agreement of breast density ratings among radiologists who reviewed the same digital mammograms. Now that this new model includes BI-RADS ratings, it would be most helpful for patients if there were more uniformity among those determining the BI-RADS. It did not disease monger. The article quotes only one of the lead investigators of the study, and used the same quote found in the news release (see last criterion). Coverage elsewhere often included comments from cancer clinicians and investigators not affiliated with the study, most of whom emphasize the complexity of the risk calculations and the human factors that drive medical decision making. The journal article also included an editorial by a Johns Hopkins University scientist, which offered good information about the quality of the research and other things. It would have helped to cite it. (Full disclosure: HealthNewsReview.org reviewer Joann Rodgers consults for Hopkins.) An article about a new breast cancer modeling tool that may impact future screening guidelines should definitely include quotes from breast cancer researchers and clinicians who are not affiliated with the study. The article explains the current guidelines, and the variations in recommendations that are based on previous calculations of risk. Implicit in the story is the fact that these are “guidelines,” and not prescriptive rules; and that there must always be interpretations and exceptions to them. Digital mammography is available across the United States, so we’ll rate this N/A. However, the news story would have been stronger had it more clearly explained that these findings were based on an assumption of all-digital mammography. Not all women have access to digital mammography and may have to travel farther for digital screening. Travel is often a barrier to screening in the first place, especially for those who rely on public transportation. The article does a very good job of pointing out what’s new here: the affirmation of the value of density calculation in determining risk and mammography frequency. The news article went into some detail about the epidemiological “modeling” and the outcomes simulations the researchers used. The story would have benefitted from expert commentary about the numerous risk factors and comfort levels women and their physicians have when considering the frequency of mammography; and about the fact that there are no definitive answers for the ideal screening protocol for any individual woman. As noted earlier, the journal carried an editorial by a Johns Hopkins University scientist, offering an opinion about who needs annual screening, and some of the weaknesses and strengths of the new study. Too bad this wasn’t cited. UCSF did issue a news release, and the LA Times story quotes nearly word-for-word one of the paragraphs from the release, without attribution: LA Times: “Some lesions detected in screening will never grow to become clinically significant and will not impact a woman’s life,” Kerlikowske said. News release: “Some lesions detected in screening will never grow to become clinically significant and will not impact a woman’s life,” Kerlikowske explained.
|
29585
|
A cannabis drug trial in France led to serious adverse effects in several subjects.
|
What's true: Health authorities in France are investigating adverse effects during a drug trial in January 2016; one patient was left brain-dead and five more in serious condition. What's false: The drug was a cannabis-based painkiller. What's undetermined: Details of the study such as the drug being tested, the circumstances under which the patients fell ill, the cause of the adverse effects observed.
|
false
|
Uncategorized, biotrial, drug trial, france
|
On 16 January 2016, Britain’s Sky News was one of many outlets reporting on significant adverse events during a French drug trial: Five volunteers are seriously ill in hospital after a medical trial at a private clinic in France. One of the five is described as “brain dead” while the other four are critically ill, according to the newspaper Ouest France. A sixth person has been taken to hospital, but is not thought to be seriously affected. The trial is related to a cannabis-based painkiller, according to reports – research led by the UK-based laboratory Biotrial. On 15 January 2016, Biotrial tweeted a brief statement about the event. However, the research lab made no mention of cannabis: pic.twitter.com/NBadRsRoyw — Biotrial (@Biotrial) January 15, 2016 On 15 January 2016 the English-language French news source TheLocal published an article titled “Botched drugs trial leaves volunteer brain-dead in France.” That local reporting included comments from French health authorities who denied the drug in question was cannabis-based, noting that the rumor began in France. Moreover, the outlet stated that the patient reported “brain dead” may actually be in a coma, with a chance for recovery: Some media reports in France claimed the drug was a cannabis-based painkiller and AFP quoted a source “close to the case” who said the drug contained cannabinoids – an ingredient found in cannabis plants. However a spokesperson for France’s health ministry has told The Local this information is false. “This medication did not contain cannabis and was not a cannabis-based drug,” said Health Minister Marisol Touraine. According to France’s Minister of Health Marisol Touraine the trial has been called off after one person was left brain-dead and five others hospitalised after taking the drugs. However some reports suggest the victim has been left in a coma, which would mean the brain damage may not be permanent. Both the BBC and New York Times covered the event; the former included Touraine’s remarks, and the latter described the adverse event as an “accident”: Six patients were hospitalized — one of them brain-dead — after a drug trial in northwestern France, the country’s health minister said on Friday. Marisol Touraine, the minister for social affairs, health and women’s rights, said in a statement that her office was informed on Thursday evening about a “serious accident” that resulted in the hospitalization of six patients at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes, in eastern Brittany. So while a January 2016 adverse event occurred during a drug trial in France, that event remains under investigation. Moreover, French health authorities have confirmed that the medication in question was not cannabis-based.
|
4508
|
Senate GOP leader would raise age for buying tobacco to 21.
|
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose home state of Kentucky was long one of the nation’s leading tobacco producers, introduced bipartisan legislation Monday to raise the minimum age for buying any tobacco products from 18 to 21.
|
true
|
Tim Kaine, Health, Legislation, Politics, Kentucky, North America, Business, Mitch McConnell
|
The chamber’s top Republican, who said he was making enactment of the bill “one of my highest priorities,” issued his proposal at a time when the use of e-cigarettes is growing and underage vaping has soared, raising concerns by health expert s. The measure would apply to all tobacco products, e-cigarettes and vapor products and was co-sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., whose state has also been a major tobacco producer. “Kentucky farmers don’t want their children to get hooked on tobacco products while they’re in middle school or high school any more than any parents anywhere want that to happen,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. Fourteen states, including Arkansas, California and Virginia, have enacted laws raising the minimum age for tobacco sales to 21, according to the anti-smoking Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. So have 470 municipalities, including New York City, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis. Even so, the use of e-cigarettes and vaping has surged, with much of the increase among teenagers. The CDC says most e-cigarettes contain highly addictive nicotine, which can harm the development of young people’s brains and may them likelier to smoke cigarettes later in life. “Youth vaping is a public health crisis,” McConnell said. “It’s our responsibility as parents and public servants to do everything we can to keep these harmful products out of high schools and out of youth culture.” A government survey found that last year 1 in 5 U.S. high school students reported vaping the previous month. “Today, we are coming together to side with young people’s health,” said Kaine, acknowledging the rarity for bipartisan legislation at a time when the two parties can seldom find middle ground. The bill quickly won the endorsement of the American Cancer Society. Its advocacy organization, the Cancer Action Network, said the measure was a “welcome indication that Congress is taking the alarming crisis of increased youth tobacco use seriously and is committed to taking action.” The group also warned the sponsors to resist amendments that could let the federal government pre-empt stronger measures by states and municipalities, exempt some young people or exclude certain products. A similar bill was introduced last month by Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Todd Young, R-Ind., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah. Most experts agree e-cigarettes are less harmful than the paper-and-tobacco variety because they don’t produce all the cancer-causing byproducts found in smoke. But researchers say they are only beginning to understand the risks of e-cigarettes, which they think may damage the lungs and contribute to precancerous growths. McConnell has long been involved in tobacco issues. He helped pass the 2004 tobacco buyout, when the government provided billions of dollars for growers who lost money with the end of federal price supports. Kentucky has the highest cancer mortality rate in the country, with nearly 186 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2017, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As health concerns about tobacco have grown in the U.S., demand and production of the crop have fallen in Kentucky, where it had long been a pillar of the state’s economy. Growers have been relying increasingly on industrial hemp, which McConnell has helped legalize. The CDC calls tobacco products the country’s top cause of preventable disease and death, with almost 40 million adult cigarette smokers. The agency says around 4.7 million middle school and high school students use at least one tobacco product, including e-cigarettes. Treating adults with smoking-related diseases costs the country nearly $170 billion annually for medical care. The country’s biggest tobacco company, Altria Group, has invested in the e-cigarette company Juul and has backed bills raising the minimum age for buying tobacco and vaping products to 21. Critics have suggested that support is aimed at forestalling tougher restrictions such as banning flavored vaping products and menthol cigarettes. ___ AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone contributed to this report.
|
11281
|
Studies: Statins Don’t Lower Cancer Risk
|
This article presented the findings from two studies indicating that statin medications used to manage cholesterol levels did not prevent development of breast, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer or death from these cancers. Overall, a balanced story.
|
true
|
Did not mention cost of treatment Mentioned lack of benefit from statins for this purpose; also provided some details of side effects of statins Provided a walk through the various types of clinical evidence. In addition to quoting study authors, a quote from an editorial in the journal in which one of the articles was published was provided. Did not mention other options for reducing cancer risks. Mentioned that statins are widely used and considered safe. Mentioned that use as cancer preventative would be an off-label use (i.e. drugs not approved for this purpose) Examined a new use for a class of medications (statins).
|
|
34601
|
Hanging plastic bags filled with water will repel flies.
|
Will hanging plastic bags filled with water repel flies from your area? Opinion is divided on that technique's effectiveness.
|
unproven
|
Critter Country, insects, Wild Inaccuracies
|
In the same vein as the oft-asserted claim that leaving bottles of water on one’s lawn will keep dogs from using that space as their personal lavatory is the belief that see-thru plastic bags filled with water and hung where flies can see them will keep those airborne pests at bay. Numerous folks swear by the practice, with restaurant operators from the Florida Keys to Texas numbering among that group. While the Internet-circulated how-to on repelling flies mandates the inclusion of four pennies in the bag, others who endorse the practice advocate placing only a single penny in each water-filled pouch, and others recommend using instead flakes of tin foil. However, the most common array of this sort is the unadorned bag of water, with such filled pouches to be either taped to one’s doors or suspended in areas where flies are a particular problem. As to whether this method works, some swear by it, while others who have tried it assert that such preventives don’t deter the flies one whit. Theories abound as to why such a practice might work. Some practitioners claim that flies perceive such bags as the surface of a large body of water and therefore avoid them. (This is a somewhat puzzling explanation, as flies are no strangers to ponds, puddles, lakes, and the like). Others maintain that the flies are scared off at seeing their own magnified reflections in the water bags. (Again, though, flies don’t seem to shy away from other types of surfaces that reflect and/or magnify their images.) The most common theory is that flies bases their sense of direction by where sunlight is coming from, and their complex eyes are overwhelmed and confused by the multi-directional refracted light produced by the bags, causing them to fly off rather than hang around. Science has yet to provide a definitive answer either way. In 2007, Mike Stringham, a North Carolina State University (NCSU) researcher, reported on his findings after spending 13 weeks studying the effects of water bags on flies at an egg-packing plant. After meticulously counting droppings left by flies on white “spot cards,” he concluded that the bags, rather than repelling the flying annoyances, actually attracted more of them. Said Stringham, “In the control room versus bags, the bags were consistently higher every time.” However, Stringham’s study was conducted indoors under fluorescent and incandescent lighting, a factor which may limit its applicability: it’s possible the effects of direct sunlight on the bags might produce a different result (as sunlight in outdoor environments varies and dances in ways that unwavering manmade sources of light do not). A December 2010 episode of Mythbusters found no significant difference between the number of flies attracted to a chamber holding both rotten meat and a plastic bag of water (without coins) and one which held only rotten meat. As with the NCSU experiment, however, the results might have been an artifact of the particular setup used rather than proof of a general truism. San Francisco Examiner columnist Richard Fagerlund (aka “Bugman”) has tackled this question (in a decidedly unscientific way) several times over the course of years: Q: At a Mississippi drive-in, I questioned the waitress about the bag of water over the door, thinking it might be a prank. I am 51 and had never come across this so I thought she was kidding when she told me it repelled flies. She was familiar with its use last summer and was convinced that it is a valid theory. I was motivated to look it up on the Internet. What can you tell me about it? A: This is a result of a column I wrote a number of years ago and is worth repeating. Fill a sandwich-size Ziploc bag about half full of water. Tape the top of the bag to the outside of your door. Replenish the water as needed. It is not clear why these water bags repel flies, but they do. I have gotten a ton of mail from all over the world when this column originally ran and the mail ran 9 to 1 saying this method worked. You may also get some questions from visitors as to why you have a Ziploc bag of water on your front door. Some possible answers are: It attracts flies. It scares flies. If it freezes, we know it’s cold outside. If it boils, we know it is hot outside. I don’t know, ask the Bug Man, it was his idea. When you drive around town, look for Ziploc bags on doors and you will know who reads this column. A possible explanation for the “bags of water repel flies” phenomenon is simple confirmation bias. When people put up bags of water and notice a decrease in the amount of flies hanging around (for reasons which are coincidental and have nothing to with any actual repellant qualities of the bags), they gleefully report far and wide that the method absolutely works. But when people try it and obtain no noticeable positive results, they tend to simply forget about it and move on without publicizing the outcome of their efforts.
|
7201
|
Jimmy Carter cautions Democrats not to scare off moderates.
|
Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don’t go too far to the left.
|
true
|
Health care reform, Universal health care, North America, Environment, Immigration, Elections, Atlanta, Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter, Presidential elections
|
“Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party,” Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats “move to a very liberal program, like universal health care.” That’s delicate — and, Carter acknowledged, even contradictory — advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. “Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past,” Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California’s environmental policies — limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards — as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must “appeal to independents” who are souring on the current administration. Trump’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don’t embrace the liberal base: “I don’t think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee,” and he insisted that he’s not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter’s analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy’s most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter’s latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a “public option” health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration’s latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump’s policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. “America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail,” Carter said, “but for the next two years, I can’t predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off — unfortunately.” Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he’s chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel’s investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. “I have his email address,” Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, “Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government.” Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he’s not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. “Let them be part of the community of nations,” he said. “I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea.” ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP
|
29625
|
A divorce between television psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw and his wife, Robin McGraw, is in the works.
|
"""I think it's the belief that you can't live in Hollywood and be happily married, but you can,"" Robin McGraw declared."
|
false
|
Entertainment
|
Even those who don’t watch daytime television are generally familiar with one of its most successful and ubiquitous practitioners, psychologist Phil McGraw. Better known as “Dr. Phil,” McGraw and his wife, Robin McGraw, “counsel millions of viewers on issues ranging from marriage and domestic abuse to addiction to weight loss” on their top-rated daily program. Dr. Phil’s popularity has brought him a fair share of criticism and made him the target of numerous celebrity rumors, the latter most frequently spread by the National Enquirer and its sister tabloid, who over the last few decades have published several dozen articles accusing “Dr. Phil (and sometimes Robin) of various indiscretions, from minutia like being a ‘ratings whore’ to personal turmoil such as a ‘secret divorce deal’ to outright felonies like sexual and child abuse.” So relentless has the National Enquirer’s gossip reporting on Dr. Phil been that in 2016, he and his wife filed a $250 million libel and malicious defamation lawsuit against the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. According to the Washington Post: [The lawsuit] claimed the publications specifically focused on the McGraws as a means to overcome financial instability. The lawsuit mostly focused on allegations from the tabloid that Dr. Phil abused his wife. It claims [AMI’s reporting] has hurt both their professional lives, which center on providing counseling, often to couples trying to save their marriages. But it included other examples as well. In one, the magazine “threatened” to write that a drunk Dr. Phil stood behind a man and smashed a beer mug over his head at a Lubbock, Tex., bar called the Copper Caboose while he was a student at Texas Tech University. The issue, according to the suit, is that the Copper Caboose didn’t open until six years after he’d moved away from the city — where he didn’t return until 2014 — and didn’t serve alcohol until 2009. The [Enquirer] said that much of [the] information it has published can be found in lawsuits filed against Dr. Phil. This is true, the lawsuit stated, but the tabloid arguably stated allegations as fact. The McGraws dismissed their lawsuit a few months later without providing any information about its ultimate resolution, but since then the Enquirer seems to have stopped reporting negative rumors about Dr. Phil in favor of offering sensationalist, promotional articles about guests on his show. Nonetheless, one piece of gossip-mongering that has never gone away is the claim that Dr. Phil and his wife of 43 years, the former Robin Jo Jameson, are headed for an imminent divorce — an event that, according to the Enquirer, was forestalled only due to a “secret divorce deal” over a supposed “tell-all book” authored by Robin: In the ultimate betrayal, Dr. Phil McGraw’s wife Robin is writing a tell-all book that exposes his darkest secrets, sources say. Robin’s “warts-and-all” memoir about their 32-year marriage could bring her a whopping $3 million advance, according to publishing insiders. “Phil believes he’s being betrayed,” a friend of the 58-year-old TV shrink told The ENQUIRER. “But at the same time, he feels he’s almost powerless to stop Robin! “Their marriage has been on shaky ground for some time, and he thinks that if he demands she not write the book, she will dump him for good.” And the self-help guru has plenty of reason to worry, said another source. “Robin reveals how Phil has humiliated her by his cheating and lying,” a friend of 55-year-old Robin told The ENQUIRER. “She’s also written about their secret divorce deal — which is already done — and disclosed the real reason he hates his talk-show mentor Oprah Winfrey!” Robin’s manuscript also reveals that the couple has already worked out a secret divorce pact, said her friend. “Phil knows Robin wants the success of a best-seller, but he’s confident he can dissuade her by giving her a payoff equal to the potential $3 million book advance she’d reap,” his friend told The ENQUIRER. “Phil can be very convincing, and he’s telling her it’s what’s best for their marriage. He thinks she’ll take the loot — ‘crazy money’ he calls it — and forget all about turning the manuscript into a book.” The Enquirer article quoted above was originally published in April 2009, but neither a Dr. Phil divorce nor the publication of a Robin McGraw-authored “tell-all book” has transpired in the more than 10 years since then. Although Dr. Phil continues to be dogged by divorce rumors, nothing other than tabloid reporting suggests such rumors have any substance to them. The McGraws addressed (and denied) tabloid reports of a pending divorce on their show as far back as 2008, as transcribed on the Dr. Phil website: During the summer, pictures of Dr. Phil and Robin were all over the tabloids, which claim they were getting a divorce. With Robin’s seat in the audience vacant, Dr. Phil says, “I am not getting a divorce. Trust me; she’s here.” Robin joins him onstage. “See, I’m married,” she says, showing her wedding ring. “Isn’t she cute? We just celebrated our 32nd anniversary,” Dr. Phil says proudly. Robin says she’s shocked that strangers would write lies about something that is so precious to her and Dr. Phil. “It really bothers me, because you know what? I’m not even mad at him, and they have me divorcing him!” she says. Dr. Phil shows a recent photo in a tabloid which shows him carrying a bag, allegedly full of personal effects. The headline claims that Robin kicked him out, when in actuality, he was holding his tennis bag. “I’d think if I was going to move out, I’d take more stuff than this,” he jokes. Another tabloid photo showed a moving van in front of their house, loading up a large mirror. Robin and Dr. Phil explain that they were having their house remodeled while they were on vacation. “What you have to understand about tabloids is that what they print about public figures — and we are considered public figures — does not have to be true,” Dr. Phil says. “What they do is they go find anybody, and they pay them to be a source. These sources are always anonymous. It’s always, ‘A friend’ said this, ‘a friend’ said that. They are not friends; they are cowards. They won’t step up and show their face. They just do it because if your face and a scandal will sell newspapers, you’re going to be on it.” “I think it’s the belief that you can’t live in Hollywood and be happily married, but you can,” Robin says. “One of the things that’s really insulting to me is, if I was getting a divorce, it would be filed at the courthouse, and I would say so. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. People get divorced every day,” Dr. Phil says. “I would hate it. I would ask for your prayers and support. And if I got kicked out …” “Don’t take the mirror!” Robin quips. “Anyway, we’re not getting a divorce,” Dr. Phil reiterates. In 2012, Dr. Phil again denounced divorce rumors from “stupid tabloids,” this time during an appearance on the “Rachael Ray Show”: [My wife] lost both of her parents close together at a very young time in her life, and she said to me one day sitting on the end of the bed, ‘You know, I’m now an orphan, I’ve got no people.’ That’s the day I told her, ‘That’s not true. Look me in the eye and let me tell you I will never leave you.’ She believed it that day and it’s something we take very seriously, which is why I just shake my head at these stupid tabloids — we are not getting a divorce, and for them to obsess on something that is so at the core definition of our family is just astounding to me. As recently as September 2019, Robin posted a “Happy Birthday” message to Phil on Instagram, including a photograph of the two of them posing in front of the famous pop art “Love” sculpture, describing her husband as her “forever love,” and proclaiming that “I love you more and more with every birthday”: 💋Happy birthday to my forever love @drphil!! !💋 I love you more and more with every birthday! ❤️❤️❤️Everyone go wish my husband a happy birthday!!! #ILoveYou #BetterWithAge A post shared by Robin McGraw (@robin_mcgraw) on Sep 1, 2019 at 6:30am PDT Obviously we cannot say with absolute certainty that any couple will not divorce at some point in the future. But although divorce rumors have swirled around the McGraws for 15 years or more, those rumors appear to be driven by nothing more than fabricated tabloid gossip, and the McGraws have expressed no interest or intent in divorcing, have vehemently denied such rumors multiple times, continue to work closely together, and present the outward appearance of a long-wedded couple who remain happy in their marriage: Life is good 😎 A post shared by Robin McGraw (@robin_mcgraw) on Jul 30, 2019 at 6:22am PDT
|
34084
|
Juliane Koepcke survived 10 days alone in the Amazon rainforest after falling nearly two miles during a plane crash.
|
"What's true: Juliane Koepcke was the lone survivor of a plane crash in 1971. What's undetermined: The origins of a viral image frequently attached to Juliane Koepcke's story are unknown. This photograph most likely shows an actress in the movie about Koepcke, ""Miracles Still Happen,"" not Koepcke herself."
|
true
|
Viral Phenomena
|
The amazing story of teenager Juliane Koepcke has served as the basis of a full-length feature film, a documentary, and a book. Most internet users, however, have probably heard of Koepcke in the form of an internet meme featuring a photograph supposedly showing the 17-year-old plane crash survivor and a short piece of text summarizing her story: 17 year-old Juliane Koepcke was sucked out of an airplane in 1971 after it was struck by a bolt of lightning. She fell 2 miles to the ground, strapped to her seat and survived after she endured 10 days in the Amazon Jungle While the story of Koepcke is undoubtedly true, we have a few unanswered questions about this photograph. This image most likely doesn’t show Koepcke, but an actress from the 1974 movie about Koepcke, “Miracles Still Happen.” On Christmas Eve, 1971, Koepcke boarded LANSA Flight 508 (a Lockheed L-188A Electra turboprop plane) with her mother and 84 other passengers. The flight left from Lima, Peru, and was scheduled to land in Pucallpa, Peru, but was struck by a bolt of lighting. The plane went into a nose dive, broke into pieces, and Koepcke, who was still strapped to her seat, soon found herself outside of the plane plummeting approximately 9,000 feet (about 1.7 miles) into the Amazon jungle. Koepcke talked to the BBC about the ordeal in 2012: When we saw lightning around the plane, I was scared. My mother and I held hands but we were unable to speak. Other passengers began to cry and weep and scream. After about 10 minutes, I saw a very bright light on the outer engine on the left. My mother said very calmly: “That is the end, it’s all over.” Those were the last words I ever heard from her. The plane jumped down and went into a nose-dive. It was pitch black and people were screaming, then the deep roaring of the engines filled my head completely. Suddenly the noise stopped and I was outside the plane. I was in a freefall, strapped to my seat bench and hanging head-over-heels. The whispering of the wind was the only noise I could hear. I felt completely alone. I could see the canopy of the jungle spinning towards me. Then I lost consciousness and remember nothing of the impact. Later I learned that the plane had broken into pieces about two miles above the ground. I woke the next day and looked up into the canopy. The first thought I had was: “I survived an air crash.” Koepcke was seriously injured in the fall. She broke her collar bone, had deep cuts on her arms and legs, and had torn a ligament in her knee that made it difficult for her to walk. If there was one thing Koepcke had on her side, it was the fact that she had some experience in the jungle. Her parents worked at a research station in the Amazon and in the year before the crash where she “learned a lot about life in the rainforest” and found that it wasn’t the “green hell that the world always thinks.” Koepcke spent 10 days alone in the jungle. She traveled down a small stream, thinking that it was her safest option, and eventually came across a boat and a path leading into the rainforest. Koepcke, who said that she was almost too weak to walk by the end of the ordeal, pushed forward into the jungle until she found a small hut. After cleaning her wounds with gasoline, she fell asleep. The next day, she was found by villagers and soon thereafter was rescued: By the 10th day I couldn’t stand properly and I drifted along the edge of a larger river I had found. I felt so lonely, like I was in a parallel universe far away from any human being. I thought I was hallucinating when I saw a really large boat. When I went to touch it and realised it was real, it was like an adrenaline shot. But [then I saw] there was a small path into the jungle where I found a hut with a palm leaf roof, an outboard motor and a litre of gasoline. I had a wound on my upper right arm. It was infested with maggots about one centimetre long. I remembered our dog had the same infection and my father had put kerosene in it, so I sucked the gasoline out and put it into the wound. The pain was intense as the maggots tried to get further into the wound. I pulled out about 30 maggots and was very proud of myself. I decided to spend the night there. The next day I heard the voices of several men outside. It was like hearing the voices of angels. The crash of Lansa Flight 508 is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the “Highest death toll (91) caused by lightning (in-flight).” While Koepcke was the only person to ultimately survive the ordeal, there’s evidence that some other passengers (including Koepcke’s mother) survived the initial crash. They were unable to seek out help as the teen had, however, and perished before rescue crews arrived. Here’s an article from Dec. 29, 1971, about the crash: Wed, Dec 29, 1971 – Page 34 · The Indianapolis Star (Indianapolis, Indiana) · Newspapers.com And here’s an article from Jan. 4, 1972, about Koepcke’s rescue: Tue, Jan 4, 1972 – Page 21 · The Daily Times-News (Burlington, North Carolina) · Newspapers.com Tue, Jan 4, 1972 – Page 22 · The Daily Times-News (Burlington, North Carolina) · Newspapers.com The story of Koepcke is undoubtedly true. However, it’s unlikely that the photograph that frequently accompanies this claim truly shows her during this harrowing ordeal. Although we have been unable to definitively determine the origins of this photograph, it most likely shows actress Susan Penhaligon in a promotional image for the 1974 movie “Miracles Still Happen,” a dramatization of Koepcke’s story. Here’s a comparison between the viral image (left) and a still of Penhaligon as Koepcke in the 1974 movie: We’ve reached out to Penhaligon and will update this article when more information becomes available.
|
41823
|
Amazing, but not shocking at all anymore. Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens.
|
Amid a contentious Florida recount, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a six-year-old, and outdated, story to suggest hundreds of thousands of noncitizens could have voted in the state. The story includes an update saying just 85 noncitizens were ultimately removed from the state’s voter rolls in 2012.
|
false
|
voter fraud, voting by noncitizens,
|
Amid a contentious Florida recount, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a six-year-old, and outdated, story to suggest hundreds of thousands of noncitizens could have voted in the state. The story includes an update saying just 85 noncitizens were ultimately removed from the state’s voter rolls in 2012.On Nov. 12, Trump Jr. tweeted the “Amazing, but not shocking at all anymore” headline from an NBC Miami story that said, “Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens.” But an editor’s note posted to the top of the story before he tweeted about it made clear that the figure from state officials turned out to be deeply flawed.Amazing, but not shocking at all anymore. Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens https://t.co/8HiObPLeeM via @nbc6— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 12, 2018The story, written by the Associated Press, originates with an effort by Republican Gov. Rick Scott to direct state officials to search out noncitizens on Florida’s voter rolls, and to purge them prior to the 2012 elections. (Scott is now locked in a razor-close race to unseat Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.) Using a state database of driver’s licenses, the state initially came up with a list of about 180,000 names of people on the state’s voting rolls who might not be citizens. Noncitizens are not legally allowed to vote in federal elections.That was the basis for the headline in the May 11, 2012, story posted on the NBC Miami website, “2012 Election: Nearly 200,000 Voters May Not Be Citizens.”But readers of Trump Jr.’s tweet only need to click on the link he included to see the editor’s note explaining how that number turned out to be wildly off.NBC Miami, Editor’s note on Nov. 12, 2018: This story was published in May 2012.The initial list of 180,000 names was whittled to 2,625, according to the Florida Department of State. The state then checked a federal database and stated it found 207 noncitizens on the rolls (not necessarily voting but on the rolls). That list was sent to county election supervisors to check and it also turned out to contain errors. An Aug. 1, 2012, state elections document showed only 85 noncitizens were ultimately removed from the rolls out of a total of about 12 million voters at that time.The original list from state officials was rife with errors. One major flaw: The driver’s license database didn’t include when legal residents later became citizens.The list sparked a 2012 lawsuit. Two of the plaintiffs, Karla Arcia, a Nicaraguan immigrant, and Melande Antoine, who is a Haitian American, found themselves on the list even though both are naturalized citizens who were eligible to vote in the 2012 elections.As the original NBC Miami story explains, the initial list of about 180,000 names was later reduced to about 2,600 (which turned out to include an American war veteran). That list was later pared to 207 when checked against a federal database. County elections supervisors found errors in that list too, and when PolitiFact Florida in 2013 asked the division of elections for data, it provided a list of just 85 “noncitizens” ultimately removed from voter rolls. (It was unclear how many of those people may have actually voted illegally. )“It was sloppy, it was slapdash and it was inaccurate,” said Polk County Supervisor of Elections Lori Edwards in 2013 of the original list of 180,000 names. “They were sending us names of people to remove because they were born in Puerto Rico. It was disgusting.”The Scott administration scrapped plans in 2014 to revive efforts to purge noncitizens from voter rolls.“What we have seen from past efforts is that it has not been successful in identifying ineligible voters,” Deirdre Macnab, president of the Florida League of Voters, said at the time.As we have written, President Donald Trump has repeatedly complained about widespread illegal voting by noncitizens, citing a disputed study and warning just prior to the 2016 president election that their votes could swing the outcome of his race. The president has cited research by Old Dominion University Professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest, who extrapolated data from a national election survey in which some people self-identified as noncitizens, but indicated that they voted. They estimated somewhere between 38,000 and 2.8 million noncitizens voted illegally in 2008.But as we wrote, that study has been strongly challenged by other academics, including the managers of the database from which the study drew. Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard and the principal investigator of the voter database told us the findings about noncitizen voters were likely “entirely due to measurement error” — people who accidentally check the wrong box in surveys. The Washington Post‘s “Monkey Cage” blog, which published an article by the Old Dominion professors about their research, later linked to three rebuttals of it.The Old Dominion research was highlighted by Republican Kris Kobach — the Kansas secretary of state who recently lost a race to be the state’s governor — in a federal court case in Kansas City earlier this year that sought to prove rampant illegal voting by noncitizens. According to an in-depth Pro Publica story on the trial, the judge in the case, Julie Robinson, called the conclusions of the study “confusing, inconsistent and methodologically flawed.” Robinson found “no credible evidence that a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote” in Kansas.Trump tapped Kobach to be vice chairman of the since-disbanded Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity — which was to examine “fraudulent voting,” among other issues. The commission was dissolved just months after it was created, and there has been no evidence to date of widespread fraud.To be sure, there have been some cases of noncitizens voting illegally. As we wrote previously, a 2015 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation documented fewer than a dozen individual cases of noncitizens convicted of registering or actually voting since 2000. And in Texas, a city councilwoman, was sentenced in 2007 to five years in prison for registering noncitizens to vote.But such cases are rare, experts told us. Sarah Pierce, an associate policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, said there’s very little evidence of it, in part because the disincentives are enormous. It is illegal for an unauthorized immigrant to vote, and it is a deportable offense that makes a person permanently inadmissible for return to the U.S., she said.
|
4107
|
Louisiana: Fewest new HIV infections in more than 10 years.
|
New HIV diagnoses dropped last year to their lowest number in Louisiana in more than a decade — and possibly even a generation, the state Department of Health said Tuesday.
|
true
|
Health, Louisiana, Infectious diseases, General News
|
There were 989 new diagnoses in 2018, compared to at least 1,000 every year since 2006, according to the department’s Bureau of Infectious Diseases. There were 964 new cases in 2005 and 982 in 2006, but a state report said those numbers were low because so many people left and testing was disrupted after the hurricanes of August and September 2005. “It is quite possible that the number of new HIV cases reported in Louisiana in 2005 and 2006 were artificially low due to reporting challenges resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” Dr. Alexander Billioux, head of the Office of Public Health, said in the news release. “We know these storms had a big impact on the state’s health services at that time. Since there had not been fewer than 1,000 people with HIV diagnosed each year since 1988, it is quite possible that today’s number is the lowest in a generation.” As of the end of March, 11,125 Louisiana residents were living with AIDS and another 10,994 with HIV, according to the state’s most recent quarterly report . Billioux (bee-yoo) said there’s an encouraging increase in the number of people with HIV who get linked to medical care within 30 days. “With fewer new cases and more people getting care, the trends are very positive for the future,” he said. Treatment can now push the virus to undetectable levels, and routine HIV screening has increased around the state, Billioux said. “This provides even more support for importance of knowing your status and taking control of your infection to suppress the virus in the body,” he said. “As we have said before, undetectable equals untransmittable.”
|
7992
|
Tokyo records most new coronavirus cases in a day as pressure for lockdown builds.
|
Japan’s capital recorded more than 70 new coronavirus infections on Tuesday for its highest tally in a single day, as pressure mounted on the prime minister to order a lockdown.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Japanese cases topped 2,000, and public broadcaster NHK said 78 cases in Tokyo took its tally of infections past 500. Media reports said 7 people in the city had died, five at one hospital. “This is the greatest increase up to now and is certainly of high concern, and I’m worried about what tomorrow’s figures might show,” Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike said. A government spokesman said Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told cabinet members he and his second-in-command, Taro Aso, would no longer attend the same meetings to protect the leadership from infection. But the two were later shown at the same gathering - although wearing masks and sitting apart. Last week, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was obliged to switch to running the country from isolation after testing positive for the virus. Economy Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura said Japan was not yet in a situation that required a state of emergency, triggering a potential lockdown, although the situation was precarious. “We’re just barely holding it together,” Nishimura told reporters. “If we loosen our grip even a little, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a sudden surge.” Infections have now exceeded 770,000 worldwide, with more than 37,000 deaths, as confirmed cases in the United States, Italy and Spain overtake mainland China, where the virus originated late last year. In Tokyo, there has been intense speculation that a lockdown could come soon, fueled by the rising number of cases. The national total edged past 2,000 infections after a center for disabled people in Chiba prefecture, east of Tokyo, found seven more infections. There have been 66 deaths. With limited testing in Japan, there are questions about how widely the virus has spread. About 7.1% of nearly 64,000 respondents said they had at least one virus symptom, such as high fever or a bad cough, between Friday and Monday, according to a survey of users in Tokyo and neighboring prefectures run by the chat app Line (3938.T) and the health ministry. Such symptoms do not by themselves prove infection. But the 4,500 people who reported symptoms in the survey was markedly higher than Tokyo’s official figure of 443 infections by Monday. Only last Tuesday, with a lockdown already in the offing, Japan and Olympic authorities gave in to pressure from athletes and sporting bodies worldwide to delay Tokyo’s 2020 Summer Games for a year. Some businesses in the capital are moving to curtail operations even ahead of a lockdown. On Tuesday, department store operator Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd (3099.T) said it would close six stores in Tokyo on weekends through April 12. Koshidaka Holdings (2157.T), an operator of karaoke and hot spring outlets, said it would close 200 karaoke outlets until April 13. But any lockdown in Japan would look different from mandatory measures in some parts of Europe and the United States. Laws limit local authorities to requesting people to stay at home. Tokyo Governor Koike has asked residents to avoid unnecessary outings, while her counterpart in the second biggest city of Osaka felt the government should declare a state of emergency, media said. The government said it would seek data from wireless carriers, such as statistics on people’s movements, to help gauge the effectiveness of a voluntary request. A director of Japan’s top organization of doctors urged that an emergency be declared before it was too late. Development of medicines and vaccines would be crucial to contain the virus, Abe told Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, in a telephone call on Monday. Japan intends to promote clinical research on an anti-flu medicine called Favipiravir with other countries as a treatment, Abe said. The drug, also known as Avigan, was developed by Fujifilm Holdings Corp (4901.T), shares of which closed up 2.2%, after having risen as much as 6.6% in Tokyo. The company later said in a statement it was starting a Phase III clinical trial in Japan of the drug for the coronavirus. (Graphic: Tracking and explaining the new coronavirus, here)
|
10735
|
Ear Infections: New Thinking on What to Do
|
"The story did a good job of explaining that many ear infections will clear up on their own and that overuse of antibiotics can cause problems. However, it should have done more to answer the questions that many parents will probably have about this issue, including whether the ""observation option"" discussed in the story leads to a slower recovery or increases the risk of a more serious infection. Finally, the story should have explored why it is important to try to prevent the spread of drug-resistant bacteria. Ear infections often will clear up without the use of antibiotics, but children must be monitored carefully to make sure the infection doesn’t worsen and cause potentially serious complications. Educating consumers about this balance can help assure appropriate care for kids with ear infections while also prolonging the effectiveness of our existing stable of antibiotics."
|
mixture
|
"Providing early antibiotics vs. observation is an issue with cost implications for patients and the health care system. The story doesn’t mention costs. The story states that the primary benefit of delaying antibiotic treatment is to prevent resistance to antibiotics. This is true, but the story provides no specifics regarding the scope or expected magnitude of this benefit. The story should have provided at least some reference to what can happen to us individually, and as a society, when microbes develop antibiotic resistance. It also could have mentioned that antibiotics can have adverse effects that might be avoided through observation instead of early treatment. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of ear infections. The story quotes two experts who don’t appear to have financial conflicts regarding the subject matter in the article. The story notes that doctors used to give antibiotics immediately upon making an ear infection diagnosis. It states that this practice is changing due to research showing that most untreated ear infections will clear up on their own. In addition to the issue of early antibiotics vs. observation, there is also the question of which antibiotic to use. The increased use of broad-spectrum antibiotics as first line agents is likely to aggravate issues with bacterial resistance. This could have been mentioned.The article also could have mentioned the variety of alternative and home remedies that are used for the treatment of ear infections, but in all likelihood these treatments would have little if any evidence to support them—so this omission is acceptable. The widespread use of antibiotics is clear from the one expert’s quote: ""Until eight or nine years ago, we’d treat each ear infection at diagnosis."" The story does not appear to be based on any news release that we could identify."
|
|
34576
|
The maternal death rate in Texas has spiked in recent years due to funding cuts for reproductive health clinics.
|
What's true: Researchers identified a spike in maternal mortality in Texas between 2011 and 2014, while state statistics demonstrated a steady climb in such deaths beginning in approximately 2003. What's false: Researchers did not demonstrate a direct correlation between reproductive health laws in Texas and the maternal mortality rate. What's undetermined: The impact of funding cuts on Texas' maternal mortality rate between 2011 and 2014;, and what factors led to steady increases prior to those legislative actions.
|
unproven
|
Uncategorized, maternal mortality, maternal mortality in texas, texas
|
On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes): The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world. The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000 — or about 27%. But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain “in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval”. From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texas’s estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies. No other state saw a comparable increase. The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas’ unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas): In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texas’s reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the state’s family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services — such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams — to only half as many women as before. Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas’ legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data: Apparently, the researchers did some adjusting of their own. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), maternal mortality rates have been alarmingly increasing for years. That “modest increase,” lead researcher Marian MacDorman imagines, was a huge increase. In 2000, the MMR was 10.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (equating to 30 tragic deaths). By 2009, this rate had nearly tripled to 28.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (resulting in 116 deaths). That’s a “modest increase”? In 2010, the MMR actually decreased to 24.6. Then, MacDorman et al claimed: “Texas had a sudden increase in 2011-2012.” If by sudden they mean over ten years of significant increases … sure. They completely ignored the fact that from 2010 to 2011, the MMR rose from 24.6 to 30.7 (an increase of about 25 percent). From 2011 to 2012, the increase was only 3%, rising to a rate of 31.6 … not doubling! That didn’t stop Slate.com and a host of media outlets from declaring: “After Texas Slashed Its Family Planning Budget, Maternal Deaths Almost Doubled.” In 2013 it rose another 25 percent to 39.5 (claiming the lives of 153 women). Here’s the clincher, though. Texas’ MMR dropped in 2014 in rate and total maternal deaths. Neither the “peer-reviewed” study nor any of the leftists in the news media mention this. Both items cited the study, titled “Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate” published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study’s title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality: To develop methods for trend analysis of vital statistics maternal mortality data, taking into account changes in pregnancy question formats over time and between states, and to provide an overview of U.S. maternal mortality trends from 2000 to 2014. Similarly, its conclusion singled out no state by name and made no specific reference to Texas: Despite the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, the estimated maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, DC, increased from 2000 to 2014; the international trend was in the opposite direction. There is a need to redouble efforts to prevent maternal deaths and improve maternity care for the 4 million U.S. women giving birth each year. Texas’ second namecheck in the study was benign, noting that the overall rate of maternal mortality was so low that only California and Texas served as sources of by-state data — due not to their specific outcomes, but to the size of their populations: It would be preferable to analyze data individually for each state; however, maternal death is a rare event, and the number of cases (396 U.S. deaths in 2000 and 856 in 2014) was not sufficient to support individual state analysis for all but the most populous states (California and Texas). But the “Results” portion of the introductory page noted that California’s and Texas’ statistics trended differently and provided a primary finding that colored media coverage of the findings: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 2011–2012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported. Much of the research hinged on pinpointing and adjusting for what was described as “the pregnancy question” (which was “added to the 2003 revision of the U.S. standard death certificate”), defined by the World Health Organization as death certificate language recording “The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes.” The WHO also provided for late maternal deaths via a separate but similar checkbox: “The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy.” Although the phrasing “termination of pregnancy” typically is understood to mean “an abortion” in layman’s speech, the researchers and WHO used it to mean the end of a pregnancy via live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion. Researchers noted that state-by-state adoption of the pregnancy question vis a vis death records led to findings that required some adjustment to reach conclusions. While some states immediately adopted the guideline in 2003, others waited years. By January 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia included the question on their death certificates; that incongruous state-by-state data pool led to efforts on the researchers’ parts to calibrate the data and parse it. The study noted that Texas (which adopted the question in 2006) demonstrated results that led to “uncertainty” in the final report: California is the only state that revised their death certificate with a pregnancy question inconsistent with the U.S. standard. The California question only asks about pregnancies within the past year. In addition, there were changes over time in specific data provided by California to the National Center for Health Statistics for deaths at less than 42 days, making use of this measure impracticable. Thus, maternal and late maternal deaths were combined for the California trend analysis. Finally, we estimated maternal mortality rates for 48 states and the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2014. California and Texas were excluded from this estimation: California because it does not provide comparable data and Texas as a result of uncertainty regarding recent trends (see “Results”). In that section, researchers described Texas’ atypical spike in maternal mortality and noted that the laws in question were not likely sufficient to account for the spike (referencing a “future study” to obtain more information on Texas): Texas had an unrevised question about pregnancies in the past 12 months and revised to the U.S. standard question in 2006. Adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas show only a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, from a rate of 17.7 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2010. The slope of this regression line was 0.12 (95% CI 20.22 to 0.46) (564 maternal deaths and 4,246,835 live F4 births) (Fig. 4). However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states. Joinpoint trend analysis was done separately for the 2000–2010 and the 2011–2014 periods because the trends for these two periods differed widely. The Texas data are puzzling in that they show a modest increase in maternal mortality from 2000 to 2010 (slope 0.12) followed by a doubling within a 2- year period in the reported maternal mortality rate. In 2006, Texas revised its death certificate, including the addition of the U.S. standard pregnancy question, and also implemented an electronic death certificate. However, the 2006 changes did not appreciably affect the maternal mortality trend after adjustment, and the doubling in the rate occurred in 2011–2012. Texas cause-of-death data, like with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase. There were some changes in the provision of women’s health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several women’s health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by race–ethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding. The study’s introduction cited “[e]arlier studies [which] identified significant underreporting of maternal deaths in the National Vital Statistics System,” reiterating in its “Discussion” section that variations by state impeded the research: For example, had the National Center for Health Statistics and the Texas vital statistics office both been publishing annual maternal mortality rates, the unusual findings from Texas for 2011–2014 would certainly have been investigated much sooner and in greater detail. The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren’t yet confident that slashed funding for women’s healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was “an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.” Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle: I think everybody is at a loss to understand why Texas saw such an increase in maternal mortality rate. We posited that the documented changes in provisions in women’s health services happened in this same time period, but it’s hard to know—in the absence of in-depth case review of maternal mortality data in Texas—how that lined up with those changes. As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn’t appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths): So the September 2016 study on the United States’ maternal mortality rate published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology identified a steady increase in maternal deaths in Texas and cited state laws and funding as a potential (not proven) factor in that post-2011 uptick. But study authors bemoaned a lack of comprehensive record-keeping nationwide that impeded research, and the first year maternal deaths began increasing in Texas was 2003 (before clinics were affected by legislative efforts to reduce abortion).
|
37859
|
California's Department of Social Services issued a letter to MediCal and CalFresh recipients, ordering families to undergo immediate COVID-19 testing or their kids would be put into foster care.
|
Is the California Department of Social Services Mandating COVID-19 Testing for Eligible Families — and Threatening to Place Children in Foster Care?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
In early May 2020, a letter attributed to California’s Department of Social Services circulated on Facebook. It purportedly mandated that recipients of programs like MediCal and CalFresh immediately submit to testing for COVID-19 antigens or antibodies — or lose their benefits. Further, the letter stated that if recipients tested positive, any children in the household would be taken away and placed in temporary foster care:Many different iterations of the COVID-19 testing letter attributed to California’s Department of Social Services appeared on Facebook — and while they were cropped differently, all iterations were redacted in an identical fashion. It read:As a participant in state assistance benefits, including cash aid, Cal Fresh, and MediCal, and in accordance with The State of California Emergency Order Numbers 3.21.20-EO-N-35-20 and N-25-20, you are being informed that COVID-19 testing is declared mandatory for all members of your household receiving assistance.You may receive the test free of charge [at] any of the participating sites in Merced County, California. Please refer to the attached pamphlet for testing sites and information related to COVID-19 testing. Appointments are required for testing. You can register online [link] or by calling 1 (888) 634-1123. Tests will be performed Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.Failure to obtain a test by June 1, 2020, will result in the temp0rary suspension of your benefits beginning July 1, 2020, and continue until such time that testing is c0mpleted. In addition, should you test p0sitive for COVID-19, and in c0mpliance with the State of California Welfare and Institutions Code, The Humans [sic] Services Agency of Merced County may deem it necessary to remove all children (under the age of 18) from your household who have tested negative, and place them in temporary foster care until such time that you have been determined to be recovered.Please feel free to contact your case worker, [redacted] with any questions you have regarding this notice.As we transcribed the letter, we noticed several odd turns of phrase, as well as word omissions and other minor errors (misrendering “CalFresh” as “Cal Fresh,” for example) — not the sort of sloppiness you might expect to see in such volume in official correspondence. Further, it was likely that a letter such as the one seen above — dated May 6 2020 — would attract considerable attention and outcry.However, copies of the letter did not vary in their redactions, suggesting that just one copy was circulating via many individual social media users. Any variations were in the form of additions to the version seen above, or external photographs taken of the image on a computer screen:A reverse image search showed that a copy of the letter was uploaded before May 10 2020 to 4chan’s /pol/, but it was unclear if the letter originated on that site, which is known for its users’ frequent hoaxes and attempts to bamboozle the media.Whatever its source, the letter was definitively a cruel prank and not a legitimate message from the state. On May 10 2020, the California Department of Social Services issued a notice about the hoax:The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has become aware of a fake letter containing references to Merced County Human Services Agency that is circulating on social media.If you have info about the source of the letter, please contact CDSS at (916) 651-8848 or [email protected]An appended link led to a longer explanation, referenced the domain mentioned in the hoax letter (lhi.care) and stated, in part:Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Information Beware of Fake LetterWe have become aware of a fake letter containing references to Merced County Human Services Agency that is circulating on social media. It includes the faked signature of a state official. The letter tells clients they must get tested for COVID-19 in order to continue their benefits. It also tells clients that if they test positive, their children will be removed into foster care. The letter asks people to visit a website, as well. The letter, its contents, and the website are fake.We have alerted the appropriate county authorities for investigation. If you receive this letter, please disregard it. State departments and county human services departments NEVER will ask about your health status in connection to an application for benefits. Similarly, children must be subject to abuse or neglect to enter foster care. Children cannot be put into foster care just because a parent may be ill.If you have helpful information about the source of the letter, or if anyone has questions or concerns about the authenticity of materials from the Department, please contact us at: (916) 651-8848 or [email protected] We would appreciate your assistance in protecting Californians during this difficult time.Many readers were understandably alarmed by an official looking letter, purportedly from the California Department of Social Services, demanding recipients of assistance be tested for COVID-19 under threat of losing their benefits or their children. California’s Department of Social Services quickly addressed the hoax and asked for help in identifying its creators. None of the claims were true, and the letter represented a form of corrosive disinformation intended to sow still more fear during a period of national crisis.Comments
|
1993
|
Unhealthy Russians think they're in good shape.
|
Most Russians overestimate how healthy they are and many run high health risks by smoking, abusing alcohol, being obese and failing to take enough exercise, according to a report published on Tuesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
A drunk man lies in the hallway of a housing estate outside the Siberian city of Tomsk some 3500 km (2175 miles) east of Moscow June 5, 2008. REUTERS/Thomas Peter A survey by the Association of International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (AIPM) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) found that about 95 percent of Russians think they are in good or fair health, while only 44 percent saw a doctor last year. This could be one of the main reasons why diagnosis of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancers and diabetes is low, the researchers said. Such illnesses are also known as non-communicable diseases, or NCDs, and are the cause of the majority of deaths across the world. “Heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancers and chronic respiratory disease together are responsible for 80 percent of all deaths in Russia,” said Vladimir Shipkov, AIPM’s executive director. “There is a significant gap between what people think is their state of health and the negative impact of their actual behavior.” The survey also found that most Russians know about links between the incidence of chronic disease and risk factors such as smoking, harmful drinking, unhealthy diets and low levels of physical activity. But respondents to the survey tended to perceive these risks as a part of their regular lifestyle, the researchers said. The survey found that between one and three key risk factors feature in the everyday life of 82 percent of respondents, and only 9 percent could say that they had no risk factors. The survey also found that doctors could be an important factor in changing these unhealthy habits — with more than 50 percent of respondents saying they were ready to give up risk factors if a doctor told them their health was at risk. “This study is very important in terms of preventing NCDs from spreading further, because the fight against non-communicable diseases starts on a personal level. Half of deaths and disability cases caused by NCDs can be prevented,” said Mario Ottiglio of IFPMA. He said the survey showed how it “makes sense to put considerable efforts into prevention programs.” “The benefits reaped would not limit themselves to improved health for individuals...There would also be relief from the mounting pressure on health care systems and the economic burden of such diseases on society as a whole,” he added.
|
8983
|
New hope for patients with incurable and disabling hand condition, Dupuytren's disease
|
The headline of this news release promises “new hope” for patients with Depuytren’s disease: a disabling hand condition characterized by progressive contracting of the fingers into a clawlike deformity. The cause is unknown, the course of the disease is often gradually progressive, and there’s no curative treatment. The study highlighted in the release only shows chemical changes over two weeks in 28 subjects. It can’t show (or promise) clinical improvements in patients’ hand deformities. The key question for patients is: “will this therapy decrease the frequency or severity of the disabling finger contractures?” The news release doesn’t make it clear enough that the study looked at the level of genetic markers associated with myofibroblasts and that these markers (called “surrogate markers“) may not even affect how the disease progresses clinically. The news release also falls short in discussing costs, potential harms, alternative nonsurgical treatments, and significant financial conflicts of interest among most of the study authors. For the lead authors — who stand to benefit from patents related to this therapy — to dangle “new hope” at this very preliminary stage of laboratory research is premature and arguably irresponsible. Depuytren’s disease can be very disabling and very difficult to treat. Progressive cases are mostly managed by chemical or surgical attempts to break tightening knots or cords of abnormal tissue that pull the fingers into a clawlike deformity. Even with treatment recurrence is common. The premise of this therapy is that injecting the hands of patients with an anti-TNF drug (Humira) may decrease the proliferation of two cell types (fibroblasts and myofibroblasts) and, in turn, improve the disease. An early treatment, before Depuyten advances, would not only be a boon to patients, but a financial boon to developers (like the lead authors of this study).
|
false
|
Dupuytren's disease,University of Oxford
|
The cost of a single 40 mg injection of the the anti-TNF (tumor necrosis factor) drug, adalimumab (brand name, Humira) isn’t mentioned. Given the level of the research at the moment, the durability of what can best be described as a change in a surrogate marker is unknown. Although the cost of 40mg of Humira is around $5,000 for two 40mg/0.8ml pens, according to GoodRx, the true cost of this potential treatment is unknown but likely to be costly. According to the release, a single injection of Humira “results in the reduction of the cell characteristics responsible for progression of Depuytren’s disease.” This is vague, misleading, and inaccurate because what causes progression in this disabling hand disease is unknown, and most certainly can not be definitively attributed to “cell characteristics.” The study was designed to better understand the impact of adalimumab on local level of several disease markers namely myofibroblast phenotype and collagen production in excised nodule samples and not necessarily on disease progression. The results were far from as conclusive as the report would suggest with only one marker demonstrating a difference over placebo at the highest dose level. It’s mentioned the researchers “found the drug to be safe and well tolerated.” The associated research paper mentions “there were two serious adverse advents, both considered unrelated to the study drug.” But no further information is provided. The release could have been more informative regarding potential harms from the drug. Humira has been documented to cause a host of side-effects. It carries a black box warning for compromising immunity, and has been reported to make people more prone to tuberculosis and skin cancer. Of note, these side effects were noted in patients given subcutaneous Humira. The Humira in this study was administered locally in the hand, which could be less likely to cause systemic side effects. The news release does not make it clear enough that this study relies on changes in surrogate markers after injection in a very small number (n=28) of subjects. Whether this laboratory finding will translate into meaningful clinical outcomes for patients — such as decreasing the frequency or severity of subsequent muscle tightening and shortening — is not addressed, and is what would matter most to patients with this disease. There is no disease mongering here. It’s mentioned Depuytren’s disease affects about 4% of the population. (This percentage is much higher in parts of Northern Europe.) This is a major weakness of the news release. Although sources of funding are included (Wellcome Trust, Department of Health, 180Therapeutics.com) in the release, it’s not made clear that the two co-authors quoted have patents with 180Therapeutics related to this therapy. In fact, the majority of the 17 authors listed on this study have financial ties to 180Therapeutics, a for-profit company focused solely on anti-TNF therapeutics (which the website mentions is a “$30-billion annual drug market class”). Surgery is the only other therapy mentioned in this news release. It does not mention two other common treatments: needling and enzyme injections (physical and chemical attempts to break up contractures, respectively). It’s noted that this treatment approach is in phase IIa trial; that is, preliminary evaluation of short-term safety and efficacy. However, the language used in the release: “The team found that adalimumab (at a dose of 40mg formulated in 0.4ml) reduces expression of the fibrotic markers, -smooth muscle actin (-SMA) and type I procollagen, at 2 weeks post injection” suggests this drug (which is commercially available for other conditions) could be used to stop the growth of disease causing myofibroblast cells. A simple statement in the release noting the preliminary nature of the research would have gone a long way into placing the the drug’s availability into proper perspective. The novelty of this treatment approach is not addressed in the news release. However, according to the published study, this research group appears to have been instrumental in exploring the role of TNF in this condition. Highlighting “new hope” in the headline, and claiming “the results so far are very promising,” are unjustified given this is a small, preliminary study showing changes in surrogate markers only two weeks after treatment in 28 subjects.
|
7208
|
Doctors, Mainers fund universal health care task force.
|
A Maine commission tasked with proposing a publicly financed health care system is being funded by doctors, medical groups and residents.
|
true
|
Health, Maine, Universal health care
|
The state Task Force on Health Care Coverage For All of Maine has raised about $7,000 of the roughly $9,000 needed for its work. Groups and individuals who donate must state they didn’t give to influence the study or legislative action. Some donors gave $10 while non-profit Maine Community Health Options gave $500. Legislative leaders said the task force needs to raise the remaining money by June 30 to continue its work. The task force is charged with proposing a universal health care system administered by state government or a contracted company. Individuals must be able to choose between the public option and private insurance coverage.
|
25991
|
“Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask.”
|
An old video of Dr. Anthony Fauci saying that people don’t need to wear face masks was taken out of context. Since April, the CDC has recommended face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and Fauci has pushed for their use as well.
|
false
|
National, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"A video showing Dr. Anthony Fauci telling people not to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is being taken out of context on social media. It’s an outdated video that ignores the fact that the CDC and Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, both recommend most people wear face masks to protect against the spread of the coronavirus. The video post from June 24 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.) It shows footage from CBS’ ""60 Minutes"" on March 8, when Fauci said that, in general, people did not need to wear masks when they went outside. The video is framed by the words, ""Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask."" The 40-second clip starts off with Fauci saying, ""Right now, people should not be walking, there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask."" He said masks do not provide the ""perfect protection"" against contracting the virus that people think. The clip ends with Fauci saying, ""When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them."" The clip ends with Fauci wearing a mask. The Facebook user who posted this video in June said Americans are ""being toyed with."" It is not apparent to many viewers that Fauci’s statements were cherry-picked, and the video is four months old. The clip left out, for instance, one reason Fauci gave for some Americans wearing a mask: ""The masks are important for someone who’s infected to prevent them from infecting someone else."" A lot changed after that interview. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. spiked in April and reached new all-time highs in late June and early July, according to Johns Hopkins University. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted its recommendations on face coverings for people over 2 years old when leaving their household. While the CDC previously discouraged people who weren’t showing symptoms from wearing face coverings, the agency said the switch came after studies about virus transmission by people who are asymptomatic. In a June interview with TheStreet, a financial news website, Fauci said that wearing a mask is better than not wearing one because it can prevent a person from infecting someone else through droplets from coughing, sneezing or talking loudly, for example. Fauci also said that masks can protect, ""to a certain degree,"" the person wearing a mask from getting infected. Fauci said that public health officials previously stated that face coverings weren’t necessary because they were concerned about a shortage for those who need them most, like medical professionals. ""Right now, unequivocally, the recommendation is when you’re out there, particularly if you’re in a situation where there’s active infection, keep the distance physically and wear a mask,"" he said on TheStreet. A viral Facebook post shows Fauci saying people did not need to be wearing face masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is framed by text that says, ""Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask."" The undated clip lacks significant context. The interview happened in March, amid shortfalls of face masks for hospital workers. The CDC and Fauci have since shifted their recommendations on face masks amid rising coronavirus cases, saying that most people should wear face coverings in public spaces to reduce the spread of the virus. The all-caps summary text is an oversimplification of what Fauci said. He was speaking generally when he said people did not need to be wearing a mask in public in March. However, Fauci said in the same interview that infected people should wear a mask to prevent other people from catching the virus. The clip leaves that out. The video contains an element of truth but leaves the wrong impression."
|
14010
|
ISIS is running through a border made porous by Barack Obama’s policies.
|
"Abbott said ""ISIS is running through the border made porous by Barack Obama’s policies."" We found no factual basis — Abbott offered none — to support the claim that ISIS is ""running through"" the border. Other claims of ISIS forces marshaling on the U.S.-Mexico border have been debunked, and this one deserves the same fate. Border security itself has been stepped up, by the federal government and Texas, with apprehensions lately on the decline. Abbott’s claim isn’t just wrong, it’s ridiculous. The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
false
|
Immigration, Terrorism, Texas, Greg Abbott,
|
"At the May 2016 Republican Party of Texas convention, Gov. Greg Abbott told thousands of delegates that the Islamic State group, which has ravaged parts of the Middle East, was at work along the Texas-Mexico border. ""Our country better wake up. We’re facing an existential threat,"" he said. ""ISIS is running through the border made porous by Barack Obama’s policies."" ISIS has seized vast territory in Iraq and Syria wielding heavy weapons of war. It terrorizes civilians and broadcasts footage of sadistic executions. Does it also operate over the 1,254-mile Texas-Mexico border? Rumor says they do, though we’ve found previous claims short of factual footing. In October 2014, we rated False then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s claim that prayer rugs had been found at the border, suggesting an ISIS presence. The same month, we rated False a claim by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter that 10 ISIS fighters had been caught at the border. In April 2015, we rated False a report by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch stating that ISIS was running a camp in Mexico just over the border from El Paso. Most recently, in December 2015 we rated Abbott’s claim that Texas had seen three ISIS-related incidents, finding his definition of ""ISIS-related"" extremely loose. So, here we go again. Abbott’s data Abbott, who in 2015 touted and signed into law the state’s $800 million border security package, offered his declaration as proof of the urgency of his border security agenda and as a jab at the immigration policies of the Democratic president’s administration, over which then-Attorney General Abbott filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Texas and more than 20 other mostly Republican-led states in 2014. It alleged the president exceeded his constitutional authority when he used executive action to shield certain young adults and parents from deportation. In April 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Texas-led challenge to the Obama administration’s policy; a ruling could come this year. We emailed Abbott spokesman John Wittman to ask when ISIS ran through the border, and also which Obama policies had made the border more porous, as Abbott said. Regarding the porous border, Wittman sent a link to the 2014 lawsuit filed by Attorney General Abbott. ""A specific policy which has made the border more porous,"" Wittman wrote. Regarding ISIS, Wittman provided a web link, tweeted by Abbott on April 23, 2016, to a Fox News Latino article published the day before. The news story, citing prosecutorial documents, said a 21-year-old Minnesota man charged with conspiracy to join ISIS ""told the ISIS members about the route (‘to the U.S. through Mexico’) so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks."" ISIS at the gates For our part, we looked first for signs of ISIS border crossings, then considered Abbott’s charge about Obama fostering a porous border. Abbott’s backup did not say, as the governor did, that ISIS was operating at the border, but we still made inquiries. At the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency for border security, including the U.S. Border Patrol, spokeswoman Marsha Catron emailed in reply: ""The suggestion that (ISIS) operatives have been apprehended at the Southwest border is not supported by facts on the ground. DHS does not have any credible intelligence that terrorist organizations are planning to attempt to cross the southwest border to carry out attacks in the United States."" We also emailed the Texas Department of Public Safety, which patrols the border, to ask for any reports of ISIS activity thereabouts.DPS spokesman Tom Vinger emailed: ""The department does not have any information to provide."" In the past, groups or individuals bandying similar claims alleged that law enforcement agencies suppress news of ISIS at the border to avoid public panics. That in mind, we also queried experts outside of government. By phone, we asked Victor M. Manjarrez, director of the National Center for Border Security & Immigration at the University of Texas at El Paso, if ISIS was operating at the border. Manjarrez, a former Border Patrol sector chief, said, ""no,"" adding that every report of ISIS at the border has been debunked. We thought perhaps there are reports Manjarrez hadn’t seen, so we looked elsewhere. At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington D.C.-based think tank which focuses partly on border security and international terrorism, we were referred to Rick Nelson, former director of the center’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program, who said in a phone interview he knew of no reports of ISIS at the border. Nelson said: ""There’s no doubt that if ISIS had the opportunity, they would conduct an attack in the U.S., but to state that they’re going to do so by going through Mexico and going through the southern border is a little bit disconnected."" He said the group was more focused on radicalizing Americans already in the country. We also emailed the RAND Corporation, a California-based think tank focused partly on national security, to ask about reports of ISIS at the border. By phone, Colin Clarke, a political scientist and national security research at RAND, said: ""I haven’t seen any evidence that there are ISIS people coming across the border. My standard response is I haven’t seen the evidence, but that doesn’t mean that at some point they won’t try that."" Clarke said ISIS would need a domestic network of safe houses and weapons stashes to wage a significant attack, even if members were to come across the border. So, no confirmed ISIS sightings. We looked next at if the border has become ""porous"" on Obama’s watch, as Abbott said. Border Patrol spending up, apprehensions down There are no signs of a more porous border that we divined. When we asked Nelson at the CSIS to what extent border security had decreased under Obama, he said, ""I would say it hasn’t."" He said, ""The amount of resources Obama has put forward to secure the border has been significant."" On Obama’s watch, federal figures suggest, border security spending and staffing escalated and, in the latest full fiscal year, 2015, apprehensions of individuals crossing the border without legal authority declined in comparison to the three previous years. Some perspective: --The congressionally approved $3.8 billion fiscal 2015 budget for the Border Patrol, the on-the-ground border enforcement unit of Customs and Border Protection,was up an inflation-adjusted 29 percent from fiscal 2009, the year Obama succeeded George W. Bush. --The 17,522 Border Patrol agents in 2015 were up a sliver, less than 1 percent, from 2009, though down 6 percent from the all-time high of 18,611 agents in 2013. --Apprehensions along the southwest border escalated in 2013 and 2014, according to Border Patrol data, but the 331,333 apprehensions near the border in fiscal 2015 were the fewest since 2011--and down 39 percent compared to 2009. Also worth noting: Deportations from the U.S. hit a record high under Obama in 2013, the year before the surge, according to Pew Research. Obama policies? Abbott’s lawsuit, which Wittman cited as backup, identified two Obama policies: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), announced in 2012, and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), unveiled in 2014. DACA blocked deportation for qualified unauthorized immigrants who arrived as children and DAPA did the same for parents of qualified citizens and permanent residents. The lawsuit predicted that both moves would ""substantially increase the number of undocumented immigrants in the plaintiff states"" because ""the removal of the deportation threat, combined with the incentives to stay, will make remaining in the United States far more attractive."" We asked Manjarrez if DACA and DAPA made the border more porous. ""I wouldn’t say porous, I’d say it’s increased the clutter,"" he said. ""Some people translate that to more porous, I say the border is now at a higher risk to be exploited by some interest."" For instance, he said that many children who arrived amid a surge in 2014-2015 cited rumors that they would not be deported as a motivation for their trips to the border. The increased ""clutter"" at the border, he said, made it harder for Border Patrol agents to pinpoint security threats. We’ve looked before into claims that Obama policies fueled the migrant surge. At the time, experts and news reports gave more credit to rising violence in Central American countries and to a 2008 law passed under Bush shielding non-Mexican children from immediate deportation when apprehended at the border. Abbott again We shared our findings--no confirmation of ISIS on the border and statistics suggesting a greater security presence--with the governor’s office. Wittman said Abbott had nothing to add. Our ruling Abbott said ""ISIS is running through the border made porous by Barack Obama’s policies."" We found no factual basis — Abbott offered none — to support the claim that ISIS is ""running through"" the border. Other claims of ISIS forces marshaling on the U.S.-Mexico border have been debunked, and this one deserves the same fate. Border security itself has been stepped up, by the federal government and Texas, with apprehensions lately on the decline. Abbott’s claim isn’t just wrong, it’s ridiculous. ! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
35113
|
Amazon announced that it was suspending all deliveries except for medical supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
"What's true: Amazon is temporarily prohibiting third-party sellers from shipping and storing non-essential items at its warehouses until April 5, 2020. This will likely impact the products available for ""Fulfillment by Amazon"" (FBA) orders in the near-future. What's false: Amazon did not announce that it was halting shipping on all non-essential items. Amazon will continue to ship non-essential items to consumers as long as those items are in stock. Products that are not shipped from Amazon's warehouses will not be affected by this temporary policy."
|
false
|
Business, COVID-19
|
In March 2020, a number of cities in the United States and around the globe started to urge people to stay at home in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus disease. As people started to gather supplies for their “quarantine,” a worrying rumor started to circulate on social media that Amazon was suspending all deliveries except for medical supplies and household staples: Amazon has not suspended all deliveries except for medical supplies and household staples. This rumor appears to be based on a misinterpreted headline and a misunderstanding of how Amazon’s business works. The problem was likely exacerbated by the fact that many news articles about this report were locked behind paywalls. The Fulfillment by Amazon program (FBA) allows third-party sellers to ship and store their products at Amazon’s warehouses for a fee. When an order is placed, Amazon has direct access to the product and can quickly ship it to the customer. In March 2020, the company informed third-party sellers who use the FBA program that Amazon was temporarily prioritizing medical and essential home supplies for their warehouse service. NBC News reported: Amazon is not accepting new products to its warehouse service except household staples, medical supplies and other high-demand items through April 5, according to an announcement obtained by NBC News. Amazon confirmed the authenticity of the announcement. “We are seeing increased online shopping and as a result some products such as household staples and medical supplies are out of stock,” the company announced on its seller platform called Seller Central. “With this in mind, we are temporarily prioritizing household staples, medical supplies and other high-demand products coming into our fulfillment centers so that we can more quickly receive, restock, and ship these products to customers.” While this new policy will certainly impact the products available via Amazon’s FBA program, Reuters reported that Amazon defined “essential” items to include “baby products; health and household items; beauty and personal care; grocery; industrial and scientific; and pet supplies.” Amazon will also continue to ship non-essential items that are currently stocked in its warehouses. This new policy will not impact non-essential items that are sold and shipped by third-party sellers. Steven Yates, CEO of Prime Guidance, an agency that helps Amazon sellers, said:
|
26282
|
“Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day.”
|
When a state lawmaker from Pennsylvania’s Erie County learned that the coronavirus might prevent veterans groups from placing flags on fallen service members’ graves, he posted about it on Facebook. Pennsylvania not only excluded a large flag manufacturer from its original list of life-sustaining businesses permitted to operate during the pandemic, Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration also rejected the company’s application for a waiver. On Monday, the company, called FlagZone, got some good news. The state cleared the way for the company to ship some flag orders even as it held firm that flag manufacturing is not essential during the pandemic.
|
true
|
National, Coronavirus, Pennsylvania, Facebook posts,
|
"Veterans groups in Pennsylvania typically prepare for Memorial Day by placing small American flags beside the headstones where fallen service members have been laid to rest. When a state lawmaker from Erie County learned that the coronavirus might scuttle that sacred tradition, he posted about it on Facebook. ""Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day,"" Pa. House Rep. Brad Roae posted on Facebook on May 11. We wondered whether Wolf had really blocked Pennsylvania-based American flag distributors from operating during the pandemic. Roae, a Republican, did not return a call seeking comment on his Facebook post, which has now been shared more than 7,000 times. But it looks like he was right. Not only did Wolf exclude FlagZone, a manufacturer located in Gilbertsville, from his original list of life-sustaining businesses permitted to operate during the pandemic, his administration doubled down and rejected the company’s application for a waiver. FlagZone is one of the only American flag manufacturer in Pennsylvania and one of only a half dozen across the country. The company typically distributes more than six million small stick flags annually. Casey Smith, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, told The Reading Eagle that the Wolf administration’s top priority is protecting the health and well-being of Pennsylvanians, and that flag-making, while patriotic, simply wasn’t ""life-sustaining."" ""Memorial Day celebrations and ceremonies are a staple in our nation, and many Pennsylvanians will need to adjust their routine this year to accommodate our new normal,"" Smith said. ""We encourage all Pennsylvanians to honor our nation’s fallen in their own special way."" Turns out the flags had already been manufactured and were sitting in a warehouse. FlagZone President Daniel Ziegler said it would only take a few workers to ship 400,000 flags that had been ordered by 24 different Pennsylvania counties in anticipation of Monday’s federal holiday. Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties were among those waiting to receive their orders. When State Sen. Scott Hutchinson learned about FlagZone’s woes, he also called on Wolf to ease restrictions imposed on the company. ""I see no reason why the time-honored and solemn tradition of placing flags at veterans’ graves could not be continued this year,"" Hutchinson, a Republican who represents Butler and other Western Pennsylvania counties, said in a statement sent to reporters via email. ""Certainly placing the flags in cemeteries could be done while practicing the social distancing Gov. Wolf recommends."" On Monday, FlagZone got some good news. The state cleared the way for the company to ship some flag orders even as it held firm that flag manufacturing is not essential during the pandemic. ""We’re just excited to get these flags out after months of being shut down,"" Ziegler told The Reading Eagle. ""Hopefully, when a family goes to the gravesite of a loved one who was a veteran they will now see that they were not forgotten."" Smith, of the community and economic development department, said in an interview that special approval from the state is not required for limited shipping activities and communicated that to FlagZone. Roae posted on Facebook that Gov. Wolf had blocked companies that distribute American flags from shipping orders ahead of Memorial Day. Wolf initially blocked FlagZone from operating during the pandemic and then rejected the company’s request for a waiver. A state official later said the company did not need special permission to ship limited numbers of flags. However, the company didn’t understand this until the state said so, especially since the clarification came days after the Wolf administration rejected FlagZone’s application to resume operations."
|
41641
|
No longer sending money to the EU means we will have money to spend on priorities like the NHS.
|
There is no guaranteed extra money to pay for increased NHS funding from stopping our payments to the EU budget. Other costs associated with Brexit are expected to outweigh the savings.
|
false
|
health
|
No longer sending money to the EU means we will have money to spend on priorities like the NHS. There is no guaranteed extra money to pay for increased NHS funding from stopping our payments to the EU budget. Other costs associated with Brexit are expected to outweigh the savings. When the UK leaves the EU we won’t be sending vast amounts of money to the EU every year. Our net contribution to the EU budget is typically £9-10 billion a year. We will no longer contribute to it from 2021 onwards, but other costs and economic effects associated with leaving are expected to more than offset that saving. Claim 1 of 3
|
8333
|
EU urges states to lift drug export bans to prevent shortages.
|
The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday urged European Union states to lift export bans on medicines to avoid causing shortages in the bloc as it tackles the coronavirus crisis.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Half of EU states have designated long lists of drugs that cannot be exported during the coronavirus emergency. The lists include medication used to treat COVID-19 patients such as muscle relaxants, painkillers and hydroxychloroquine. “We ask that national governments lift any export ban on medicines. Such restrictions can lead to shortages elsewhere in the EU,” von der Leyen said in a statement. She also called on governments to avoid stockpiling. Bans are usually justified with the need to fulfil national needs, but Europe has so far faced only limited supply problems from the coronavirus crisis. Temporary shortages have been recorded mostly for drugs used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients, such as anaesthetics, antibiotics and muscle relaxants that allow people to receive breathing support from ventilators. But national lists comprise many more drugs, including some that have wider uses such as the painkiller paracetamol and insulin, used by diabetics. The European Commission on Wednesday adopted new guidance on drugs supplies, which calls on governments to refrain from export bans and from requisitioning medicines. “Whilst it is understandable that countries wish to ensure the availability of essential medicines nationally, export bans are detrimental to the availability of medicines for European patients even when they are legally justifiable,” the non-binding document says. France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among the EU countries with the longest lists of drugs which are temporarily banned from export. The bans apply mostly to distributors, which cover a large part of the EU market and provide the biggest share of supplies to pharmacies. The new guidelines also called on states to stop excessive stockpiling, which the Commission said could contribute to supply shortages. It warned the worst effects on supplies from stockpiling emerge when countries compete among themselves. The Commission is setting up an EU reserve of critical medicines and medical gear to address future needs.
|
2075
|
Mental illness alone not linked to violence.
|
Mental illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder alone do not make people more violent, but the tendency of people with psychiatric problems to abuse drugs or alcohol does, scientists said on Monday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Experts have long sought to understand the link between mental illness and violence and these findings suggest that the widespread public perception that psychiatric disorders alone make people more prone to violent crime is flawed. Researchers from Britain and Sweden who studied rates of violent crime among people with severe mental disorders said it appeared that the higher risk of substance abuse is the key. They found that while rates of violent crime are higher among people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia than in the general population, they are similar in people with mental illness and those who abuse substances but are not mentally ill. When the results were adjusted to removed the influence of alcohol or illegal drug abuse, rates of violence among psychiatric patients were barely changed from levels in the general population, they said. “Substance abuse is really the key mediator of violent crime. If you take away the substance abuse, the contribution of the illness...is very minimal,” said Seena Fazel of Oxford University’s department of psychiatry, who led a study. “It is probably more dangerous to be walking outside a pub on a late night that it is to be walking outside a hospital where mental health patients are being released.” Previous studies have shown that around 20 percent of people with bipolar disorder abuse alcohol and drugs, and this compares with around 2 percent of the general population. Around a quarter of people with schizophrenia abuse drugs and alcohol. Fazel said psychiatric patients often use illegal drugs and alcohol to try to counteract their symptoms or the effects of their medicines, which can act as sedatives. In Britain, several high-profile criminal cases have led to the idea that the mentally ill pose a threat to society. Reports earlier this year that the “Yorkshire Ripper” serial killer Peter Sutcliffe was appealing against his sentence because he said he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he murdered 13 women reinforced that perception. Fazel, whose work was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry journal, said public perception that the mentally ill are a threat had led to large numbers of psychiatric patients being put into secure hospitals in recent years. “There has been a sort of re-institutionalization of patients with mental illness... under the guise that they are dangerous,” he told reporters at a briefing. Fazel and colleagues used hospital registers in Sweden to track everyone diagnosed with bipolar disorder and then look for links with violent crime convictions. Since rates of mental illness, as well as rates of violence and of alcohol and drug abuse are similar in Sweden to the rest of Europe and the United States, the findings were likely to be applicable to other countries, the scientists said.
|
9240
|
Phase 3 analyses in Alzheimer's show clinical benefit of tramiprosate in APOE4 carriers
|
This news release from a public relations firm on behalf of drug manufacturer, Alzheon, describes an experimental compound tramiprosate that showed some impact on patients carrying the APOE4 gene which is present in many people who go on to develop Alzheimer’s disease. The drug is thought to target amyloid — protein fragments that aggregate abnormally in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. But the dense technical language of the release prevents most readers from understanding the scale of the improvement reported in patient thinking or behavior during this study. The major drawback of the release is that it didn’t talk about limitations of the sub-group analysis. While exploratory, this sub-group analysis cannot lead one to draw any conclusions about whether the drug “worked,” given that the overall study was negative. The release also did not help readers understand when the drug would be prescribed, in relation to diagnosis, if the drug is approved. Estimates are that more than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive and disabling neurological disorder. This release about a drug that might slow decline or ease symptoms is disappointing. It claims the drug works, but doesn’t make it clear for readers just how well. We aren’t given context for understanding the numbers that are shared. Many caregivers are suffering emotionally and financially by the burdens of caring for a patient with this disease and eager to hear any good news about therapy. Bottom line: This release on an experimental drug treatment trial for Alzheimer’s disease focused on a small sub-group analysis from which conclusions can’t be drawn.
|
mixture
|
The Yates Network,tramiprosate
|
This release is about clinical research on a compound that is not available yet to patients outside of an experimental setting. Even so, we wish the release had some cost context on the drug. When (or if) it debuts in the future, what might it cost? The release states that there is a “meaningful clinical benefit” to the study medication, known as tramiprosate. But we couldn’t find a meaningful description of the benefit in clear language. What we did find was a densely technical section where effects were described as follows: “The effects on the ADAS-cog cognitive outcome were significant at Week 65 (LS means difference from placebo: 3.47, nominal p = 0.007) and Week 78 (2.60, nominal p = 0.043), and corresponded to 66 percent and 40 percent benefit from tramiprosate compared to placebo. These effects were supported by functional benefits on the CDR-SB that showed a positive trend at Week 65 (LS means difference from placebo: 0.79, nominal p = 0.063) and were numerically in favor of tramiprosate at Week 78 (0.54, nominal p = 0.21).” But even if the p values here were significant, this analysis would not mean the drug showed benefits. The study itself — not the release — contains some helpful context on the sub-group analysis that might have improved the release. “Drug effects in AD trials are considered clinically meaningful if they provide at least 25% benefit over placebo. The cognitive effect of the 150 mg BID dose in APOE4/4 AD patients corresponds to 40% benefit over placebo at week 78, and is thus clinically meaningful. This cognitive effect is also supported by positive trends on global function, which corresponds to 25% benefit on CDR-SB at the week 78 endpoint, as well as a numerically consistent effect on disability with 25% benefit on DAD. “ A news release is intended to communicate with a non-technical audience of news professionals but this release fell short of translating the science well. We would have liked some discussion of how the “cognitive effect” is measured in these patients. What exactly is a positive trend in global function? Some examples could have helped. The release contained enough detail about safety issues to give it a satisfactory when it noted: “The safety profile of tramiprosate in 2,025 AD patients across the two studies was favorable and similar in the APOE4 carriers and non-carriers. The main adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting and weight loss), which were mild or moderate in severity.” We would have liked more discussion of how patients might use the drug and whether there are any other harms that could loom from treatment. The release didn’t mention the sizeable limitations of the study. The published study itself states that the research — based on a 2,000 patient cohort — did “not reach its primary objectives.” The evidence of efficacy was for a subgroup of patients who have specific genetic characteristics — and that sample size was limited. According to the published paper, “These findings require confirmation in prospectively defined studies in the APOE4/4 homozygous population.” None of this made it into the news release. There was no disease mongering. The release is clearly labeled as written on behalf of Alzheon, the manufacturer of the compound. The release further identifies the sources quoted as either employees of Alzheon or as investigators at one of the study’s research sites. This release summarizing the research study did not include comparisons with existing drugs — but we won’t fault them for that. There are no known therapies that “treat” Alzheimer’s, only those that relieve some of its underlying symptoms. But a mention of preventative strategies would have been welcomed here. Many researchers are pointing out that Alzheimer’s is not a disease simply due to overload of amyloid but its causes may be multifactorial, with, for example, blood vessel disease (narrowing of small arteries) and high blood pressure being significant risk factors. Lifestyle changes, including regular exercise, may do more to help prevent Alzheimer’s than any drug now available, and a discussion of that is included in a HealthNewsReview.org blog post from earlier this year. The release states the drug is in on-going trials and one can infer the drug is not and will not be available in the foreseeable future. It describes next steps: “We are preparing to advance ALZ-801, a promising new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, into confirmatory clinical studies in 2017.” The release states that this is the first time a correlation has been seen between an Alzheimer’s drug and the genetic status of the patient, where the dose appears to show the most effect in patients with two alleles for APOE4. However, since the overall analysis did not show a benefit, the author’s claims are questionable. And there are many, many drugs being developed targeting amyloid, which an increasing number of researchers regard as folly. There is no unjustifiable language outside of the claims already critiqued under the Benefits and Novelty criteria.
|
8756
|
Insurers recoup obesity surgery cost in 2-4 years.
|
Insurers recoup the costs of weight-loss surgery within two to four years as obese patients become healthier and have fewer medical problems, researchers said on Wednesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
A passenger waits for a delayed flight at Heathrow airport's terminal four in London August 12, 2006. REUTERS/Toby Melville The findings show that bariatric surgery, an increasingly popular operation, benefits patients’ health and saves money, according to Pierre-Yves Cremieux of the economic consulting firm Analysis Group and the University of Quebec at Montreal, who led the study. Bariatric surgery alters the digestive system’s anatomy, reducing the volume of food that can be eaten and digested. The most common form is gastric bypass, which makes the stomach smaller and permits food to bypass part of the small intestine. Some insurers have been reluctant to cover this surgery. “It demonstrates the fact that this is not cosmetic surgery,” Cremieux said in a telephone interview. “The reason why you get your money back when you cover bariatric surgery is because the patients who were morbidly obese before and had high rates of diabetes and hypertension no longer do. They don’t go to the doctor as much as they used to, and they don’t go to the emergency room as much as they used to. Why? Because they are healthier,” Cremieux added. How quickly an insurer recovered the costs of paying for bariatric surgery depended on the type performed, Cremieux reported in the American Journal of Managed Care. Insurers fully recovered the expense of covering minimally invasive bariatric surgery, which on average cost $17,000, within about two years, the study showed. They fully recovered the expense of more common bariatric procedures such as traditional gastric bypass surgery, which on average cost $26,000, within about four years. After surgery, the obese patients lost weight and incurred lower costs associated with prescription drugs, doctor visits and hospital services as they became healthier and less burdened by chronic disease, the researchers said. The researchers based the findings on insurance claims filed by 3,651 morbidly obese bariatric surgery patients and insurance claims filed by an equal number of morbidly obese people who did not have weight-loss surgery. It spanned six months of pre-surgical evaluation and care, the operation and up to five years of post-surgical care. Those who did not have surgery also were tracked for five years. The average age of the surgical patients was 44 and most were women. They began the study with obesity-related ailments like high blood pressure, diabetes and sleep apnea. Previous research has found that obese people who have weight-loss surgery are less likely to die from heart disease, diabetes and cancer than obese people who do not have such surgery. An estimated 205,000 people had bariatric surgery in the United States last year. The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Endo-Surgery division, which makes instruments for bariatric surgery.
|
5525
|
European divisions beyond Brexit on display in Davos.
|
Europe’s divisions were on display Thursday at the World Economic Forum as hundreds of protesters descended on the Swiss ski resort of Davos to lambast the elite attendees for caring more about their balance sheets than the state of the world.
|
true
|
Global trade, World Economic Forum, Brexit, Environment, International News, Business, Switzerland, Europe, Donald Trump
|
Shouting “anti-capitalista” and other chants, the gathering of socialists, environmentalists and others waved banners and signs that read “Davos Stinks” or “Let them eat money” — while braving sub-zero temperatures near the Davos train station. “We want a better world, you’re not deciding for us,” said 20-year-old protester from Geneva, Thomas Bruchez. The demonstration was originally planned in part to protest against President Donald Trump, who had been expected in Davos this week before cancelling his trip over the U.S. government shutdown. The protest went ahead anyway, training some anger at Brazil’s new nationalist President Jair Bolsonaro, who did attend. Divisions have been evident all week at the conference center a mile or two away, notably on trade. On Thursday, Europe’s splits were evident — and they weren’t just related to Brexit. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was particularly pointed, arguing that the generally richer countries in the north of the EU are beginning to feel that the poorer south are getting away with not playing by the rules on an array of issues. Italy’s stand against the single currency bloc’s debt rules was one incident that caught his ire. The populist government in Italy, barely a year in power, has decided to ramp up spending far beyond EU expectations and only backed off slightly after the executive Commission threatened legal action. Though concerns remain that the spending plans will add to Italy’s huge debt load and potentially rekindle financial jitters that have been dormant since 2015, when Greece was bailed out for a final time, the Commission has so far opted against taking action against Rome, such as imposing a fine. Rutte said people in his country are asking him why the Netherlands is implementing measures to abide by the budget rules when others like Italy are not. “We should because we want to have our house in order, not because some European treaty requires this from us but this is creating distrust between north and south and given those dividing lines, I’m not optimistic about whether we can achieve on competitiveness, on reform and on climate change,” he said. Italy has also been involved in a spat with France in recent days over issues including how to handle migrants travelling to Europe by boat. Italy’s interior minister, the head of one of two populist and euroskeptic parties leading the country, this month called the French leader Emmanuel Macron — who is unabashedly pro-EU — “a terrible president.” The diplomatic spats are an unwelcome backdrop for the EU, which is due to lose key member Britain in a little more than two months. Britain’s departure from the EU is laden with uncertainty after British Prime Minister Theresa May saw her Brexit deal voted down by parliament earlier this month and is now struggling to find a solution with Parliament so divided. That is raising the possibility that Britain might fall out of the EU without a deal on March 29, which could have huge repercussions for the economy as tariffs and border checks are re-established. The EU is trying its best to stay out of it but some politicians are starting to talk about extending Britain’s departure date to give the country more time to come to a consensus of what to do, while others are hinting at supporting a second referendum. All are agreed though that a ‘no deal’ Brexit would be damaging to the EU as well as to Britain. “I think the United Kingdom in a ‘no deal’ scenario will face enormous difficulties,” said Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. “In a ‘no deal’ scenario the U.K. won’t have any trade deals with anyone and I think it’ll be very difficult for them to conclude any trade deals with the question of the Irish border unresolved. So given we have a solution on the table, let’s ratify that.” That argument stands at odds with one of the main benefits of Brexit that supporters of a ‘no deal’ departure have been positing of late. The Bank of England warned late last year that the British economy could shrink by 8 percent in a matter of months if the country crashes out with no deal and with no transition to any future trading arrangements with the EU. The shock could send house prices plunging by around a third. Still, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said British banks are financially strong enough to survive such a scenario. Ports and borders will still face many logistical problems. For many firms, it’s just too difficult to prepare for a “no deal” eventuality, Carney said. “Businesses are doing what they can but in many cases they can’t do it,” he said. ___ Follow the AP’s coverage of Davos here: https://www.apnews.com/Davos
|
37861
|
A photo of four x-rays side-by-side compares lung damage inflicted by COVID-19 and two additional diseases.
|
Do These X-Rays Show What COVID-19 Does To Your Lungs?
|
unproven
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
A graphic exhorting social media users to take COVID-19 seriously only added to the disinformation surrounding the disease.The meme, which began circulating on Facebook in May 2020, shows four different chest X-rays. The caption claims that the fourth, in which the chest is almost completely faded out, shows the effect of COVID-19.“Maybe staying at home is clearer to understand now,” the caption exclaims:But the image in the graphic differs from x-rays released by actual medical sources thus far. A report published in February 2020 by researchers in Michigan and China, for example, showed “opacities” in the chest of the patient, described as a 59-year-old woman:The paper, by Michigan University radiology professor Prachi Agarwal and medical radiologist Weifang Kong, was also covered in the trade publication Imaging Technology News:The pair discovered that while the imaging appearance of COVID-19 is not specific, the presence of bilateral nodular and peripheral ground glass opacities and consolidation should serve as an alert to radiologists that COVID-19 may actually be present in certain patients.For example, individuals who have a defined travel history to areas where others are infected by COVID-19, or have been directly exposed to others with the virus, should be examined carefully.Agarwal adds that in radiologic terms, ‘ground glass’ means that a hazy lung opacity shows up on imaging that is not dense enough to obscure any underlying pulmonary vessels or bronchial walls. While consolidation, on the other hand, refers to dense opacities obscuring vessels and bronchial walls.Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, a lung pathologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told us that while not “grossly inaccurate,” the graphic is actually inconclusive for anyone seeking to discern between the damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 — the specific coronavirus that leads to the illness known as COVID-19 or C-19 — and other illnesses.In fact, he said, the four pictures could represent the same patient at different stages of several diseases — including COVID-19.“X-ray does not confirm a diagnosis of COVID,” said Mukhopadhyay, who posted a video presentation in March 2020 on the relationship between the virus and another condition, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). “For that you need the swab testing. Without seeing what context they posted is it’s impossible to say whether it’s misleading or not. Without seeing what context they posted this in, it’s impossible to say whether it’s misleading or not.”Comments
|
35435
|
A photograph shows U.S. President Donald Trump wearing a protective face mask during a visit to a Ford manufacturing plant in spring 2020.
|
— William LeGate (@williamlegate) May 22, 2020
|
true
|
Fauxtography, COVID-19
|
In the days before U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to a Ford manufacturer in Michigan on May 21, 2020, the company informed the White House that face masks would be required for all visitors. This request proved somewhat controversial, however, as Trump had thus far refused to wear a mask in public during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, despite recommendations from health officials. The majority of videos and photographs from the visit showed Trump touring the facility, delivering a speech, and speaking with Ford executives — all without a face covering. So when a photograph emerged supposedly showing Trump wearing a face mask during this visit, some viewers were surprised and skeptical of the sight: Trump does NOT want you to share this picture of him wearing a mask… pic.twitter.com/vCO06D0Ud6
|
26343
|
“Texas ranks 3rd highest among states for the number of people who have recovered from” the coronavirus.
|
Looking just at the cumulative recovery statistics from the available states — 14 states have not published current data on recoveries — Texas ranks third. But it is important to note that there are many different definitions of what constitutes a recovery. For example, the Texas figure is an estimate based on hospitalizations and recovery times. Given the size of Texas' population, it makes sense to compare recovery statistics as a rate, as opposed to looking at the cumulative recoveries. Looking at the percentage of recoveries per positive coronavirus test, Texas ranks 16th among the states that have published data.
|
mixture
|
Texas, Coronavirus, Greg Abbott,
|
"Ahead of his announcement that Texas would commence the second phase of its reopening after a statewide stay-at-home order had lifted, Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated ""GREAT NEWS"" for the state in a tweet. ""The number of Texans who have RECOVERED from #COVID19 now exceeds the number of active COVID cases for the past 2 days,"" Abbott said. ""That’s exactly what we want to see. Texas ranks 3rd highest among states for number of people who have recovered from #coronavirus."" Abbott had announced that he would allow the statewide stay-at-home order he issued on April 2 to expire on the last day of April, allowing retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters and malls to open, with limited capacity, on May 1. At the time, Abbott said he would commence the second phase of his reopening plan by May 18, assuming there was no secondary ""flare-up"" of COVID-19 cases in the state. But on Tuesday, Abbott said coronavirus metrics for the state signaled that it would be appropriate to start the second phase of his plan ahead of schedule, allowing barbershops, and hair, nail and tanning salons to open at limited capacity later in the week. Ahead of his this announcement, Abbott shared the statement we’re checking and said Texas is the third highest in the nation for the number of people who have recovered from the coronavirus. But what does that number mean? Recovery statistics are not a factor that indicate a state’s readiness to reopen, according to guidelines from the White House. The guidelines, released in April, highlight certain criteria states should meet before opening: a downward trajectory of COVID-19 or flu-like symptoms, a downward trajectory of positive tests as a percent of total tests and a robust testing program for healthcare workers, including antibody testing. The number of recoveries is also not a metric used to calculate the prevalence (current cases) or incidence (new cases) of an infectious disease, according to Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine. ""Recovery, even if it were measured properly, does not reflect interventions because we have almost none,"" Cohen said. ""Such statistics are generally used to measure the success of a health care system when testing and treatments might be robust."" Examining recoveries The raw counts of recovered cases available show that Texas does rank third, but there is a lot to unpack with this data. Abbott’s office did not return a request for comment seeking information about the data behind his statement. The main difficulty in weighing the statement is the quality of the data on recoveries. Fourteen states do not have current recovery data recorded by the COVID Tracking Project, an organization launched by The Atlantic that collects and publishes data from each state’s health agencies on the virus. The group’s website warns that data on patient outcomes, including hospitalizations, deaths and recoveries is ""less consistently reported"" than other data, like the number of tests administered. A visit to the website of each of these 14 states’ health authorities did not turn up any data on recoveries. There are also different definitions for what it means to have recovered from COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has offered guidance on this front, but says that states and local health authorities can adapt the guidance as needed. The guidance outlines different standards, based on whether an individual has tested positive for the virus and whether the person is displaying symptoms. It also depends on whether a person is caring for themselves at home or has been in the care of a physician. A person without symptoms can discontinue isolation, as long as at least 10 days have passed since first testing positive for COVID-19 and the individual did not later develop symptoms. In cases where symptoms are present, it depends on when the person last had a fever and when symptoms show signs of letting up. In places with ample testing supplies, the CDC recommends a ""test-based strategy"" for assessing whether a person is still sick. In Texas, the number of patients recorded as recovered is an estimate ""based on several assumptions related to hospitalization rates and recovery times, which were informed by data available to date. These assumptions are subject to change as we learn more about COVID-19,"" according to the state’s coronavirus dashboard. But even using the limited data available, there is also the size of the state’s population to consider. Given that Texas is the second most populous state, it makes more sense to consider the rate of recovery by state — the number of people who have recovered from COVID-19 relative to the total number of those infected — than the total number of recoveries. Looking at the numbers When Abbott shared this tweet on May 4, the latest coronavirus figures from Texas were as follows: 407,398 tests administered with 32,332 positive results, 884 deaths and 16,090 recoveries. Looking just at the cumulative number of recoveries at this date, Texas ranks third among all 37 states and Washington D.C. that have statewide recovery data available. New York recorded the most recoveries, with 58,950, followed by Louisiana, with 20,316. New York has reported far more cumulative coronavirus cases than any other state (318,953 as of May 4), and Louisiana has been a hot spot for the virus, although it has reported fewer cases than Texas. In March, Abbott instituted a mandatory quarantine order for travelers arriving in the state from various coronavirus hot spots, including New York and Louisiana. At the end of April, Abbott removed Louisiana from the list. Travelers from California, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Washington and the cities of Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and Miami are still required to self-quarantine for two weeks upon their arrival in Texas. Recovery rate At the time of Abbott’s claim, nearly half of all people who tested positive for coronavirus had been reported as recovered — a recovery rate of 49.76%. Using this figure to compare across the 37 states and Washington D.C. that have recovery data, Texas ranks 16th using this measure. Montana has the highest recovery rate, as more than 88% of the 457 people who tested positive have been reported as recovered. Our ruling Abbott said Texas ranks third among states for the number of people who have recovered from the coronavirus. The available figures on cumulative COVID-19 recoveries by state show that Texas ranks third — but that data has limitations. For one, just 37 states and Washington D.C. have been recording data on recoveries. Also, different standards are in place for determining whether a patient has recovered. In Texas, the statewide figure for recoveries is an estimate based on hospitalization data. Plus, a better metric for comparison is the recovery rate of the virus, given Texas’ population size. Using this measure, Texas ranks 16th among those states with data. Abbott’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context."
|
9306
|
J&J says its psoriasis drug superior to Novartis' in study
|
This is a brief news story about a drug company announcement of clinical trial results. Because patients as well as investors will read the story, it’s important that the story address details such as cost, side effects and limitations of the trial, even if only briefly. Instead, this story mostly just rehashes the company news release. Not only is psoriasis common, but when it’s more advanced it’s difficult to treat. It also can be quite distressing for many patients because it can be quite noticeable in public, itchy, and painful. The market forces involved are substantial. One source estimates the global psoriasis drug market will top $20 billion by 2022. The stakes are high–not only for the drug companies and investors, but also for patients who live with the disease. Journalists should do more than repeat what a drug company says about a trial–they should scrutinize the claims.
|
false
|
Psoriasis
|
A cost comparison of the two drugs highlighted in the study — Johnson & Johnson’s Tremfya and Cosentyx from Novartis AG — wasn’t provided and would have been helpful. The list price of a 100-mg dose of Tremfya (to be given once every two months) is about $10,000. For Cosentyx, around $4,700 (unclear if dosing is equivalent to Tremfya). Regardless, drug costs for severe cases of psoriasis can quickly get into the tens of thousands of dollars for some patients. From the story: After 48 weeks of therapy, 84.5 percent of patients treated with Tremfya showed 90 percent improvement in disease symptoms [as measured by the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI)], while only 70 percent of those treated with Cosentyx showed similar results. It’s also noted that Cosentyx had a “slightly more rapid onset of response.” This is just enough to merit a satisfactory rating. What’s not mentioned is that superiority of Tremfya was NOT demonstrated in five secondary endpoints. (As noted in this news release from Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson.) Also, we also think it would be valuable to tap an independent source to answer: How clinically significant is it that 14.5% of patients did better on Janssen’s Tremfya? Since Tremfya is known to weaken the immune system, it places patients at an increased risk of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections. People taking this drug, and other immunosuppressives like it, must be screened for tuberculosis, since it could dramatically accelerate the disease. None of this was mentioned. The results come from this Janssen-sponsored Eclipse trial — a phase 3, multi-center, randomized, double blind comparison of Tremfya, and the competing drug Cosentyx (from Novartis AG). However, the story provided scant details on the study, so readers would be unable to establish the quality of the evidence without going and looking up the study details. Was it randomized and blinded? What were the limitations? Has the trial been peer reviewed and published? Those are the details we’re looking for. No disease mongering. The story does well to inform readers that plaque psoriasis is fairly common, affecting about 7.5 million Americans. Two glaring problems here. First, the only quote used in this very short story is directly lifted (without attribution) from the news release. No independent sources are included. Furthermore, it says it comes from the lead investigator of the study (true), but fails to mention he’s a paid consultant for Janssen. Another weakness of this story is that alternatives are not mentioned. In addition to a multitude of other immunosuppressant drugs, there are a host of treatments available for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, including: Light therapy, Vitamin A & D derivatives, as well as other medications that don’t work via immune system suppression. Also, bear in mind, these are symptomatic treatments only, since there is no known cure for psoriasis. Availability is implied but it should have been made more clear when these drugs received FDA approval, and what they’re approved for. There are a number of other biologic drugs that treat psoriasis by altering the immune system (this makes sense, because psoriasis is an autoimmune condition), but Tremfya blocks a specific part of the immune system that has not been targeted before. In other words, it is “first in class.” The article does not touch on this. The only quote used is drawn directly from the news release, without attribution.
|
41766
|
So many of these people that are getting the chickenpox were vaccinated for it. It’s not being spread by the kids who didn’t have the vaccination.
|
In the midst of a chickenpox outbreak in his state, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said that he had not vaccinated any of his children against the disease, choosing instead to purposely expose his kids to an infected person to get the chickenpox — a practice that public health officials say is dangerous.
|
mixture
|
abortion, chickenpox, vaccines,
|
On March 19, in the midst of a chickenpox outbreak in his state, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said in a radio interview that he had not vaccinated any of his children against the disease, choosing instead to purposely expose his kids to an infected person to get chickenpox — a practice that public health officials say is dangerous.In the course of the interview, Bevin made several other false or misleading statements:Bevin made his comments during an interview with WKCT, a talk radio station in Bowling Green, Kentucky (the interview starts approximately an hour-and-a-half in). According to his campaign website, Bevin has nine children between the ages of 5 and 16. His office did not reply to our request for additional comment.We’ve written about some of these ideas before. But there are several unusual aspects of chickenpox, or what doctors call varicella, that are worth discussing in more detail.The governor’s statements also followed news of a Catholic high school student filing a lawsuit against the Northern Kentucky Health Department because of a moral objection to the chickenpox vaccine, which is produced in cells derived more than half a century ago from voluntarily aborted fetal tissue. The student attends a private school where at least 32 students have fallen ill in a chickenpox outbreak.We’ll explain how the chickenpox vaccine is made, and why the Catholic Church has told its members that getting the vaccine doesn’t go against doctrine.Here’s what the Kentucky governor said about his experience with his kids’ cases of chickenpox:Bevin, March 19: Every single one of my kids had the chickenpox. They got the chickenpox on purpose. Because we found a neighbor that had it and I went and made sure every one of my kids was exposed to it, and they got it. They had it as children. They were miserable for a few days, and they all turned out fine.Eugene Shapiro, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said that in the past, some doctors recommended so-called chickenpox parties, with the idea of making sure a person gets chickenpox as a child, and not as an adult, when the disease is usually much worse.But that was before the vaccine became available. Now that there’s a vaccine that protects against the disease, Shapiro said deliberate exposure is “foolish to do.”That’s because while most kids who get chickenpox are fine after a few days of itching and scratching, there can be complications, including serious skin infections, brain inflammation and even death.Chickenpox is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, or VZV, and typically involves a blister-like rash, along with fatigue, fever, headache and loss of appetite.Prior to the vaccine, nearly all Americans — about 4 million annually — came down with the disease, usually in childhood. In the early 1990s, before the first vaccine was licensed, around 12,000 people were hospitalized and between 100 and 150 died every year.While chickenpox is more dangerous to immunocompromised people, most of the deaths, Shapiro said, were in previously healthy people with fully intact immune systems.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “strongly recommends against” chickenpox parties or other events in which parents intentionally expose their children to chickenpox. “There is no way to tell in advance how severe your child’s symptoms will be,” the CDC’s website warns. “So it is not worth taking the chance of exposing your child to someone with the disease.” The best protection, the agency says, is vaccination.All of Bevin’s children are young enough to have benefited from the chickenpox vaccine, which first became available in 1995 and was recommended by the CDC in 1996. In 2006, the CDC changed its recommendations to include two doses, one at 12 to 15 months, and a second between the ages of 4 and 6.Bevin also misleadingly pointed out that cases of chickenpox often occur in people who have been immunized.Bevin, March 19: Here’s the irony. So many of these people that are getting the chickenpox were vaccinated for it. It’s not being spread by the kids who didn’t have the vaccination.We contacted the Northern Kentucky Health Department to find out how many of the 32 students in the current outbreak had been vaccinated, but the department declined to provide more information. So we don’t know the specifics in this case. Nevertheless, chickenpox outbreaks can happen in highly vaccinated populations and sometimes a larger proportion of sick people will have been vaccinated. But as we’ve explained before, that doesn’t mean immunization makes you more susceptible, or more likely to spread the disease. Because vaccines don’t work 100 percent of the time, and the vast majority of children are vaccinated in the United States, it’s entirely possible for more vaccinated than unvaccinated people to get chickenpox.There’s no irony involved — just math.The chickenpox vaccine is highly effective, but isn’t perfect. According to the CDC, one dose prevents about 85 percent of people from getting even a mild case, and protects nearly all people from having a severe case. Two doses provide even more protection.Chickenpox can be spread by anyone with the disease — vaccinated or unvaccinated — but a CDC study found that because vaccinated people are more likely to have a more mild illness with fewer infectious skin lesions, they are also usually less contagious.The governor also erred when he described the long-term immunity of natural chickenpox infection and contrasted that with immunization.Bevin, March 19: And the odds of getting chickenpox again, if you’ve already had it naturally as a child — where it will have 99.999 percent no long-term [repercussion] on you if you get it naturally — your odds of ever getting it again are slim. But now they’re finding that you need to keep getting boosters if you’re inoculated against it. It’s absurd.Bevin’s basic claim — that natural chickenpox infection almost always provides good, lifelong immunity — is accurate. But he’s wrong that natural infection won’t have effects on a person later in life, and that one needs to “keep getting boosters” if vaccinated.The booster idea probably stems from the shift from one to two vaccine doses, which the CDC recommended in 2006. At the time, an unexpected number of outbreaks were still happening in places with good vaccine coverage, so public health officials decided to add a second shot. And indeed, two doses appear to have largely solved that problem. Surveillance studies have found that since the introduction of the two-dose program, outbreaks and the number of chickenpox cases, hospitalizations and deaths — which had already fallen dramatically with the one-dose vaccine — tumbled further.Although it isn’t known how long vaccinated people are protected from chickenpox, there is no indication that boosters beyond the second recommended shot are needed to preserve immunity.The larger problem with continued immunity is actually shingles, or herpes zoster, which, like chickenpox, is also caused by VZV. Anyone who has had chickenpox or who has received the vaccine, which is a live but attenuated form of the virus, can get shingles.After initially causing chickenpox or triggering immunity, VZV can hide out, dormant, in neurons scattered throughout the body. For the most part, the virus lies low and doesn’t do much. But the virus occasionally reactivates. And if a person’s VZV immunity has declined, either because of age or other factors, the virus can cause a chickenpox-like illness that unfortunately, is usually much more painful.With shingles, a person develops a painful and itchy rash, typically on just one side of their body. After the rash clears, some patients experience continued and sometimes debilitating pain in the rash area that can last for weeks, months and even years. This is called postherpetic neuralgia, or PHN, and is the most common complication of shingles.According to the CDC, nearly one in three people develop shingles at some point in their lives. As Shapiro explained, the waning immunity that is responsible for shingles happens “whether or not you get the vaccine.”In fact, people who have been vaccinated are at a lower risk of developing shingles as children — another benefit of immunization.There is a concern, suggested by some mathematical modeling, that as more people get vaccinated and there are fewer cases of chickenpox, there will be less natural boosting in the population, which might lead more adults to develop shingles because their VZV immunity will decline more quickly.But Shapiro told us this was “purely theoretical” and has never been shown. In the United States, multiple CDC studies have found that while shingles cases have gradually risen over time, the increase began before the chickenpox vaccine rollout, and there hasn’t been an acceleration in the increase since the vaccine came out. The CDC also notes that other countries have observed an uptick in shingles cases, even though they do not have chickenpox vaccination programs.Shapiro explained that the lack of chickenpox exposures might not be a problem because the virus likely reactivates periodically without causing any disease, in effect producing its own exposures.“Your immune system sees it and reacts and controls the infection,” said Shapiro. “And it also gives you a boost.”But even if chickenpox vaccination did have a slight negative impact on shingles, Shapiro said there’s another fix for that: the shingles vaccine. Two doses of the CDC’s preferred vaccine protects about 90 percent of people from developing shingles and is recommended for people ages 50 and over.The impetus for the governor’s chickenpox comments was a lawsuit brought by a Catholic high school student attending a school experiencing a chickenpox outbreak.The student, Jerome Kunkel, alleges that the Northern Kentucky Health Department violated his freedom of religion by preventing him from playing basketball because he refused to get the chickenpox vaccine. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that according to the lawsuit, Kunkel is opposed to the vaccine because it is made in cells that originally came from aborted fetal tissue.According to letters sent to parents, the health department on Feb. 21 decided to cancel all extracurricular activities, including sports, at the school until the outbreak resolved. Later, on March 14, the department barred any students without proof of vaccination or immunity from attending school. As of that date, 32 students, or 13 percent of the student body, had been affected by the outbreak.The health department said in a statement that its actions were a “direct response to a public health threat and [were] an appropriate and necessary response to prevent further spread of this contagious illness.”We won’t go into the legal arguments of the case, but we will share the facts on how the chickenpox vaccine is made.The two licensed chickenpox vaccines in the U.S. are made of live, weakened virus that, according to their package inserts, is grown in either one or two human cell strains. The cell strains, known as MRC-5 and WI-38, are fetal cell strains that were created from a bit of lung tissue from two different aborted fetuses in the 1960s. Because VZV primarily infects humans, and these human cells replicate easily in culture, it is possible to grow a large amount of virus with them. Vaccine production today is linked to abortion only in the sense that it uses the cell strains created half a century ago from those two abortions, which were voluntary and not performed to create vaccines. Vaccines are not grown in aborted fetal tissue, and as the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s website explains, there is no ongoing need to use other fetal cells. The vaccines also do not contain any fetal cells, although it’s possible an incredibly small amount of fetal cell DNA could end up in the vaccine after purification.Recognizing this distant link to abortion, and the benefits of vaccines to public health, the Catholic Church has told its congregants that chickenpox vaccination does not violate its teachings.The Pontifical Academy for Life, for example, stated in 2005 that Catholics should always seek out alternative vaccines, but if they do not exist — and there is no such alternative for chickenpox — then people may use them. The church also requested that Catholics register a complaint with vaccine manufacturers to push for an alternative in the future.More recently, after vaccination rates fell in Italy, the Pontifical Academy for Life was even more explicit about this advice.“The technical characteristics of the production of the vaccines most commonly used in childhood lead us to exclude that there is a morally relevant cooperation between those who use these vaccines today and the practice of voluntary abortion,” the academy wrote in a July 2017 note. “Hence, we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.”
|
12414
|
"Rare is the president ""who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done, between the executive orders and the job-killing regulations that have been terminated."
|
"In his Cabinet meeting, Trump said that rare is the president ""who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done, between the executive orders and the job-killing regulations that have been terminated."" Scholars of the presidency and Congress are unconvinced that Trump’s legislative and administrative output is exceptional by historical standards. Trump has signed a relatively large number of bills so far, but comparatively few with significant impact. And while some of his executive orders have made an immediate impact, most have merely expressed his policy preferences or set in motion a process that may, or may not, change policies down the road."
|
false
|
National, Donald Trump,
|
"Some commentators called it ""the weirdest Cabinet meeting ever"": President Donald Trump’s leadership team gathered to deliver a litany of praise for the president. Trump saved some of the boasting for himself, making claims that his administration has been one of historic accomplishments. ""I will say that never has there been a president -- with few exceptions; in the case of FDR, he had a major depression to handle -- who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done, between the executive orders and the job-killing regulations that have been terminated,"" Trump said, later adding, ""We've achieved tremendous success."" We’ve previously checked Trump’s claim in April that ""no administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days"" and found that assertion to be False. But given the high-profile setting of Trump’s comment -- his first formal Cabinet meeting -- we decided to take a look at his new statement. Presidential and congressional scholars aren’t any more convinced than they were in April. ""Trump’s boasts are empty,"" said Max J. Skidmore, a University of Missouri-Kansas City political scientist who has written several books on the presidency. When we checked with the White House, they noted that in this remark Trump acknowledged exceptions such as Roosevelt. They also pointed to the statistics for the number of laws and executive orders signed by a president in 100 days -- a metric that Trump fares well on. Around the 100-day point of Trump’s presidency, we found that White House press secretary Sean Spicer was accurate on the numbers when he said that the current president has ""worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any president since (Harry) Truman."" We noted that in the first 100 days of his first full term, Truman signed 55 bills; the president with the highest count since then is Trump with 28. However, none of the bills Trump had signed at that point qualified as major pieces of legislation. None of the ones since are, either. They include, among others, two federal spending bills of the sort required periodically of every president and Congress to keep the government running; a bill overhauling government-employee travel policy; a bill about the United States competing for an international expo; a measure addressing Department of Homeland Security vehicle fleets; and the official naming of a federal courthouse in Tennessee. While the White House is pursuing several major issues in Congress -- notably the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act and efforts to cut taxes and promote infrastructure -- it would be premature for Trump to take credit for these. The health care bill has passed the House but not yet passed the Senate, while the tax and infrastructure measures haven’t even gotten that far. Trump is ""correct that he has signed a rather large, although not unprecedented, number of bills,"" Skidmore said. However, ""most of the bills he has signed are routine and unimportant."" Sarah Binder, a George Washington University political scientist who specializes in Congress, agreed that ""the absence of significant legislative movement is glaring. Contrary to Trump's statement, this is a Republican government struggling to legislate, despite control of both chambers and the White House."" By contrast, even if you set aside Franklin D. Roosevelt -- as Trump did -- other presidents signed more far-reaching legislation during their first 100 days. Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, while Barack Obama signed not only a nearly $800 billion stimulus package to combat a spiraling recession but also the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and a law expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Obama also implemented two urgent economic programs formally passed in the final weeks of George W. Bush’s presidency -- the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the auto industry bailout. Meanwhile, John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps (later ratified by Congress), while Truman’s first 100 days were a whirlwind of foreign-policy actions -- the end of World War II in Europe, the writing of the United Nations charter, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, and Japan’s unconditional surrender. Trump’s most significant legislative achievements may be his use of the Congressional Review Act -- a previously little-used power that makes it easier for Congress and the president to overturn federal regulations. ""Some of these regulations are substantively and politically important,"" such as the overturning of the Stream Protection Act, an environmental regulation that Trump and others said harmed coal mining, said Gregory Koger, a University of Miami political scientist. Still, Koger added, ""these definitely do not rise to the level of ‘landmark’ legislation, or even ‘major’ legislation."" And John Frendreis, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago, added that such powers were not available to most postwar presidents, since the Congressional Review Act was only passed in the 1990s. This makes comparisons with past presidents difficult, he said. As president, Trump has signed some three dozen executive orders, which also places him numerically above the presidents since Franklin Roosevelt. A number of these orders have addressed high-profile issues, and some could potentially have significant impacts. One -- a visa ban for individuals from certain Muslim-majority nations -- remains tied up in lawsuits and is headed to the Supreme Court. Another notable order directs the Treasury Department to stop collecting penalties related to not having health insurance. If this policy is followed and isn’t blocked by the courts, ""it could cripple this aspect of the Affordable Care Act without altering the law,"" Frendreis said. Trump also used executive orders to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and to green-light key pipelines that had been held up by the Obama administration. And Trump also announced that the United States would be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, though he didn’t use an executive order in that case. These are significant policy changes -- but it’s important to note some caveats about Trump’s use of executive orders. First, many of these orders started the ball rolling to overturn federal regulations, rather than overturning them in one fell swoop. Often, Congress needs to weigh in to change a law, or Cabinet departments must undertake a lengthy administrative process before policies officially change. And second, new presidents routinely issue orders during their first 100 days that overturn actions of their predecessors of the opposite party. Just two days after taking office, President Bill Clinton signed orders overturning restrictions on abortion imposed during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and with equal speed, President George W. Bush overturned Clinton’s opposition to a ban on aid to international groups that participate in abortions. ""Every president uses executive orders, especially when they cannot pass legislation because of a hostile Congress,"" Frendreis said. ""So his actions here are typical, and not unusually impressive. In fact, his need to act administratively instead of legislatively implies legislative weakness, not strength, because he should be able to make policy through the legislative process since he has unified partisan control."" All told, he said, ""the early Trump presidency stands out in terms of the number of symbolic actions he has taken to ‘fulfill’ campaign promises, but his record of changing policy is not off to a fast start. Like all presidents, he has taken some impactful actions, but he does not stand out in this regard."" In his Cabinet meeting, Trump said that rare is the president ""who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done, between the executive orders and the job-killing regulations that have been terminated."" Scholars of the presidency and Congress are unconvinced that Trump’s legislative and administrative output is exceptional by historical standards. Trump has signed a relatively large number of bills so far, but comparatively few with significant impact. And while some of his executive orders have made an immediate impact, most have merely expressed his policy preferences or set in motion a process that may, or may not, change policies down the road."
|
11473
|
Prenatal Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements May Cut Babies’ Colds
|
This is a story reporting on a recently published study comparing the health of infants born to mothers who did or did not receive DHA supplements during a later portion (i.e. starting at 18 – 22 weeks) of their pregnancy. These results follow several other publications about these infants and how they compare, which is something that should have been included in the story to provide readers with a more complete picture about what is known. The health benefits were reported as percent improvement rather than absolute differences, which means that it is not possible for readers to know the magnitude of the differences in order to consider whether they are meaningful or not. While minimizing illness in one’s offspring is an issue of concern to all parents, helping readers to understand the impact of an internvention is critical to their being able to make an informed decision about whether something is worth doing. And full discussion of risk is especially important in considering any supplement during the prenatal period.
|
mixture
|
HealthDay,Preventive care,Supplements
|
There was no information about the cost of DHA supplementation. We easily found many websites selling plant-source (from algae) DHA. One site had a bottle of 60 (only 200 mg tabs, so the mother would need to take 2 to reach the 400 mg in the study) for $19.67. The benefits associated with prenatal exposure to DHA supplement were reported only as relative benefits. So while there was a 24% drop in the odds of having cold symptoms, 26% shorter cough duration, 15% less phlegm and etc., the reader really has no insight about whether these differences were meaningful or not. Is a 24% drop the same as only 1 less cold over the course of a year? The story needed to explain. In addition – while these differences may have been statistically significant, would they really make a difference to the baby or its parents? Besides – the lead researcher on the project was quoted as indicating that the findings weren’t ‘dramatic’. Does this suggest that there are more impactful ways to infant health? The story mentioned that the babies whose mothers had recevied prenatal supplementation with DHA had bouts with vomiting or rashes that lasted longer than the babies born to mothers in the control group. The story mentioned that the women in the study had low DHA intake which was also the case for women in the US. This appears to be an overstatement of the need for DHA supplementation for women in the US and the story should have touched on whether excessive DHA consumption might have potential consequences for pregnant women such as bleeding or problems with vitamin E levels. In addition, the comments by Dr. Wu suggested that women use this supplement along with prenatal vitamins even though this particular study did not begin supplementing until 18-22 wks. A large randomized clinical published in JAMA showed some adverse outcomes among the female infants exposed in utero (not males), namely lower language scores and lower adaptive behavior scores. We don’t know why the story chose to interview Dr. Wu, but perhaps her comments needed to be addressed by other expert perspectives as well. The story mentioned that the study was conducted in a group of more 800 Mexican women and that the women were randomly assigned to recieve DHA supplement or placebo. It explained that the outcomes of the babies symptoms were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months. Discussion about two other aspects of the evidence would have made this a more informative story. It would have been more complete to inform readers that this is part of a larger study and that previously published work by this group on this cohort found that there was no difference between the groups in terms of birth weight or head circumference. And while mentioning that the women in the study tended to be deficient in DHA, the story neglected to follow up with information about whether DHA supplementation would be expected to have any impact in women who were not deficient in this nutrient. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story contained a quote from a New York OB/GYN (who did not appear to have a role in the study reported on) indicating that she recommends that her patients take DHA, although her recommendation differed from that used in the study. As the study was about the possible beneficial impact that prenatal supplementation has on the infant during the first months of life, it would have been more useful to include insight from indiviiduals with expertise in infant rather than maternal health. It is a little troubling that the previous studies of the group of infants in the study reported on were not mentioned. The outcomes taken together provide a better picture of the impact of supplementation with DHA. The study reported on the use of an algae derived DHA supplement and possible health benefits observed in infants born to mothers who consumed them. While suggesting that fish derived DHA could be problematic due to mercury contamination, the story failed to educate readers about other DHA containing food that could be consumed to obtain the recommended levels of intake during pregnancy. Keeping small babies out of public places, not smoking, hand washing, and breast milk are all ways of decreasing the incidence of and improving recovery from viral illnesses. The story never did explicity state whether the product used in the study was generally available or not. One might be able to assume that it is, but it would have only required a line in the story to address availability and how widespread is its use. The story indicated that the study reported on was unique in that it looked at whether providing pregnant women with DHA supplements had an impact on the subsequent health of their offspring. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
7628
|
Clashing with Trump, U.S. government report says climate change will batter economy.
|
Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, hitting everything from health to infrastructure, according to a government report issued on Friday that the White House called inaccurate.
|
true
|
Environment
|
The congressionally mandated report, written with the help of more than a dozen U.S. government agencies and departments, outlined the projected impact of global warming on every corner of American society in a dire warning that is at odds with the Trump administration’s pro-fossil-fuels agenda. “With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states,” the report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II, said. Global warming would disproportionately hurt the poor, broadly undermine human health, damage infrastructure, limit the availability of water, alter coastlines, and boost costs in industries from farming, to fisheries and energy production, the report said. But it added that projections of further damage could change if greenhouse gas emissions are sharply curbed, even though many of the impacts of climate change - including more frequent and more powerful storms, droughts and flooding - are already under way. “Future risks from climate change depend primarily on decisions made today,” it said. The report supplements a study issued last year that concluded humans are the main driver of global warming and warned of catastrophic effects to the planet. The studies clash with policy under President Donald Trump, who has been rolling back Obama-era environmental and climate protections to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels, including crude oil, already the highest in the world, above Saudi Arabia and Russia. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the new report was “largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that...there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population.” The government’s next update of the National Climate Assessment, she said, “gives us the opportunity to provide for a more transparent and data-driven process that includes fuller information on the range of potential scenarios and outcomes.” Trump last year announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Deal agreed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change, arguing the accord would hurt the U.S. economy and provide little tangible environmental benefit. Trump and several members of his cabinet have also repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, arguing that the causes and impacts are not yet settled. Environmental groups said the report reinforced their calls for the United States to take action on climate change. “While President Trump continues to ignore the threat of climate change, his own administration is sounding the alarm,” said Abigail Dillen, president of environmental group Earthjustice. “This report underscores what we are already seeing firsthand: climate change is real, it’s happening here, and it’s happening now.” Previous research, including from U.S. government scientists, has also concluded that climate change could have severe economic consequences, including damage to infrastructure, water supplies and agriculture. Severe weather and other impacts also increase the risk of disease transmission, decrease air quality, and can increase mental health problems, among other effects. Thirteen government departments and agencies, from the Agriculture Department to NASA, were part of the committee that compiled the new report. The entire report can be viewed at http://www.globalchange.gov
|
24698
|
"The Democrats propose ""a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage."
|
"120 million ""deprived"" of health care is not correct"
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Mike Pence,
|
"With high-profile support from President Barack Obama, Congress is preparing a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. The details have yet to be revealed, but that hasn't stopped critics in Congress from going on the attack. Obama and the Democratic leadership have proposed broad outlines for the overhaul. The centerpiece of their plan remains the employer-based system, where most people have private health insurance through work. To rein in costs, the government would invest in electronic medical records and encourage efficiency and preventive care. To get coverage for people who don't have health insurance, the plan would increase eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Finally, the plans seek to create a health insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses can easily comparison shop for insurance coverage. One of the exchange plans would be a public option run by the government. It's the public option that has fueled Republican attacks, leading to charges that it would destroy the private system, that millions would lose their current coverage, and that Democrats don't have a way to pay for it. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana described the Democratic health care plan as ""a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage and lead to federal bureaucrats denying critical care for patients."" That ""120 million"" number jumped out at us. That's a big number, representing roughly three-quarters of those who now have employer-provided health insurance. We asked Pence's staff about the number, and they referred us to a report from the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm. The report ran a number of scenarios, including what would happen if the government offered a public option that was a Medicare-style plan open to everyone. Their model found that 118 million people would choose to drop their private coverage in favor of cheaper public coverage. But there's a hitch: That's what the Lewin Group believed would happen under the plans that were the most like Medicare, and if everyone were allowed to enroll. As we noted before, it's possible to set up a public option where only some people are allowed to enroll. Under the Lewin Group's estimates, if you restrict a Medicare-style public option only to individuals and small businesses, only 32 million would leave private coverage. And if the public option is less like Medicare and competes like a private insurer, the number drops further. We'll grant that Congress could come up with a Medicare-style plan and open it to everyone, but it doesn't seem likely. Pence appears to be picking the worst number he can choose. And he doesn't mention the fact that under the scenario laid out by the Lewin Group, people would still have health care coverage and their premiums reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He says the government would ""deprive"" people of health insurance, when actually the scenario is that they would choose a different option. Even if you believe that an expansive government health care plan would drive private insurers out of business, that still doesn't account for Pence's ""deprive"" claim, because the Lewin report he cites is focused on people who have chosen the government plan, not people who were left to the government plan after private options disappeared. Finally, we have to include a caveat about the Lewin Group. The group says it operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance. Given all this background and explanation, we rated Pence's statement that the government would ""deprive"" 120 million people of their ""current health care coverage"" .
|
10999
|
2 Weeks of Antibiotic Therapy Relieves IBS
|
This story on a pharma-funded study indicating that antibiotics may hold promise for people who suffer from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) overplayed the study’s actual findings and spent too little time analyzing the evidence. This one did a better job than the AP story in identifying the conflicts of interest of the people it quoted, but that does not absolve it of the bigger failure: failing to find any independent sources to provide some much needed context and critical analysis. Irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic condition that has perplexed researchers. Drug companies are hungry for an effective treatment so that they can tap into what appears to be a significant market — representing either 15% or 20% of the population, depending on whose numbers you believe. Regulators typically set a high bar for a drug to be marketed to patients for broad use, which is why the antibiotic treatment described is still under review and only available for off label use. Reporters should set a similarly high bar and not allow drug company hype or individual success stories sway them away from the hard data. Instead of a marketing-style headline such as “2 weeks of antibiotic therapy relieves IBS” — can’t you see that on an advertisement during a football game? — the story could have just as easily said, “Most people don’t see relief of symptoms after taking expensive antibiotics” – or that more than 30% of those taking a placebo did find relief.
|
false
|
Irritable bowel syndrome,WebMD
|
This story made no mention of costs. This is a shame in a story that is essentially promoting off label use for a costly drug that is only approved for a very narrow range of treatments. The Associated Press story that we also reviewed estimated that the pills cost $21 a pop, resulting in a $910 price tag for a two week supply. Given that IBS sufferers may require long term treatment, this bill could grow exponentially. When quantifying benefits, the story allows hype to take the place of hard data. The second quote in the story, from the lead researcher, who has just been paid by the drug company to conduct this study, says, “With the new antibiotic treatment, Pimentel tells WebMD, many participants ”say they are 80% improved, 90% improved, that kind of results.”” Note that phrase: “many participants.” Just how many? And what does 80% or 90% improved mean? What objective measure of this was made? The story also glosses over the significant placebo response in comparison with the drug group response, reporting: “Just 31.7%” ??? This is biased framing. The main problem is that there was no explicit statement about presence or absence of side effects. Readers want to know, and since researchers have studied and reported on adverse effects, there should be an explicit mention in a news report. In this case, there was no difference in side effects between the drug group and the placebo group. The story does an adequate job explaining how the research was done, and had appropriate caveats from an editorial author. The story did not engage in disease-mongering and presented the information about the disease in a straightforward way. “The study looked only at those IBS patients with the non-constipation form, he tells WebMD. For those with this type of IBS, symptoms can include abdominal pain, bloating, and changes in bowel function such as diarrhea. IBS is considered a functional gastrointestinal disorder without a known physiologic cause, with the symptoms recurring and often worsened by stress. Existing treatment options — diet and lifestyle modification, psychological therapy, and other drugs — do not help all people with the condition.” This is where the story excels in one way and fails in another. It excels by taking pains to point out the conflicts of interest of everyone it quotes. It nearly gives the lead author, Mark Pimentel,” a pass by calling him “director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who led the clinical trial of the drug at Cedars” in the second paragraph and waiting until paragraph 14 to tell readers, “The studies were funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals Inc., which makes rifaximin. Pimentel serves as a consultant to Salix and serves on its scientific advisory board. He discovered the use of the antibiotic for IBS. Cedars-Sinai holds the patent and has licensed the rights to Salix.” It goes on to quote Jan Tack and says, “Tack has served as a scientific adviser to companies evaluating IBS drugs.” Its last source is Christine Frissora, of whom the story says, “Frissora reports research funding from Tioga Pharmaceuticals for a study of an IBS drug and serving on the speakers bureaus for Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.” See a pattern here? Where are the independent voices in the story? So, for example, when Dr. Frissora says the findings “will probably encourage other doctors to try it, especially primary care doctors who may not [yet] know about this data” – why don’t we hear from an evidence-based primary care doc about whether he/she will change practice based on this info? The story does not compare the antibiotic approach to existing alternatives. It says only, “Existing treatment options — diet and lifestyle modification, psychological therapy, and other drugs — do not help all people with the condition.” Well, neither did the drug being studied! And the story didn’t give any details about past research into antibiotic therapy for IBS. The story says that rifaximin “is approved by the FDA only for traveler’s diarrhea and hepatic encephalopathy, a brain disorder caused by chronic liver failure.” And it interviews a physician who’s been using it off-label for the non-constipation form of IBS. But the story does not make clear how widely used it is. The story does not establish the true novelty of this approach. It lists a bunch of existing treatment options that are all not antibiotics and then transitions to “With the new antibiotic treatment…” and later briefly mentions other antibiotics “which have produced mixed results for IBS patients.” We find this confusing. How much have other antibiotics have been tested in IBS? Why weren’t they listed among the “existing treatment options”? The story does state that researchers chose rifaximin because it might perform better than other antibiotics. But, again, any precedent for, or track record with, antibiotic therapy for IBS is not clearly explained. The story did not rely on a news release.
|
41508
|
90,000 women are raped in the UK every year.
|
Millions of young people flooded the streets of cities around the world on Friday to demand political leaders take urgent steps to stop climate change, uniting in a worldwide protest inspired by 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.
|
unproven
|
crime
|
Alarmed by images of the Greenland ice sheets melting and the Amazon rain forests burning, students and workers abandoned schools, shops and offices in nearly every corner of the globe, aiming to stop what they see as a looming environmental catastrophe. The protests started in the Pacific islands, where rising sea levels threaten a way of life, and followed the sun across Australia, Japan, Southeast Asia and on to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas. The coordinated student “strike” culminated in New York’s Wall Street, where some investors have embraced the fossil fuel industry. Massive crowds overwhelmed the streets of lower Manhattan, chanting “Save our planet!” while anticipating an address by Thunberg, an international figure who sailed across the Atlantic in an emissions-free yacht ahead of next week’s climate summit at the United Nations. “Right now we are the ones who are making a difference. If no one else will take action, then we will,” Thunberg told tens of thousands of people gathered at a park with a view of the Statue of Liberty. Once she took the stage, the crowd chanted her name, then went silent to hang on her every word. As she paused between sentences, people erupted into applause. “If you belong to that small group of people who feel threatened by us, then we have some very bad news for you. Because this is only the beginning. Change is coming whether they like it or not,” she concluded. Demonstrators in Paris raised a painting of Thunberg as the Virgin Mary, a halo around her head reading, “Our house is on fire.” “She’s like the icon of our generation,” New York protester Fiamma Cochrane, 17, said, highlighting the leadership role of young people in the international movement to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Four million people participated worldwide including 300,000 in New York, organizers with the anti-fossil fuels group 350.org said. Reuters could not verify the crowd sizes. Concern has escalated since U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the international Paris Accord on climate change and took a series of steps to dismantle environmental protections, including moving on Thursday to block stricter vehicle emissions standards in California. Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro are among the world’s only national leaders who publicly question the science of climate change, and they are not taking part in next week’s U.N. climate summit. Thousands gathered across Brazil to take aim at Bolsonaro, who they say is allowing the destruction of the Amazon rainforest to clear space for soy beans and cattle ranching. In August, fires there surged to their greatest level since 2010. “The policy of the Bolsonaro government is the policy of environmental destruction and deepening the climate crisis ... this is why we’re on strike,” said Marcela Pimentel Miranda, an organizer for Youth for Climate’s affiliate in Brasilia. One protester in Sao Paulo held up a picture of Bolsonaro and Trump beneath the hand-written “Abolish fossil fools!” Demonstrators in Thailand stormed the environment ministry and feigned death, while activists in Berlin and Munich stood on melting blocks of ice with nooses around their necks to symbolize the earth’s fate when the polar ice caps melt. Protesters in Warsaw staged a performance of people drowning in a sea of plastic waste. “The planet is getting hotter than my imaginary boyfriend,” read a poster held by a teenager in Thailand. “Make love, not CO2” signs were spotted in Berlin and Vienna. While Europeans filled the streets, students in the Solomon Islands gathered at the rising ocean water’s edge wearing traditional grass skirts. The issue is vital to low-lying Pacific islands, which have repeatedly asked wealthier nations to do more to prevent rising sea levels. Global warming caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels has already led to droughts and heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and floods, according to scientists. “There is no Planet B,” read a sign hoisted by a young woman in London. In Kenya, around 500 activists marched to demand that the government cancel plans for a coal plant and investigate corruption in hydropower dams. “In Samburu there is a lot of heat, the grass has dried up, there is little water,” said Francis Lentel, a young herdsman in traditional beads, holding a picture of the Earth weeping. The protest movement is putting increasing pressure on governments and companies to respond. German Chancellor Angela Merkel unveiled a new climate protection package thrashed out by parties in her coalition during all-night talks. Private industry has also responded. Amazon.com Inc Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos on Thursday pledged to make the largest U.S. e-commerce company net carbon neutral by 2040. Hundreds of workers from Google, Amazon and other technology companies on Friday criticized their industry for being slow to tackle climate change and joined marches in San Francisco and Seattle calling for action.
|
31371
|
"Popular cereals (including Lucky Charms and Cheerios) contain ""paint thinner"" and pose a danger to children."
|
Because representing a phosphate salt as a paint thinner is a rhetorical device used to sow scientifically uninformed fears about a commonly used food additive without any concern for scale or mechanism, and because the compound itself presents no reasonable risk to humans, we rank this claim as false.
|
false
|
Food, cereal, food, lucky charms
|
Fears over the presence of a chemical known as trisodium phosphate (or tribasic sodium phosphate; TSP) in cereals like Lucky Charms and Cheerios have been circulating on social media sites and message boards for years. While uncontroversially used as an additive in cereal since at least the 1950s, a popular picture highlighting Lucky Charms’ ingredients was ultimately able to generate a recent bout of panic about its use: The issue here is not whether these cereals contain TSP — they (and many other food items) do. The issue, similarly, is not whether TSP is used as a cleaning product — it is. The issue, instead, is whether or not a chemical used as a cleaning product can also be used safely as a food additive — it can. An apt comparison for a number of reasons is the chemical sodium bicarbonate. This compound is used in heavy-duty cleaning, as an agent to de-tarnish silver, and even to extinguish fires. Sodium bicarbonate, however, is better known as baking soda, and it is instrumental as a leavening agent (something that makes dough rise) when baking, among other things, chocolate chip cookies. TSP, too, can be used as a leavening agent, as both sodium bicarbonate and TSP react with acidic compounds present in dough to release carbon dioxide (creating air bubbles that cause the dough to rise). More relevant, but related to the same underlying chemistry, is the fact that both TSP and sodium carbonate can serve as buffering agents, which resist changes in pH. In terms of food science, buffers are added to counter changes to pH caused by the addition of more acidic elements during the production of a food item. This helps to maintain texture and lengthen that product’s shelf-life. In terms of cleaning, an alkaline buffer like TSP is efficacious because it can retain a high pH—a useful trait for removing grime—even when it is diluted in water. More important, however, TSP’s use as a food buffering agent and its use as an industrial cleaning agent involve vastly different scales. When sold as an industrial product for heavy-duty cleaning or paint-removal, TSP generally comes as a water soluble powder that, when mixed as indicated for cleaning, produces a high pH comparable to bleach. A typical solution for heavy duty cleaning is ½ cup of TSP dissolved in 2 gallons of water — equivalent to about 300 grams of TSP. This is a massive amount, considering that a regular box of Cheerios (all ingredients included) contains just over 300 grams of food in total. That higher amount, in part, gives TSP the chemical properties needed to act as a reliable cleaning agent while also imparting a modicum of physical risk, both attributable to its high pH. But at the amounts found in food as an additive, there is no impact on human health whatsoever. Even if it were found in higher concentrations in cereal, TSP’s risk to humans would not be through its inherent toxicity or carcinogenicity, but by upsetting the balance of other minerals in your body such as calcium, as described by the FDA: It is the opinion of the Select Committee that the Ca:P ratio of the diet is important, especially if it varies substantially from 1:1 owing to the relatively high intake of phosphorus. […] In laboratory animals and presumably in man, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism and bone resorption may be induced when the diet furnishes an otherwise adequate amount of calcium but excessive levels of phosphorus. This would be a fine place to point out that sodium bicarbonate, as well, can cause health problems up to and including a stomach rupture if an extreme and unrealistic amount is consumed. At the amounts found in food, though, both TSP and sodium bicarbonate are perfectly safe, as the FDA concludes: None of the [approved sodium phosphate additives are] intrinsically harmful and their use in foods does not present a hazard when the total amount of phosphorus ingested and the intakes of calcium, magnesium, vitamin D, and other nutrients are satisfactory. The current use of calcium phosphates in food processing is without harmful effects on the health of consumers and, in some instances, may be advantageous.
|
14165
|
"Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton ""wants to abolish the Second Amendment."
|
"Trump said, ""Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment."" We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, and the bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite. She has repeatedly said she wants to protect the right to bear arms while enacting measures to prevent gun violence. Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these two cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation. For this claim to hold water, the support for Second Amendment abolition needs to be more direct."
|
false
|
National, Guns, Donald Trump,
|
"Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of coming after your guns and your right to them. ""Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment,"" Trump said May 7 at a rally in Washington. ""Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away, and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment."" We asked the Trump campaign for evidence for this claim, but they didn’t get back to us. The Clinton campaign vehemently denied it. ""Of course Hillary Clinton does not want to repeal the Second Amendment,"" Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said. We found no evidence that Clinton has ever advocated for repealing or abolishing the Second Amendment. Schwerin’s comments are largely consistent with what Clinton has said in the past few years about the right to bear arms. However, gun rights advocates argue that it’s reasonable to infer from a few of Clinton’s comments that she wants to roll back the Second Amendment as it’s currently interpreted. Straight shooting on the campaign trail In both her 2008 and 2016 White House bids, Clinton has called for stronger background check requirements all the while affirming her support for the right to bear arms. Clinton does want to keep guns out of the hands of ""people we all agree shouldn't have them — domestic abusers, violent felons, and dangerously mentally ill people,"" said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. But Trump’s charge exaggerates the controls she wants to put in place and ignores what she has said on the record. ""I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this,"" she said in a January 2008 Democratic presidential debate. In response to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia in August 2015, she said, ""We are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths."" More recently, she tweeted in April 2016, ""We can protect our Second Amendment rights AND take commonsense steps to prevent gun violence. It’s just a question of whether we choose to."" Setting aside the bulk of Clinton’s comments on protecting the Second Amendment (examples here, here, here, here, here and here), we’ll now go over two points that some gun rights advocates and experts say gives Trump’s charge some credence. Two smoking guns? Clinton riled the gun lobby with two eyebrow-raising comments last fall. Clinton said in October 2015 that a national gun buyback program like Australia’s compulsory program was ""worth looking into."" After a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic weapons and enacted a mandatory buyback of the newly prohibited guns. That program is ""incompatible with private ownership of guns,"" said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dave Kopel, a pro-gun rights attorney and research director of the conservative Independence Institute in Denver, equates her musing about Australia’s program as ""wanting to abolish the Second Amendment."" (The NRA shares this view.) The full context of Clinton’s response, however, suggests she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program, as she also evoked voluntary buybacks as potential models for a U.S. program. ""Communities have done that in our country. Several communities have done gun buyback programs. But I think it would be worth considering on the national level if that could be arranged,"" she said, before comparing the buybacks to Cash for Clunkers, the Obama administration’s voluntary vehicle trade-in program. Second, Clinton said she disagrees with the the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the individual’s right to bear arms. ""The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,"" she said in a leaked recording of a private fundraiser. Volokh called the comment ""a smoking gun"" that bolsters Trump’s charge. Reversing Heller, said Kopel, would be a huge blow to the individual right to bear arms They both pointed out that former Justice Department officials under President Bill Clinton and his appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in Heller that gun regulations do not violate the Second Amendment because it primarily pertains to a well-regulated militia and not the individual right to bear arms. Put both comments together, and Trump is correct, said NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter. UCLA Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, meanwhile, said that the accuracy of Trump’s charge depends on Clinton’s grounds for rejecting Heller. (According to news reports from the 2008 election, she supported Washington’s handgun ban.) ""If she thought the reasoning was wrong, but the result right, then she would fit in with a number of strong pro-gun advocates,"" he said. ""If, however, she thought there should be no protection for gun rights, then Trump's claim comes closer to the truth."" The Clinton campaign told us Clinton ""believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe."" This suggests Clinton disagrees with the court declaring the district’s ban on handguns unconstitutional, not necessarily the individual right itself — a position that’s more or less in line with the George W. Bush administration’s position on Heller of recognizing the right but allowing reasonable curtailment. Our ruling Trump said, ""Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment."" We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, and the bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite. She has repeatedly said she wants to protect the right to bear arms while enacting measures to prevent gun violence. Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these two cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation. For this claim to hold water, the support for Second Amendment abolition needs to be more direct. So"
|
10119
|
Chemo’s toll on breast cancer patients underestimated
|
Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story does an excellent job discussing reasons why chemotherapy may offer limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated. That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from many patients. The story mentions that under-reporting of chemotherapy-related side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of women enrolled in these trials. Results from large studies serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for many younger women or women with co-existing health conditions. The story discusses the study design and provides evidence of a greater number and seriousness of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy. However, the story does not mention that because uninsured women were not represented in this study, these women may have different, and potentially greater incidence of chemotherapy-related side effects. The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects. The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy as treatment options for breast cancer, and that a woman might choose different combinations of these therapies. This is a five-star story, and it used only 541 words.
|
true
|
The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects. The story explains that chemotherapy may be of limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated. The story provides balance on the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. There is discussion of informed decision making and the importance of weighing the absolute benefit of more treatment with the risks of experiencing serious side effects. The story mentions underreporting of chemotherapy side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of participants in clinical trials. Results from clinical trials serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for younger women or women with co-existing health conditions. The story discusses the study design and the importance of the results for women making decisions about chemotherapy as part of their breast cancer treatment. The story provides evidence of greater incidence of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. women who did not undergo chemotherapy. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story appropriately does not advocate chemotherapy for all breast cancer patients. The story discusses targeted treatment for those who would benefit most from this therapy. The story discusses the outcomes of the study with study authors and the federal agency that funded this study. A researcher who wrote an editorial in the publishing journal is cited to provide perspective on the results. The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy and the option that a woman might choose different combinations of these treatments. Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story mentions that for some women the attempt to prevent a breast cancer recurrence may not include chemotherapy, depending on her risk of recurrence. The idea of individualizing treatment via molecular profiling is new. The idea that some women at low risk of cancer recurrence and higher risk of serious side effects might decide to skip chemotherapy is also a newer approach to treatment. That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from large population of patients. The article does not appear to rely on a press release.
|
|
3057
|
Edwards reelected, black churches torched among top stories.
|
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards heads into the new year as the nation’s only Democratic governor representing the Deep South after a bruising victory over a Trump-backed opponent. This year also saw residents legally buying medical marijuana, Saints fans protesting a blown call that ultimately kept the team out of the Super Bowl and fires that destroyed several black churches.
|
true
|
Football, Super Bowl, New Orleans, New Orleans Saints, Medical marijuana, General News, NFL, Marijuana, Business, John Bel Edwards, Education, Louisiana
|
A look at the top 10 stories of 2019: EDWARDS RE-ELECTION Louisiana voters reelected Edwards to a second term despite President Trump’s efforts to return the seat to the GOP. The president led three anti-Edwards rallies in Louisiana, but Edwards cobbled together enough cross-party support to defeat businessman Eddie Rispone. Edwards said his top priorities for his second term are new money for early childhood education and public colleges, and pay raises for K-12 teachers. HARD ROCK HOTEL COLLAPSE The Hard Rock Hotel under construction at the edge of the historic French Quarter in New Orleans partially collapsed Oct. 12, killing three workers and crippling nearby businesses. Explosions toppled two cranes that loomed precariously for days. Plans to implode the building were changed to shoring up what is left of the building for further investigation and recovery of two bodies, followed by demolition. SUPER BOWL PROTEST Protests and lawsuits followed one of the most glaring officiating errors in NFL history — the non-call of pass interference and helmet-to-helmet contact penalties committed by a Los Angeles Rams defensive back late in the fourth quarter of an NFC championship game against the New Orleans Saints. The Saints lost the game 26-23 in overtime and with it a chance at winning the Super Bowl. Saints fans responded with lawsuits and Saints-themed walking parades on Super Bowl day. ACADIANA CHURCH FIRES Arson destroyed three historic black churches in spring 2019; a 21-year-old man is awaiting trial. All three churches were empty and nobody was injured. The governor called the arson a reminder “of a very dark past of intimidation and fear.” A crowdfunding campaign raised more than $2.1 million to restore St. Mary Baptist Church in Port Barre and Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church and Greater Union Baptist Church, both in Opelousas. ABORTION-LOUISIANA Louisiana joined conservative states across the nation with laws challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationally. One, a so-called “heartbeat law,” prohibits abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected, often before many women realize they are pregnant. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar laws; they all are being challenged. Louisiana’s law would take effect only if a federal appeals court upholds one in neighboring Mississippi. MEDICAL MARIJUANA In August, Louisiana became the first Deep South state — and one of more than 30 states nationwide — to dispense medical marijuana. The only therapeutic cannabis currently available is a flavored liquid. One bottle can range from about $90 to $220, depending on concentration and pharmacy. About 3,500 people have participated so far. NEW ORLEANS’ NEW AIRPORT New Orleans got a new airport in 2019, three years after construction began, replacing one built in 1959. The $1.3 billion Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport terminal features music venues, rooms for parents to bring small children and many charging stations for electronic devices. The airport also offers a limited number of “guest passes” so people without boarding passes may say goodbye, eat, drink and shop in the concourses. More than 40 concessions include two dozen restaurants ranging from Chick-fil-A to Emeril’s Table. HIGH RIVER-SPILLWAY OPENS TWICE The Mississippi River was so high for so long that the Army Corps of Engineers opened a flood control structure above New Orleans for an unprecedented second time in one year. Fed by rains and melting snows in the Midwest, high water poured through the Bonnet Carré Spillway for 44 days from February into April, and 79 days starting May 10. The fresh water went through normally brackish Lake Pontchartrain into the Mississippi Sound, endangering fisheries and marine life. CYBERSECURITY ATTACKS Ransomware and other cyberattacks disrupted state agencies, local school districts and the city of New Orleans. One closed Louisiana’s Office of Motor Vehicles for a week, damaging 10% of the state’s computer servers. Gov. Edwards called the attack “largely unsuccessful” because data wasn’t lost and Louisiana didn’t pay a ransom. He declared an emergency in July as four public school districts were attacked and some networks infected with malware or ransomware. In November, a cyberattack triggered a shutdown of New Orleans’ city government computers. No data was held for ransom. Mayor LaToya Cantrell said about 400 servers were hit and 4,000 computers would be scrubbed as a precaution. Louisiana is establishing a cybersecurity center in Baton Rouge to analyze hacking threats and bolster information sharing among state and federal agencies, industry experts and academics. NOTABLE DEATHS The state mourned several notable figures including Louisiana’s first elected female governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, who served from 2004 to 2008. She was 76 and died of melanoma. Novelist Ernest J. Gaines, whose poor childhood on a small Louisiana plantation germinated stories of black struggles that grew into universal tales of grace and beauty, died at 86. New Orleans chef Leah Chase, who fed generations of New Orleanians and tourists alike at Dooky Chase’s restaurant, died at 96. Art Neville, who performed with his siblings in The Neville Brothers band and founded the groundbreaking funk group The Meters, died at 81. Dave Bartholomew, who with Fats Domino co-wrote and produced such classics as “Ain’t That a Shame” and ”I’m Walkin’” died at 100. New Orleans singer and piano player John Rebennack Jr. — better known as Dr. John — who blended black and white musical styles with a gravelly bayou drawl died at 77.
|
15964
|
"Atmospheric conditions could push a football’s pressure ""down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."
|
Belichick said that moving the footballs from indoors to outdoors could explain the loss of about 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure. Experimental and mathematical results are in that ballpark. Lab tests said air temperature alone could bring down the pressure by 1.1 pounds. The ideal gas law predicted a 1 pound loss. The rain that day would explain at least another 0.2 pound shift and possibly as much as 0.7. We lack firm numbers on the actual pressure drop in the Patriots footballs, as well as precise information on the starting and ending temperatures. Within the limits of what the physics alone can tell us at this point, the math gets us pretty close to what Belichick said. With allowances for the uncertain data.
|
true
|
Sports, PunditFact, Bill Belichick,
|
"The New England Patriots might wish this entire business of under-inflated footballs would vanish in a puff of smoke, but it’s a boon for physics teachers who have found themselves suddenly relevant in the world of sports. Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a self-declared non-scientist, held a pre-Super Bowl news conference where he attempted to explain why a football inflated indoors would lose pressure after being used outside. ""When the footballs are delivered to the officials' locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 pounds per square inch. What exactly they did, I don’t know,"" Belichick said. ""When the footballs go out on to the field into game conditions ... That’s where the measurements would be different than what they are, possibly different, than what they are in a controlled environment."" Belichick said when Patriot staffers tested this, they found that the balls ""were down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."" There are too many unknowns to resolve Deflategate, as this flap is called. But we couldn't help but give Belichick's main assertion the PunditFact treatment. The question in this case is what physics tells us about Belichick’s point. Could conditions outside (basically temperature and humidity) bring down the pressure of a football by about 1.5 pounds per square inch? A quick recap The Patriots advanced to the Super Bowl on Jan. 18, 2015, by defeating the Indianapolis Colts 45-7. But by the next day, the most interesting number wasn’t the point spread, but the inflation pressure of the Patriots’ footballs. Under NFL rules, each team provides 12 balls, and about two hours before the game, an official verifies that they are inflated to the regulation pressure range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. At half-time, the NFL re-checked the Patriots’ footballs -- reportedly at the request of the Colts but there’s a bit of conflicting information on this -- and found 11 of the 12 were under inflated. By how much? That’s unclear. Some reports say by 2 pounds per square inch. Others say while one ball might have measured that low, the rest were only about 1 pound under. One other essential variable: The temperature on game day was around 50 degrees. No one knows the exact inside temperature. Most people assume it was about 70 degrees. Doing the math After Belichick spoke, ABC News turned to Bill Nye, the popular explainer of all things scientific, to assess the coach’s claim. ABC played up Nye's verdict that Belichick's words ""didn’t make any sense,"" but from the video, it sounds as though Nye was talking about Belichick's claim that rubbing the footballs would change the pressure, not the impact of temperature. CBS Sports relayed a tweet from another science luminary, physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who also expressed skepticism. ""For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15 percent lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air,"" Tyson wrote. CBS reported that ""Every 10 degree drop in temperature (F) results in about .2 PSI loss in a football."" According to CBS, that meant the weather would account for just a 0.4 pound of pressure loss, and tied that conclusion, loosely, to an Ohio State University physicist. We’ll get back to that CBS story (and its flaws) in a bit. On the other side of the ledger, USA Today interviewed Bowdoin College physics professor Dale Syphers who declared that a drop from room temperature in the 70s down to 40 degrees would reduce the pressure in a football by 1.3 pounds per square inch. The Daily Beast turned to the chair of the Physics Department at Boston College who said that with a 30 degree drop in temperature -- 75 down to 45 degrees -- you would expect the ball pressure to fall by by 1.54 pounds per square inch. Finally, the world of physics is divided between the theoretical physicists and the experimentalists. The physicists cited in the news worked with formulas. HeadSmart Labs, a private firm in Pittsburgh, tested actual footballs. It found that footballs inflated at 75 degrees, then cooled to 50 degrees lost 1.1 pounds of pressure. The lab took one more step. Since it was raining on game day, the staff dampened the balls. This led to a drop of an additional 0.7 pounds of pressure for a total of at least 1.8 pounds per square inch. The physics teachers come off the bench Enter Robert Hilborn of the American Association of Physics Teachers. The Harvard-trained physicist showed in detail how a law of physics, the ideal gas law, applied to the Patriots’ footballs. When a gas cools, it contracts. The ideal gas law helps us put numbers to that relationship between pressure and temperature. Math alert: We’re going to show you pretty much everything, so you can do it yourself at home. ""As almost every chemistry and physics student knows, the ideal gas law tells us that Pf = Pi (Tf/Ti),"" Hilborn wrote. The final pressure Pf equals the initial pressure Pi times the final temperature divided by the initial temperature Tf/Ti. Plugging in the numbers is simple, so long as you keep two things in mind. First, the pressure isn’t the pressure you see on your pressure gauge. It’s that amount plus the pressure of the atmosphere that’s all around you. It might feel counterintuitive, but when a football comes off the assembly line, before it's ever pumped up, it actually has an internal pressure that you wouldn't notice because it's the same as the pressure we always ignore. That's the pressure that comes from all those miles of air in our atmosphere pushing down on us. That pressure averages around 14.7 pounds per square inch. When you pump air into the football, you are adding pressure on top of the 14.7 that are already there. In Hilborn's math, you'll see he's added in the atmospheric pressure. The other key step is to measure the temperature in Celsius and count from absolute zero. That’s the Kelvin scale. Hilborn used a starting temperature of 70 degrees and a final temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and a starting pressure of 12.5 pounds per square inch. ""Those numbers give us 27.2 psi for Pi, 294 K for Ti, and 283 K for Tf resulting in Pf = 26.2 psi for the total pressure and a corresponding gauge pressure of 11.5 psi, about 1 psi below the NFL lower limit."" In short, taking the balls outside would bring the pressure down 1 pound per square inch. Hilborn then accounted for the rain that day. Cooling the moist air inside the footballs would shed another 0.2 pounds per square inch. ""Combining the air temperature change effect with that of water vapor gives us a total of 1.2 psi, not too far from the figure of 1.4 psi given in one of the early NFL statements,"" Hilborn wrote. Hilborn’s results are pure math, and they are largely in line with the test results from the lab in Pittsburgh. The results in other news reports We were troubled by the CBS item that came up with a much lower number of 0.4 pounds per square inch due to a lower outdoor temperature. But when we called Prof. Michael Lisa, the Ohio State University physicist quoted in the CBS article, Lisa said, ""CBS got it wrong."" Lisa sent us this chart that you can download showing that for each 10 degrees drop in temperature, pressure drops 0.5 pounds. (The chart’s different lines show that the higher the starting pressure, the greater the impact of falling temperature.) We found that news reports that undercut the Patriots’ explanation used a high number for the loss of pressure. CBS said the footballs lost 2 pounds of pressure. Ditto for a Toronto Sun article. If it turns out that there really was a loss that large, then those arguments hold up. For the moment, we are simply assessing whether the physics back up what Belichick said and he used the 1.5 pound figure. Lisa also affirmed Hilborn’s analysis. ""That AAPT guy did a nice job,"" Lisa said. Nevertheless, Hilborn himself said no one should rush to judgment. ""A conservative conclusion is that temperature changes alone can account for much of the under-inflation,"" Hilborn wrote. ""But until more accurate information is available about the preparation of and measurement of the footballs’ air pressure, we should not assert that conclusion with a great deal of certainty."" The NFL is investigating and at some point, all the numbers might be known. Or not. Hilborn told PunditFact that the accuracy of the pressure gauges is unclear. One number that will be of interest is the starting pressure for the Colts’ footballs. It's possible they may have deflated as well, but stayed within the legal limits. Our ruling Belichick said that moving the footballs from indoors to outdoors could explain the loss of about 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure. Experimental and mathematical results are in that ballpark. Lab tests said air temperature alone could bring down the pressure by 1.1 pounds. The ideal gas law predicted a 1 pound loss. The rain that day would explain at least another 0.2 pound shift and possibly as much as 0.7. We lack firm numbers on the actual pressure drop in the Patriots footballs, as well as precise information on the starting and ending temperatures. Within the limits of what the physics alone can tell us at this point, the math gets us pretty close to what Belichick said. With allowances for the uncertain data."
|
10412
|
Brain images suggest Alzheimer’s drug is working
|
"This is a story about the effects of a drug taken from a small research study about a technique that may prove useful for monitoring plaque in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Although the study did not report on clinical impact of the drug and in fact was not powered to detect changes in function, the story was framed as a sign the ""drug is working""…""lifting hopes."" This may have been a business story, but shareholders and patients deserve better scrutiny of claims than this story offered. It seems cruel to suggest that there is a possible treatment for a serious illness when there is nothing known about the clinical benefits of the treatment. While it is of interest that there may be a new technique that will allow plaque to be measured in brain tissue of living people, the projections about the drug are woefully premature as there is no evidence that it will pan out to help people with Alzheimer’s disease."
|
false
|
"There was no discussion of costs, nor was there even any mention that the drug needed to be administered via an injection – which will impact cost of delivery. The story reported that the impact of the drug was to reduce plaque by 25%. Reporting a relative risk reduction does not provide readers with much information. 25% of what? What is meaningful plaque buildup and what is meaningful plaque reduction?There was no discussion about the clinical significance of this amount of reduction. The story stated: ""The treatment was generally well tolerated, although two patients on the highest dose had transient brain swelling. The drug’s developers have since dropped the top dose from large ongoing Phase III trials."" Well, what does generally well tolerated mean? And what’s happening at the lower doses? This is confusingly incomplete. While the research the story was based on was focused on a new method for assessing the size of plaques in the brains of living individuals, the story focused on the difference in the measurable outcome in those receiving an experimental drug. The story failed to mention there was no difference in cognitive function or capacity to complete activities of daily living in those taking the drug. By focusing on something that can be readily measured (surrogate endpoint) rather than a clinical outcome, the story made the impact of the drug seem greater than it might really be in peoples’ lives. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included a quote attributed to Sam Gandy at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine without explaining what expertise he might bring. Nonetheless, he was enthusiastic about the potential benefit from the measurement technique the study used. And though the story was focused on an Alzheimer’s treatment, he mentioned that it’s too early to say anything about effectiveness to treating Alzheimer’s disease. The story did report that the study was funded by the manufacturer of the drug being studied. There was no discussion of other approaches to treating Alzheimer’s disease. Bapineuzumab, the drug reported on, is experimental and not available for use outside of clinical trials. The story mentioned the experimental status once, but the fact that it is not available was probably lost on many readers who may have been swept away by the enthusiastic reporting: ""potential game-changer because it could be the first drug to treat the underlying cause of the degenerative brain disease."" The drug reported on, bapineuzamab, is currently the focus of a number of clinical trials, many of which are recruiting participants. (www.clinicaltrials.gov). The focus of this story was on a very tiny study which was more about methodology for assessing Alzheimer’s disease. So while the story made it seem like it was reporting on a study of a novel drug, it failed to mention the much larger studies of this drug that are currently in the works. The story does not appear to rely on a news release."
|
|
6667
|
Big Island infant diagnosed with brain parasite.
|
The Hawaii Department of Health says a Big Island infant who fell ill in December has been confirmed as 2018′s eighth case of rat lungworm disease in the state.
|
true
|
Health, Rats, Hawaii, Hilo
|
The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported Friday that the department said in a statement that the East Hawaii child was transported to Oahu for treatment. The infant is the second child from East Hawaii to contract the disease in 2018. The first was diagnosed in early November. Rat lungworm disease, also known as angiostrongyliasis, is caused by a parasitic roundworm and can affect a person’s brain and spinal cord. Larvae can be passed to humans who ingest raw freshwater shrimp, land crabs and snails or raw produce that contains infected slugs or snails and their slime. ___ Information from: Hawaii Tribune-Herald, http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/
|
21298
|
American Crossroads Says Bill Clinton opposes President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
|
Bill Clinton attacks 'Buffet Rule' and President Barack Obama in new American Crossroads ad
|
false
|
Message Machine 2010, Taxes, Florida, American Crossroads,
|
"American Crossroads, the conservative political group created by Karl Rove, is advancing President Barack Obama's trip to Orlando on Oct. 11, 2011, with a new television ad attacking Obama's plan to raise taxes on mainly wealthy Americans. The ad, called ""Don't,"" also is running in Pennsylvania, and features a potentially powerful (and awkward) critic of Obama -- former President Bill Clinton. The ad splices together television news reports highlighting Obama's plan to raise taxes a total of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, then pivots to Clinton. ""I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes,"" Clinton says in what appears to be an interview. ""It won't solve the problem."" Between the lines ""we ought to be raising taxes,"" and ""it won't solve the problem,"" the ad jumps -- for just a split-second -- to some other image. The cut-away caught our attention because we've seen instances where politician's words were cut in a way that would create a different impression. Indeed, after further review, that's what American Crossroads did here. The video of Clinton grabbed by American Crossroads comes from a 25-minute September 2011 interview Clinton did with the conservative news website Newsmax.com. The interview was set up in New York, where Clinton was holding the 10th annual meeting of his Clinton Global Initiative project. We found the original Newsmax.com video. The two lines quoted by American Crossroads come more than three minutes apart, as Clinton was delivering a meandering answer on how to create jobs and fix the flailing American economy. When American Crossroads quoted Clinton as saying, ""I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes,"" they clipped Clinton's full comments short. Here's the full quote, including what American Crossroads left out: ""I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending -- either one -- until we get this economy off the ground. This has been a dead flat economy. And you don't want in something this flat ... if we cut government spending, which I normally would be inclined to do when the deficit's this big, with interest rates near zero you can't get the benefits of it."" So Clinton was as much deriding spending cuts as he was a plan to raise taxes. Clinton went on to praise Obama's plan to continue cuts to the payroll tax, saying it's a proven way to help the economy, before spinning off into a discussion of former President Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Later in the interview the second half of the quote comes up. But again, it's shortened. ""I would pay it,"" Clinton said, referring to a millionaire's tax (though Clinton said that many wealthy New Yorkers like himself wouldn't be affected because they already pay high state and local income taxes that can then be deducted from your federal tax bill). ""It's okay with me, I'd pay more,"" he said. ""But it won't solve the problem."" After the American Crossroads ad was released, Clinton fired back saying the group wrongly implied his opposition to Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy -- sometimes referred to as the ""Buffett Rule"" -- as well as Obama's jobs plan. ""The Republican group American Crossroads has used a quote from me in a video opposing President Obama's jobs plan and the 'Buffett Rule,'"" he said in the statement provided to POLITICO. ""The advertisement implies that I opposed the 'Buffett Rule.' In fact, I support both the American Jobs Act and the 'Buffett Rule.' I believe that it's only fair to ask those of us in high-income groups -- who have received the primary benefits of the last decade's economic growth and the majority of its tax cuts as well -- to contribute to solving our long term debt problem. ""What I did say was that the 'Buffett Rule' cannot solve the problem alone. Reducing the debt requires three things: more economic growth, more spending cuts, and more revenue,"" he said. American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio defended the ad's quoting of Clinton to PolitiFact Florida, noting that a 30-second ad cannot run two-minute-plus quotes and that the ""quotes selected for the ad are the most succinct and relevant clips of Clinton's Newsmax interview, and fairly represent his views."" We see it differently. The ad suggests that Clinton opposes Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy as a means of reducing the deficit. By our review of the interview, Clinton actually appeared to straddle that fence. At one point, he said that he didn't think the country should raise taxes ""until we get this economy off the ground."" At another point, he said he'd be ""okay"" with the tax and willing to pay it, though he said in his particular case, he probably won't be affected. At the least, American Crossroads is guilty of cherry-picking parts of Clinton's statement to best fit into the narrative of its ad. But we think they go one step further by cutting out critical pieces of evidence -- namely that Clinton said he would be ""okay"" with higher taxes for the wealthy and that he'd pay additional taxes if he was required to. Clinton's voice and image were no doubt selected specifically because it'd be a stinging rebuke of Obama's policies -- from a fellow Democrat. But viewer beware."
|
31147
|
A viral animation shows a myosin molecule transporting endorphins, which can be thought of as a visual representation of the feeling of happiness.
|
Because this picture shows an artist’s visualization of a kinesin protein in a white blood cell and not a myosin protein in a neuron, and it is not an actual video but a representation.
|
false
|
Science
|
Since at least 2014, one of the Internet’s most viral scientific images has been an animated gif showing a protein with “legs” strutting along a filament while carrying a large undulating orb. Viral posts originating on Imgur and 9gag have suggested that it is a visual representation of happiness itself: This is what happiness really looks like: Molecules of the protein myosin drag a ball of endorphins along an active filament into the inner part of the brain’s parietal cortex, which produces feelings of happiness. In reality, a more accurate description would be: This is what a kinesin protein might look like — if it were especially colorful. The computer-generated three-dimensional simulation, originally created by medical artist and animator John Lieber, is an early version of a visualization that appeared in a 2006 video produced by the artist and two Harvard scientists titled “The Inner Life of the Cell”. In a 2014 blog post, Lieber explained that he originally created the animation as a side project, but that it ended up being a big part of the final short film: The kinesin motor protein was a real scene stealer in Inner Life, although it wasn’t even in the original treatment for the short. The original plan was to omit the motor protein in the vesicle shots, but when I saw [another researcher’s animation of the molecule] I secretly went ahead and modeled one of my own, animated a walk cycle for it, and added it into the vesicle shot. After I showed it to [one of the Harvard collaborators] it not only got into the animation, it got several more shots as well. Both kinesin and myosin are considered motor proteins, which (among other things) can transport newly synthesized molecules between different regions within eukaryotic cells, as described in a 2000 review in Science: The motions of muscles as well as much smaller intracellular cargoes are driven by molecular motors that move unidirectionally along protein polymers (actin or microtubules). […] Muscle myosin, whose study dates back to 1864, has served as a model system for understanding motility for decades. Kinesin, discovered […] in 1985, is a relative newcomer by comparison. While both proteins have a similar molecular core and both use ATP to power their movement, it is the iconic strut that gives away the identity of the motor protein in the viral animation. Both myosin and kinesin have identical pairs of molecules that “latch” onto different types of cellular structures. In kinesin they move over longer distances with coordinated steps. In myosin, which is most famous for the processes that drive muscle contractions, those latching molecules operate independently of each other, and the system produces more of a single tug than a coordinated strut. While scientists have not produced actual images or videos of such molecules with the clarity of this visualization, increasingly precise microscopic techniques and tools have allowed a detailed characterizations and direct observations of their movement. A groundbreaking paper published by Nature in 1993 detailed for the first time the nature of a kinesin movement — if you’re wondering, each step is just about eight nanometers long. While some posts assert that this animation represents an action that takes place in the brain, the creator says that it — and the larger video it is part of — actually “takes the viewer through many of the inner workings of a leukocyte (or white blood cell) showing many of the cellular structures and organelles along the way.” While kinesins can and do play a role in transporting numerous important chemicals within neurons, that is not a process that would be happening in a white blood cell.
|
26299
|
“You have areas of Pennsylvania that are barely affected and [the governor wants] to keep them closed.”
|
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has already moved 37 Pennsylvania counties into what he calls the ‘yellow’ phase of reopening. In these places, many businesses may resume in-person operations, and residents may leave their homes so long as they take precautions. The number of people sickened with the virus in Lancaster, Lebanon, Dauphin, Franklin and Schuylkill counties disqualifies them from entering the yellow phase. But that fact didn’t stop local leaders from announcing plans to reopen businesses anyway – with or without Wolf’s blessing. Until recently, another nine counties found themselves in limbo. They had reported fewer than 50 cases per 100,000 residents over a 14-day period, but until May 15, when Wolf announced plans to move them into the yellow phase soon, they remained stuck in the red zone.
|
mixture
|
National, Coronavirus, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump,
|
"After touring an Allentown warehouse filled with protective medical equipment, President Donald Trump criticized Gov. Tom Wolf for keeping parts of Pennsylvania closed that the president thinks are no longer threatened by the coronavirus. ""You have areas of Pennsylvania that are barely affected and [the governor wants] to keep them closed,"" Trump told a crowd of workers from Owens & Minor, a company that manufactures and distributes masks, gloves and gowns to health care workers, on May 14. We wondered whether the statewide stay-at-home order Wolf issued on April 1 still applies to places hardly impacted by the deadly disease. It all depends what criteria are used to determine whether the coronavirus still poses a threat. The virus is still raging across Southeastern Pennsylvania, and not even Trump is arguing that Philadelphia and its suburbs are ready to reopen. Officials in Delaware and Bucks counties, however, have asked Wolf to exclude their nursing-home populations when he eventually rates their readiness. ""Largely when you look across the state, the hardest hit area has been the Southeast of Pennsylvania,"" said Dr. David Rubin, director of PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which has been tracking the differences in the outbreak across individual regions of the country. The Philadelphia area as far west as Lancaster, Berks and Dauphin counties, and north to the Lehigh Valley have seen some of the worst outbreaks in Pennsylvania, he said. ""Largely the rest of the state has had a pretty deceptively, sort of minimal experience with COVID,"" Rubin said. That includes Allegheny County, the rural ""T"" and the South, Central and Southwestern parts of the state. ""When you have someone in that area of the state that are upset that they are unable to work, they’re not wrong,"" Rubin said. But for those in the Southeast worried about a resurgence, ""they’re not wrong, either."" Wolf has already moved 37 Pennsylvania counties into what he calls the ‘yellow’ phase of reopening. In these places, many businesses may resume in-person operations, and residents may leave their homes so long as they take precautions. Thirteen counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania moved into the yellow phase May 15. Twenty-four others in the Northern half of the state entered yellow May 8. Another 12 counties will move into yellow on May 22. Counties in the red phase of Wolf’s reopening plan are still under lockdown, with stay-at-home orders in place and all but ‘essential’ businesses closed. Counties that eventually make it to the green phase will ask businesses and individuals to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and State Department of Health guidelines for limiting the spread of the virus but will otherwise have no restrictions. Yellow counties’ gyms, hair salons, and schools must remain closed, and gatherings of more than 25 people are prohibited. Even still, yellow is the distinction several other Central and Eastern Pennsylvania counties are clamoring for. A key factor that determines whether a county qualifies for yellow privileges is whether it has fewer than 50 new reported coronavirus cases per 100,000 residents over a period of 14 days. The number of people sickened with the virus in Lancaster, Lebanon, Dauphin, Franklin and Schuylkill counties disqualifies them from entering the yellow phase. But that fact didn’t stop local leaders from announcing plans to reopen businesses anyway – with or without Wolf’s blessing. In a series of letters and tweets, the officials, including state lawmakers and county commissioners, begged Wolf to allow local businesses to reopen and better position themselves to survive the crisis. Officials from Dauphin, Franklin and Schuylkill counties later backed down. Lebanon officials are set to vote on reopening today. Lancaster officials held a news conference on the issue Thursday night but did not say what they will do. Counties reversed course after Wolf called them ‘cowardly’ and ‘selfish’ and threatened to withhold their federal stimulus funds if they directed businesses and residents to defy his order. Until recently, another nine counties found themselves in limbo. They had reported fewer than 50 cases per 100,000 residents over a 14-day period, but until May 15, when Wolf announced plans to move them into the yellow phase soon, they remained stuck in the red zone, which requires businesses to stay closed and residents to continue sheltering at home. Those counties include: York, Adams, Perry, Juniata, Mifflin, Carbon, Wyoming, Susquehanna and Wayne. Officials from York and Adams counties had been especially vocal about their frustration that businesses had not been cleared to reopen. Some officials said they didn’t understand what was holding them back, given their success keeping coronavirus case counts relatively low. Wolf had been asked about the discrepancy several times in recent days before he announced plans to move the counties into yellow by May 22, and his explanations lacked clarity. We had to read a 7,000 word Wolf administration document titled ""Process to Reopen Pennsylvania"" to figure it out. A county’s coronavirus case count is not the only piece of information Wolf’s team uses to determine when it’s ready to move into the yellow phase. He’s said this publicly, but on recent calls with the press, he hasn’t listed the other factors that matter. Carnegie Mellon University researchers advising the state compiled the list and rated counties in each category. According to the document, the other factors are: A county’s ability to meet a surge in demand for intensive care. A county’s density. The share of county residents who are over age 60. The share of county residents who work in ""physically closed"" industry sectors, such as nursing homes. When those pieces are considered, it appears York County was held back from reopening because of its population density, and Adams County was ordered to stay closed because it has an insufficient number of intensive care unit beds. Mifflin, Juniata, Perry, Carbon, Susquehanna and Wayne counties were also flagged because of limited ICU capacity. We had to click through a link tucked at the bottom of a May 8 press release to find a May 7 PowerPoint presentation detailing how each Pennsylvania county rates on the Carnegie Mellon risk assessment scale. It’s unclear if county officials calling to have their stay-at-home orders lifted know where to find their own ratings. Wyoming County in the Northeast corner of the state has a small number of coronavirus cases and doesn’t rate as high risk in any of the other categories. Before Wolf announced that Wyoming County would move into the yellow phase by May 22, it was unclear why Wolf wouldn’t allow businesses there to reopen. County officials had announced plans to reopen without Wolf’s approval and later backed down. In the ""Process to Reopen Pennsylvania"" document, the state cautioned that the reopening process will be fluid and that the Carnegie Mellon rating system is not designed to ""make decisions but rather to inform decision makers."" Trump said that Wolf wants to keep parts of Pennsylvania closed that have been ""barely affected"" by the coronavirus. Trump was likely speaking about counties in Central and Eastern Pennsylvania like Lebanon and Lancaster whose Republican lawmakers have been clamoring for more freedom even though their coronavirus case counts remain relatively high. Those places have not been ""barely affected."" They’re battling active outbreaks. Trump was right, though, that until May 15, Wolf wanted to keep closed nine counties with relatively few cases."
|
36355
|
Widely available cornmeal is an effective way to stop weeds from germinating and spreading.
|
Can You Use Cornmeal to Keep Weed Seeds from Germinating?
|
false
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
In February 2019, the Facebook page “Country n garden” shared a post (archived here) borrowed from another source, which claimed that cornmeal is an effective substance in home gardens to prevent the spread of weeds:Above an image of a metal measuring cup shaking cornmeal into a garden, text offered a purported explanation of cornmeal as weed birth control alongside a plea for engagement:DID YOU KNOW THAT CORNMEAL IS BIRTH CONTROL FOR WEEDS? SPRINKLE IT ON YOUR GARDEN AND IT WILL KEEP WEED SEEDS FROM GERMINATING AND GROWING INTO PLANTS. REMINDER — I need your help to stay in this social network. Say something about my posts (yes, yum or 🙂 will do) or I’ll completely disappear from your news feed. Appreciate your help.The beg for likes and shares pretty clearly marked the post as engagement bait, but that alone didn’t mean that cornmeal isn’t a weed remedy. But given the popularity of the post (with a six figure share count), it also seemed like not a lot of home gardeners were aware of the purported benefits of cornmeal as a weed-discouraging substance.The claim about cornmeal and weeds seemed to originate with Iowa State University research on corn gluten meal (a byproduct of processing cornmeal), not cornmeal itself. A March 2005 news release from that institute reported:Corn gluten meal (CGM) is a natural by-product from the wet milling process of corn. It contains 60 percent protein and is used as a supplement in feeds for livestock, poultry and pets. The idea of spreading CGM on lawns to control weeds came quite by accident and through close observation. In 1986, Nick Christians, professor of horticulture at Iowa State University, was using CGM as a growth media in a study of turfgrass diseases. During his research, he observed that the CGM reduced grass seed germination. Curious about the possibilities, he directed his attention to finding out if and how this was possible.Christians’ research revealed that a naturally occurring compound in the protein faction of CGM had an inhibitory effect on the root formation of germinating seeds. In 1991, he was granted a patent on CGM as a natural, preemergence herbicide for use on all crops. As a preemergence herbicide, CGM only controls germinating seeds and has no effect on weeds that are already established. Currently, it is labeled for control of crabgrass, barnyard grass, foxtails, dandelion, lambsquarter, pigweed, purslane, smartweed and several others at the time of germination.During the past 10 years, CGM has gained national attention as being the first effective “organic” herbicide. It is marketed and distributed under several trade names.As a weed control product, CGM is available in two forms, powdered and granulated. The powdered form is the same as that sold at mills for animal feed. Although both forms are effective, the granulated form is easier to apply.A separate Iowa State University background page indicated that its researchers obtained a patent for corn gluten meal as a weed inhibitor in 1991. And a 1997 webpage on the same site noted that the correct form of corn gluten meal was commercially labeled and available for retail purchase — but again, it is not cornmeal per se.But the plot thickened in 2006, when Oregon State University researchers issued a press release titled “Corn gluten meal did not prevent weeds from germinating in OSU study,” which is exactly what it sounds like:A by-product of commercial corn milling, corn gluten meal contains protein from the corn. It poses no health risk to people or animals when used as an herbicide. With 60 percent protein it is used as feed for livestock, fish and dogs. It contains 10 percent nitrogen, by weight, so it acts as a fertilizer as well.The use of corn gluten meal as an herbicide was discovered by accident during turfgrass disease research at Iowa State University. Researchers noticed that it prevented grass seeds from sprouting. Further research at Iowa State showed that it also effectively prevents other seeds from sprouting, including seeds from many weeds such as crabgrass, chickweed, and even dandelions. Components in corn gluten meal called dipeptides are apparently responsible for herbicidal activity.Researchers at Oregon State University were not able to duplicate research results reported by Iowa State researchers, said OSU turf grass specialist Tom Cook.In 2015, research from Washington State University further disputed the findings that corn gluten meal was as effective as widely believed [PDF]:The principal researcher and patent-holder of CGM, Dr. Nick Christians, is cautious in his recommendation of CGM for weed control. He and his students and staff have published a number of papers in the scientific and popular literature. These researchers are careful to point out that CGM does not affect existing weeds, and that the nitrogen in CGM will benefit existing weeds as well as desirable plants. Therefore, inadequate weed removal prior to treatment can actually result in an increased weed problem.CGM is not a selective product, nor is it effective on all weed types. Several species of weeds, flowers, and vegetables are inhibited by CGM, while others are not. Effectiveness in greenhouse trials generally increases with application rate (as does the cost).Rumors about cornmeal as a weed killer or antifungal substance have apparently spread since at least 2010, when horticultural expert Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott debunked the rumors of its efficacy as baseless.Claims that cornmeal is an effective weed inhibitor have been circulating for at least a decade. In 1991, Iowa State University patented corn gluten meal as a weed inhibitor, but cornmeal and CGM are not the same thing [PDF]. Furthermore, the the efficacy of CGM has been disputed as well.
|
10859
|
Special Infant Formula Might Help Shield Babies from Type 1 Diabetes
|
There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk. The story discusses a recently published NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula in infants from 6-8 months, and followed these children for 10 years. The more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of Type 1 diabetes antibodies in children who were at risk of developing the autoimmune disease. However, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that choosing regular cow’s milk infant formula will increase the risk of developing Type 1 diabetes, compared to other types of formula. Particularly important is the statement from the co-director of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts, that there are quite a few steps between preventing one of two diabetes-causing antibodies in at-risk children via a special formula, and how Type 1 diabetes manifests as an autoimmune disease. Recommendations for infant formula have not changed as a result of this study and more evidence is needed to change clinical practice.
|
true
|
HealthDay
|
The story notes that the extensively hydrolyzed formula is more expensive than standard formula; however, the authors should have indicated how much more expensive hydrolyzed formula is compared to regular formula. Monthly cost comparison of two formulas would have been appropriate as this may be a deciding factor for many families who choose not to breastfeed, or who are weaning. We’ve already penalized the story in “evidence” above for not giving the absolute risk reduction, so we won’t do it again here. The story reports on a study which showed about 50% fewer diabetes antibodies in at-risk children who were fed special hydrogized infant formula. But 50% of what? This may or may not translate into fewer cases of childhood diabetes. If there are other side effects or harms associated with using hydrolyzed versus standard formula, they are not described. There are no real “harms” with using formula, either cow’s milk formula or extensively hydrolyzed formula. It appears the latter may be a better choice because there are fewer proteins broken down for digestion. What is missing here for the reader is a clear estimate of the absolute increase in risk of developing these antibodies. For example, if the risk for infants exposed to hydrolyzed is 1% and the risk for standard formula is 2% this may not be worth the cost. Whereas if the risk for those exposed to hydrolyzed is 5% and for those exposed to standard formula is 10% this may be worth it. Both of these represent a 50% increase in risk, but the absolute differences would have substantially different clinical implications The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story carefully explains the results of the study and is conservative about the role a formula may play in the prevention of Type 1 diabetes in susceptible children. it would have been helpful to indicate the prevalence of type 1 diabetes and how much the risk is increased if you have a first degree relative with type 1, which would have provided some perspective on the meaning of the relative increased risk for developing these auto-antibodies if an infant is exposed to standard formula. The story quotes several clinical experts who provide explanation of the results and put these into context with current formula recommendations. Study authors are cited as well as clinical experts who feel the research is noteworthy, but should not change recommendations for a hydrolyzed formula to prevent Type 1 diabetes. Affliations of all sources are listed in the story postscript. There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk. The story discusses the NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula. While the more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of Type 1 diabetes antibodies in at-risk children, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that cow’s milk formula will increase the risk of Type 1 Diabetes compared to other types of formular or breast feeding. Various infant formulas are available when weaning infants from breast milk, or when breastfeeding is not an option. The story discusses research that compared regular infant formula with a type of extensively hydrolyzed formula that helps break down proteins during digestion. This formula may not be available to some parents due to greater expense. It is known that breast feeding is preferable to formula, and that it may offer some protection against the development of Type 1 diabetes. Formula is an option, particularly when breast milk is not available, and using formula will not harm an infant. However, formula may somehow trigger the development of autoantibodies as these proteins are broken down for digestion. More research is needed, but this new information from a well-designed double-blinded RCT trial may guide recommendations and parents decisions in choosing a specialized infant formula that does not require breakdown of so many proteins during digestion. There is some thoughtful independent reporting and the story does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
41719
|
The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to £8.72, and it will go up to £10.50.
|
The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to £8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year’s Conservative party conference that it would rise to £10.50 within the next five years.
|
true
|
health
|
There will be 50,000 more nurses going into the NHS. The government has committed to do this by 2024/25. Not all of these nurses will be ‘new’. The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients. In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients. The government will build 40 new hospitals. Six hospitals in England are getting the money to upgrade their buildings within the next five years. Up to 38 hospitals are getting money to develop plans for their hospitals between 2025 and 2030, but not to actually begin any building work. The government is putting 20,000 more police on the streets. The government has committed to do this. If this happens it will take the number of police in England and Wales to almost, but not quite the same level as it was at in 2010. The government gave the police much more use of Tasers to help deal with street crime. The Home Office announced police in England and Wales can bid for part of a fund to equip their force with more Tasers. Final funding allocations will be announced in February. The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to £8.72, and it will go up to £10.50. The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to £8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year’s Conservative party conference that it would rise to £10.50 within the next five years. Claim 1 of 7
|
23483
|
"The Obama Health and Human Services Department is planning to compile a federal health record on all U.S. citizens by 2014,"" including ""each individual’s Body Mass Index."
|
Ann Marie Buerkle, GOP candidate, says under new health law, feds will track Americans' body mass index
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Privacy Issues, Ann Marie Buerkle,
|
"It sounds like a claim from a chain e-mail, but it's posted on the website of a Republican candidate for Congress. Is Big Brother really going to keep tabs on your flab? The charge was posted in a letter dated Aug. 10, 2010, on the website of Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican who is seeking to oust Rep. Dan Maffei, a freshman Democrat representing a district in upstate New York. The letter, addressed to ""Dear Friends,"" was signed by the candidate herself. It said, ""You may have noticed the latest 'product' from big government advocates in Washington. We now know the Obama Health and Human Services Department is planning to compile a federal health record on all U.S. citizens by 2014, and will include information on each individual’s Body Mass Index in the files. Some argue that an individual’s Body Mass Index indicates whether that person is dieting and exercising properly. We may all prefer healthy life styles, but I don’t believe the federal government needs to be involved in such personal matters. Instead, I advocate personal accountability and personal responsibility."" Buerkle -- who describes herself on her campaign website as a ""nurse and accomplished attorney working in health care,"" added, ""I believe this is an unacceptable intrusion by government into the private lives of Americans. It is costly, and susceptible to abuse. As the financial burden and unbearable strain of Obamacare has started to take its toll on healthcare costs, such information like BMI can eventually be used to help government bureaucrats to ration health care. Even if that’s not the case, I’m opposed to the expansion of federal bureaucracies, out-of-control spending, tax increases, and increasing dependency on government."" We wondered whether the federal government is really planning to snoop on people's body mass index, which, in certain ranges, can be a predictor of costly, debilitating and even deadly diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. As we first related in a fact-check in October 2009, computerizing medical records has long been a goal of policymakers across the ideological spectrum. The idea is to shift from paper-based records to electronic ones, so that doctors can access information about patients more quickly and easily and make better clinical decisions as a result. Supporters hope that electronic medical records will reduce the frequency of medical errors, unnecessary diagnostic tests and inappropriate treatments. They also hope that, in the long term, streamlining record-keeping could bring down the rapidly escalating cost of health care. The effort did not begin with President Barack Obama. In 2004, President George W. Bush issued an executive order creating incentives for the adoption of information technology by 2014, to be spearheaded by a new federal official, the national coordinator for Health Information Technology. Under Obama, Congress passed his economic stimulus package in February 2009. The stimulus included several items designed to promote health information technology, including $19 billion over four years to fund electronic infrastructure improvements and the widespread adoption of electronic health records by providers, typically through higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for doctors who use electronic medical records effectively. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology describes the Nationwide Health Information Network as a ""network of networks."" All the experts we spoke to emphasized that it is not a single database residing at, say, a federal agency. It's more accurately viewed as a network to link many separate databases where records already exist, such as regional databases or medical offices, along with efforts to establish common technical standards so that these far-flung repositories of data can exchange information as needed. So will an intrusive government will have access to your private medical information? The short answer is: No. ""The records would be held by physicians and providers -- there is no such 'federal health record' on all Americans being compiled by the government,"" said Deven McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that follows electronic privacy issues. The Department of Health and Human Services ""is not establishing a record for each person -- they are administering a program whereby physicians and hospitals can establish electronic medical records for their patients."" In July 2010, HHS issued its first in a series of final regulations on how the incentive program for medical professionals will work, covering 2011 and 2012. Among other things, doctors will have to record body mass index as one of a number of statistics included in the new electronic medical record. (Click here to see a summary of the full list.) ""This information is going into the physician or hospital's medical record, where it is considered confidential and subject to ethical and legal protections against inappropriate use and disclosure,"" McGraw said. ""It is not information going into a government record."" So, doctors have to track body mass index on the new electronic forms and report adult weight data to the government in order to receive their incentive payments. Why isn't Buerkle right? Because providers will be reporting information on patients' vital statistics only in aggregate, not with any personal identification attached. So while the federal government will have a new, large data set on Americans' weight, it will not know who weighs how much. ""I question how the government could obtain information -- let alone current information -- on BMI or other health status of everyone even if there was a desire to do so,"" said Marty Robins, an Illinois-based attorney and adjunct law professor at Northwestern and DePaul universities who has expressed concerns about how safe electronic records will be from hackers. When we showed Buerkle's letter to HHS, spokeswoman Jessica Santillo called the allegations ""."" Meanwhile, Glenn Laffel, senior vice president for clinical affairs at Practice Fusion, a company that helps doctors conform to electronic medical records regulations, calls Buerkle's charge ""hogwash."" ""The federal government has legitimate concerns about the obesity epidemic in this country because this condition increases Medicare and Medicaid expenditures,"" Laffel said. ""But its efforts to deal with the crisis don’t include anything like the assertions being made"" in Buerkle's letter. Pamela Snyder, Buerkle's campaign manager, said the campaign stands by the letter. For starters, Snyder said in an e-mail, the information in these files may be subject to unauthorized access or hacking, potentially making them accessible ""not simply a doctor and patient, but by health plans, hospitals, other doctors, pharmacies, insurance payors and government regulators."" In the campaign's view, she said, ""there are extremely serious privacy issues involved."" On that point, few would disagree. Indeed, this question has prompted much interest -- and legislative and regulatory activity. But while the experts we spoke to were among those expressing concerns about privacy and security, they didn't interpret Buerkle's letter as focusing on privacy concerns. We don't either. While the letter does mention in passing that the system is ""susceptible to abuse,"" Buerkle's letter discusses in much greater detail, and much more forceful language, about a federal bureaucracy that is intruding too deeply into Americans' private lives. Snyder also said the campaign ""never stated that the (electronic health records) would be compiled in a government file -- only that the government was moving to make sure those files were compiled and contained certain information."" We think that this more restrained interpretation -- which is pretty close to accurate -- is undermined by Buerkle's own words, including such phrases as ""big government,"" ""unacceptable intrusion by government into the private lives of Americans"" and ""expansion of federal bureaucracies."" We believe a reasonable person would infer that when Buerkle says that ""the Obama Health and Human Services Department is planning to compile a federal health record on all U.S. citizens by 2014,"" including ""each individual’s Body Mass Index,"" she means that federal officials will have access to each person's BMI. That is not at all what is envisioned."
|
8462
|
Yearning for a pint? Brussels brewers deliver to homes during coronavirus lockdown.
|
With beer sales hit by the coronavirus lockdown, small Brussels breweries are offering a delivery service to the homes of thirsty customers and for some business is booming.
|
true
|
Health News
|
All bars in Belgium have been shut since the start of the lockdown a month ago, dealing a blow to smaller brewers such as Brasserie de la Senne, en Stoemelings or La Source Beer, whose products are hard to find in supermarkets, which remain open. To keep business alive, half a dozen of the microbreweries are encouraging their fans to buy online, charging around 50 euros for a case of 24 bottles, bicycle delivery included. Some even offer to donate up to 30 euros or a percentage of such direct beer sales to Brussels hospitals to help fight the pandemic. More than 5,500 people are currently in Belgium’s hospitals with COVID-19, the disease casued by the virus. Jeroen Verhoeven, 42, who runs the Bicy KLET beer delivery service for Brasserie de la Senne, said he has been in business since 2013, but that during the lockdown volumes have soared and he sometimes has to ask friends to help, to meet all the demand. Before the lockdown he would deliver about 40 cases a month but now he is delivering that number in just one day, he said. “It is now really taking off, I sometimes deliver 40 cases a day,” he told Reuters. As soon as he gets money in his account, he hops on the bike and delivers the beer, depositing the crate on the doorstep to avoid direct contact with the buyer. “It is nicer now in the lockdown because there is far less traffic in the streets,” Verhoeven said.
|
22921
|
New food safety legislation will regulate backyard gardening.
|
Food safety law to regulate your backyard garden? No, it doesn't.
|
false
|
Agriculture, National, Food Safety, Regulation, Bloggers,
|
"We've received several e-mails from readers asking us about new food safety legislation pending in Congress. They wanted to know if it is true that the bill would regulate backyard gardening. They sent us several claims promoted by various bloggers. Here's how a website called NaturalNews put it ""Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called 'the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America.' It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big Brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. ... This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs."" This kind of statement takes a real concern about the bill -- that it might impose excessive regulation on small farmers -- and blows it up into a fabrication. First, a bit about the legislation: Congress decided to act after several notable cases of people being sickened by contaminated foods, such as eggs that were subject to a major recall earlier this year. One out of four Americans are sickened by tainted food each year and 5,000 die, according to the National Center for Infectious Diseases. The bill gives the Food and Drug Administration -- not the Department of Homeland Security -- expanded powers to inspect facilities and trace food-borne illness. (The Department of Homeland Security is mentioned in the bill in respect to regulating food imported from overseas and in preventing intentional poisoning of the food supply.) It also allows the FDA to impose mandatory recalls after illness outbreaks, instead of asking companies to comply voluntarily. Consumer advocates said the bill was a common-sense step forward. Others expressed concern that the law was too broad: it asks the Secretary for Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA, to develop specific regulations about how the increased inspections would work. Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute reviewed a similar bill passed by the House of Representatives last year, and said he was concerned that the language in the House bill was overly broad. ""The question of how much or little is encompassed by this language seems open to differing interpretations and would be the subject of much jockeying when the actual regulations implementing the law were written,"" he said. The Senate took up the issue more recently, and, to allay concerns about small growers, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., offered an amendment exempting most local food providers and small farmers from new federal regulations as long as the growers complied with local rules and their produce was not connected to active outbreaks of illness. The Senate accepted the amendment and approved the overall bill 73 to 25 on Tuesday. The House must now approve it, either outright or through conference committee, and the President must sign it before it becomes law. So will Big Brother be trailing around behind you in his Wellingtons next spring as you set out your seedlings? We reviewed the Senate version of the bill carefully and read ongoing news coverage of the food safety law. Nowhere could we find mention of backyard gardens being included. In fact, the Senate version, even prior to Tester's amendment, said regulations must be developed that prioritize food facilities that pose the highest risk to public safety. That would imply that not all facilities would receive the same level of scrutiny. Additionally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill makes no mention of widespread inspections in its cost estimates. ""Based on the inspection schedule specified, CBO estimates that this bill would require about 50,000 domestic and foreign food facilities to be inspected in 2015,"" said a CBO report. Meanwhile, the National Gardening Association estimates that 36 million households participated in food gardening in 2008. Finally, we checked in with a few groups that followed the legislation's development closely. We interviewed Scott Openshaw, director of communications for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents major food companies and tracked the legislation closely. He said the pending legislation will not apply to home gardeners. ""Backyard gardens will NOT be affected in any, way, shape or form by the food safety bill. Zero, zilch, zip, nada,"" Openshaw told us via e-mail. Another person who followed the bill closely was David Plunkett, a senior staff attorney for food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest; he too said that backyard gardens were not part of the bill. Plunkett pointed us to a line in Section 105 the Senate bill that said the rules ""shall not apply to produce that is produced by an individual for personal consumption."" In rating this statement, we see no evidence to support the claim that backyard gardens would be regulated under the food safety bill. There might be legitimate concerns about small growers, but even those have been addressed in the Senate version of the bill. At any rate, concerns about small growers are quite different then the claim that backyard gardens will be regulated. We find no evidence to support the claim and rate it ."
|
33177
|
The Triton Scuba Mask allows people to breathe underwater without the use of air tanks.
|
We launched this campaign to build a community of people who are excited to bring Triton to life, and we are committed to making sure our backers feel confident in our efforts. After careful consideration and in light of this new information, we have decided to refund all Triton backers and launch a brand new campaign.
|
false
|
Technology
|
In November 2013, South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon unveiled his concept for a “Portal Oxygen Respirator” dubbed Triton, a device that would allow people to breather underwater “simply by biting it,” at the Samsung Art and Design Institute (SADI) graduation exhibition: South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon just unveiled a conceptual scuba mask that would allow divers to breathe underwater without air tanks. The mask, called the Triton, consists of two branching arms designed to serve as “gills” that extract oxygen from the water and deliver breathable air directly into their wearer’s lungs. Instead of hauling around heavy scuba equipment, swimmers could simply bite down on a plastic mouth piece. Yeon’s concept proved popular, and in March 2014 the web site Inhabitat published an article about the nifty design. While that article correctly described the Triton as a “conceptual scuba mask” and noted that “the design is just a concept” that may “someday be turned into a commercial product,” the article’s headline (“Triton Scuba Mask Transforms Divers into Human Fish”) misled some readers into believing that the Triton was a fully developed, workable, real product. An IndieGogo page dedicated to raising funds for the project explains how the Triton gills supposedly work: Triton employs cutting-edge technology to produce ‘artificial gills’. The Microporous Hollow Fiber makes breathing underwater possible. The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keep water out and let oxygen in. The micro compressor then extracts and stores the oxygen — allowing you to breathe naturally and revel in your underwater freedom. We are using a very powerful modified micro compressor, it compresses oxygen and stores the extracted oxygen in a storage tank. The micro compressor operates through a powerful modified lithium-ion battery. However, as more skeptical reports have noted, the Triton is far more concept than product, and not necessarily a concept that will ever be realizable: I’m not sold on the Triton. My biggest issue with it is that it would just have to filter so much water to provide all the oxygen a human needs for a single breath. The average human need 500mls of air with every breath; going in, the air has a 21% oxygen concentration and a 16% concentration coming out, for a total of ~25mls of oxygen intake with every breath. Scientific literature places the concentration of oxygen at 6mg/L of ocean water so the Triton would have to go through … about 6L of water for each breath (assuming our lungs can scrub almost all the oxygen in the air which they don’t)? I don’t really think it can do that. That being said, finding a way to take oxygen out of seawater is a great idea. But Yeon needs to make this thing go through a lot of sea water very fast before it’s actually usable for diving Yeon uploaded a video on 20 February 2016 supposedly showing a working prototype of a set of Triton gills, but given the number of cuts in the video (such that the diver is never seen fully underwater for an extended period of time and could simply be holding his breath), it’s not possible to determine if the product shown actually works as claimed: After the release of the promotional video, more articles expressed some of the same doubts about the viability of such a device, and more: There are several raised by experts and commentators about the device: 1) The device has to be able to extract enough oxygen from the water to allow you to actually breath. This is possible in theory however as pointed out in an article on Deep Sea News in 2014 (when the device first came to light as a concept) it requires not only an incredibly efficient ability to extract the oxygen – which the designers say is down to a new Microporous Hollow Fiber — but also water has to be forced through the device at upward of five liters every 15 seconds which could only be achieved with a pump bigger than the whole Triton design. 2) Next is the issue of storing the gas in a chamber — this would require a compressor and battery “order of magnitude more efficient than anything on the market today”. The makers claim on the website that they have a “very powerful modified micro compressor” but again without any real proof. 3) Let’s say they’ve managed to crack those two issues the next one is the ability to deliver the oxygen to you in the right amount at the right pressure to be able to breathe. This is possible as we see it in open-circuit Scuba systems and in Closed Circuit Rebreathers however, again, there is no technology on the market right now that can achieve such a feat in such a small design. 4) Finally there is the video, on face value it looks like there is a working unit, however on close inspection you can see that it is made up of several short clips where the person seems to be getting progressively more negatively buoyant (probably due to expelling air from their lungs to create the “bubbles” from the device) and no clip ever shows a person underwater for longer than one minute. As we know from Freediving that is not even a difficult breath-hold for most people. All-in-all the possibility of a device such as Triton is not beyond the realm of possibility at some point; sadly, though, the challenges faced by the designers just do not seem to be reasonably solved with technology available today. The designers would have had to have developed 3 or 4 incredibly efficient and compact new technologies to make this possible. Other commentators began question whether the Indiegogo campaign to fund development of the Triton gill device might not be a scam, given the extreme scientific unlikelihood that such a device could be built with existing technology and the lack of evidence for Triton’s having produced anything beyond a mere concept: Right now, an Indiegogo campaign for a device that its makers claim is “the future of underwater breathing” is raking in cash — more than $600,000 at the time of this post, $100,000 of which poured in over just 24 hours. It’s easy to see the appeal of the handheld device, called the “Triton.” Diving equipment is heavy and complicated. Meanwhile, the Triton looks seductively simple and the campaign says it “allows you to breathe underwater.” But despite the slick crowdfunding campaign, there’s no real evidence that this device actually works, multiple experts told Tech Insider. One of them is Neal Pollock, a research associate at the Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Environmental Physiology at Duke University Medical Center, and the research director for the Divers Alert Network — a non-profit organization that helps divers in medical emergencies and promotes dive safety. “In concept it sounds very good and it’s very exciting,” Pollock tells Tech Insider, but “I would not encourage anyone pulling out a wallet.” For the makers of Triton to prove they’ve invented a device that can actually do what they say it can, Pollock and other experts want to see more evidence; the crowdfunding campaign and Triton website simply don’t provide enough to go on. Regardless, Pollock notes the technological challenges involved in creating a device like Triton are so vast that “it’s not realistic, it’s science fiction.” On 1 April 2016, Triton published an update announcing the release of a new video showing the product in action. They also disclosed that the Triton requires the use of ‘liquid oxygen’ cylinders, and that they had decided to refund the donations of all the backers who had contributed to so far and launch a new campaign: Inside of each Triton, the artificial gills utilize “liquid oxygen”, which combined with the other components allow users to breathe underwater, which you can see in the video above. We will release more information about the ‘liquid oxygen’ cylinders and safety strap. Note that the “liquid oxygen” cylinders won’t last forever so we plan to make it possible for backers to purchase and exchange cylinders through our website. They will come in packs of 1, 3 and 5, and we’ll list prices as soon as they are finalized. We’re also working on a solution to make them refillable. We wanted to share it at the beginning of the campaign but were hesitant because we also wanted to protect our intellectual property. Our success and the positive comments we have received have made it clear that these details are important for our backers to understand.
|
9220
|
Drug for narcolepsy could help food addicts lose weight
|
This release reports on the results of a small study comparing two drugs used to treat narcolepsy and other sleep disorders with a placebo in gauging whether the drugs heighten impulse control, and suggests these results could be applied to the general population. The release claims that after a single dose, one of the drugs, Modafinil, reduced impulsive behavior in the study’s 60 normal weight males who volunteered for the trial. The release, however, neglects to quantify the drug’s success in curbing impulsive eating. And it unjustifiably claims the drug would “have an even bigger effect on food addicts,” even though the study did not include people with excess weight or obesity. Nor does it mention any possible harms or the study’s funding sources. Obesity rates in the U.S. have steadily climbed during recent decades, and more than one-third (36.5%) of adults over age 20 have obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those searching for a magic bullet to curb obesity would welcome the introduction of a single pill if it were substantially effective, but that moment has not yet arrived.
|
false
|
modafinil,obesity,University of Warwick
|
There was no mention of the cost of Modafinil. According to GoodRx, a supply of 30 tablets containing 200 mg ranged from $86 at Safeway to $141 at Target on the day of our web search. The release is filled with general statements about the benefits of Modafinil in reducing impulse eating but provides no numerical data to back up the claims. It uses statements such as “We found Modafinil . . . did reduce people’s impulsive behavior,” and “Modafinil was found to have an effect on impulsivity in healthy individuals.” The study was based on just a single dose given to healthy volunteers who were followed up with psychological testing. The release does not provide any explanation of what the test measured or revealed, only that Modafinal “significantly reduced level of impulsiveness.” Nowhere in the release is there any mention of possible harms from taking Modafinil, although a brief web search suggest there are numerous potential side effects associated with the drug including anxiety, backache, sleeping problems and potential heart complications. While this was a controlled study comparing two experimental groups, one each taking a separate drug, and a third receiving a placebo, it used a very small number of participants — only 20 per group. Moreover, the release emphasizes the possible usefulness of one of the drugs — Modafinil — as curbing the impulsivity of its users and makes the leap to suggesting the drug is effective in helping obese patients curb their eating. But a more effective indicator would have been to use actual obese patients in the study rather than young healthy individuals if the key argument, as indicated in the news release, was to find ways to help obese people. Based on a single dose and a positive result on one of several psychological tests, the study yielded no evidence relating to compulsive eating or impulse control in the real world. There’s a lot of missing context here about the study that raise some basic questions. What was the length of the trial? What dosages were volunteers given? How was reduced impulsivity measured? The headline and text of the release refers to “food addicts.” There is no medical diagnosis known as food addiction. The release makes no mention of who funded this study, nor does it mention any potential or possible conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers. There is no mention of alternatives to the use of the narcolepsy drugs studied as a means of weight control. The release could have acknowledged there are numerous appetite-control drugs, countless diets and exercise strategies available for to help change eating patterns. The release makes clear that modafinil is already on the market and widely available around the world. The release suggests that the researchers’ “initial tests” back up the theory that Modafinil can aid impulsive eaters as it has shown to be effective in reducing impulsiveness in alcohol dependence, schizophrenia and ADHD. But the present study doesn’t do that. Nor is it novel. There have been previous studies observing Modafinil’s effect on food intake. For example, here. We’ll give the release the benefit of the doubt here since we’ve already addressed some language issues elsewhere in the review. However, the general premise of the release — that a single dose of a drug might curb obesity — is stretching credulity.
|
7337
|
VA says it won’t stop use of unproven drug on vets for now.
|
Facing growing criticism, the Department of Veterans Affairs said Friday that it will not halt use of an unproven malaria drug on veterans with COVID-19 but that fewer of its patients are now taking it.
|
true
|
Understanding the Outbreak, Malaria, Technology, General News, Politics, Health, Robert Wilkie, Virus Outbreak, Veterans, Veterans affairs, Donald Trump
|
In responses provided to Congress and obtained by The Associated Press, the VA said it never “encouraged or discouraged” its government-run hospitals to use hydroxychloroquine on patients even as President Donald Trump heavily promoted the drug for months without scientific evidence of its effectiveness. Still, it acknowledged that VA Secretary Robert Wilkie had wrongly asserted publicly without evidence that the drug had been shown to benefit younger veterans. The VA, the nation’s largest hospital system, also agreed more study was needed on the drug and suggested its use was now limited to extenuating circumstances, such as last-ditch efforts to save a coronavirus patient’s life. In the first week of May, 17 patients had received the drug for COVID-19, according to VA data obtained by the AP. The department declined to say how many patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine for the coronavirus since January, but a recent analysis of VA hospital data showed that hundreds of veterans had taken it by early April. “VA has not endorsed nor discouraged the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients and has left those decisions to providers and their patients,” the VA said. “While all drugs have the potential for adverse events and some drugs in particular, like hydroxychloroquine, are known to have specific risks, when they are used carefully and judiciously, they can be managed safely.” As of Friday, 11,883 veterans had been confirmed to be infected with the virus and 985 had died, according to VA statistics. Responding to written questions from Sen. Jon Tester, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, the department admitted it had no studies or evidence to back up Wilkie’s claim that hydroxychloroquine had shown effectiveness in younger veterans in particular. “The use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID has dropped off dramatically,” the VA said. Trump repeatedly has pushed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin, but no large, rigorous studies have found them safe or effective for COVID-19, and they can cause heart rhythm problems and other side effects. The Food and Drug Administration has warned against the drug combination and said hydroxychloroquine should only be used for the coronavirus in formal studies. Two large observational studies, each involving around 1,400 patients in New York, recently found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine. Two new ones published Thursday in the journal BMJ, one by French researchers and the other from China, reached the same conclusion. Tester, who received VA’s responses this week, said he remained concerned about the drug’s safety. “Any drug used to treat patients with COVID-19, especially veterans living with debilitating preexisting conditions, must be proven safe and effective before it’s administered,” he said. “Given recent studies from both VA and other hospitals, hydroxychloroquine seems to fall short of those requirements.” Major veterans organizations and Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had called on the VA to explain why it allowed the use of an unproven drug on vets. Last week, a whistleblower complaint by former Health and Human Services official Rick Bright alleged that the Trump administration wanted to “flood” hot spots in New York and New Jersey with the drug. Jeremy Butler, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Friday that his group was heartened by the VA’s preliminary explanations and called it imperative that it release additional details. “It remains concerning that it took this long to begin to get answers to basic questions,” he said. The analysis of VA hospital data, done by independent researchers at two universities with VA approval, was not a rigorous experiment. Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 older male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at VA medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11. About 28% of veterans who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. In its response to Congress, the department provided copies of some of its guidance issued to VA physicians on hydroxychloroquine from March to May. It made clear that hydroxychloroquine should be considered mostly for use in clinical trials or when medically appropriate after a full discussion with the patient about risks. The VA did not explain the circumstances in which veterans in the recent analysis of hospital data were given the drug, only suggesting that “it is possible” they were prescribed as part of last efforts to save a patient’s life. “Based on the principles of patient-centric care, it would be inappropriate to deny patients access to hydroxychloroquine under these dire circumstances,” VA wrote. It said it had followed the approach of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by “summarizing the medical literature regarding unapproved treatments for COVID-19 and making that available to VA clinicians in their shared decision-making with patients.” That guidance now includes preliminary studies on remdesivir, which has been federally approved for emergency use to treat COVID-19. One VA document dated March 25 notes a few “very small cohort studies” showing possible “beneficial effects” but adds “these data have NOT been verified in randomized controlled trials and are extremely preliminary.” The VA acknowledged to Congress that it had placed bulk orders for hydroxychloroquine from Feb. 1 to April 23 for 6.3 million tablets worth $208,000 in anticipation of a possible shortage of the drug, but that most of it was being used for approved uses, such as treating lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. It said it did not have breakdowns. The department also said it planned further studies and clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine, including whether it could help prevent infection in veterans who were potentially exposed to COVID-19. It is in discussions with Novartis to have some VA facilities participate in a national clinical trial that will look at the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in patients with moderate and severe disease. ___ AP Chief Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione in Milwaukee contributed to this report.
|
10082
|
Wyeth Seeks to Sell Birth-Control Pill That Ends Periods
|
This article discusses a new approach to birth control pills that would eliminate monthly menstrual bleeding altogether. A similar product that reduces menstrual bleeding to 4 times per year is already on the market. This story provides some useful context to explain why traditional birth control pills have a pill-free monthly phase when menstrual bleeding occurs. However, the article seems to have relied heavily on statements from a representative of the pill’s manufacturer–seeking input from more than one independent expert would have made the claims more balanced and credible. It’s not clear from the article what kind of studies were done in support of the new pill’s FDA application. What kind of pills was the new version compared with? What was the experience of women who took the comparison pills–how different were the numbers of women who stopped having periods, or who started having them again when they quit taking the pills? This information would help readers evaluate whether the new pill really does offer advantages over current products. Similar information about what’s known about the new pill’s harms would also be helpful. And just how big of a problem is monthly menstrual bleeding in women who take birth control pills? The story suggests that eliminating it might help women be more productive in the workplace–but cites no data to back up that statement, which seems like disease mongering. Women may be surprised to hear that doctors believe there’s no reason why they should have to put up with monthly periods while they’re on the pill–and they may have had more confidence in that assertion if the story had cited more independent experts who agree. This new approach to birth control pills may well offer significant advantages, without additional harms, to some women–but if that’s the case, there should be plenty of experts–not to mention women–who agree.
|
false
|
The story mentions potential cost savings for women who take the new birth control pill, which is intended to eliminate monthly menstrual-like bleeding, but the cost of the drug itself is not noted. The basis for a claim that the drug may also improve women’s work productivity is not clear either. The article notes the percentage of women who took the new pill and stopped having periods–but it does not note how often this happens in women who take currently available pills. It’s also not clear how long the pill was taken by women who resumed menstruating after they stopped taking it–and how it compares with the experience of women who take traditional pills. Harms of “all” birth control pills are noted, but no numbers provided. The story doesn’t mention whether these harms happened to similar numbers of women in trials of the new pill. The story would have been more balanced if it had quoted an independent expert discussing the real or perceived potential harms. There’s no mention of the type of studies that were done in support of the new birth control pill, what type of pill it was compared with, and how the experience of women who took the comparison pills differed from that of women who took the new version. While some women may indeed prefer no bleeding to the lighter, shorter ‘periods’ that are common in those who take traditional birth control pills, no evidence is cited to support this. it would have been interesting to hear from an expert as to whether this new approach is medicalizing a relatively normal bodily function. The suggestion that eliminating monthly menstrual bleeding might improve workplace productivity seems to come close to exaggerating the human consequences of this natural process. The story appears to have relied largely on statements from a representative of the drug manufacturer. An additional expert is cited, but it’s not noted whether this person has any affiliation with the drug maker. The article noted that some doctors may prescribe continous use of traditional pills, which can eliminate monthly periods; however, it doesn’t mention whether any other reversible birth control methods may have similar effects. The article states that the drug maker has applied to FDA for approval, and expects a response by the end of June. The story also claims that the new birth control pill could be on the market by year’s end. However, there is no independent source cited in support of these claims. The trail of past baseless predictions of FDA approval and market availability is long. The story explains that while the concept is fairly new, this particular product is not the first of its kind. The article cites one independent expert, and so does not appear to have relied exclusively on a press release.
|
|
26404
|
The government must have planned the coronavirus pandemic because the coronavirus relief bill had been introduced three years earlier.
|
The introduction date of the legislation that ultimately became the CARES Act doesn’t signify anything about when the government knew about the coronavirus pandemic. Tax-related bills need to originate in the House. But to speed the passage of coronavirus relief, the senators who drew up the CARES Act used a common workaround by which they stripped out the text of an existing House-passed bill and inserted the new text into it. The House bill they used was introduced in 2019, and was unrelated to the coronavirus. The post misstated the introduction date.
|
false
|
Congress, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"The coronavirus pandemic has generated a torrent of conspiracy theories. One of them is that the U.S. government somehow planned the pandemic. An April 26 Facebook post sought to prove its case by showing a screenshot of a Wikipedia-like page describing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, more commonly known as the CARES Act. The $2.2 trillion act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020, included direct payments to most Americans, enhanced unemployment aid, loans for small business and other relief measures. The page captured in the screenshot lists the bill as having been introduced on Jan. 24, 2017. That’s more than three years before the novel coronavirus was declared a pandemic, which the post cites as evidence that the pandemic was a long-planned event. The poster added the comment, ""Clearly a PLAN-DEMIC. Guess what they have planned next for you. Hint — None of it is in your best interest. Hint 2 — It's much worse than you could ever imagine."" 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.) In reality, there’s a mundane explanation for why the bill was introduced well before the pandemic itself, and it has nothing to do with a government plot. But explaining it requires a short lesson in constitutional law and how Congress works. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says that bills related to raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives before moving to the Senate for consideration. Sometimes, lawmakers decide that revenue-related legislation must pass urgently, and the shortest path is to skip the normal House-to-Senate process. That was the case with the CARES Act. While the Democratic House majority did offer a version of the bill, negotiators from the White House and the Senate were already deep into talks about what should be in the bill. When the Senate came up with a version of the bill that the leaders in both parties could support, they drew up the legislative text to be voted on. However, because of the constitutional rule on tax-related bills, the senators didn’t create a new Senate bill. Instead, they took an existing bill that had been passed by the House but not by the Senate. The Senate stripped out the language, inserted the new CARES Act wording into the shell, and voted on it. It passed unanimously, and was later passed by the House and signed by President Donald Trump. What the Senate did is a ""commonly used workaround,"" said Gregory Koger, a University of Miami political scientist who specializes in legislative procedure. The original House bill had been to repeal the ""Cadillac tax"" on high-cost insurance plans, which was part of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. It was introduced on Jan. 24, 2019, (not 2017, as the image in the post says) and easily passed the House on July 17, 2019, 419-6. The bill never made it to a vote in the Senate, making the measure ripe for the picking when Senate leaders went looking for a House-passed measure where the CARES Act language could be swapped in. The bill that passed the Senate ""bears zero resemblance to the original bill,"" Koger said. And the introduction date signifies nothing about when the government knew of the coronavirus. This same tactic was used in the subsequent coronavirus response bill that added more funding for small-business loans, said Donald R. Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The process used to enact the CARES Act, Koger said, shows that ""the modern Congress often bears little resemblance to the ‘How a Bill Becomes a Law’ lessons"" people learn in school. Facebook posts said the government must have planned the coronavirus pandemic because the coronavirus relief bill had been introduced three years earlier. The introduction date cited in the post was off by two years, and the post is a misunderstanding of how the bill moved through Congress. Because of a constitutional requirement that tax-related bills originate in the House, the senators who drew up the CARES Act used a common workaround, stripping an existing House-passed bill of its old text and inserting the new text into it. So there’s nothing fishy about a coronavirus relief bill having been introduced prior to the pandemic’s emergence. The original text of the bill that eventually became the CARES Act was on an entirely different topic."
|
26440
|
Wisconsin is “clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections”
|
There are a lot of ways to slice coronavirus data, but this overreaches New cases and deaths in the week before this claim were roughly in line with both the preceding week and the averages for the month of April. Hospitalizations were down from a week prior but flat the week before the claim.
|
false
|
Health Care, Public Health, Wisconsin, Coronavirus, Wisconsin Republican Legislative leaders,
|
"As tends to happen in Wisconsin politics these days, the battle over re-opening the state is headed to the courts. The state’s Republican-led Legislature filed suit April 21, 2020, asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to stop Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration from extending the stay-at-home order into late May. Evers had issued a ""Safer at Home"" order March 24, 2020, that restricted movement and business activity throughout the state through April 24. On April 16 that order was extended to May 26, 2020, this time signed by Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald made their case for an injunction blocking Palm in a joint statement released the same day as the lawsuit. After referencing ""public outcry"" and condemning Evers for ""unprecedented administrative overreach,"" the three-paragraph statement ends with this: ""The constant stream of executive orders … are eroding both the economy and their liberty even as the state is clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections."" We’ll leave the determinations on scope of authority to the courts, but the last bit of that is clearly a data-based claim. Are infections ""clearly"" on the decline in Wisconsin? At the time of the joint statement, COVID-19 had resulted in 242 deaths in Wisconsin, with 4,620 people testing positive for the disease. Kit Beyer, a spokeswoman for Vos, said the decline claim was based on hospitalization data and the hospital resource usage estimated in a model by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The oft-cited model, last updated April 17, projected Wisconsin’s peak resource usage to be somewhere between April 10 and April 18. It’s an estimate based on their formula, not a firm calculation based on actual figures. The model has drawn some criticism for its methodology, which experts say could make it ill-suited to help determine when to ease social distancing restrictions. In any case, it doesn’t make much sense to rely on a predictive model when we have actual data to examine for Wisconsin. So we’ll do that, starting with the hospitalization numbers Beyer cited. So here’s what we found looking at both recent days and the full month of April. HOSPITALIZATIONS This is the lone metric that shows a decline over the last couple weeks. After rising to start the month, the daily tally leveled off around 440 per day from April 9 to 14. The number then dropped for two days before holding steady between 357 and 361 from April 17 to 21. CONFIRMED CASES The daily numbers move up and down a bit but have stayed largely consistent throughout April. Zooming in to the last six days (April 15 to 20), Wisconsin had between 147 and 170 new confirmed cases per day. The tally was lower the days before that due to a lower number of tests being performed. The most recent tally released prior to the statement from Vos and Fitzgerald was April 20, with 153 cases, up six from the day before. That’s on par with the April average of 157 new cases per day. DEATHS Wisconsin has averaged 10.7 coronavirus deaths per day throughout April, with daily tallies ranging from six to 19. The week prior to the statement from Vos and Fitzgerald, Wisconsin averaged 10.9 deaths, including 10 on April 20. Vos and Fitzgerald said the state is ""clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections."" There are a lot of ways to slice the coronavirus data, but this is an exaggeration. New cases and deaths in the week before this claim were roughly in line with both the preceding week and the averages for the month of April. Hospitalizations had dropped somewhat from the week prior, but were holding steady for the five preceding days.ostly False."
|
6769
|
Norovirus at assisted living facility affects early voting.
|
Early voting in the Illinois primary has been postponed at an assisted living facility due to an outbreak of norovirus.
|
true
|
Health, Assisted living, Illinois
|
Department of Health administrator Michael Hill says McHenry County planned to use the Three Oaks Assisted Living facility in the northern Illinois community of Cary as an early voting place. Those plans were postponed because about 30 elderly residents and staff members became ill. Early voting is scheduled to begin Monday, but Hill said it will not be held at the facility until the outbreak has been contained. Norovirus is sometimes referred to as the “stomach flu,” even though it is not a strain of influenza, which affects the upper respiratory system. It affects the intestinal tract and causes nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Symptoms usually last 24-48 hours.
|
8861
|
FDA pinpoints contaminant in Baxter's heparin.
|
U.S. health regulators said on Wednesday they have identified a contaminant found in batches of Baxter International Inc’s blood-thinner heparin that were linked to serious reactions and deaths.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Food and Drug Administration officials said they are trying to determine whether the chemical — over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate — was purposely or inadvertently added during manufacturing in China. “We don’t know whether the contaminant was introduced intentionally or by accident,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Chondroitin sulfate is widely sold as a dietary supplement to treat joint pain. The over-sulfated version is not known to occur naturally and therefore likely was chemically modified, Woodcock told reporters on a conference call. It is still unclear whether the contaminant is the cause of up to 19 deaths and hundreds of serious breathing problems and other reactions reported to the FDA, she said. The substance mimics the blood-thinning actions of heparin but is not FDA-approved for use in medicines, Woodcock said. In some batches, the contaminant accounted for between 2 percent and 50 percent of the samples, she said. FDA officials said chemically manipulating chondroitin sulfate, which is widely available from animal sources, would be cheaper than getting raw heparin from pig intestines. Last year, the FDA found pet food ingredients imported from China were tainted, killing more than 200 cats and dogs and causing widespread alarm. The Chinese maker involved was later indicted in the United States for fraud over adding the chemical melamine in an attempt to bolster the value of its ingredient. The pet food case drew attention to China’s role in the U.S. food and drug supply and ignited criticism over the FDA’s lack of oversight — and little cooperation from its Chinese counterparts. This time around, FDA officials said they are getting needed help from China. “It’s quite a different scenario than we had a year ago,” FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for International Affairs Murray Lumpkin, told reporters on the phone, while speaking from China. FDA’s Woodcock said it remains unclear whether the heparin contamination was intentional. Many scientists are studying over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate, which could have accidentally made its way into heparin products, she said. The FDA announced on March 5 it had found a “heparin-like” contaminant in some of the drug’s active ingredient supplied to Baxter by a plant in Changzhou, China, owned by Wisconsin-based Scientific Protein Laboratories. Investigators had been working since then to determine its precise identity. In a statement, Scientific Protein Laboratories said a consultant working for the Changzhou plant concluded the contaminant is not linked to the plant’s production but likely occurred earlier in the supply chain. Baxter, in a statement, agreed with the FDA’s finding of over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate but also said the substance contaminated the product before it reached SPL. FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said the agency was still investigating at what point the contamination occurred. Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers tentatively scheduled hearings on the issue for April 15 and April 22. “This latest development underscores our concerns that FDA does not have a robust enough presence overseas in conducting inspections,” House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, said in a statement. Last month, Baxter recalled most of its U.S. supplies of heparin, used in kidney dialysis as well as heart and other surgeries to prevent blood clots. The FDA has received more than 785 reports of heparin reactions, including 19 deaths in patients treated with some brand of heparin. Baxter has said only four fatalities might be related to its heparin and there is not enough information to say the drug was the cause. The agency has told border inspectors to stop all shipments of imported heparin intended for the U.S. market so they can be tested for the contaminant. Germany also has ordered a recall of heparin made by Rotexmedica after reports of allergic reactions there.
|
25724
|
“At UNC 14% of students tested positive.”
|
"U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said that ""14% of students tested positive” at the University of North Carolina. The way he phrased the tweet could give the impression that more than 2,600 of UNC's 19,000 undergraduates are infected. That's not the case. About 14% of tests recently came back positive -- and that figure comes from a sample size of only 954 students."
|
false
|
North Carolina, Coronavirus, Chris Murphy,
|
"The University of North Carolina made national news after reporting a coronavirus outbreak shortly after students returned to campus. Before students could even get their first assignments, university administrators abandoned their plans to hold in-person classes. The football team, however, is still scheduled to move forward with a modified Atlantic Coast Conference schedule. That upset U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut. The University of Connecticut was the first major football program to cancel its season due to the pandemic. ""Notre Dame and UNC are sending kids home because of COVID outbreaks (at UNC 14% of students tested positive),"" Murphy tweeted on Aug. 18, adding: ""But...not football players! They need to stay no matter the risk, because the college football money machine needs to keep churning."" His tweet linked to a New York Times story about the situation at UNC. Murphy was clearly trying to make a point about college athletes being exploited. While doing so, however, he failed to provide the full context of UNC’s outbreak. Is it true that 14% of students tested positive, as Murphy said? Not exactly. The percentage Murphy quoted is generally accurate. It’s what the percentage represents that he didn’t properly convey. Murphy’s tweet could give the impression that 14% of all students tested positive. That would mean that more than 2,670 of UNC’s 19,117 undergraduate students have COVID-19. But that’s not the case. While some schools (including Duke University) required students to be tested before entering campus, UNC didn’t. UNC encourages students to be tested if they believe they have been exposed to the virus. In the week from Aug. 10 to 16, 954 students were tested. Of those, 130 — or 13.6% — tested positive. The university updates its testing numbers weekly on its online dashboard. Is it fair to say that the week’s infection rate for those who were tested accurately reflects the entire UNC student population? No. Because UNC is only testing people who think they need it, the results are likely to skewed, said Donald Taylor, director of the Social Science Research Institute at Duke University. ""UNC is doing ‘symptomatic’ testing when folks are feeling sick, and contact tracing testing when you ask a person newly infected to say who they have been in close contact with, and then those folks are tested,"" Taylor said. ""People who feel sick, or who were in close contact with those who are positive would be expected to have a much higher rate of ‘positivity’ than would an entire population,"" Taylor said. If it was a random sample of students, you could extrapolate, ""but would need to say it is a rough estimate,"" said Peter Ubel, a physician and behavioral scientist at the Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. ""If they tested symptomatic students, or ones with known exposures, then that suggests the 14% figure is higher than probably seen across the student body,"" Ubel said. UNC spokespersons emailed PolitiFact to reiterate that the 14% positivity rate ""does not reflect all students."" It represents only students ""who took a COVID-19 test and had a positive result for coronavirus that week."" As for Murphy, his office doesn’t believe the tweet is misleading at all. ""Senator Murphy didn’t say it was 14% of all students,"" Murphy spokesperson Jamie Geller said. ""He said it was 14%, with no qualifier, which logically infers that it’s of those who are tested. But in case there was any confusion, he linked to the article."" We disagree with the notion that Murphy’s tweet clearly refers only to students who were tested. Murphy tweeted that ""at UNC 14% of students tested positive."" Someone who reads Murphy’s tweet could understand that he’s referring to the small sample of students who were tested. But, on its face, the tweet could give the impression that more than 2,600 students contracted COVID-19. That’s not the case. It would have been more accurate to tweet that 14% of tests were positive, rather than students. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
36555
|
An image depicts Sen. Mitch McConnell posing in front of a Confederate flag.
|
South Africa’s Karoo region has always been parched - it means land of thirst in the language of its earliest inhabitants, the Khoisan hunter gatherers.
|
unproven
|
Fact Checks, Politics
|
Yet nothing prepared residents of its oldest town, Graaff-Reinet, for their worst drought in more than a century. As the dry spell entered its fourth year, tap water turned brown and smelled like rotting fish. When the water behind the Nqweba Dam dried up, depositing tens of thousands of dead fish onto cracked earth, queues began forming at municipal bore holes and farm animals died in their hundreds. The bleak choices facing millions of people in drought-stricken southern Africa - whether to flush toilets or not, or to keep animals alive or let them die - could soon be faced by other places on a warming planet with shrinking water supplies. “This area is dry but our taps have never been completely empty. Never,” said Bukelwa Booysen, who has had to send staff in search of borehole water for her school for disabled children, and send the kids home when they can’t find any. An abnormally hot summer with rainfall 75% below average, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has struck the whole region. The United Nations says 45 million people in southern Africa face hunger. Bushes and trees clinging to the Karoo’s rocky ravines are withered and grey - even hardy acacia thorns are dying. Signs mark rivers that are now dry beds. At one farm, Gerrie Snyman, 65, was feeding grain to sheep and goats that couldn’t find pasture. More than a third of his couple-thousand goats and sheep had either died or been sold this year. His 80 cows were now 15. He loaded a calf that was starving - its mother had stopped producing milk - onto his truck to take home and shoot. A friend had shot himself dead after his animals died of thirst. “We are grateful to the Almighty for our borehole water,” he said. “We don’t know what we’ll do when it runs out.” When Cape Town’s reservoir nearly ran dry 18 months ago, it made international headlines and authorities rationed water. Yet Karoo is long past water rationing. For Valentia Esho, 45, an unemployed mother of seven in the township of Umazisakhe, it means letting her toilet fill up instead of flushing, never washing clothes and only washing plates that stink. Water is just for drinking. “The house is really smelling,” she said, inside her one-room brick-and-tin home. “Everyone is paining from stomach aches and diarrhoea.” In another township, Asherville, where wind kicked up dust devils, school headmaster Basil Vaaltyn was overseeing water distribution from a truck. He’d done everything to cut down on his usage: “I’m down to a minute showering instead of two.” His wife saves dirty dishwater to fill the cistern. A spokesman for the municipality said it was drilling boreholes, installing pipelines and building an 18-million-litre reservoir, adding: “Usage of water is still very high. The community is requested to use water sparingly.” With municipal authorities overwhelmed, South African charity Gift of the Givers is trucking water to townships and drilling boreholes. Gideon Groenewald, a geohydrologist for the charity, uses science and spirituality to look for groundwater. When he was growing up on a farm, he used to dowse with wet twigs. Nowadays he prefers magnetic detectors. “I open Google maps and look for the lines of trees. I ask God in prayer which lines hold water, then I go down to that GPS location,” he said while a forked stick turned in his hand over an arid patch of shrubs. “You see the stick moving where the magnetic field is? There’s water here,” he continued. “It’s pure science.” The charity has drilled 1,800 boreholes in the past three years, Groenewald said, only a third of them dry. But Louise Stafford, water director for the Nature Conservancy in South Africa, urged caution with boreholes, because groundwater is a finite resource. Water-intensive agriculture like citrus farms can make droughts worse, she said, and leaky pipes are losing a billion litres a year - problems Water Minister Lindiwe Sisulu pledged to tackle in a new water masterplan she delivered on Thursday. One Sunday, as clouds formed over Graaff-Reinet, its Assembly Church prayed. The clouds spat but didn’t pour. “We pray for God to open heaven and send rain,” Pastor Dolan Cochrane said. The congregation bowed. “Lord,” Cochrane continued. “We know that, in your time, you will come to our rescue.”
|
41042
|
To test for the new coronavirus, take a deep breath and hold for more than 10 seconds. If you complete it successfully without coughing, discomfort, stuffiness or tightness it proves there is no fibrosis in the lungs, basically indicating no infection.
|
There is no evidence to suggest this test can show if you have the new coronavirus.
|
unproven
|
online
|
If the new coronavirus gets into your mouth, drinking water or other liquids will wash them down through the oesophagus. Once they’re in the stomach, the acid will kill the virus. If you don't drink enough water more regularly, the virus can enter your windpipes and into the lungs. If you have a runny nose and sputum, you have a common cold, not Covid-19. These are the symptoms for the common cold, but they don’t rule out Covid-19. Coronavirus pneumonia is a dry cough with no runny nose. Some Covid-19 patients do get pneumonia, and one of the symptoms is a dry cough. A runny nose doesn’t rule out Covid-19. This new virus is not heat-resistant and will be killed by a temperature of just 26/27 degrees. It hates the Sun. There’s no evidence for this. There’s evidence that similar viruses transmit less well in the heat, but many countries with reported Covid-19 cases are experiencing temperatures higher than this. If someone with the new coronavirus sneezes, it travels about 10 feet before it drops to the ground and is no longer airborne. How far the droplets spread from a sneeze depends on environmental factors, but it is likely to be several metres. If it drops on a metal surface it will live for at least 12 hours - so if you come into contact with any metal surface - wash your hands as soon as you can with a bacterial soap. We don’t know how long the virus survives on surfaces yet—it may be between hours and days. On fabric it can survive for 6-12 hours. normal laundry detergent will kill it. There’s no evidence yet that the virus can survive in clothing and be transmitted this way. Any soiled clothing should be thoroughly washed. Drinking warm water is effective for all viruses. Try not to drink liquids with ice. There’s no evidence that the temperature of liquids consumed can either protect you from or cure diseases caused by viruses. Wash your hands frequently as the virus can only live on your hands for 5-10 minutes. We don’t know how long the virus can last on the skin, especially not down to the minute. But you should regularly wash your hands. You should also gargle as a prevention. A simple solution of salt in warm water will suffice. There’s no evidence that this works as a preventative or a cure for the virus. The symptoms of Covid-19 are a sore throat lasting 3 or 4 days. The virus then blends into nasal fluid, enters the trachea and then the lungs causing pneumonia. With pneumonia comes high fever and difficulty breathing. The nasal congestion feels like you're drowning This is a roughly accurate description of the most common symptoms, although not everyone with Covid-19 gets pneumonia, and the symptoms may not come in this exact order or at these times. The NHS does not mention nasal congestion that ‘feels like drowning’ as a specific symptom for Covid-19. Claim 1 of 12
|
34631
|
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats.
|
We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin’ Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273.
|
unproven
|
Critter Country, facebook pet warnings, renal failure, temptations cat treats
|
On 29 February 2016, Punkin’ Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We’ve got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we’re so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I’m going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We’ve reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. — TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians’ database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners’ message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it’s often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It’s also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I’ve decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message.
|
22376
|
"On the president unilaterally authorizing a military attack ""that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
|
Is Barack Obama's Libya intervention a flip-flop from what he said in 2007?
|
false
|
National, Legal Issues, Foreign Policy, Military, Barack Obama,
|
"In the wake of U.S. participation in military operations against targets in Libya, commentators on the left and the right have raised questions about whether President Barack Obama had the required authority to launch operations without specific authorization from Congress. A reader pointed out to us that Obama himself had made a notable comment during a 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, then a journalist with the Boston Globe. Savage asked Obama, ""In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"" While the specific context of Savage’s question concerned Iranian nuclear plants, we think Obama’s answer raised some points that are relevant for assessing the justification for the Libyan operation three years later. Obama said, ""The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."" He added, ""As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."" We wondered whether Obama’s initiation of military operations in Libya represented a flip-flop on his stated principle that ""the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."" First, some background on presidential and congressional war powers. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) assigns the right to declare war to Congress. But the last time that actually happened was at the beginning of World War II. In subsequent wars, the president has generally initiated military activities using his constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief. Walter Dellinger -- former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and acting solicitor general under President Bill Clinton -- wrote recently that ""presidential administrations of both political parties have recognized a long tradition that supports this use of force. And Congress has acknowledged its legitimacy as well."" Specifically, Dellinger cited a pair of opinions by his office -- one from 1994 and one from 1995 -- that relied in large part on the War Powers Resolution, which was passed by Congress in 1973 and enacted over a veto by President Richard Nixon. The resolution grew out of concern by lawmakers and other critics that U.S. involvement in Vietnam had never received the necessary approval from Congress. ""The resolution requires that, in the absence of a declaration of war, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into such circumstances and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise,"" Dellinger writes. By regulating the principle ""that the president may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress,"" the War Powers Resolution effectively confirms that principle, Dellinger argues. The experts we asked generally agreed with this line of argument. In fact, some went so far as to say that the president’s powers to initiate military activities without specific congressional consent are by now so deeply ingrained that Obama’s 2007 comment to Savage was factually inaccurate. ""The 2007 statement materially omitted key information -- I would charitably call it a ‘misrepresentation’ -- that would lead the average voter to believe that then-presidential candidate Obama was a champion of the Constitution’s restraints on executive power, as opposed to (George W. Bush) the cowboy,"" said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. However, in this item, we’re not rating Obama’s 2007 comment on the Truth-O-Meter. Instead, we’re trying to judge whether Obama has changed his standards for initiating military action between then and now. That requires taking a look the president’s justification of military operations in Libya. In a March 21, 2011, letter to congressional leaders, Obama wrote that ""as part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners."" Obama went on to say that the U.N. resolution authorized ""all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya. … (Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's) continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States."" So, how well does this match up with Obama’s 2007 statement that ""the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation""? We think the question boils down to whether the actions being taken in Libya ""involve stopping an actual or imminent threat"" to the United States. Anthony Clark Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University, said he doesn’t perceive a strong argument that Libya represents ""an actual or imminent threat to the nation."" To him, that phrase suggests ""a circumstance where the other state was engaging in or was about to engage in something tantamount to an armed attack against the United States (or, presumably, its allies). In the Libyan case, there is no such threat -- actual or imminent -- to the United States or its allies."" Temple University law professor Peter J. Spiro said the administration could argue that the threat of a widespread humanitarian disaster in a sensitive region would be tantamount to ""an imminent threat to the nation,"" thus justifying Obama’s actions under his 2007 principle. Indeed, that seems to be the argument Obama made when he said that ""left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States."" Most of our experts, however, saw that as a stretch. Kal Raustiala, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said that, ""on the merits, he is right now and was wrong then."" Legal commentator Stuart Taylor Jr. said he sees ""no plausible loophole. He may possibly be right now ... but if so, he was wrong then."" Raustiala points out that Savage specifically referenced Iran’s nuclear program in his question to Obama. But we think that Obama’s answer was sufficiently broad that it would be incorrect to assume that he was only talking about the scenario of attacking Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons. So where does this leave us? In 2007, Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. ."
|
19080
|
The Ryan budget gets rid of Medicare in 10 years and turns it into a voucher program.
|
GlaxoSmithKline’s experimental HIV injection is as effective when given every other month as monthly, according to a study, a convenience that could help the British drugmaker in its battle against a rival drug from Gilead Sciences.GSK’s two-drug injection was as effective as a monthly dose of the same regimen in maintaining viral suppression at 48 weeks in a late-stage study, said ViiV Healthcare, GSK’s HIV unit.
|
false
|
Rhode Island, Health Care, Medicare, Sheldon Whitehouse,
|
Detailed results will be presented at an unspecified medical conference, the company added. ViiV, in which Pfizer and Shionogi have small stakes, is working on two-drug combinations and will use the lower drug burden in comparison with three-drug cocktails such as Gilead’s Biktarvy as its main selling point to patients and physicians. It is banking on longer-term studies to yield hard evidence of fewer side effects over time. ViiV has taken a two-pronged approach. While its once-a-day pill Dovato, also a two-drug combination, won U.S. market approval in April, the company is following up with a longer-acting injection combining the two active ingredients cabotegravir and Janssen’s rilpivirine. The injection has previously proven to be as effective as standard daily pills with three active ingredients when administered monthly. Thursday’s results showed that doubling the time between injections does not compromise efficacy or safety. Injections - targeted at patients unable to take, or not comfortable with, daily pills - are, however, seen as a smaller market opportunity than oral medicines. “This is further progress in our efforts to reduce the number of medicines a person living with HIV must take while also reducing the frequency of treatments,” said Kimberly Smith, Head of Research & Development at ViiV. The trial focused on the HIV-1 category of the AIDS virus, which has the most widespread strains. If not quelled, an HIV infection causes AIDS, a deadly condition that severely weakens the immune system. U.S. drugmaker Gilead dominates the HIV market and it will keep up the pressure with fast-growing Biktarvy, which was approved early last year. Analysts on average expect sales from the product to reach $5 billion next year, according to Refinitiv data.
|
23167
|
"Under the new health care law, ""the first person (a) patient has to go to is a bureaucrat. That is called a panel."
|
John Raese says health care law forces patients to go to a bureaucrat before a doctor
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Message Machine 2010, John Raese,
|
"During the West Virginia Senate debate on Oct. 18, 2010, Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin and Republican businessman John Raese sparred over a number of topics, including the Democratic-backed health care law passed earlier this year. We were especially intrigued by one criticism raised against the law by Raese. A questioner asked Raese: ""You have said you want to repeal the health care legislation Congress passed earlier this year. What is it about this new law specifically that you do not like?"" Raese jumped right in. ""Well, I don't like socialism, to tell you the truth, and when you have a doctor-patient relationship -- that's the way it's supposed to be, and that's the way we have the greatest health care system in the world, and that's the way it is right now,"" Raese said. ""That's all going to change because from here on out under Obamacare, something Gov. Manchin has always supported, you're going to have a patient-bureaucrat relationship, because the first person that patient has to go to is a bureaucrat. That is called a panel. I disagree with it. ... I'd like to repeal every part of it, because it is pure, unadulterated socialism. It is the worst bill ever to come out of the U.S. Senate and House."" We decided to check one specific part of Raese's statement -- that under the new health care law, ""the first person (a) patient has to go to is a bureaucrat. That is called a panel."" First, some background on the law. The goal is to expand coverage and reduce costs while leaving employer-provided insurance largely in place. To help people who have to buy insurance on their own, the law creates state-based exchanges, which are virtual marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop. People of modest means would receive tax credits to buy insurance on these insurance exchanges. Employers are not required to offer insurance, but large companies must pay penalties if they don't offer insurance and if their employees qualify for new health insurance tax credits. The plan also expands eligibility for insurance programs like Medicaid. People who don't buy insurance and who don't qualify for programs like Medicaid would have to pay a penalty on their taxes. When we first saw Raese's comment, we were a bit flummoxed, because after roughly two years of fact-checking dozens of claims on the health care bill, we didn't recall any requirement that patients go through ""bureaucrats"" to reach their doctor. When we contacted the Raese campaign, they pointed us to a July 27, 2010, news release by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. It touts the ""Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act,"" co-sponsored with four other Republican senators. The bill would repeal one element of the health care law called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. In the release, Cornyn called the IPAB ""the definition of a government takeover. America’s seniors deserve the ability to hold elected officials accountable for the decisions that affect their Medicare, but IPAB would take that away from seniors and put power in the hands of politically-appointed Washington bureaucrats. This bill to repeal IPAB is just one step towards starting over with real health care reform that empowers patients instead of beltway bureaucrats."" The IPAB is real. Whether its existence supports Raese's claim that ""the first person (a) patient has to go to is a bureaucrat"" is another matter. Here's how the Kaiser Family Foundation -- an independent health-care research group -- summarized the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board. The board would ""submit legislative proposals containing recommendations to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending if spending exceeds a target growth rate."" If Medicare spending is found to exceed certain inflation benchmarks, the board, beginning in January 2014, ""will submit recommendations to achieve reductions in Medicare spending."" Then, beginning January 2018, if the appropriate inflation targets are not met, the board will submit proposals to the president and Congress for immediate consideration."" However, Kaiser Family Foundation adds that the board ""is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including Parts A and B premiums), or would result in a change in the beneficiary premium percentage or low-income subsidies under Part D. Hospitals and hospices (through 2019) and clinical labs (for one year) will not be subject to cost reductions proposed by the board. The board must also submit recommendations every other year to slow the growth in national health expenditures while preserving quality of care by January 1, 2015."" So the board is real. And Cornyn and his allies may have a case to make that the IPAB is a bad idea or poorly designed. Still, we don't see how its existence justifies Raese's statement. -- The board's purview is limited to Medicare. Patients who have employer-provided health care, Medicaid or insurance through the health care exchange would not be affected at all by the board. -- The board's powers are advisory. The board can only make recommendations, and it is expressly prohibited from anything that would ""ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing ... or (change) the beneficiary premium percentage or low-income subsidies"" in the Medicare drug benefit. -- The board doesn't interact with patients. The board is supposed to do big thinking about cost-containment, not judge individual patients to determine whether they qualify for care. The changes that it suggests to the president and Congress could eventually, many years hence, shape how care is provided. But it's a major stretch to say that under the new law ""the first person (a) patient has to go to is a bureaucrat."" -- Patients didn't live in a bureacracy-fee paradise before the health care law passed. Today, patients may need to check with an insurance company before undergoing a procedure or making a visit to the specialist. If an employer's HR department decides to change health care plans, a worker may have to drop a doctor or give up benefits. And employers can eliminate health insurance entirely, or drive up the cost of premiums, either of which could intefere with a patient's health care. Though the Raese camp didn't mention it, we'll also pre-emptively dismiss any notion that the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute -- another entity created by the bill -- could wedge ""bureaucrats"" between a doctor and a patient. This institute, which would conduct research that compares the clinical effectiveness of medical treatments, is at least as controversial, if not more so, since it fed critics' fears that the bill could result in the rationing of health care services. However, the law prevents the institute's findings from being considered mandates. When we sent Raese's comment around to health care experts, they universally said he overreached. ""This is purely ridiculous,"" said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute. ""Nothing changes in that respect relative to today’s system."" ""Choices, if anything, will be enhanced through the exchanges, with a much clearer description of what plans cover and their cost-sharing requirements,"" said Sara Collins, vice president of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund's Program on Affordable Health Insurance. ""In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services has to certify that qualified plans offered through the exchanges have adequate provider networks."" Henry Aaron, a senior fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, called the statement a ""rant, appalling if based on ignorance, and mendacious if uttered knowingly."" Even a major critic of the health care bill said he thought Raese went too far. ""As bad as I think this bill is, I don’t see that anywhere in it,"" said Michael Tanner, a health care specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. We usually accept a bit of overstatement if it's in the vein of artistic license. But Raese's statement is a gross distortion, along the lines of his subsequent claim that the law is ""pure, unadulterated socialism."" (The law preserves the private-sector health care insurance for most Americans who already have it, and lawmakers rejected a single-payer model early on.) We see Raese's claim as yet another attempt to demonize the health care law by twisting the facts beyond recognition."
|
2727
|
Bayer's Monsanto faces 8,000 lawsuits on glyphosate.
|
The number of U.S. lawsuits brought against Bayer’s (BAYGn.DE) newly acquired Monsanto has jumped to about 8,000, as the German drugmaker braces for years of legal wrangling over alleged cancer risks of glyphosate-based weedkillers.
|
true
|
Environment
|
Bayer had previously disclosed 5,200 such lawsuits against Monsanto, which it acquired in a $63 billion deal completed in June. “The number of plaintiffs in both state and federal litigation is approximately 8,000 as of end-July. These numbers may rise or fall over time but our view is that the number is not indicative of the merits of the plaintiffs’ cases,” Bayer Chief Executive Werner Baumann told analysts in a conference call on Thursday. Bayer shares have lost more than 10 percent since Monsanto was ordered on Aug. 10 to pay $289 million in damages in the first U.S. lawsuit over glyphosate-based weedkillers such as Roundup and Ranger Pro. The legal headache adds to a number of distractions for Bayer, such as falling consumer care product sales and a rebuke on production practices from the U.S. drugs watchdog, as it seeks to strengthen its drug development pipeline and has begun integrating Monsanto into its organisation. “While this is disappointing, it is not surprising. Indeed, in our litigation scenario analysis, we assumed a doubling of cases to 10,400,” said Alistair Campbell, analyst at brokerage Berenberg. Bayer shares were down 1.8 percent at 1600 GMT while the German blue chip index .GDAXI was up 0.2 percent. CEO Baumann reiterated Bayer’s view that the jury’s verdict on Aug. 10 was inconsistent with the science-based conclusions of regulators. Bayer said it will initially petition the judge to reverse the jury’s verdict from Aug. 10, and “if necessary” challenge the ruling with California appellate courts, which will take at least a year. When asked whether Bayer would consider settling cases out of court, he said: “We will vigorously defend this case and all upcoming cases.” Bayer executives on the call stressed that demand for glyphosate and seeds for crops that tolerate the broad-spectrum herbicide had not been affected by the verdict. “Nothing whatsoever has changed in the regulatory status of the product. There is simply very high demand, and has been for many decades for glyphosate. It is an invaluable tool for growers,” said Liam Condon, the head of Bayer’s newly enlarged Crop Science division. Bayer also said on Thursday that it sees no reason to re-assess the legal risks from Monsanto. Last week Bayer, which is retiring the Monsanto name, launched the integration of Monsanto into its organisation. That is seen as a daunting task even without the litigation, almost two years after it signed the $63 billion deal. Bayer’s second-quarter results, due on Sept. 5, would include provisioning for legal defence costs but no money would at that point be set aside for any possible future damages, finance chief Wolfgang Nickl said.
|
39766
|
McDonalds plans to stop serving overweight customers in 2015.
|
McDonalds to Stop Serving Overweight Customers
|
false
|
9/11 Attack on America
|
"It’s not true that McDonalds plans to turn away overweight customers. The claim started with a satirical story published by the website Daily Buzz Live in December of 2014. The story was shared and liked nearly 700,000 times on Facebook. According to the report: According to reports, beginning January 1, 2015, McDonald’s will no longer serve customers who show risks of being overweight. They will define overweight by these standards: Over 170 lbs for women and 245 lbs for men. Children’s weight restrictions will vary depending on age and height. The fake story drew strong responses from social media users. But the website’s disclaimer states: “A few stories are works of complete fiction” — and this is one of them. But like most satirical stories, this one was inspired by actual events. A weigh-loss expert and hypnotherapist named Steve Miller called on fast food restaurants to turn away overweight customers in November of 2014. The U.K.-based Daily Record reports: Steve says: “Fast food staff are the key holders to weight loss in the UK. They interact with obese customers every day and quite often get to know them because they become regulars. “If they’re trained to turn away fat people then they could help with the UK’s obesity problem. They can be taught about what to look out for, maximum weight limits and how to help. It’s not about humiliation. Miller also called for fast food workers to use “hypnotic language” to help overweight customers eat less and choose healthier options. So far, fast food chains haven’t taken the bait on Miller’s ideas."
|
1287
|
UK police charge pharmaceutical company over hospital baby deaths.
|
Police said on Wednesday they had charged pharmaceutical company ITH Pharma with a number of offences as part of an investigation into the deaths and illnesses of seven babies at several hospitals.
|
true
|
Health News
|
London’s Metropolitan Police said the company had been charged with seven counts of supplying a medicinal product which was not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription. It was also accused of failing to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that patients were not infected by contaminants. The north London company said in a statement: “As founders of ITH we have every sympathy for all the families affected, regardless of the cause. However, we are disappointed by the decision to charge the company and will vigorously defend this case.” The police investigation was launched in September 2014 following the death of a baby three months earlier at London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital. The death of a second baby at the same hospital and a third at the Rosie Maternity Hospital in Cambridge, central England, in June 2014 were then also investigated. The inquiry followed an outbreak of a bacterial infection that affected some babies receiving Total Parental Nutrition (TPN), an intravenous feed. The seven babies involved in the investigation, including the three who died, had all received the feed. The investigation established that the cause of death of the first baby could be linked to TPN, although the deaths of the other two were not found to be linked. Five hospitals in total were involved in the investigation, the other three being Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, Luton and Dunstable Hospital and Lister Hospital in Stevenage, all in central England. ITH Pharma, which was founded in 2008, said it had manufactured more than 1.4-million components of TPN since its launch and was the sole commercial supplier of reactive feeding solutions to the National Health Service. “This product has helped thousands of extremely vulnerable infants survive premature and complex births,” it said. The case is due to start at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Dec. 17.
|
4681
|
Emirati woman wakes up from stupor after 27 years.
|
A woman from the United Arab Emirates whose apparent awakening from a 27-year-long stupor has grabbed international headlines is a rare but not unique case, one of the German doctors who treated her says.
|
true
|
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, International News, Middle East, Abu Dhabi, Oddities, Science
|
The story of Munira Abdulla was first published by Abu Dhabi’s The National newspaper on Monday. The newspaper reported that in 1991, Abdulla was with her son when a school bus collided with their car. Her son, cradled by his mother before the crash, escaped with a bruise to the head. Abdulla was 32 at the time. That same son, himself now 32, was quoted saying his mother regained consciousness in a German hospital last year. A photo shows her in a wheelchair visiting the Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi, where she now resides. Friedemann Mueller, the principal consultant at the Schoen Clinic in Bad Aibling, told German news site Spiegel Online that his patient had until recently been in a state of “minimal consciousness,” during which she was able to open her eyes and briefly focus on something, such as her son’s face. Mueller, a neurological specialist, told Spiegel Online that Abdulla’s vegetative state shouldn’t be confused with a coma. “No patient simply wakes up from a coma after 27 years,” he was quoted as saying. “The physical and mental state of the patient increased enormously over a period of a few weeks,” he added. “She can now interact consciously with her environment and participate in family life again.” During her years in hospitals, Abdulla was tube-fed and underwent physiotherapy to prevent her muscles deteriorating. After she was transferred to Germany, Mueller said doctors took a holistic approach to her treatment: controlling her muscle contractions, changing the medication she received for epilepsy and using physiotherapy to allow her to leave her room in a wheelchair, so she could get more stimuli, such as bird song. Mueller said the changes weren’t sudden, but gradual. After a while she was able to open her mouth when asked to, then say her son’s name, greet doctors and recite some verses from the Quran. “The case is very unusual, but not unique,” Spiegel Online quoted Mueller as saying. He cited a patient in West Virginia who began speaking again after 20 years. Mueller said Abdulla’s case offers hope for some patients with similar conditions, but there’s no guarantee of improvement especially for people who have suffered brain damage due to lack of oxygen.
|
9677
|
Acupuncture May Help Ease Fibromyalgia Pain, Study Finds
|
This HealthDay story reports on a study of fibromyalgia patients who received acupuncture as a supplemental treatment for pain. Their results were compared to those of another group of patients receiving only sham treatments. The story says that after 10 weeks of acupuncture, patients reported an average of a 41 percent reduction in pain, compared to only a 27 percent drop in patients getting the sham treatments. The larger decrease in perceived pain with the acupuncture patients continued for at least a year, the story said, indicating that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain and improving the quality of life in fibromyalgia patients. The story gives readers a generally good overview of the study, with attention to costs, limitations, and inclusion of an independent expert comment. But the discussion of benefits wasn’t quite detailed enough to clear our bar, and the story lacked any mention of potential harms from acupuncture treatment. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition in which pain is present in multiple body regions. It is unclear what is the cause of the pain and whether other symptoms that can accompany the pain – depression, fatigue, sleep issues – are caused by the pain itself or the underlying process. Despite not knowing what causes fibromyalgia, several medications have been shown to decrease symptoms in affected individuals, but there is no cure and the benefits of treatment are not dramatic. For this reason, there is interest in identifying other treatment options including so-called alternative treatments such as acupuncture and massage. The current study examined acupuncture in women recruited from three primary care practices in Spain. All women were referred for acupuncture but could be treated with medications by their primary physician. Note that no patients were receiving opiate pain medicines or were involved in legal cases regarding their pain (which may have confounded the results). Patients were randomly assigned to individualized acupuncture treatment or a sham (fake) version of acupuncture. Patients did not know which treatment they were receiving. The study appeared to have been well done and demonstrated that women who received the actual acupuncture treatment had less pain at the end of the 10-week treatment period. While encouraging, the more interesting results were that the patients continued to do better for up to one year. This is important because fibromyalgia is a chronic condition and for treatments such as acupuncture, the question is whether it provides only short-term benefit or is it something that needs to be continued on a regular basis.
|
true
|
acupuncture,fibromyalgia,pain
|
The story offers an estimate of the cost of an acupuncture session at $125. The study participants received nine separate sessions, which would, by this estimate, total $1,125. The story also mentions that some insurance carriers will pay for acupuncture treatments. The story reports an improvement in perceived pain relief by the participants receiving actual acupuncture (41 percent) versus those in the control group getting sham treatments (27 percent). It also reports that the reduction in pain persists for up to a year, although not to the same degree. It’s helpful that the story lists the relative reduction in pain seen in both groups for comparison purposes. However, the story would have been stronger had it indicated how the pain score used in the study works (e.g. What’s the range of the scale?) and what the absolute reduction in pain scores was in both groups (e.g. If pain scores were already low to begin with, a 41 percent reduction might not be very meaningful). We would need that type of information to be able to judge the story Satisfactory on this criterion. This story made no mention of potential harms from the use of acupuncture although the research paper clearly identified some “mild adverse events” affecting participants. These included headaches, pain and bruising at the acupuncture sites, and an aggravation of some fibromyalgia symptoms. While these are far from serious harms, readers deserve to know that they are possible outcomes. The story reports on the findings of a double-blinded, multi-center study comparing real acupuncture to a sham treatment. The description of the study design is solid and includes discussion of limitations and confounding factors. Quoting two different experts, the story suggests that the pain reductions in the acupuncture group might have been due to their increasing use of antidepressants during the study, which “may have artificially boosted the positive results.” This is an interesting observation, although a look at supplemental table 5 in the paper shows that the sham treatment group’s use of antidepressants also increased during the study, and to a greater extent than the acupuncture group. To us, this suggests that the persistent benefit in terms of pain in the acupuncture group is unlikely to be due mainly to the use of these other medications. This story does not appear to commit disease mongering. The story quotes experts other than those conducting the research, as well as providing additional information from other sources. One of the quoted experts appears not to be an acupuncturist, which is good. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest but the research paper itself states there were no conflicts. Readers might have benefited, however, from knowing the funding source for this research, which was The Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs and the Andalusian Public Health System, two public agencies. Acupuncture is considered to be an alternative, or complement, to traditional western medicine. The story mentions that most fibromyalgia patients take medications for pain, depression, and other symptoms, and that they may also receive other alternative therapies, such as massage. Acupuncture is now considered a fairly common alternative therapy for a number of conditions and is usually available in most locales. The story hints as much when it says that 9 out of 10 patients with fibromyalgia report using some form of alternative therapy, including acupuncture. Previous studies of acupuncture among fibromyalgia patients showed conflicting results. In this case, the story identifies that the acupuncture was individualized to the particular patients, as opposed to some general acupuncture approach, and compares an experimental group of participants with a control group, something missing in some earlier studies. There is enough original reporting here that we can be confident the story is not based on a news release.
|
2237
|
First cholera death recorded since cyclone hit Mozambique port, cases double.
|
The number of cholera cases has almost doubled in Mozambique in the past 24 hours and the port city of Beira has recorded its first death from the disease since a massive cyclone struck, health chiefs said on Sunday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Cyclone Idai smashed into Beira on March 14, unleashing catastrophic flooding and killing more than 700 people in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi. The aftermath may prove to be even deadlier with 1.85 million people displaced after entire villages were submerged and households swept away. “We’ve now registered one death from cholera. The person came here in a very critical condition. The deceased is the first to die from cholera inside our health facilities,” Mozambique’s National Director for Medical Assistance, Ussene Isse, said on public television channel TVN. Isse said 517 cases of the disease had been reported by Sunday, up from the figure of 271 announced on Saturday. Cholera is endemic to Mozambique, which has had regular outbreaks over the past five years. About 2,000 people were infected in the last outbreak, which ended in February 2018, according to the WHO. The scale of the damage to Beira’s water and sanitation infrastructure, coupled with its dense population, have raised fears that another epidemic would be difficult to put down.
|
5973
|
Woman to row across ocean for environmental awareness.
|
As a member of the University of Washington’s elite women’s varsity crew, Eliza Dawson honed her athletic skills on the sometimes-choppy waters of Lake Washington.
|
true
|
Monterey, Climate, Rowing, Oceans, Washington, Environment, California, Womens rowing, Pacific Ocean, Seattle
|
This summer, she’ll test her rowing talent in a far more challenging environment, where small crews of rowers rarely go: the Pacific Ocean. Dawson is taking part in a 2,400-mile rowing race from Monterey, California, to Honolulu. She and three teammates are aiming to break a world record — 50 days, 8 hours, 14 minutes, set in 2014 — for a women’s rowing team. Dawson and her three teammates will begin rowing across the Pacific Ocean on June 2. She plans to post updates on her personal blog, http://row4climate.com/ and on her team’s blog, http://www.rippleeffectrowing.com/ But they also want to put a spotlight on the far-reaching impacts of humankind on the Earth by rowing across parts of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch — a vast gyre of pulverized plastic garbage occupying an area roughly four times the size of California. Dawson, who studied atmospheric sciences at the UW and will begin working on her doctorate at Stanford University this fall, plans to send photos and videos of the garbage patch. She hopes to record the journey on her blog and the team’s blog as she goes. “It’s going to be a hard, demanding journey — and that’s what it’s going to take to combat climate change,” said Dawson, 22, who was a member of the UW crew in 2016 and 2017. The four women will alternate two hours of rowing with two hours of sleep, 24 hours a day, for 40 to 50 days. They’ll be rowing a specially designed oceangoing rowboat they’ve named the Ripple Effect. Their journey is part of the third Great Pacific Race, organized by New Ocean Wave, a British company. It involves eight teams of rowers crossing the Pacific. They are the only all-women team in the race. Dargan Frierson, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the UW and one of Dawson’s former professors, described Dawson as “the type of person who tries to do things that seem impossible. “I hope it raises awareness about the types of changes we’re making to the environment,” he said “The oceans are different from when she was born (in 1996). They are a lot hotter, a lot more acidic. And, there’s a lot more plastic.” One day last week, Dawson and her coach, Conal Groom of the Seattle Rowing Center, carried a one-person shell out onto the water east of the Ballard Bridge. Dawson sat on the impossibly small seat and rowed the sleek shell past a line of brawny, battered commercial-fishing boats with names like Determined, Aleutian Challenger, Sea Venture and Botany Bay. Skimming along under a cloudy sky, she scattered a flock of ducks and passed a partly submerged plastic bag floating in the water. In an oceangoing race, “technique is useless,” said Groom, who rowed in the 2000 Summer Olympics. “It’s basically fitness. My job is to make sure she has enough training.” Dawson typically rows up to two hours a day in the morning. In the afternoon, she works out for another two hours, doing a range of fitness activities including cycling and weightlifting. When she’s not training, she’s working to raise $20,000 to help fund the journey. The race will hinge on things that are beyond her team’s control — weather, currents, waves. “And luck,” Groom said. Dawson has only met one of her teammates in person. Two are from Great Britain, and one is from Brazil. They connected over the internet. They’re coordinating the trip via daily Skype calls. They’ll meet in Monterey next month, for the final leg of training. The race begins June 2. “It’s going to be a crazy experience,” she said. Dawson has displayed a seriousness of purpose and fascination with the natural world that impressed adults when she was just a kid, growing up in Port Townsend. When she was 10 years old, she and her sister, Chloe, began volunteering at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center, where the girls met Libby Palmer, its co-founder. Palmer was struck by Dawson’s maturity, and her ability to do sustained, concentrated work and to absorb information like a sponge. In 2008, the science center started a four-year project to clean and reassemble the skeleton of an orca whale that had washed up on Dungeness Spit in 2001. Eliza and Chloe volunteered for four years, meticulously cleaning the bones and helping to assemble and position the 24-foot-long skeleton for display. Finding a fully intact orca carcass on a beach is rare — the mammals usually sink in open water when they die. Research revealed that the dead orca was heavily contaminated with toxins. “That was a wake-up call for me,” said Dawson. She’d grown up sailing and rowing in what seemed like the pristine waters around Port Townsend. How could a whale living in those same waters be full of toxins? The orca project sparked a growing interest in how the ocean was being changed by acidification and carbon dioxide. Those interests combined with her love of math and physics. “Climate change is a fact, not a belief,” she said. “It is mathematical equations. It is physics . it is clear the climate is changing, and it will affect everyone.” Frierson, the UW professor, met Dawson when she visited his lab as a high-school student and invited her to join his lab to do research as a freshman. “She has the determination, the intelligence that you don’t see in many students,” he said. He hopes students and faculty in atmospheric sciences will be able to aid Dawson’s journey — giving the team a heads-up about upcoming weather and other details like projections of wave heights. “Even just things like forecasting cloudiness might help her to know how long she can use her electric devices,” which are solar-powered, he said. “I’m hoping we can be useful to her, and get some good experience forecasting a place that’s not forecast that much.” Dawson is also working with EarthGames, a group of researchers, game developers and students who develop video and board games about the natural world, and who plan to release a game about Dawson’s journey shortly before it begins. This fall, she will start a doctorate program at Stanford University, where she plans to study why the Antarctic ice sheets are collapsing and what effect the retreating ice could have on sea-level rise. Dawson is confident in the boat, which has two very small cabins for resting and sleeping, and two seats for the rowers. An emergency vessel will be in the area, and a helicopter could airlift a rower to safety if the worst happened. “They’re going to have the latest technology — she’s such a whiz at everything technological,” Palmer said. “There’s nothing macho about their approach. They’re working with a lot of expert people who are lending her a hand.” The boat will contain all the food needed for the trip, most of it dehydrated, and is equipped with a desalinator to make potable water out of seawater, along with a GPS tracking device and a satellite phone. “I have a lot of trust in her, in knowing what her limits are,” Frierson said. “I just know this, from the academic side, that she’s not a person who tries to pretend she can do things she can’t.” ___ Information from: The Seattle Times, http://www.seattletimes.com
|
29055
|
Energy-saving light bulbs (CFLs) release dangerous amounts of mercury when broken.
|
What's true: CFLs contain mercury, a potentially dangerous substance that escapes from broken CFLs into the immediate surroundings, and therefore the breakage of a CFL bulb should be handled by carefully removing the broken bulb and its contents from a home. What's false: The amount of mercury contained in one CFL bulb poses a grave danger to a home’s inhabitants, and the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb needs to be dealt with only by an environmental clean-up crew.
|
mixture
|
Medical, ASP Article, Toxin Du Jour
|
Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs), whose use is estimated to result in a $47 savings in energy costs over the life of each bulb versus incandescents, have had their critics. They take longer to switch on. Regular CFLs won’t work with dimmer switches. They can interfere with radios, cordless phones, and remote controls. They also contain mercury, a fact that causes no small amount of concern in light of how dangerous that substance is. Yet the amount housed in each bulb is very small, about 4 or 5 milligrams, which in volume is about the size of the period at the end of a sentence. (By comparison, old-style mercury thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury, an amount equal to the mercury found in 125 CFL bulbs.) And, provided the bulbs aren’t broken open, none of that leaches into the home. Like batteries, used CFLs need to be disposed at a toxic waste depot rather than tossed out with the ordinary household trash. Because mercury is cumulative, this poisonous element would add up if all the spent bulbs went into a landfill. Instead, the mercury in dead bulbs is reclaimed at such depots and recycled. As to the potential for harm posed by mercury escaping from broken bulbs, says the King County Hazardous Waste Program: “Crushing and breaking fluorescent lamps release mercury vapor and mercury-containing phosphor powder. These can be difficult to contain.” Yet the recommended clean-up process does not involve calling in a HazMat team. Says the EPA in its advisory about dealing with broken CFLs: Before Clean-up: Ventilate the Room Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug Disposal of Clean-up Materials Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Ventilate the Room During and After Vacuuming Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection concurs, even though they affix additional steps and cautions to the process: What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home? The most important thing to remember is to never use a vacuum. A standard vacuum will spread mercury containing dust throughout the area as well as contaminating the vacuum. What you should do is: The advice proffered by Maine’s DEP is interesting, in light of the story about the unfortunate householder whose broken bulb supposedly cost her more than $2,000 in clean-up fees. Brandy Bridges lives in Prospect, Maine, and it was Maine’s DEP that sent an expert to her home to test for mercury contamination, then recommended she have a local environmental cleanup firm tackle the problem. The account detailing her experience began reaching us in April 2007 in the form of the World Net Daily article quoted above. It was subsequently repeated in an article published both by Fox News and the Financial Post. All of these accounts drew their information from a 12 April 2007 article printed in the Ellsworth American, a newspaper published in Ellsworth, Maine. According to the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, what actually happened after Ms. Bridges dropped a CFL bulb on the floor of her home is as follows: Bridges knew when the bulb shattered that the mercury inside had spilled onto the carpet and needed to be cleaned up carefully. She resisted the urge to vacuum, made some calls and got in touch with the state Department of Environmental Protection. So far, so good. The DEP, which didn’t have a lot of experience with shattered compact fluorescent bulbs, told Bridges one option was to call a hazardous materials cleanup contractor, something officials now agree was serious overkill. She made the call and almost hit the floor herself. The contractor said the cleanup could cost $2,000, Bridges said. Because she didn’t have two grand to hand over, Bridges sealed up the bedroom with plastic and tape. She also talked to a local newspaper to warn people to think twice about buying the bulbs. DEP officials, meanwhile, tried to assure her there really was no need to spend any money or seal up the room. But she wasn’t about to trust the same government that had urged her to buy the bulb and, in her view, was changing its story about how dangerous it was to her daughter. The DEP eventually did help her clean it up. They [later] removed part of the carpet, though officials say that was only necessary because the mercury sat for two months. Whatever occurred in the Bridges home (the Maine DEP has since posted its account of the incident), Maine’s DEP is not now recommending householders need bring in an environmental clean-up crews to deal with broken CFL bulbs, even if it is advocating the use of sticky tape, disposable dustpans, and sealed plastic bags. CFLs need to be handled with far more consideration than do conventional incandescent bulbs, if only because cleaning up a broken energy-saving bulb is a more involved process. Consumers should therefore exercise caution regarding where and how they install CFLs in their homes; they should be careful to not break these bulbs as they install and remove them and avoid putting them in lamps likely to be sent crashing to the floor by someone knocking them from a side table or tripping over electrical cords. CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these bulbs draw far less power (resulting in lower electric bills), and they last longer (so they don’t need to be replaced nearly as often). But they also work to save the environment by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a long-lasting CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal to the emissions of 800,000 cars, according to the U.S. Energy Star program. Australia has committed to a mandatory phase-out of incandescents by 2010. Ontario has moved to ban conventional incandescent bulbs and other inefficient lighting technologies by 2012. (While homeowners and businesses in that province won’t be penalized for continuing to use the older bulbs, it will become illegal for retailers to sell them.)
|
6188
|
Hurricane’s death toll in Puerto Rico put at nearly 3,000.
|
Puerto Rico’s governor raised the U.S. territory’s official death toll from Hurricane Maria from 64 to 2,975 on Tuesday after an independent study found that the number of people who succumbed in the desperate, sweltering aftermath had been severely undercounted.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rossello, Latin America, Caribbean, Health, George Washington University, Hurricanes, U.S. News
|
The new estimate of nearly 3,000 dead in the six months after Maria devastated the island in September 2017 and knocked out the entire electrical grid was made by researchers with the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University. “We never anticipated a scenario of zero communication, zero energy, zero highway access,” Gov. Ricardo Rossello told reporters. “I think the lesson is to anticipate the worst. ... Yes, I made mistakes. Yes, in hindsight, things could’ve been handled differently.” He said he is creating a commission to study the hurricane response, and a registry of people vulnerable to the next hurricane, such as the elderly, the bedridden and kidney dialysis patients. Rossello acknowledged Puerto Rico remains vulnerable to another major storm. He said the government has improved its communication systems and established a network to distribute food and medicine, but he noted that there are still 60,000 homes without a proper roof and that the power grid is still unstable. “A lesson from this is that efforts for assistance and recovery need to focus as much as possible on lower-income areas, on people who are older, who are more vulnerable,” said Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken institute. Tuesday’s finding is almost twice the government’s previous estimate, included in a recent report to Congress, that there were 1,427 more deaths than normal in the three months after the storm. The George Washington researchers said the official count from the Sept. 20 hurricane was low in part because doctors were not trained in how to classify deaths after a disaster. The number of deaths from September 2017 to February 2018 was 22 percent higher than during the same period in previous years, Goldman said. Donald Berry, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center who was not involved in the study, told The Associated Press in an email that he believes the report is more accurate than the one released by Harvard investigators in May that estimated up to 4,600 more deaths than usual occurred. He said the data sources used by George Washington also are better, “but its accuracy is not as great as they advertise.” “If the true number of deaths attributable to Maria turns out to be 2,000 then I would not be surprised,” he said. The number of dead has political implications for the Trump administration, which was accused of responding half-heartedly to the disaster. Shortly after the storm, when the official death toll stood at 16, President Donald Trump marveled over the small loss of life compared to that of “a real catastrophe like Katrina.” Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005, was directly responsible for about 1,200 deaths, according to the National Hurricane Center. That does not include indirect deaths of the sort the George Washington researchers counted in Puerto Rico. The White House issued a statement on Tuesday noting that it sent 12,000 personnel to Puerto Rico for response and recovery efforts, and said it would continue to support the island’s government and its communities in their recovery for years to come. “The American people, including those grieving the loss of a loved one, deserve no less. The president remains proud of all of the work the federal family undertook to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico,” it said. Yet many remain outraged at both the local and federal governments. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat, said the report shows the U.S. government failed the people of Puerto Rico. “These numbers are only the latest to underscore that the federal response to the hurricanes was disastrously inadequate and, as a result, thousands of our fellow American citizens lost their lives,” she said in a statement. There is no national standard for how to count disaster-related deaths. While the National Hurricane Center reports only direct deaths, such as those caused by flying debris or drowning, some local governments may include indirect deaths from such things as heart attacks and house fires. Researchers with George Washington said they counted deaths over the span of six months — a much longer period than usual — because so many people were without power during that time. “That caused a number of issues,” Goldman said, explaining that people were forced to exert themselves physically or were exposed to intense heat without fans or air conditioning. “It’s fairly striking that you have so many households without electricity for so long. That’s unusual in the U.S. after a disaster.” Power has not yet been fully restored to Puerto Rico nearly a year after the hurricane, and outages remain common. Puerto Rico’s government released data in June showing increases in several illnesses in 2017 that could have been linked to the storm: Cases of sepsis, a serious bloodstream infection usually caused by bacteria, rose from 708 in 2016 to 835 last year. Deaths from diabetes went from 3,151 to 3,250, and deaths from heart illnesses increased from 5,417 to 5,586. Bethzaida Rosado said government and health care officials were not prepared for the storm, and she is still angry her 76-year-old mother died because oxygen tanks were not available on the island after the hurricane. “Do you know what it’s like to see your mother run out of oxygen?” she said. “I don’t wish that on anyone.” Months ago, the Rossello administration stopped updating its official death toll at 64 and ordered the independent investigation amid suspicions the dead were substantially undercounted. The first phase of the study cost $305,000. In the second phase, the researchers plan to focus on the causes of death. The researchers found that the risk of death was 45 percent higher for those living in impoverished communities, and that men over 65 saw a continuous elevated risk of death. They also reported that physicians and others told them that Puerto Rico’s government did not notify them about federal guidelines on how to document deaths related to a major disaster. “Others expressed reluctance to relate deaths to hurricanes due to concern about the subjectivity of this determination and about liability,” the report said. For the study, the researchers reviewed mortality data from July 2010 to February 2018. They also took into account an 8 percent drop in Puerto Rico’s population in the six months after the storm, when tens of thousands fled because of the damage. However, they did not share details of their methodology, saying those will be released if the study is published in a scientific journal. “We did not cherry-pick, I can promise you,” Goldman said. “We used very rigorous methodology.” The study also found that government emergency plans in place when Maria hit were not designed for hurricanes greater than a Category 1. Maria was a Category 4 with 154 mph winds. Damage was estimated at more than $100 billion. The researchers made several recommendations, including more emergency planning and government training for doctors on filling out death certificates. They also said the public health system needs to be strengthened, though Goldman said they don’t know yet whether those weaknesses contributed to storm-related deaths. Rossello pledged to carry out the recommendations, though there are questions about Puerto Rico’s ability to do so. The island is trying to restructure a portion of its more than $70 billion public debt amid a 12-year recession.
|
28984
|
A photograph of breast milk under a microscope appears glittery gold.
|
An intriguing image of breast milk under high magnification shows it to be glittery gold in appearance.
|
mixture
|
Fauxtography
|
In May 2015, an image of a glittery golden substance identified as “breast milk under a microscope” began to circulate on Facebook pages dedicated to lactation and breastfeeding support. The image was presented without a source or context, and many users wondered whether the image was a real and accurate depiction of the appearance of breast milk under high magnification: The image was certainly impressive, and it was easily traceable to a March 2015 blog post by The Scientific Mom, in which she explained that: I took advantage of the opportunity of being a nursing mom, to do something I’ve been wanting to do for a long time … put my breast milk under the microscope! What I found was a veritable gold mine of water, fat, white blood cells, bacteria, protein chains, amino acids, enzymes, and more. Of course, in the above picture, you can’t see many of these things as they are far too small! What we can see are water droplets, fat, and a smattering of white blood cells. Still, this was amazing! This nutrient packed goodness was something I made, and it was incredible. When I saw this picture, I immediately shared it with my group of close mommy friends. From there, it made its rounds on Facebook with everyone from individual moms to huge breastfeeding support groups sharing this photo! The Scientific Mom provided an interesting foil for her breast milk microscope snap — a contrasting image of popular infant formula Similac captured under similar conditions. Here is how the two slides (presented by the original photographer) appeared, side-by-side: And there was the key to the attractive, glittery gold-like appearance of the “liquid gold” breast milk seen here: Just as with the Similac, most of what we’re seeing in terms of hue is the unfiltered light used to illuminate the specimen for microscope viewing, not any inherent color quality of breast milk (or baby formula) itself. Other images across the web labeled as showing human breast milk (at differing levels of magnification) vary in hue and clarity:
|
16574
|
The No. 1 cause of death for African-American males 15-34 is murder.
|
Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups.
|
true
|
Criminal Justice, Crime, PunditFact, Juan Williams,
|
"Amid ongoing protests in Ferguson, Mo., the national conversation about racial justice and police force has ignored a critical point that needs to be discussed, said Fox News pundit Juan Williams Civil rights activists and black leaders have failed to address the very thing that’s fueling conservative, white backlash — the high crime rate among the black community, particularly among young black men, Williams said on Aug. 24th’s Fox News Sunday. ""I think there’s fear of intimidation, harassment being legitimized by the fact that there is a high rate of crime, especially among young black men,"" Williams said. ""No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 — murder. Who’s committing the murder? Not police. Other black men."" Last year, PolitiFact found that 93 percent of murder victims were killed by someone who shares their race. This time, we want to check out Williams’ claim that homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old. Unnatural causes We looked at numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which lists the leading causes of death across all demographics. Experts said that CDC data, compiled from coroner reports, are in line with FBI numbers, sourced from police reports. The CDC does not distinguish between the types of homicide (criminal, justified, etc.) or the types of accidents (auto accidents, falls, firearm discharge, etc.). The numbers for 2011, the most recent CDC findings, are consistent with data from previous years. According to the CDC, homicide was indeed the No. 1 killer of black men between the ages of 15 and 34 in 2011. Accidents ranked second in causes of death, and suicide claimed the third amount of black male lives between 15 and 24 years old, while heart disease ranked third for men 24-34. Leading causes of death among black males 1st 2nd 3rd All ages Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 1-4 Accidents Homicide Congenital malformations 5-14 Accidents Malignant neoplasms Homicide 15-24 Homicide Accidents Suicide 25-34 Homicide Accidents Diseases of the heart 35-44 Diseases of the heart Accidents Homicide 45-54 Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 55-84 Malignant neoplasms Diseases of the heart Cerebrovascular diseases 84-older Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Cerebrovascular diseases Source: CDC Compared to other ethnicities, the numbers really stand out. Forty percent of African-American males 15-34 who died were murdered, according to the CDC, compared to just 3.8 percent of white males who died. Overall, 14 percent of all men 15-34 who died in 2011 were murdered. In 2011, black males 15-34 were 10 times more likely to die of murder than whites of the same age group. Sources: CDC, PunditFact calculations For men of all ages, homicide was ranked fifth in leading causes of deaths for blacks (4.6 percent), seventh for Hispanics (2.8 percent), and ninth for American Indians (2.3 percent). Homicide was not one of the top 15 causes of death for whites 15-34. Color lines Why are so many young black males dying from homicide? As the laws of aging go, younger men are less prone to fall victim to natural causes of death, so they are more likely to die of unnatural causes. And the racial disparity between those causes has partially to do with the likelihood of getting into car-related accidents, said James Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University. ""Suburban whites drive more than urban blacks, and putting in more miles on highways — that’s important because not a lot of people are going to get killed in fender benders in neighborhood streets,"" Fox said. ""There are relatively few auto-accidents in black urban areas."" Beyond driving habits, the criminal homicide rate among young black males is significantly higher than other groups. This, experts agreed, has to do with poverty and geography. The difference in social structures, access to jobs, educational opportunities, and many other factors between impoverished black neighborhoods and others is often a matter of life and death, according to Eli Silverman, professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. ""The (homicide) numbers highlight the condition in minority areas, where a lot of violence occurs and the whole way of life is further intensified because police surveillance is always trying to track down people,"" he said. ""People have heightened survival instincts, will do anything to survive, and they’ll seek retribution for anything...because they don’t trust law enforcement."" Though it is tempting to pinpoint one cause as more impactful than others, Silverman cautions against singling out poverty or drugs or any other factor as the cause, because all of them intermix and interact. Our ruling Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups."
|
18890
|
"Members of Congress ""specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment"" ... (and) from the healthcare reform."
|
Did members of Congress exempt themselves from complying with the health care reform laws?
|
false
|
Ohio, Congress, Health Care, Chain email,
|
"A new poll released this month by the firm Public Policy Polling showed Congress to be less popular than colonoscopies, root canals or cockroaches. To get a lower favorability rating than Congress, the Washington newspaper The Hill reported, they had to be compared to lobbyists, playground bullies, telemarketers and the Kardashians. Maybe that explains why people keep forwarding a viral email making damaging claims about Congress. Our friends at Snopes.com, the urban legend checker, say the email has been circulating in various forms since at least 2000. But it’s still circulating. A reader who recently received a version of the email forwarded it to PolitiFact Ohio asking about its accuracy. It asserts that relatives of members of Congress and Congressional staffers ""are exempt from having to pay back student loans"" -- a ridiculously false claim that Snopes.com and our colleagues at FactCheck.org debunked and that we rated . We also rated as its claim that members of Congress can ""retire with the same pay after only one term."" But readers also asked about another claim in the email: that members of Congress ""specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment, while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the healthcare reform, in all of its forms."" PolitiFact first examined the claim that members of Congress are exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act in 2009, when the legislation was still under consideration in Congress. That claim was based on the assumption that the health care reform plan would have sent everyone -- except Congress -- into a new ""public option"" federal insurance plan. It would not have. In fact, the law as passed did not even include a public option -- and Section 1213 of it requires members of Congress and congressional staff, starting in 2014, to buy health plans created by the health care act or offered through the state exchanges the act establishes. Political scientist Norman Ornstein, a long-time observer of Congress and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, debunked the claim of congressional exemption in a piece he wrote for the Washington newspaper Roll Call. ""On the assertion that Members of Congress are exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act: also false,"" he wrote. ""Members of Congress are subject under the health care reform law to the same mandate that others are to purchase insurance, and their plans must have the same minimum standards of benefits that other insurance plans will have to meet. Members of Congress currently have not a gold-plated free plan but the same insurance options that most other federal employees have, and they do not have it provided for free. They have a generous subsidy for their premiums, but no more generous (and compared to many businesses or professions less generous) than standard employer-provided subsidies throughout the country."" FactCheck.org examined the broader claim that members of Congress ""specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment),"" and found it ""15 years out of date"" in 2010. The reason: Passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. It specifically made sure a variety of laws dealing with civil rights, labor and workplace safety regulations applied to the legislative branch of government. The independent Office of Compliance was set up to enforce the laws in Congress. The act specifically prohibits harassment based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age and disability. Ornstein, who has been sharply critical of Congress (and only last month co-authored a piece for Foreign Policy magazine titled ""Yes, Congress Is That Bad"") said it is ""not surprising that, in tough times, Americans would be inclined to believe the absolute worst about their elected officials. ""But at least,"" he added, ""let the criticism be fair and based on facts instead of persistent urban legends."" PolitiFact Ohio would agree. At best, the chain email's statement about Congressional exemptions is ridiculously out of date. At worst, it is cynically inaccurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates !"
|
8846
|
Lilly drug reduces stent clot risks, study finds.
|
Patients who got Eli Lilly and Co’s anti-clotting drug prasugrel after a coronary stent procedure had fewer stent-related clots than those on standard drug therapy, an analysis released on Saturday found.
|
true
|
Health News
|
For stent patients, use of Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd’s prasugrel could offer better protection against heart attack, stroke and death from cardiovascular events than standard treatment with Plavix, researchers said in an article published in the journal Lancet’s online edition. The results of the sub-analysis of data from the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial were being presented Saturday at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago. Study investigators found that intensive anti-clotting therapy with prasugrel resulted in fewer serious complications, including stent-related blood clots known as stent thrombosis, than with standard Plavix, regardless of the type of stent used. A 58 percent reduction in stent thrombosis was seen with prasugrel compared with Plavix. “Stent thrombosis was reduced both early and late after stent placement in patients randomly assigned prasugrel,” the researchers said. Stents are small wire mesh tubes inserted into the coronary arteries that supply blood to the heart to help keep them from narrowing again after they have been cleared of blockages in an angioplasty procedure. The researchers, led by Stephen Wiviott of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, did a sub-analysis of the TRITON-TIMI data to assess the rate, outcomes and prevention of coronary events in 12,844 patients with different types of stents who were treated with prasugrel plus aspirin, or Plavix, also known as clopidogrel, plus aspirin. Roughly half of the patients received bare metal stents and half received stents coated with a drug to prevent re-clogging. Drug-eluting stents reduce the need for repeat procedures but raise the risk of stent thrombosis. Efforts to reduce the risk of stent-related clots, stroke or heart attack have focused on anti-clotting therapy. The original TRITON-TIMI study of heart patients, first unveiled in November, showed prasugrel was 19 percent more effective than Plavix in preventing cardiovascular death, nonfatal heart attacks and strokes, but caused a significantly higher amount of serious bleeding. Plavix, one of the world’s best-selling drugs, is sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co and Sanofi-Aventis. Lilly in December asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approval prasugrel, considered the most important experimental medicine in its pipeline. If approved, Lilly said the drug’s brand name would be Effient.
|
24708
|
"The economic stimulus bill created a council that's ""modeled after the national board that controls Britain’s health system."
|
Health board in the stimulus bill not meant to imitate Britain
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Stimulus, Conservatives for Patients' Rights,
|
"A television ad makes the argument that the United States is on the path to a nationalized health service similar to the United Kingdom's. The advocacy group Conservatives for Patients' Rights created the ad, which features the group's chairman, Rick Scott, talking about the economic stimulus bill that became law Feb. 17, 2009. Scott is a health care executive who founded Solantic, a chain of urgent care clinics in Florida. ""Deep inside the stimulus bill Congress buried an innocent-sounding board, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research,"" Scott says in the ad. ""It's not so innocent. It's the first step in government control over your health care choices. This federal council is modeled after the national board that controls Britain's health system."" The ad goes on to quote doctors who complain about lack of choice and long waiting times for care in the national health care systems of Britain and Canada. ""Not only could a government board deny your choice in doctors but it can control life and death for some patients,"" Scott says. ""Tell Congress you won't trade your doctor for a national board of bureaucrats. Let's put patients first,"" he concludes. The ad is correct that the stimulus bill includes language creating the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. But to say it's modeled after the British health system is wrong. The board is simply an effort to pull together disparate federal agencies to find the best health treatments. Comparative effectiveness research is an effort in health care to determine which treatments work best. The new board's goal, according to the bill's conference report, is to ""reduce duplication of comparative effectiveness research activities within the federal government."" The legislation requires that half of the board's 15 members be physicians or ""other experts with clinical expertise."" The legislation also specifically states it does not permit the board to ""mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer"" and that the none of the board's reports or recommendations ""shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment."" This stands in sharp contrast to the British system, where government entities run the health care system and a national board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence, determines whether particular treatments are covered or not. In defending its ad, the group has said that its ad makes clear that the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is simply a ""first step"" toward the British system. But that seems to be the group's opinion more than a fact. There are relatively few supporters for a government-run health care system in Congress, though Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, both Democrats, support similar models known as single-payer health systems. President Barack Obama has specifically rejected a government-run health care system in the style of Britain or Canada, even though some of his supporters have asked him to consider it as an option. He addressed the matter most directly during a town hall on March 26, 2009, where people submitted questions via the Internet, including, ""Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?"" Obama said that the British and Canadian systems are too different from what exists in the United States, where the majority of people get health care coverage through their employers. (Read his extended answer via the White House transcript .) ""I don't think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps,"" he concluded. He also added that he hoped to ""lower costs through reforms in how we reimburse doctors so that they're not getting paid just for the number of operations they're doing, but for whether they're quality outcomes."" That seems how a board like the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research would make an impact under Obama's plan. We can't say for sure, though, because Obama and Congress have yet to reveal the full details of health care reform. This is not to say that implementing comparative effectiveness research will be painless for the public, and Obama has admitted as much. In an interview with the New York Times on April 14, 2009, he discussed his grandmother's decision to get a hip replacement even though she had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and died soon after the replacement. ""I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother,"" Obama said. ""Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question."" Obama added that answering tough questions on end-of-life care will ""have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance."" Getting back to the ad: It is right that the economic stimulus bill created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. But the ad is wrong that it is ""modeled after the national board that controls Britain’s health system."" We see no evidence for that. In fact, the president has specifically rejected the British model, while praising comparative effectiveness research as an acceptable way to rein in spending. Because the ad significantly distorts the reason for the board's existence."
|
14145
|
There are more than twice as many (crisis pregnancy centers) as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States.
|
"Saporta said, ""There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States."" The last count of the number of abortion providers, around 1,720, is probably a bit high. Meanwhile, the number of crisis pregnancy centers run the gamut from 1,800 to 8,000. There's no widely recognized tally. Saporta's claim only holds up if you accept the higher estimates."
|
mixture
|
PunditFact, Abortion, Families, Government Regulation, Health Care, Public Health, Public Safety, Religion, Science, State Budget, Women, Vicki Saporta,
|
"Georgia is in the news after joining other states in passing legislation to fund crisis pregnancy centers as an alternative to Planned Parenthood. Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS explored these centers, which may offer some pregnancy services but not abortion, in its May 9 edition. The segment argued that the centers, run by groups opposed to abortion, often try to set up shop near existing abortion clinics and promise to give clients information about their pregnancy and help dealing with it. Some offer to give women information on abortion, leading pregnant women to believe that the center offers the procedure. Once inside, the Full Frontal segment said, women who ask about abortion are falsely told that if they have one, they won't be able to have more children, they will suffer from psychological problems and they will face a higher risk of breast cancer. Some offer ultrasound, not necessarily as a diagnostic tool, but as a way to discourage abortion. ""They create the illusion that they're an abortion clinic by adapting names that are similar to abortion clinics, adapting the same logos and fonts,"" said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, in the segment. At the end of the segment, Saporta threw out an interesting statistic: ""There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States."" We wondered if Saporta's ratio was correct and whether pregnant women seeking an abortion were really twice as likely to come across one of these centers than a clinic that offers abortion. Saporta uses ""fake clinics"" to describe crisis pregnancy centers. Any count of these centers is complicated by the fact that most of them don't explicitly say they offer abortions when they try to get clients. Some may promise information about abortion, even if their goal is to discourage them. Others may not mention abortion at all until someone comes through the door or the pregnant woman brings it up. Saporta's sources We contacted the federation to ask for its sources. For the tally of abortion providers, spokeswoman Alissa Manzoeillo offered data from the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health, and supports abortion rights. Its latest survey, done in 2011, found 1,720 abortion providers in the United States, including 839 that do more than 400 abortions per year. The 1,720 total includes those clinics, doctor's offices where abortions are performed, and hospitals, which usually perform abortions for serious cases and only provide about 4 percent of all such procedures. As far as the ""fake clinics,"" Manzoeillo sent us media reports with a variety of estimates including 2,500 to 4,000 (from a 2003 Mother Jones article) and ""at least 3,000"" (a 2015 Cosmopolitan article). The federation also cited a Salon article reporting that the crisis pregnancy centers now outnumber abortion clinics ""by an estimated 3 to 1."" Some of those permutations support Saporta's claim. Some don't. And there are some flaws in both counts. Reliable estimates are tough to come by Getting a reliable count of crisis pregnancy centers ""is really hard because they are not licensed. They are not in anybody's database,"" said Elizabeth Nash, a senior state issues associate at Guttmacher. She said she's seen estimates of 3,000 to 8,000. The lists of the three major chains ""do not include the more local chains or the individual centers that might be run out of a church basement or something like that."" We contacted some of the chains affiliated with the centers and asked them for their best count. One of them, Heartbeat International, said it counts 2,573 total pregnancy center locations, including 1,145 that offer medical services such as ultrasounds and testing and/or treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Heartbeat spokesman Jay Hobbs cautioned, however, that ""organizations need not affiliate with a national organization such as Heartbeat International or Care Net (another group) to open their doors to clients."" ""Much like local churches, pregnancy-help organizations are stand-alone non-profit entities overseen at the local level by a board of directors,"" Hobbs said. Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which opposes abortion, said his organization counts 2,643 centers nationwide, 1,231 of which have medical personnel and services on the site. The others may offer just information and counseling. That's a conservative figure, he said, because adoption service agencies, hotlines, social service agencies with anti-abortion views, and maternity homes could also be included, Donovan said. ""Over the last 10 years, I’ve seen numbers ranging from 1,800 to 4,000, however, these numbers were typically offered in both mainstream and Christian media without any indication of how the author arrived at a particular number,"" said Kimberly Kelly, a sociologist at Mississippi State University, who studies religion and reproductive politics. ""There are no definitive data sources,"" but most centers are affiliated with Care Net or Heartbeat International, she said. There's a lingering question over how effective these centers are at ultimately discouraging abortion. Earlier this month, the online news website Rewire, which covers sexual and reproductive health issues, reported that data from an anti-abortion Texas software company used by 1,200 crisis pregnancy centers to track clients, found that fewer than 4 percent of women are dissuaded from having an abortion. Most come in for the free services, never having planned to seek an abortion in the first place. Abortion provider figure may also be lower It's worth noting that the 2011 Guttmacher count totaling 1,720 abortion providers is likely a bit out of date. Today the number of clinics is probably lower because states such as Texas and Ohio have aggressively tried to shut down clinics that provide abortion while diverting money to crisis pregnancy centers. On March 25, Florida Gov. Rick Scott cut off all state funding for preventive health service clinics that provide abortion. Our ruling Saporta said, ""There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States."" The last count of the number of abortion providers, around 1,720, is probably a bit high. Meanwhile, the number of crisis pregnancy centers run the gamut from 1,800 to 8,000. There's no widely recognized tally. Saporta's claim only holds up if you accept the higher estimates.
|
26556
|
Dan Patrick Says for the coronavirus, “the death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country.
|
Patrick's statement confuses the calculation for the coronavirus death rate, which is based on the number of fatalities and the number of confirmed cases. Using the correct calculation and data from the day of his remarks, Patrick is right that Texas is among the states with the lowest death rate for the coronavirus — but the difference is slight. At the time, 29 states had a death rate of less than 2%. Texas is also among the states that has administered the fewest number of tests for the virus, and experts cautioned that the actual death rate for the virus cannot be calculated until more people have been tested.
|
true
|
Texas, Coronavirus, Dan Patrick,
|
"During a March coronavirus briefing, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state has one of the lowest coronavirus death rates in the country — a trend he said he hopes will continue through April. ""If you look at the death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country,"" he said. ""But we need to continue that for the rest of April. And even be better at that."" The first issue here is that Patrick is conflating two calculations in his statement: the death rate for the coronavirus and the number of coronavirus deaths per capita in Texas. The death rate of a particular illness or disease is calculated by dividing the number of fatalities by the number of confirmed cases of the illness. A geography’s total population isn’t a factor. It is possible to look at the number of coronavirus deaths per capita, but it says less about the danger posed by the virus than the death rate. To give Patrick a fair shake, we’ll take a look at both of these figures and how Texas compares to other states. Patrick did not return a request for comment seeking clarification on his statement. ""The death rate is generally a function of the number of people infected,"" said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an email. ""We are often unsure of this because this depends on sampling, and the tests deployed."" For this reason, we’ll also look at the number of tests administered by each state. As more tests are administered and more cases are identified, the death rate for the virus will change. Given that the number of cases and fatalities is constantly changing, this fact-check will use data from March 31 — the day Patrick made his statement. Along these lines, it is important to remember that the death rate at this point in time is just a snapshot. ""Case fatality rates are not constant. They can change considerably during an epidemic if, for example, it is discovered that there are many more milder cases than originally thought,"" according to a statement from the World Health Organization to PolitiFact at the end of March. The WHO also noted that the rate may vary across different geographies due to ""demographic factors, for example differences in the age structure of the population."" End of March numbers At the time of Patrick’s remarks, there were 3,266 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in Texas and 41 related deaths reported by state health authorities. This puts the approximate death rate for the virus at 1.26%, meaning 1.26% of people who tested positive for the virus died. Looking at all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Texas is among the areas with the lowest coronavirus death rate. Eleven states had a lower death rate when Patrick made his statement, including several with just one death: Wisconsin (1.18%), Missouri (1.06%), Tennessee (1.03%), South Dakota (0.93%), New Hampshire, (0.82%), West Virginia (0.62%), Utah (0.56%), North Carolina (0.53%), Hawaii (0.47%) and Wyoming, which had reported zero coronavirus deaths on the last day of March. ""It appears that Texas is among the states with low coronavirus deaths, but that is still true of large portions of the U.S. at this point,"" said Dr. Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, an environmental health professor at Sam Houston State University. At the time of Patrick’s claim, 29 states had a death rate of less than 2%. The state with the highest death rate on March 31 was Louisiana, with about 5,237 confirmed coronavirus cases and 239 deaths, a rate of 4.56%. Patrick’s statement also referenced deaths ""per capita of 29 million people"" in Texas. Texas is among the states with the fewest deaths per capita, based on March 31 coronavirus data and 2018 1-year population estimates from the Census Bureau’s American Communities Survey. When Patrick spoke, there had been fewer than one coronavirus death for every 100,000 people in Texas. The state with the most deaths per capita at the time was New York, with about eight deaths per 100,000 people. But Texas is also among the states that have administered the fewest number of coronavirus tests per capita. At the time of Patrick’s statement, Texas had administered 42,992 coronavirus tests — about 150 per 100,000 people. New York had administered about 1,050 tests per 100,000 people, or 205,186 tests in total. ""The number of confirmed cases is directly related to testing,"" Ratnapradipa said in an email. ""There is likely widespread community infection of people with no or mild symptoms who are not being tested. This means that we cannot accurately calculate a COVID-19 fatality rate."" Cohen said it is important to remember that the current pandemic is ""dynamic and growing, worldwide"" and that declaring any kind of victory over the virus ""is probably a bad idea at this point in time for most places on the planet."" Since Patrick made this claim, the number of coronavirus-related deaths in the state has almost doubled, the state confirmed more than 1,000 additional cases and administered more than 10,000 additional tests. Our ruling Patrick said looking at the coronavirus ""death rate in Texas, per capita of 29 million people, we're one of the lowest in the country."" Patrick’s statement equates the death rate for coronavirus and the number of coronavirus deaths per capita in Texas, two different calculations. It is true that, at the time of Patrick’s statement, Texas was among the states with the lowest coronavirus death rate (and those with lowest number of deaths per capita) — but not by much. There were 29 states with a death rate of less than 2%. Experts cautioned that the actual coronavirus death rate cannot be accurately calculated until more people have been tested — and Texas is among the states with the lowest number of tests administered per capita. Patrick’s comparison is accurate based on the information available at the time of his statement, but his claim needs clarification and is missing important context about testing."
|
32809
|
A woman sliced a rapist's genitals off and forced him to eat them.
|
While News4KTLA carries no disclaimer warning readers its content is fabricated (its “About” page simply describes it as “local news for southern Louisiana and the surrounding area”), the site appears to be one of many fly-by-night fake news purveyors using visual and call-letter elements to trick social media users into spreading misinformation.
|
false
|
Uncategorized, news 4 ktla
|
On 5 April 2016 the web site News4KTLA published an article reporting that a female rape victim had cut off a rapist’s genitals and then forced him to eat them: A gruesome scene unfolded in a Fayetteville, North Carolina neighborhood after a convicted child molester kidnapped a 19-year-old woman and took her back to his home and assaulted her. Kimberly Walt was walking home from her friends house on Sunday afternoon when she says she was approached by Robert Williams, a three-time convicted felon. Williams asked her if she wanted a ride to where ever she was going, Walt replied “No thank you.” That’s when she said Williams drove off, but when she turned the corner he jumped out of the bushes, grabbed her and threw her in his car. Williams took Walt to his home where he proceeded to assault her for several hours. According to police reports, Williams fell asleep after drinking massive amounts of alcohol and Walt was able to untie herself. She then approached Williams, tied him up, and in a bit of rage, grabbed a knife and “castrated him.” Walt stated that he woke up screaming and yelling, as she walked over with his “parts” and toss them in the microwave. “I threw that bastards junk in the microwave, grab the plate, fork and a steak knife and cut it up like hot dogs,” said Walt and a recorded statement. “I grabbed a gun that he had left on the kitchen counter, walked over to him, and forced him to eat it. I have no remorse and I am not sorry. That bastard deserved it and he’s going to hell.” The claim spread on social media for a number of reasons. One was that the fabricated story falls neatly into the always-popular category of “justice porn,” presenting a narrative involving a crime and a victim who manages to turn the tables on her attacker. The second was the appropriation of Los Angeles-area outlet KTLA‘s call letters in the name of the site (the two sites are not related). The photograph of the purported rapist was in actuality an old mugshot taken on or before 4 October 2014, unrelated to any rape cases in April 2015.
|
18041
|
Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.
|
"Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."
|
true
|
National, Health Care, Poverty, Rand Paul,
|
"During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics, ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we’ll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we’ll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation’s June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn’t have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn’t offer health insurance. These two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn’t face a cost obstacle is ""doesn’t need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don’t have health insurance?’’ Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn’t offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn’t want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."
|
4000
|
Health officials warn of measles exposure at Denver airport.
|
People who traveled through Denver International Airport last Wednesday afternoon may have been exposed to measles, Colorado health officials said Monday.
|
true
|
Health, Measles, General News, Colorado, Denver
|
Three children who were in the airport that day tested positive for the highly contagious disease after traveling to a country where there was an outbreak, officials said. Health officials don’t consider this an outbreak because the children are related, the Tri-County Health Department said in a statement. But they are warning people who were in the airport between 1:15 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. on Dec. 11 that they may have been exposed. It’s unclear how many people came in contact with the children. About 179,000 people passed through the airport that day, spokeswoman Emily Williams told The Denver Post. Health officials are also notifying people who were at the Children’s Hospital Colorado’s Anschutz Emergency Department between 1 and 7:30 p.m. Dec. 12. “We’re doing this investigation for a reason, and that reason is precisely to prevent secondary spread — and having a non-ideal vaccination rate in Colorado isn’t helping matters,” said Dr. Bernadette Albanese, a medical epidemiologist. Colorado’s immunization rate for the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination was 87.4% last school year, which is below the threshold needed to protect a community from a measles outbreak. The three children who tested positive had not been vaccinated, officials said. There is no ongoing risk of exposure at the two locations.
|
9696
|
Newer Blood Pressure Drugs as Good as Older Ones: Study Analysis indicates ACE inhibitors and ARBs are equally effective, researchers say
|
This brief HealthDay story explains the findings of a study by New York researchers comparing two classes of drugs — angiotensin converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitors versus newer angiotensin receptor blockers, or ARBs — used to treat cardiovascular disease. It reports on a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies comparing either drug with a placebo or with each other and finds that both types of medications are equally effective. The only difference being that ARBs tend to produce fewer cases of dry cough as a side effect than do ACE inhibitors. This story is shorter and less nuanced than a competing Washington Post piece, and it relies excessively on a New York University news release. There is more information about the underlying mechanism of these drugs, something probably of less interest to readers, but less about what is new about this study and why it may be important. The story never clarifies what outcomes we’re talking about with this research — blood pressure, heart attacks, deaths? In addition, the emphasis on the finding of better tolerability does not discuss why this may be – there’s no mention of the greater likelihood of cough and angioedema with ACEIs. Finally, the statement about cost may be somewhat misleading. This story, and another by the Washington Post covering the same study, offer new information concerning a debate over the treatment of choice for cardiovascular patients and those at high risk for the disease. Earlier studies had favored the use of ACE inhibitors of ARBs but this new analysis suggests they are comparably effective. If that is the case, it gives patient populations and their physicians additional choices when determining the most effective treatment plan.
|
mixture
|
high blood pressure,news release journalism
|
We’ll give the story a grudging satisfactory in this category since it mentions, as a closing statement, that many ARBs are now generic, which means their cost is lower than brand-name equivalents. But the story would be more helpful to readers if it provided an idea of the comparative costs for the two types of drugs, as well as an average annual cost, since patients remain on them for long periods of time, if not for life. Though more ARBs are now available generically, the costs of generic ARBs generally remain higher than for ACEIs. For many doctors and patients, the use of ACEIs may still be preferred simply because they’re cheaper – even given similar efficacy and a slightly greater need to stop them due to side effects. The story never says what outcomes exactly we’re talking about — deaths, heart attacks, blood pressure? Nor does it say how effective these medications were at improving these outcomes — merely that they are equivalent. We think both of these issues should have been addressed in order to earn a Satisfactory rating here. No specific harms are mentioned, just a reference to tolerability. A Washington Post story on the same study at least mentions the dry cough that ACE inhibitors can cause, information which would be most helpful to readers who have been prescribed these medications. Several other side effects could have and likely should have been mentioned, but we’ll give the benefit of the doubt. This story is fairly absolute in stating the findings of this research — “Newer blood pressure drugs are as safe and effective as older medications,” the lede says. The headline claims the drugs “are equally effective.” We would have been much happier had the story’s statements been more appropriately qualified and had the story mentioned some limitations as the competing Post story did. This story does not appear to commit disease-mongering. This story quotes only the primary author as a source, failing to offer additional perspectives. It also fails to mention that some of the authors have ties to major pharmaceutical firms which, while not directly impacting the quality of the research, is information that readers should be aware of in cases of stories about medications made by such companies. The story reports on a study comparing the efficacy of two classes of drugs for treating cardiovascular disease so readers should assume that there are many alternatives on the market. The story explains that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been around for years, the latter since the year 2000 and the former for at least a decade earlier, so readers can easily understand this story is about currently available drugs The story reports, perhaps too conclusively, that the new analysis finds both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to be equally effective, possibly ending a debate among physicians for some time over which medication is preferable to treat cardiovascular disease. Given the prevalence of the disease among the population, and attention paid to it as a public health concern, the story is justifiably novel. Given that the quotes in this story closely mirror those in the NYU news release, and that no additional sources or material are provided to amplify the story, we believe the writer relied heavily, if not totally, on the prepared news release. We appreciate the fact that the story acknowledged the source of these quotes, but without additional reporting, we don’t think this is sufficient to satisfy the intent or spirit of the criterion. The Washington Post story on the same research provided at lease a minimal additional amount of information, fleshing out the story.
|
37940
|
If you don't wish to use USPS to mail ballots, you may be able to bring them directly to your local Board of Elections or polling place to ensure their receipt.
|
Posts on Facebook and Twitter about an “inside tip from a postal worker” who “can’t say more” advised voters to avoid using USPS to submit mail-in ballots as of August 2020. However, it was no secret that United States Postal Service delays emerged as a major issue in August 2020, and that the heavy anticipated volume of mail-in votes were a growing concern. As the posts described, it is true that voters often have the ability to directly submit ballots to their Board of Elections or polling place. Procedures varied by state, and voters who wished to bypass USPS for mail-in ballots were best advised to obtain jurisdiction-specific information from their local Boards of Elections well before November 2020.
|
true
|
Fact Checks, Politics
|
"On August 3 2020, a Facebook user shared the following status update, which advises readers to submit their mail-in ballots to the Board of Elections directly — based on “an inside tip from a postal worker”:It read:Don’t mail ballots in. Drop at board of elections. This is an inside tip from a postal worker. “Can’t say any more than that.”Other VersionsOn August 12 2020, a post with very similar wording appeared:That post offered an additional method of submitting ballots:Don’t mail ballots in. Drop at board of elections or a polling site.This is an inside tip from a postal worker. “Can’t say any more than that.”That poster credited a Twitter user, @wvjoe911, with the commentary. On August 10 2020, @wvjoe911 tweeted:Don’t mail ballots in. Drop at board of elections or a polling site. This is an inside tip from a postal worker. ""Can’t say any more than that. ""— 🇺🇸🌊JoeInWV 🌊🇺🇸 (@wvjoe911) August 10, 2020This is an Inside Tip from a Postal Worker. ‘Can’t Say Any More Than That.’All three iterations we located had nearly identical wording, all citing an “inside tip from a postal worker, who can’t say more than that.”It wasn’t clear if all three referenced the same “inside tip from a postal worker” who “can’t say more than that” (one with broad reach on social media), or if that detail was tacked on to lend plausibility to the claims. In any event, the “inside tip from a postal worker” was impossible to verify.United States Postal Service Delays in August 2020All three posts were shared between August 3 and August 12 2020; at the same time, reports of slowdowns involving the United States Postal Service started appearing from all over.On August 7 2020, Vox reported:The United States Postal Service is dealing with crippling backlogs of letters and packages. A postmaster in upstate New York recently told their union that the regular mail was two days behind and, for the first time in their career, Express Priority Mail was not going out on time. Despite a surge in package delivery during the pandemic, postal workers are no longer able to work overtime, and fewer mail trucks are on the road. If your own mail seems delayed or unpredictable, it’s not a one-off problem.On August 12 2020, Reuters covered USPS backlogs and delays:[A USPS] reorganization, introduced in July [2020], has resulted in thousands of delayed letters in southern Maine, as delivery drivers follow a new directive to leave on time, even if the mail has not been loaded, said Scott Adams, who represents about 550 workers as the president of American Postal Worker Union Local 458.Another new directive requires mail carriers to head out on their routes immediately in the morning, carrying only packages and letters that were sorted the night before, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters. That is requiring some carriers to double back to pick up a second batch later in the day, said Kimberly Karol, president of the Iowa Postal Workers Union.“It is on the ground costing more in manpower and man-hours than it is saving,” Karol said.An August 10 2020 ClickOnDetroit.com indicated Senate Democrats in Michigan demanded answers about slowdowns in USPS service (as did other local outlets in August 2020):US Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan and postal workers are accusing Postmaster General Louis DeJoy of forcing workers to leave their work unfinished in order to slow down mail service.Those delays come as the country grapples with the coronavirus pandemic and looks ahead to the presidential election.In a press conference Monday morning [August 10 2020], Peters noted that he has heard from hundreds of Michigan residents who say they have had sudden delays in vital mail service.That same day, a tech-centric site reported the ongoing USPS delays could have a major effect on “Amazon Prime Day” shopping and shipping. On August 11 2020, CNBC reported small businesses were being disproportionately harmed by nationwide USPS slowdowns:This year [2020], small businesses have dealt with COVID-19 related closures and restrictions, and now they’re facing shipping delays.“Things are not right from a shipping perspective, and it’s really, really critical to our business while we can’t have as many clients in the store to be able to ship on time,” said Laurie Molton, founder of House of Lolo, located on El Paseo.With an uncertain retail market, several shops have moved a majority of inventory online.But owners say delays through the United States Postal Service are impacting not only when customers receive their orders, but when stores get their inventory as well.“Being on a website, it’s very important to keep your product fresh and with new things constantly going. So when we have nothing new to put on the website it makes it a little complicated,” said Morgan Rooney, manager of Blonde Clothing Boutique, located on El Paseo.Across the country, regional and national news organizations covered the myriad slowdowns and delays in USPS service in August 2020.‘Don’t Mail Ballots in. Drop at Board of Elections or a Polling Site.’As of August 2020, it was unclear whether the reported USPS delays would persist through November 2020 and the general election.All three posts advised social media users to avoid USPS for submitting mail-in ballots. Two suggested dropping mail ballots off at a polling place, and either suggestion would bypass USPS entirely to ensure that ballots were placed directly in the hands of Board of Elections employees.Is it Possible to Drop Ballots off at the Board of Elections or a Polling Place?Each state had its own guidelines for mail-in voting; many have made provisions for the COVID-19 pandemic. According to USA.gov, voters ought to check in with their local Board of Elections for information about those procedures regardless of advice gleaned from statements and claims made on Twitter:Coronavirus and Voting by Mail-In Absentee Ballot States are making it easier for citizens to vote absentee by mail this year due to the coronavirus. Every state’s election rules are different. And each state has its own rules for mail-in absentee voting. Many are still in the process of deciding how they will handle voting during the pandemic. Visit your state election office website to find out if you can vote by mail. Can I Vote takes you right to your state’s absentee voting page.For voters within the United States, USA.gov explains:Get your absentee ballot from your state or territory.Visit Can I Vote and choose your state from the dropdown menu. It will take you right to your state’s absentee voting page.Your state may require you to have a valid excuse to vote absentee. Acceptable excuses vary by state. Most include:Follow your state’s instructions for requesting an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot.Most of the answers were state-specific. One Arizona voting resource advised voters to mail ballots or drop them off:HOW TO RETURN AN EARLY BALLOTBy Mail: You should always plan to mail back your ballot at least 7 days prior to election day, to ensure it is received by the county in time. The United States Post Office recommends 7 days for returning ballots by mail, which is first class mail. Postage is pre-paid so all you have to do is drop your signed and sealed ballot envelope in the mail.Drop it Off: If you don’t have enough time to mail your ballot back or prefer to return it in person, you have several options:You can drop your ballot off at any in-person early voting locations, including the County Recorder’s Office or Elections Office.Some counties have secured ballot drop boxes. You can drop your ballot off in any ballot drop box in your county.You can drop your ballot off at any voting location in your county on Election Day. No need to wait in line. Just head straight inside the voting location and drop it in the early ballot bin. You can get an I Voted sticker too!However you decide to return your ballot, just remember to SIGN IT and that the county RECEIVES it by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.Vote.org listed some of those state-specific directives. Finally, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission indicated that ballot drop boxes are an option for voters who do not want to mail them in:Ballot Drop Box [PDF] This document outlines things to know and consider when planning for the use of ballot drop boxes including general considerations, recommendations on closing boxes, and security considerations. A drop box is a secure, locked structure operated by election officials where voters may deliver their ballots from the time they receive them in the mail up to the time polls close on Election Day.The linked PDF began:A ballot drop box provides a secure and convenient means for voters to return their mail ballot. A drop box is a secure, locked structure operated by election officials where voters may deliver their ballots from the time they receive them in the mail up to the time polls close on Election Day. Ballot drop boxes can be staffed or unstaffed, temporary or permanent.EAC also explained:Some voters prefer to deliver their mail ballots to a drop box rather than sending them back through the mail. These voters may be motivated by lack of trust in the postal process, fear that their ballot could be tampered with, or concern that their signature will be exposed. Voters may also be concerned about meeting the postmark deadline and ensuring that their ballot is returned in time to be counted.Ballot drop boxes and drop-off locations allow voters to deliver their ballots in person. More importantly, the availability of ballot drop boxes and drop-off locations ensures that even voters who wait until the last minute to vote or who receive their requested ballot in the mail at the last minute will be able to return their ballots in time to be counted.EAC included important information for anyone planning to submit a mail-in ballot via drop box or to their Board of Elections — primarily that not all polling places accept mail-in ballots:Voters who are unable to return a ballot in person or get it to a postal facility in time for it to be counted may, depending on state law, may be able to entrust the voted ballot to someone else to help them deliver it—an agent or designee. […]Many of these last-minute voters drop their ballot off at a voting location (which may not be allowed by state law). Setting up ballot drop boxes and educating voters to use them mitigates a number of COVID-19-related risks associated with in-person voting. It also minimizes the number of people that will need to access voting locations, thereby providing more space for those who are engaged in in-person voting.TL;DRPosts on Facebook and Twitter about an “inside tip from a postal worker” who “can’t say more” advised voters to avoid using USPS to submit mail-in ballots as of August 2020. However, it was no secret that United States Postal Service delays emerged as a major issue in August 2020, and that the heavy anticipated volume of mail-in votes were a growing concern. As the posts described, it is true that voters often have the ability to directly submit ballots to their Board of Elections or polling place. Procedures varied by state, and voters who wished to bypass USPS for mail-in ballots were best advised to obtain jurisdiction-specific information from their local Boards of Elections well before November 2020.Comments"
|
26648
|
Ron Paul Says Anthony Fauci’s statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is “a claim without any scientific basis.
|
It’s not yet known what the death rate from the current coronavirus, COVID-19, will be. But early data indicate it is more than 10 times higher than the death rate for the flu.
|
false
|
Corrections and Updates, Public Health, Texas, Facebook Fact-checks, PunditFact, Coronavirus, Ron Paul,
|
"For decades, Anthony Fauci has been held up as one of the federal government’s foremost public health experts. Even at age 79, he is one of the top advisers to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus crisis. Yet Ron Paul, a sometimes conspiracy-minded Texas doctor, former GOP congressman and former presidential candidate, seemed to raise a fair question about a coronavirus statement made by Fauci. Calling Fauci ""the chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration,"" Paul wrote in a column on his website that Fauci ""testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is 10 times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis."" We wondered about the scientific basis attack. In some contexts, public health experts have said it’s too early in the coronavirus outbreak to know exactly what it’s death rate is. Paul’s 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.) ""I can’t think of a more universally trusted person among virologists than"" Fauci, who has served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, said Emily Bruce, an immunobiology faculty scientist at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. Fauci is taking the seasonal influenza death rate to be approximately 0.1% and the coronavirus to be about 1%, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security. ""While it is early in the outbreak, there is enough data to say that 1% is likely a fairly reasonable approximation with some scientific basis in data."" While the numbers aren’t all precise, there is a basis for what Fauci said. As we’ve reported: Based solely on the numbers, you’re more likely to die if you get the 2019 coronavirus than if you get the flu. (Several factors apply, such as age and health.) A study of 44,672 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China diagnosed as of Feb. 11, 2020, from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention found a fatality rate of 2.3%. A March 3, 2020, estimate from the World Health Organization put the figure at 3.4%, although that figure is likely inflated given how many cases are mild and not treated in hospitals. Some people who die never report having had coronavirus. The latest daily report on COVID-19 from the World Health Organization, issued March 16, 2020, said there have been 167,515 confirmed cases and 6,606 deaths. That’s a death rate of 3.9%. The flu death rate is much lower. In its latest weekly report on the 2019-20 flu, for the week ending March 7, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there have been 36 million flu illnesses and 22,000 deaths. That’s a rate of 0.06%. The case fatality ratio — dividing reported deaths by reported cases — is only a snapshot and the rate can vary considerably during an outbreak, the World Health Organization told us. ""We will not have a clear CFR until the outbreak is over,"" WHO said in a statement, adding that the CFR can change if it is discovered that there are many more milder cases than originally thought, and can vary by country based demographic factors, such as age. We didn’t hear back from our requests for information from Paul. Paul said that Anthony Fauci’s statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is ""a claim without any scientific basis."" We won’t know for some time what the actual death rate is for people who contract the current coronavirus, COVID-19. But based on figures that are available, it’s indicated to be at least 10 times higher than the death rate from the flu. Correction, March 24, 2020: CDC estimates have indicated a COVID-19 death rate of 0.06%, not 0.0006%, as we originally reported. This fact-check has been updated with the correct figure."
|
34069
|
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was kicked out of India.
|
The Parliament of India released a report in 2013 that chastised PATH for “irregularities” with the studies. While the report recommend the government take action against PATH, this global health organization was never banned from India. In fact, as of this writing, both PATH and the Gates Foundation continue to work in the country.
|
false
|
Politics
|
A rumor holding that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had been kicked out of India has been circulating online since at least May 2017, when an article pushing this claim was published on the website Steemit: BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION KICKED OUT OF INDIA Yes, the Microsoft founder and the icon of the Third-World Humanitarianism has been kicked out of India as his fraud was called out. He came to India posing as a philanthropist and humanitarian helping the Third-World poor people by alleviating their conditions and yes, of course, “VACCINATING” their children. This simply isn’t true. The foundation was not kicked out of India in 2017 when this article was published, and, as of this writing in 2019, the foundation continues to work in the country. The foundation is one of the largest private foundations, with offices all over the world. In India, the organization is primarily focused on the Uttar Pradesh and Bihar regions, where they are working to reduce poverty and improve access to healthcare: More than a decade ago, the Government of Bihar made the decision to prioritize healthcare for mothers and children, and this focused effort has started to show impact. The child mortality rate in India’s third-biggest state has declined since then by one third. As part of this investment in its people’s well-being, the state government sought partners who could provide technical support. Our foundation already had a team working on maternal, newborn, and child health, the area where Bihar wanted to focus, so in 2010 we started working together. The public health system in Bihar consists of hundreds of thousands of health workers, from doctors and auxiliary nurse midwives in primary health facilities to ASHA and Anganwadi workers who provide basic advice and care to women in communities. We began by helping the government test new techniques and technologies to improve the quality of these providers’ services in eight pilot districts. For example, to help frontline workers advise women about healthy practices like breastfeeding, we developed next-generation teaching aids based on digital technology. In facilities, we established a nurse-mentoring program that has, among other successes, doubled the number of nurses who wash their hands and wear gloves before and during procedures. When rumors started to circulate that the Foundation had been kicked out of India in 2017, the country’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released a statement disputing those reports: Some media reports have suggested that all health related collaboration with the Gates Foundation with National Health Mission (NHM) has been stopped. This is inaccurate and misleading. BMGF continues to collaborate and support the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s website has several pages dedicated to the group’s work in India. The government of India has also dispelled the rumor that the foundation was kicked out. So, was this claim simply made up out of the blue? The rumor can be traced back to a study by the global health organization PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) to see if it could reduce the number human papillomavirus (HPV) infections by providing cost-effective vaccines to impoverished communities. This trial was conducted in Uganda, Peru, and Vietnam, but the group’s efforts in India that caused controversy. Starting in 2009, PATH worked with the Indian government’s Council of Medical Research, as well as local governments, to provide more than 20,000 girls between the ages of 10-14 with HPV vaccines donated by Merck & Co. (Gardasil®) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix®). India’s government halted the effort in April 2010, however, after local news reports claimed seven of the girls involved in the trial had died after receiving their vaccines. The government of India also opened an investigation into the matter. While the government accused PATH of a few ethical lapses (such as improperly filed consent forms), investigators concluded that the deaths were not related to the vaccines. For instance, one of the deaths related to a girl who drowned in a quarry. Another related to a death from a snake bite. Science Magazine reported: State investigations absolved the trial’s managers—PATH and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in New Delhi—of responsibility in the deaths. Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral hemorrhage. Government investigators concluded that pyrexia was “very unlikely” to be related to the vaccine, and likewise they considered a link between stroke and the vaccine as “unlikely.” ICMR’s director general, microbiologist Vishwa Mohan Katoch, categorically rejects a connection: “Based on the enquiry, it is certain that causality of the seven deaths was not at all related to the HPV vaccine,” he insists. Other experts say that in the absence of autopsies, it is impossible to pinpoint the actual cause of death. So, what does the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have to do with this? The Gates Foundation is one of PATH’s global partners and reportedly provided funding for this HPV study.
|
1528
|
Babies cry more in UK, Canada and Italy, less in Germany, study finds.
|
Babies cry more in Britain, Canada, Italy and Netherlands than in other countries, while newborns in Denmark, Germany and Japan cry and fuss the least, researchers said on Monday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
In research looking at how much babies around the world cry in their first three months, psychologists from Britain have created the first universal charts for normal amounts of crying during that period. WATCH: Child-sized robot helps autistic kids learn social skills “Babies are already very different in how much they cry in the first weeks of life,” said Dieter Wolker, who led the study at Warwick University. “We may learn more from looking at cultures where there is less crying — (including) whether this may be due to parenting or other factors relating to pregnancy experiences or genetics.” The highest levels of colic – defined as crying more than three hours a day for at least three days a week – were found in babies in Britain, Canada and Italy, while the lowest colic rates were found in Denmark and Germany. WATCH: Brain implant lets paralysed man feed himself using his thoughts On average, the study found, babies cry for around two hours a day in the first two weeks. They then cry a little more in the following few weeks until they peak at around two hours 15 minutes a day at six weeks. This then reduces to an average of one hour 10 minutes by the time they are 12 weeks old. But there are wide variations, with some babies crying as little as 30 minutes a day, and others more than five hours. The research, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, was a meta-analysis of studies covering some 8,700 babies in countries including Germany, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Britain. Wolker said the new crying chart would help health workers reassure parents whether their baby is crying within a normal range in the first three months, or may need extra support.
|
5662
|
Vaccine group announces creation of Ebola vaccine stockpile.
|
The vaccine alliance GAVI announced Thursday it would invest $178 million to create a global stockpile of about 500,000 Ebola vaccines, a decision that health officials say could help prevent future outbreaks from spiraling out of control.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Africa, International News, United Nations, Melinda Gates, Ebola virus
|
The public-private partnership includes the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, among others. The funding announcement was made after a meeting of GAVI’s board. GAVI said the investment, which it called an estimate, will be provided between now and 2025. Since the current outbreak in eastern Congo was identified last August, health officials have immunized more than 255,000 people with a recently licensed vaccine made by Merck. To date there have been nearly 3,200 confirmed Ebola cases, including more than 2,200 deaths, in what has become the second deadliest Ebola outbreak in history. Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, chair of Gavi’s board, called the creation of the Ebola vaccine stockpile a “historic milestone in humanity’s fight against this horrific disease.” GAVI said “a coordinating mechanism” to decide how and when vaccines will be used will be established with partner organizations. There are similar stockpiles for vaccines against yellow fever, meningitis and cholera. Those limited shots are doled out to developing countries by WHO, UNICEF, the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders after receiving technical advice from others. The Ebola vaccine stockpile will be available to all countries, but only developing countries will be able to get vaccines for free in addition to support for the logistical costs of mounting vaccination campaigns. Jason Nickerson, a humanitarian affairs adviser at Doctors Without Borders, said the new stockpile would change how officials respond to future Ebola outbreaks. “Knowing how many doses of the vaccine exist in the world, and then being able to get a supply of them to high-risk countries in a very quick way, gives us another tool to respond to these outbreaks,” he said. Earlier this year, the medical charity publicly called for an independent committee to oversee Ebola vaccination efforts in Congo, saying WHO sometimes used arbitrary criteria to determine who would get immunized. It said the fact that Ebola was continuing to spread despite the large number of people vaccinated was a damning assessment of the response. Containing this outbreak has been complicated by violence and misunderstandings in a part of Congo that had never reported an Ebola case before. Last week, response activities were suspended after attacks killed four Ebola responders, including a member of a vaccination team. Multiple rebel groups operate in eastern Congo and the region has been described as a war zone. WHO has warned continued attacks on health workers and Ebola clinics could undermine attempts to curb Ebola and prompt a resurgence of the disease.
|
30670
|
First Lady Melania Trump banned the White House staff from receiving flu shots.
|
In short, like most YourNewsWire articles, this one is entirely fictitious and aimed not at informing the public, but rather at attracting traffic and advertising revenue to the web site. Previous examples in this vein include Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products From the White House and Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World.
|
false
|
Junk News, melania trump, news punch, your news wire
|
In January 2018, at the height of a severe flu season in the United States, reports emerged that First Lady Melania Trump had supposedly banned members of the White House staff from receiving flu vaccinations. She allegedly issued the order after learning of the “adverse health effects” of flu shots. These claims turned up on a number of disreputable web sites, but their point of origin was a consistent purveyor of fake news and political disinformation, Your News Wire (now News Punch), who “reported” on 22 January that: While public debate rages about the safety of this season’s flu shot, Melania Trump says that as far as she is concerned, she won’t have people endangering her son with their “dangerous” flu shot diseases. “I will not allow incubators of dangerous viruses to come anywhere near my son,” the First Lady said. After researching the ingredients used in making the flu shot, and becoming concerned about potential negative health effects, including death, Melania Trump said she was “amazed that it [flu shot] is being pushed so hard by the media this year.“ The First Lady, who proudly describes herself as a “full-time mom”, then realized that this year’s flu shot is only 10% effective — and the flu strains contained in the vaccine may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza. If Melania Trump actually imposed such a ban or expressed such views, it went entirely unnoticed by legitimate news outlets, who would have reported on these alleged actions if they had taken place, especially given the controversial subject matter. We doubt, moreover, that the first lady has the power to order hundreds of White House employees to forego a preventative medical treatment that the U.S. government recommends that every American six months of age or older receive. Far from being “pushed so hard by the media” as the article alleges, the recommendation that everyone should get a flu shot is the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the federal health agency run by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Trump appointee. According to the CDC web site: Getting an annual flu vaccine is the first and best way to protect yourself and your family from the flu. Flu vaccination can reduce flu illnesses, doctors’ visits, and missed work and school due to flu, as well as prevent flu-related hospitalizations. In 2017, a study in Pediatrics was the first of its kind to show that flu vaccination also significantly reduced a child’s risk of dying from influenza. The more people who get vaccinated, the more people will be protected from flu, including older people, very young children, pregnant women, and people with certain long-term health conditions who are more vulnerable to serious flu complications. Among the many other tidbits of flu vaccine misinformation the article trumpeted were the claims that the 2018 variant of the vaccine was only 10 percent effective (false: the CDC said that figure came from Australia and was an interim estimate of its effectiveness against one flu strain only) and that it “may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza” (false: the CDC says flu vaccines cannot cause or spread influenza).
|
8029
|
Who gets the ventilator? British doctors contemplate harrowing coronavirus care choices.
|
The coronavirus pandemic is forcing senior doctors in Britain’s National Health Service to contemplate the unthinkable: how to ration access to critical care beds and ventilators should resources fall short.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The country’s public health system, the NHS, is ill-equipped to cope with an outbreak that is unprecedented in modern times. Hospitals are now striving to at least quadruple the number of intensive care beds to meet an expected surge in serious virus cases, senior physicians told Reuters, but expressed dismay that preparations had not begun weeks earlier. With serious shortages of ventilators, protective equipment and trained workers, the physicians said senior staff at hospitals were beginning to confront an excruciating debate on intensive care rationing, though Britain may be a long way from potentially having to make such decisions. Rahuldeb Sarkar, a consultant physician in respiratory medicine and critical care in the English county of Kent, said local NHS trusts across the country were reviewing decision-making procedures drawn up, but never needed, during the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. They cover how to choose who, in the event of a shortage, would be put on a ventilator and for how long. Decisions would always be based on an individual basis if it got to that point, taking into account the chance of survival, he said. But nevertheless, there would be difficult choices. “It will be tough, and that’s why it’s important that you know, that two or more consultants will make the decisions.” Sarkar said the choices extended not only to who was given access to a ventilator but how long to continue if there was no sign of recovery. “In normal days, that patient would be given some more days to see which way it goes,” he added. But if the worst predictions about the spread of the virus proved correct, he suspected “it will happen quicker than before”. Britain is by no means the only country that faces having its health system overwhelmed by COVID-19, but the data on critical care beds - a crucial bulwark against the disease - is concerning for UK authorities. Italy, where the coronavirus has driven hospitals to the point of collapse in some areas and thousands have died, had about 12.5 critical care beds per 100,000 of its population before the outbreak. That is above the European average of 11.5, while the figure in Germany is 29.2, according to a widely-quoted academic study here dating back to 2012 which doctors said was still valid. Britain has 6.6. Estimates of the potential death toll in Britain range from a government estimate of around 20,000 to an upper end of over 250,000 predicted by researchers at Imperial College. As of March 19, 64,621 people had been tested, with 3,269 positive. The NHS is preparing for the biggest challenge it has faced since it was founded after the ravages of World War Two, promising cradle-to-grave healthcare for all. It was stretched long before COVID-19, struggling to adapt to the vast increase in healthcare demand in recent years. Some doctors complain that it is underfunded and poorly managed. About a tenth of more than one million staff roles in the health service are vacant while almost nine out of 10 beds are occupied. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was asked at a media conference on Friday, after Reuters reported the concerns of physicians, whether Britain could get to a stage where NHS workers had to choose who to save because there weren’t enough ventilators. He urged people to follow public safety measures. “The objective of this whole campaign is to ensure we flatten the curve, as we have been saying repeatedly over the last couple of weeks, but also that we lift up the line of NHS resilience and capabilities,” he said. “That means there is a massive effort going on right now to make sure we do have enough ventilators and ICUs to cope.” So how many life-saving ventilators are needed? Health Secretary Matt Hancock said on Sunday that hospitals had around 5,000 but that they needed “many times more than that”. The physicians interviewed by Reuters said, if ventilators were secured, the aim was to increase intensive care beds from around 4200 to over 16,000, partly by using beds in other parts of hospitals. Rob Harwood, a consultant anaesthetist in Norfolk who has worked in the health service for almost four decades, said access to critical care could ultimately have to be determined by patient scoring systems for survivability. Systems developed for SARS, another coronavirus that broke out in 2003, could for example be refined, he added. “Once you have exhausted your capacity and exhausted your ability to expand your capacity you probably have to make other decisions about admission into intensive care.” But he emphasised that, for now, admission criteria would stay unaltered: “We are a country mile from that at the moment.” While shortages of critical care equipment may be most alarming, the coronavirus has exposed how generally ill-equipped the health system is for a pandemic. The British Medical Association said doctors have been asked to go to hardware stores and building sites to source protective masks. Some doctors are worried about Public Health England’s (PHE) new advice last week which reduces the level of the protective equipment they need to wear. Previously, staff on ward visits were told to wear full protective equipment, comprising high quality FFP3 face masks, visors, surgical gowns and two pairs of gloves. But the new advice recommends only a lower-quality standard paper surgical face mask, short gloves and a plastic apron. PHE referred queries about doctors’ worries to the health department, which did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. A senior NHS epidemiologist, who was not permitted to be named, told Reuters this advice was based on a sensible assessment of the biohazard risk of the virus. “It’s not Ebola,” the doctor said, pointing out the risk to medical staff without underlying medical conditions was low. Matt Mayer, head of the local medical committee covering an area in south of England, said GPs had been sent face masks in boxes that said “best before 2016” and that have been relabelled with new stickers reading “2021”. “If you are going to lead people into a hazardous situation then you need to give them the confidence that they have the kit to do a decent job and they are not just going to become cannon fodder,” said Harwood the anaesthetist. The department of health said that they had tested certain products to see if it is possible to extend their use. “The products that pass these stringent tests are subject to relabelling with a new shelf-life as appropriate and can continue to be used,” a spokesman said. Dr Alison Pittard, dean of the Faculty of Intensive Medicine and a consultant in Leeds, northern England, said there had been chronic underinvestment in critical care in Britain. But she said the country was not yet at the stage where it had to make calls about rationing patient resources. She said, if rationing became necessary, medical ethics should still prevail and guidelines needed to be issued on a national level so that no patient was worse off based on where they lived. The NHS might also need the advice of military leaders, she said, on how to effectively triage. “If we got to a difficult position where we had to exhaust every bit of resource in the country then, yes, we may have to change the way we approach the decision-making.” Stephen Powis, the National Medical Director of NHS England, said there were plans to issue new guidance to give doctors advice on how to make difficult decisions if there was a surge in coronavirus cases, like in Italy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said on Friday it would shortly announce a “series of rapid guidelines” on the management of people with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, including in critical care. The guidelines are not, however, expected to be prescriptive but to suggest leaving key decisions to individual doctors. Pittard said patients with pre-existing conditions who already had life-threatening health difficulties should be having conversations with their family about how they wished to spend their last days, in the event of them being infected. “If I get coronavirus now I’ve got a very high chance of dying of it,” she said, putting herself into the shoes of such a patient. “So do I want to die in hospital and when my relatives can’t come in to visit me because it’s too risky, or would I like to die at home? “And if I do want to go into hospital, do I then want to go to intensive care where my chances of surviving are minimal?”
|
5840
|
Alaska hit with largest syphilis outbreak in 40 years.
|
Alaska health officials have recorded 75 cases of syphilis in the state this year, marking the largest outbreak of the infectious disease in at least four decades.
|
true
|
Health, Anchorage, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Alaska, Infectious diseases, Syphilis, Public health
|
The Alaska Section of Epidemiology said in an update this week that it has requested help with response efforts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, KTVA-TV reported Wednesday. The number of cases is the highest reported in the state since at least the 1970s, said Susan Jones, a program manager with the state Division of Public Health. “It actually can be before that but that’s as far back as we have saved data,” Jones said. Out of the 75 cases, 64 occurred in Anchorage and 66 were men, according to the state. Of the nine women, two were pregnant at the time of diagnosis. The ages of people infected ranged from 18 to 76, with 20 cases recorded in the 25 to 29 age group. Health officials also found a probable case of congenital syphilis in an infant born in March whose mother had been diagnosed last year. Symptoms of the sexually transmitted infection in its early stages include genital sores, skin rash, swollen lymph nodes, and fever, according to the CDC. The disease in the tertiary stage can damage internal organs and result in death. According to the CDC, most people with untreated syphilis do not develop symptoms of the last stage, but tertiary syphilis could develop decades after infection. “It’s easy to acquire syphilis by having sex with somebody with infection, it’s easy to have the disease and not be aware of it, and it’s also easy to treat if we catch it early,” Jones said. Syphilis can be treated with an antibiotic injection. ___ Information from: KTVA-TV, http://www.ktva.com
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.