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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9185
|
Screening MRI benefits women at average risk of breast cancer
|
The news release does a generally good job presenting the main findings of the study. In particular, the release makes a compelling case for why current practices in breast cancer screening may be lacking, establishes the novelty of the research and presents the hypothesis that MRI screenings are helpful to women with average risk for breast cancer — and not just those at high risk. It’s a hypothesis that now needs to be confirmed. These positives are offset, however, by a few unanswered questions. First, it is unclear what average risk really means. Digging through the study’s inclusion criteria, we found that the subjects were women aged 40–70 with “a calculated lifetime breast cancer risk of 6%–12% according to the Gail model.” Those percentages are probably not what the average reader has in mind when she hears “average risk.” Second, there is no mention of the specificity (the ability of the test to correctly rule out those without the disease) of MRI screening for average risk women. Lack of specificity can lead to false positives, which have been a concern with MRI screening. Knowing only the sensitivity (the ability of the test to correctly identify people who have the disease) does not allow us to see the complete picture. This news release scored well on several of our criteria. For a discussion of another news releases on MRI screening for breast cancer that wouldn’t have scored as well, see a related post. Mammograms are known to be less effective for dense breast tissue. MRIs, though more effective in this setting, are avoided in practice for average risk patients due to higher costs. Research like this advances the discussion on the cost of breast cancer screening but it remains unclear whether MRI screening will be a cost savings down the road, especially since we don’t know how much overdiagnosis/overtreatment may be occurring with MRI screening.
|
mixture
|
MRI,Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
|
Although the news release does not specify the exact price tag, it makes the reader aware that MRI screening is often avoided due to higher cost than other screening options: “MRI screening has not been considered necessary for women at average risk, and there has been resistance to expansion of MRI into this population due, in part, to concern over higher costs.” It would have been helpful if the release had stated whether or not this rapid MRI will have a lower cost than traditional breast MRI. The supplemental cancer detection rate seems to be the main metric of success for the MRI screening. The news release does a good job presenting absolute benefits, not just relative benefits: “Breast MRI detected 60 additional breast cancers, including 40 invasive cancers, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 15.5 per 1,000 women. Of the 60 cancers detected in the study group over the observation period (7,007 screening rounds), 59 were found only using MRI, one was found also by mammography, and none by mammography or ultrasound alone.” But the news release only reports sensitivity and begs the question on the matter of specificity. Sensitivity and specificity are two sides of the same coin when it comes to assessing any screening method. A bit of digging on our own reveals that the MRI screening had a low false-positive rate of 2.9%. The news release does not state any potential harms of MRI screening. False positives from MRIs aren’t uncommon and can lead to anxiety and additional invasive testing. That’s harmful for patients. We’d like to see news releases and stories start to acknowledge potential harms, particularly since the country is moving toward more universal breast cancer screening with MRI. Over the past few years, studies have been coming out noting concerns about the gadolinium (a heavy metal) contrast material that is used during breast MRI. The contrast is necessary to demonstrate areas of increased tissue vascularity (the state of blood vessel development and functioning). Recent reports note that gadolinium may deposit in the brain. We do not know the long-term significance of this. The FDA is studying the effects — if any– on “repeated use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).” The release provides a nice summary of the study protocol, noting that: “Between 2005 and 2013, Dr. Kuhl and colleagues studied breast MRI’s impact on 2,120 women, ages 40 to 70, with less than a 15 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer. The women had normal screening mammograms and, in the case of those with dense breast tissue, normal screening ultrasound. Breast MRI detected 60 additional breast cancers, including 40 invasive cancers, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 15.5 per 1,000 women. Of the 60 cancers detected in the study group over the observation period (7,007 screening rounds), 59 were found only using MRI, one was found also by mammography, and none by mammography or ultrasound alone.” Unfortunately, the release isn’t clear about the limitations of the study. The study doesn’t show that MRI offers benefits that women really care about such as longer life and better quality of life. The only way to prove such benefits would be in a large-scale controlled trial that follows groups of women (those who do and don’t receive breast MRIs) for many years. The release also fails to mention the risk of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Finding more cancer at an early stage is not always a good thing, because some cancers don’t progress to a point where they would cause harm. While the release suggests that many of the cancers that were found were aggressive in nature, it doesn’t say how many, nor does it caution that some of these cancers might never have caused a problem. It also doesn’t warn that some particularly aggressive cancers might not respond to treatment despite early detection. The published research noted that the screening studies were read by specialized breast radiologists and that the results “may not be transferrable to a community level until more radiologists gain practical experience in reading breast MR screening studies.” That would have been a useful addition to the release as well. Breast cancer’s prevalence in cancer-related deaths in women was highlighted but not overstated. But we aren’t told whether the 20 cases of non-invasive cancer identified were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). There’s wide debate on whether the presence of these types of abnormal cells should even be referred to as cancer. The lack of clarity on the types of cancer identified and the difference between them earns a Not Satisfactory rating. The release doesn’t name the sponsors. The news release includes a comparison with breast ultrasound. It found that supplemental MRI screening is useful for women with average risk of cancer who exhibit a range of breast densities and that it is superior to the alternative of breast ultrasound for this purpose. It is clear that MRI screening is already available. The release notes that there’s been a resistance to expand MRI screening to average risk women because of the cost. The news release establishes that the novelty of the study lies in its challenge of the conventional wisdom that supplemental MRI screening should be recommended to high-risk women but not average-risk women. The release doesn’t rely on sensational language. However, we find the opening sentence of the news release to be, if not unjustifiable, potentially misleading: “MRI screening improves early diagnosis of breast cancer in all women-not only those at high risk-according to a new study from Germany published online in the journal Radiology.” To our eyes, there is nothing in the study that supports this claim applied to all women. The cohort examined in this prospective observational study are characterized by women with average risk of breast cancer.
|
9308
|
Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor
|
The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines “haven’t adequately considered” the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn’t crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don’t already have heart disease. As a result, there’s concern that they are being overused. It’s laudable that some news organizations — including CNN as well as NPR — highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.
|
true
|
statins
|
There’s no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that “anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years.” That’s helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: “The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse.” It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are “uncommon,” but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them “common” in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn’t explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don’t explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, “so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low.” There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren’t involved in the study. The study’s authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that’s laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that “some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch.” However, the story doesn’t explain on what basis some statins are “more effective.” In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients — reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn’t mention lifestyle interventions — diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release
|
26221
|
“This is what Bill Gates and George Soros want to do… secretly stick you with a chip while testing you for the coronavirus... the Dems have a bill on the House floor ready to vote on it to require this.”
|
We found no evidence to support this claim.
|
false
|
Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"Social media users have shared a lot of misinformation about a possible vaccine against COVID-19, including allegations that Americans will be microchipped if they’re vaccinated. A recent Facebook post uses a similar ploy to discourage people from getting tested for the coronavirus. ""This is what Bill Gates and George Soros want to do,"" the post says, ""secretly stick you with a chip while testing you for the coronavirus... the Dems have a bill on the House floor ready to vote on it to require this …. House Bill 6666…. no bull…. look it up and WAKE UP!!!!"" The post also shows an illustrated cross-section of a person’s nasal passage and mouth while he tilts his head back. In the illustration, someone with white gloves inserts a long swab up the person’s nose into the nasal passage. An arrow pointing toward the end of the swab says: ""Implant microchip here."" ""If they have to dig this deep to get to ‘infected’ tissues then it isn’t coming out when you talk to someone closer than 6ft,"" reads text over the image. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The coronavirus has killed more than 354,000 people worldwide, and more than 100,000 people in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends staying at least 6 feet away from people outside of your home to prevent being exposed to the virus, which is thought to mainly spread from person to person via respiratory droplets that are produced when someone coughs, sneezes or talks. This post is wrong to suggest that because COVID-19 testing requires a long nasal swab, infected people can’t produce these droplets that could infect someone else. ""The swab has to go pretty far back because cells and fluid must be collected from along the entire passageway that connects the base of the nose to the back of the throat to get a really good specimen,"" MD Anderson Cancer Center says in this post about COVID-19 testing. There are also other COVID-19 tests that are less invasive, such as a throat swab, the center adds, but it’s not as sensitive as the nasal swab. We’ve previously fact-checked several incorrect claims about coronavirus, microchips and Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates and liberal billionaire investor George Soros. We couldn’t find any credible evidence to support the claims being made against the men in this Facebook post. We’ve also already debunked a claim that ""the Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated."" There is a resolution that was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 1 ""to authorize the secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID-19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes."" But H.R. 6666 doesn’t mention microchips or suggest that people should or will be chipped if they’re tested for COVID-19. The resolution isn’t on the ""House floor"" as the Facebook post claims. No action has been taken on the so-called TRACE Act since Rep. Bobby Rush,D.-Ill., introduced it nearly a month ago. Bill Gates also was not involved in crafting the act (and USA Today has more on that in its fact-check). Gates has recommended contact tracing to end the pandemic. But in an April 23 essay, he says that some countries — China and South Korea among them — have required coronavirus patients to disclose their whereabouts for the past 14 days using GPS information and spending records. ""It is unlikely that Western countries will require this,"" Gates writes. ""There are applications you can download that will help you remember where you have been; if you ever test positive, then you can voluntarily review the history or choose to share it with whoever interviews you about your contacts."""
|
7778
|
U.S. to help South Korea get flu drugs to North despite stalled nuclear talks.
|
The United States has agreed to help South Korea send flu medication to North Korea, a South Korean official said on Friday, after the United States said it would help deliver aid to the North despite stalled nuclear talks.
|
true
|
Health News
|
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un vowed to work toward denuclearization at a landmark summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in Singapore in June but the two sides have made little progress. North Korea raised new doubts about a nuclear agreement on Thursday when its state media said any deal on it giving up its nuclear arsenal had to include the complete elimination of U.S. “nuclear threats”. While the United States and North Korea joust over a nuclear deal, South Korea is keen to improve ties with its old rival and has been taking steps to establish links in various areas including transport and humanitarian assistance. There has been some U.S. concern that the South may be moving too quickly on building such links, given the scant progress on denuclearization. Despite that, Stephen Biegun, the U.S. special representative for North Korea, said on Wednesday as he arrived in South Korea for talks that he would be looking with aid groups at how to deliver “appropriate assistance” to the North, particularly in the winter. South Korea’s special representative for Korean peace and security affairs, Lee Do-hoon, said after talks with Biegun on Thursday the United States agreed to help supply the North with the flu drug Tamiflu. “The issue of providing Tamiflu to the North Korean people was resolved,” Lee told reporters. South Korea provided 500,000 doses of Tamiflu to the North in 2009 following an outbreak of H1N1 influenza. The Red Cross said in January this year that more than 81,000 North Koreans were affected by the same virus also known as swine flu. Humanitarian aid is not subject to tough sanctions on North Korea aimed at pressing it to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. But officials at U.N. agencies and aid groups have told Reuters that their operations have nearly ground to a halt because of the strict interpretation of U.N. curbs on banking and shipping to North Korea, as well as a travel ban for U.S. citizens. Lee said he had secured U.S. sanctions exemptions over a plan to reconnect rail and road links, as well as the joint excavation of remains of soldiers killed in the 1950-53 Korean War in the Demilitarised Zone, which is administered by the U.S.-led United Nations Command. Biegun said while the United States had no intention of easing sanctions, such cooperation could help advance the nuclear diplomacy. “Of course, all of this is intended to advance what we’re trying to do with North Korea,” Biegun told reporters. “Now that work begins with denuclearization but also includes the strong commitments by both of our countries to transform relations and build a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula,” he said. Trump has said a second summit with Kim was likely in January or February, though he wrote on Twitter last week that he was “in no hurry”. Biegun said the United States and North Korea had yet to agree on a date or venue for a second summit, but would work for an “agreeable outcome”. “We’re eager to move to the next stage of discussions with our North Korean partners,” he said.
|
14846
|
15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.
|
"Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."
|
true
|
Health Care, PunditFact, Bill Maher,
|
"Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."
|
40249
|
Reports have gone viral that Fireball Whiskey has been recalled because it contains an ingredient found in anti-freeze.
|
Fireball Whiskey Contains Anti-Freeze Ingredient
|
mixture
|
Food / Drink
|
It’s true that Fireball Whiskey was recalled, but claims that it contains an anti-freeze ingredient are misleading. Sazarac, Inc., bottler and distributor of Fireball Whiskey, announced the recall in a statement released on October 28, 2014. Batches of the cinnamon-flavored whiskey were recalled in Europe, Finland, Sweden and Norway because it contained more of the ingredient propylene glycol (PG) than allowed in those regions. “Regulations for product formulations are different in Europe, which explains why recipes for products like soft drinks, alcohol/spirits and even candies and confections are slightly different than their North American counterparts,” Sazarac said. “Fireball, therefore, has a slightly different recipe for Europe. Unfortunately, Fireball shipped its North American formula to Europe and found that one ingredient is out of compliance with European regulations.” The company assured consumers that Fireball Whiskey was a safe drink, and that PG has been used as a flavoring ingredient for more than 50 years. However, reports that Fireball Whiskey included an anti-freeze ingredient quickly went viral. It’s true that the ingredient PG is sometimes used as an anti-freeze agent, the EPA reports. But the term “anti-freeze” conjures misleading images of the neon-green chemical that prevents engines from freezing in cold weather. Anti-freeze is also used in the food industry. PG absorbs water, so it works as an effective anti-freeze agent by preventing leaking water from coming into contact with food, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports. “Propylene glycol has been approved for use at certain levels in food, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products,” the CDC said. “If you eat food products, use cosmetics or take medications that contain it, you will be exposed to propylene glycol, but these amounts are not considered harmful.” The FDA has found that PG can be safely ingested over long periods if it doesn’t account for more than 5 percent of a person’s total food intake. Posted 10/30/14 Comments
|
2298
|
Humans should thank ancient Scottish fish fossils for joy of sex.
|
Scientists studying fossils have discovered that the intimate act of sexual intercourse used by humans was pioneered by ancient armored fishes, called placoderms, about 385 million years ago in Scotland.
|
true
|
Science News
|
In an important discovery in the evolutionary history of sexual reproduction, the scientists found that male fossils of the Microbrachius dicki, which belong to a placoderm group, developed bony L-shaped genital limbs called claspers to transfer sperm to females. Females, for their part, developed small paired bones to lock the male organs in place for mating. Placoderms are the earliest vertebrate ancestors of humans. “Placoderms were once thought to be a dead-end group with no live relatives, but recent studies show that our own evolution is deeply rooted in placoderms and that many of the features we have — such as jaws, teeth and paired limbs — first originated with this group of fishes,” said John Long, a paleontologist at Flinders University in South Australia who led the research. This new finding, he added, shows that “they gave us the intimate act of sexual intercourse as well”. Matt Friedman, a paleobiologist from Britain’s Oxford University who was not involved in the research, described its findings as “nothing short of remarkable” and said they suggested much more could be learned from the fossil fishes. Long, whose study was published in the journal Nature on Sunday, discovered the ancient fishes’ mating abilities when he stumbled across a single fossil bone in the collections of the University of Technology in Tallinn, Estonia, last year. The research then involved scientists from Australia, Estonia, Britain, Sweden and China, who analyzed fossil specimens from museum collections across the world. These demonstrate the first use of internal fertilization and copulation as a reproductive strategy known in the fossil record. Measuring about 8 centimeters (3 inches) in length, Microbrachius lived in ancient lake habitats in Scotland, as well as parts of Estonia and China. Long explained that “Microbrachius” means little arms, but said scientists have been baffled for centuries by what these bony paired arms were actually there for. “We’ve solved this great mystery,” he said. “They were there for mating, so that the male could position his claspers into the female genital area.” In one of the more bizarre findings of the study, Long said the fishes probably copulated from a sideways position with their bony jointed arms locked together — making them look more as if they were square dancing than having sex. “This enabled the males to maneuver their genital organs into the right position for mating,” he said.
|
28997
|
Administering three simple tests will help diagnose a stroke, and pricking a stroke victim's fingers will prevent further harm from the cerebral attack.
|
What's true: Three simple tests can help diagnose the occurrence of a stroke. What's false: Making a stroke victim bleed from his fingers won't prevent further harm. What's undetermined: Asking a stricken victim to stick out his tongue may help diagnose a stroke.
|
mixture
|
Medical, Disease, prevent stroke, stroke
|
Each year an estimated 600,000 Americans experience strokes, which are interruptions of the blood supply to any part of the brain, resulting in damaged brain tissue. Of these victims, 160,000 die, making stroke the third leading cause of death in the U.S. Those persons this dread killer does not immediately send to the grave are often left with lifelong debilitating infirmities of speech, movement, and even thought. A stroke is a serious medical event, both because it can (and does) kill, and because it can inflict long-term harm on those lucky enough to survive it. There are two types of acute stroke: ischemic and hemorrhagic. Ischemic strokes account for 80 percent of all such “brain attacks” and occur when a blood clot lodges in a vessel responsible for supplying blood to the brain, killing off part of that organ. Hemorrhagic strokes occur when a blood vessel in the brain ruptures, resulting in bleeding which causes swelling and hematoma and ultimately impairs brain function. Over the years, e-mail forwards and social media shares have dispensed advice to readers and users about how to identify and respond to a stroke: Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] How to Recognize a Stroke This might be a lifesaver if you can remember the following advice, sent by a nurse, whose husband is a medical doctor. Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. A stroke victim may suffer permanent brain damage when people fail to recognize what’s happening. Now, doctors say any bystander can recognize a stroke, simply by asking three questions: If he or she has trouble with any of these tasks, call 911 immediately, and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher. Researchers are urging the general public to learn to ask these three questions quickly, to someone they suspect of having a stroke. Widespread use of this test could result in prompt diagnosis and treatment of a stroke, and prevent permanent brain damage. You may want to pass this along. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Stroke has a new indicator! They say if you forward this to ten people, you stand a chance of saving one life. Will you send this along? Blood Clots/Stroke – They Now Have a Fourth Indicator, the Tongue: During a BBQ, a woman stumbled and took a little fall – she assured everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics) …she said she had just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes. They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food. While she appeared a bit shaken up, Jane went about enjoying herself the rest of the evening. Jane’s husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been taken to the hospital – (at 6:00 PM Jane passed away.) She had suffered a stroke at the BBQ. Had they known how to identify the signs of a stroke, perhaps Jane would be with us today. Some don’t die. They end up in a helpless, hopeless condition instead. It only takes a minute to read this. A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke… totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough. RECOGNIZING A STROKE Thank God for the sense to remember the ‘3’ steps, STR. Read and Learn! Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: S *Ask the individual to SMILE. T *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. Chicken Soup) R *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher. New Sign of a Stroke ——– Stick out Your Tongue NOTE: Another ‘sign’ of a stroke is this: Ask the person to ‘stick’ out his tongue. If the tongue is ‘crooked’, if it goes to one side or the other that is also an indication of a stroke. A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. I have done my part. Will you? The advice given in these much-circulated e-mails appears to be sound, although it needs be pointed out that it has yet to be endorsed by the American Stroke Association. It was drawn from a report presented in February 2003 at the American Stroke Association’s (ASA) 28th International Stroke Conference, and news of it can be found on the American Heart Association’s (AHA) web site. However, as the ASA says in its official statement about the report, though the research was funded by a grant from the ASA, that body has not taken a position on the topic nor endorsed the test because the results, though positive, arose from a very small study. If the study’s findings hold up, it would mean that recognizing a stroke has taken place would be something just about anyone could do and would be a skill worth mastering in light of the importance of getting medical attention for stroke victims at the earliest possible moment. Focal neurological signs such as slurred speech, unilateral facial droop, blurred vision, discoordination, and partial or total paralysis are often indicative of some sort of brain dysfunction and would be recognized as important markers by those in the medical profession. However, expecting laypeople to diagnose that something has gone terribly wrong in a loved one on the basis of that checklist would be reaching for too much; in that key moment few would be likely to remember what they were supposed to be looking for. The e-mailed advice, as circulated in 2006, contains this additional suggestion: Another ‘sign’ of a stroke is this: Ask the person to ‘stick’ out their tongue. if the tongue is ‘crooked’, if it goes to one side or the other, that is also an indication of a stroke. While that is also likely true, as a test it is far less valuable than the original three because there is room for interpretation of the results. How crooked is crooked, after all? How far to one side does the tongue have to go before its having done so can be regarded as a clear sign of a stroke having occurred? Better to discard this fourth suggested ‘test’ in favor of remembering the first three. By distilling the assessment process down to three simple tests (smile, raise both arms, speak a simple sentence), anyone is likely to remember what to ask of someone they suspect has just undergone a stroke and to correctly interpret the information so gleaned. (The tests are pass/fail, after all, so if the person they were administered to couldn’t smile, couldn’t raise her arms, and was incoherent, the party observing all this wouldn’t be at a loss for what to make of the results — she’d conclude her friend had undergone a stroke.) And it is important laypeople learn to recognize such events, because a new drug has been shown to limit disability from strokes caused by clots (ischemic) provided victims receive it within three hours of the onset of stroke symptoms. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is a clot-busting drug administered intravenously in cases of ischemic stroke; however, only one in fifty stroke patients has a chance of this drug helping them because currently only 2 percent of them reach an emergency room in time for tPA to be given. (It’s possible tPA’s effectiveness can be boosted by simultaneous massaging of the clot with ultrasound. Early results from a 2004 study performed in Houston on coupling this drug with such treatment are most encouraging.) A 2005 updating of the e-mail included this statement: A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke… totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough. While getting appropriate medical care for a stroke victim as soon as possible is extremely important, doing so does not come with a 100% guarantee that a stroke identified and treated within a 3-hour timeframe will not cause permanent damage. The warning signs of a stroke are: Ergo, for once there’s a “Send this to everyone you know!” missive afoot that really does contain highly useful and important information. Yet the Internet, while sometimes used to disseminate actual fact (such as the above), is also often used to spread utter nonsense. Consider the following piece of cyber advice about strokes, which we first saw in December 2003: First Aid for Stroke When stroke strikes, the capillaries in the brain will gradually burst. When a stroke occurs, stay calm. No matter where the victim is, do not move him/her. Because, if moved, the capillaries will burst. Help the victim to sit up where he is to prevent him from falling over. Again, and then the bloodletting can begin. If you have in your home an injection syringe, that would be the best, otherwise, a sewing needle or a straight pin will do. Place the needle/pin over fire to sterilize it, and then use it to prick the tip of all 10 fingers. There are no specific acupuncture points, just prick about a mm from the fingernail. Prick till blood comes out. If blood does not start to drip, then squeeze with your fingers. When all 10 digits is bleeding, wait a few minutes then the victim will regain consciousness. If the victim’s mouth is crooked, then pull on his ears until they are red. Then prick each ear lobe twice until two drops of blood comes from each ear lobe. After a few minutes the victim should regain consciousness. Wait till the victim regain his normal state without any abnormal symptoms then take him to the hospital, otherwise, if he was taken in the ambulance in a hurry to the hospital, the bumpy trip will cause all the capillaries in his brain to burst. If he could save his life, barely managing to walk, then it is by the grace of his ancestors. I learned about letting blood to save life from Chinese traditional doctor Ha Bu-Ting who lives in Sun-Juke. Furthermore, I had practical experience with it. Therefore I can say this method is 100% effective. In 1979, I was teaching in Fung-Gaap College in Tai-Chung. One afternoon I was teaching class when another teacher came running to my classroom and said in panting, “Mr. Liu, come quick, our supervisor has had a stroke!” I immediately went to the 3rd floor. When I saw our supervisor, Mr. Chen Fu-Tien, his color was off, his speech was slurred, and his mouth was crooked — all the symptoms of a stroke. I immediately asked one of the practicum students to go to the pharmacy outside the school to buy a syringe, which I used to prick Mr. Chen’s 10 finger tips. When all 10 fingers were bleeding (each with a pea-sized drop of blood), after a few minutes, Mr. Chen’s face regained its color and his eyes’ spirit returned, too. But his mouth was still crooked. So I pulled on his ears to fill them with blood. When his ears became red, I pricked his right earlobe twice to let out 2 drops of blood. When both earlobes had two drops of blood each, a miracle happened. Within 3-5 minutes the shape of his mouth returned to normal and his speech became clear. We let him rest for a while and have a cup of hot tea, then we helped him go down the stairs, drove him to Wei-Wah Hospital. He rested one night and was released the next day to return to school to teach. Everything worked normally. There were no ill after-effects. On the other hand, the usual stroke victim usually suffers irreparable bursting of the brain capillaries on the way to the hospital. As a result, these victims never recover. Therefore stroke is the no. 2 cause of death. The lucky ones will stay alive but remain paralyzed for life. It is such a horrible thing to happen in one’s life. If we can all remember this bloodletting method and start the life-saving process immediately, in a short time, the victim will be revived and regain 100% normality. We hope you can tell others about this first aid method. By doing so, stroke may be removed from the list of major causes of death. Forward this after reading. It will be a good deed indeed. As mentioned earlier in this article, there are two types of acute stroke: ischemic and hemorrhagic. However, there are also two kinds of strokes: acute and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The former is the sort that takes lives or leaves those it strikes with permanent and all too often heartbreakingly serious disabilities. With the latter, the focal symptoms resolve within 24 hours, leaving no permanent neurological deficit. With that in mind, the “miraculous recovery” described in the e-mail above would have been due to the patient having weathered a TIA episode, not to having had his blood drained from his fingers and ear lobes. Because the underlying patholophysiology is the same between acute stroke and TIA, it’s important to seek immediate medical attention for all stroke victims. TIA is also often a warning sign heralding increased risk of stroke. (In high risk demographics, the risk of stroke goes up ten-fold after a TIA.) As for not moving a stroke victim because so doing might cause “irreparable bursting of the brain capillaries,” the initial insult (stroke) has already occurred, so transport is unlikely to cause further harm. With regard to pricking fingers to get them bleeding as a possible counter to strokes, according to Dr. Rupinder S. Sahsi of Guelph, Ontario, a medical doctor of our acquaintance, “I see no physiological reason why minute amounts of peripheral blood loss would have any effect on cerebral blood flow.” In other words, pricking a stroke victim’s fingers to get each of them to drip blood isn’t going to do anything to aid that person. However, taking the time to stab the victim’s fingers before bothering to transport him to a hospital, with even that done at a low speed, will cause harm, because when it comes to obtaining proper treatment for stroke victims, time lost is brain lost. Our physician friend counsels: “Do not wait for the symptoms to resolve before taking a casual drive to the hospital in your vehicle, as suggested by this e-mail.” Getting a stroke victim to an emergency room in time for tPA therapy to be begun is the most important thing you can do to help prevent further brain damage. Do not waste any of that brief window of opportunity by driving at a snail’s pace or by stopping to stab the person’s fingers and ear lobes. Additional information: Stroke Fact Sheet (Centers for Disease Control) Stroke Statistics (National Center for Health Statistics)
|
2752
|
GSK to launch late-stage clinical trials on 10 new drugs: paper.
|
GlaxoSmithKline is set to unveil plans to launch late-stage clinical trials on 10 new drugs over the next two years, the Telegraph reported, without citing sources.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The new drugs, which have not been detailed to investors, will include cancer and respiratory disease medicines, the newspaper said on its website. (link.reuters.com/fup56v) Britain’s biggest drugmaker is also expected to report that fourth-quarter sales in China, where it is embroiled in a major bribery probe, took a smaller hit than when the scandal first blew up during the summer quarter, the report said. The investigation began in July 2013, after Chinese police accused GSK of funneling up to 3 billion yuan ($495.05 million) to travel agencies to facilitate bribes to boost its drug sales. ($1 = 6.0600 Chinese yuan)
|
8976
|
Gas sensing gut pill beats breath test diagnosis
|
The news release concerns a very small (12 human subjects) preliminary trial to assess if a swallowable capsule can measure intestinal hydrogen gas as well as the existing method of breath testing. Such breath testing is used to aid in the diagnosis of a small handful of uncommon gastrointestinal disorders. What’s problematic here is the lack of supporting data from the study, as well as overreaching claims that the test “beats breath test diagosis” and is “3,000 times more accurate than current technology.” This kind of hyperbolic language is not supported by the study. Harms also are not mentioned and benefits are framed in such a way that erroneously suggest the technology will help “diagnose many gut disorders … paving the way to solving previously undiagnosed conditions.” On the plus side, we were encouraged to see that the financial conflicts of interest of at least one of the two main study authors were made clear. It’s not uncommon for us to come across early results of studies involving a small number of human subjects being presented with grandiose clinical implications. Such language is a red flag and, as with this news release, sometimes comes from the very people we’re counting on to accurately interpret the data for us — the lead authors. If you’re going to employ language like “revolutionary” and “breakthrough” in reference to study involving 12 healthy subjects, at the very least include data. Likewise, explain to people what you mean when you say something is “3,000 times more accurate” than current technology. While this test might be able to detect much smaller concentrations of gas than existing methods, the researchers certainly haven’t established that this makes any difference in the ability to diagnose disease — and that’s something that should have been clearly pointed out to readers.
|
false
|
breath test
|
The news release makes many bold claims about the accuracy and clinical utility of this device. And if it’s not too early to make such claims, it’s not too early to give readers some idea of what this type of technology might cost. The main benefits touted are: Unfortunately, we’re not given any supporting data, or context to place these results in perspective. Are readers expected to know what high sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio are? We’re told the capsule measures gases, but how do those relate to disease? Furthermore, where exactly did the “3000 times more accurate” figure come from and what does it mean? Based on our analysis of the study itself, it seems that the capsule detected about 12 times as much hydrogen as the breath test in the point of the intestine with the greatest difference. And “sensitivity” (the ability to correctly identify patients with disease) cannot be measured since there are no patients with confirmed disease in this study. (We provide an overview of sensitivity and other issues related to medical testing in our primer: Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value.) The published study mentions “no reported adverse events,” but the news release does not address harms. Harms are relevant since we’re guessing many readers might be wary of swallowing an electronic transmitter and hope “this too shall pass” (without incident). Another harm that isn’t mentioned is the risk of false-positive findings that may lead to unnecessary antibiotic treatment for some people. Such treatment poses risks to individual patients and contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. This news release doesn’t include any data. Yet it includes claims about the test’s ability to diagnose diseases, even though the study was only a pilot that included healthy individuals. There’s a disconnect between the strength of the evidence and the language used in the news release. The news release makes it sound like there is an epidemic of undiagnosed gastrointestinal disease occurring worldwide: Of the one-in-five people worldwide who will suffer from a gastrointestinal disorder in their lifetime, almost a third remain undiagnosed due to lack of reliable tests available to gastroenterologists. But the news release doesn’t provide any source for this questionable claim. Moreover, the release suggests that that this technology will help “diagnose many gut disorders” when, in reality — even if it does get marketed (like breath testing) — it will likely only be applicable for a very short list of very uncommon gastrointestinal ailments listed HERE [Source: Johns Hopkins Medical School]. It’s made clear that one of the sources quoted is the capsule co-inventor, and is also the chief technology officer of the company trying to commercialize the capsule. However, it’s unclear if the second source — identified as the study lead and a capsule co-inventor — is also affiliated with the company. The news release makes it clear that the capsule is being developed as (hopefully) a more sensitive measure of intestinal gases than currently used breath tests. It’s also made clear such testing is used to diagnose conditions like small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) and carbohydrate malabsorption. It’s implied the capsule is in development and not commercially available at this time. It’s unclear from the news release if this is the first time this sort of capsule has been used for this particular purpose. However, this article from MIT suggests swallowable technology has been investigated since at least 2006. The use of the words “breakthrough” and “revolutionary” is quite premature in referring to trial results of 12 healthy subjects. Also, inclusion of this quote by the study lead is potentially very misleading: This gives us confidence that our new technology could potentially solve many mysteries of the gut and help the large portion of the population who have not been able to find a useful diagnosis or treatment for their symptoms.
|
27914
|
A man was killed by an exploding lava lamp.
|
In 2004, a lava lamp was put to use as a weapon in an attempted murder in the Dallas area when 35-year-old Tammy Britt Miller beat her mother, 62-year-old Connie Britt, with such a lamp, stabbed her repeatedly, and smashed a large picture frame over her head before attempting to suffocate her with a plastic bag.
|
true
|
Horrors, freakish fatalities
|
Sooner or later, the Grim Reaper comes for us all, but sometimes his mode of operation almost defies explanation. Take the 2004 demise of 24-year-old Phillip Quinn of Kent, Washington, who was done in by his lava lamp. An icon of the 1960s and 1970s that experienced a resurgence in popularity in the mid-1990s, lava lamps are generally considered benign items of the sort one might happily stare at for hours while in a marijuana-infused haze. They consist of blobs of wax suspended in a liquid enclosed by a glass or plastic container, the blobs rising and falling when the container is heated by a bulb at the base of the unit. The motion of the blobs is slow and rhythmic, almost hypnotic. It is therefore hard to conceive that one of these slow, soothing light shows could kill a man. Yet one did. Phillip Quinn was found dead in his trailer home with shards of glass from a lava lamp embedded in his chest, including a shard that pierced his heart. According to the medical examiner’s reconstruction of the events that caused the young man’s death, Quinn had been heating the lamp on the kitchen stove and likely had been standing in front of it when it exploded, then stumbled into his bedroom and died. “Why on earth he was heating a lava lamp on the stove, we don’t know,” said Kent Police spokesman Paul Petersen. Quinn’s death was ruled an accident.
|
31280
|
A video documents that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax.
|
A video supposedly documenting that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax is full of misinformation.
|
false
|
Politics Guns, conspiracy theories, crisis actors, laura phelps
|
A video, since removed by YouTube, which was widely circulated after the 14 December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 26 victims dead at that school, purported to show many contradictions in facts surrounding the Sandy Hook shootings which established that the incident was a staged “hoax”: The information presented in that video was a mixture of misinformation, innuendo, and subjective interpretation, such as the following: 1) In the immediate aftermath of the terror and tragedy of the Sandy Hook shootings, there was naturally a great deal of confusion among witnesses, police, and the news media about subjects such as the number of shooters involved, the identities of those involved, and the number of guns used. It’s hardly surprising or revelatory to note that some witnesses gave contradictory statements, that police initially followed up on the possibility of multiple shooters, or that some news outlets initially reported inaccurate information. All of this is typical in the crush for information from the news media, public, and relatives of victims that follows in the wake of disasters involving large numbers of deaths. 2) In their initial sweep of the crime scene, police detained or investigated some people who were soon cleared of any involvement with the shootings: The fact that press coverage of these people was soon dropped is not evidence of the news media’s compliance in a suppression of information about the involvement of multiple shooters; these persons were all quickly cleared of any wrongdoing and were therefore peripheral to much larger stories about the Sandy Hook tragedy. As Connecticut State Police spokesperson Lt. Paul Vance stated, “Were there other people detained? The answer is yes. In the height of battle, until you’ve determined who, what, when, where and why of everyone in existence … that’s not unusual.” 3) The seeming contradiction over how Adam Lanza could have used a Bushmaster version AR-15 rifle in the shootings when that same weapon was supposedly found locked in the trunk of his car afterwards was cleared up a few days later. The weapon found in the trunk of Lanza’s car was a shotgun, not an AR-15: Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns — a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm. In the car he left a shotgun … The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. Connecticut state police issued an update on 23 January 2013 confirming that information: State police seized four guns when they responded to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in December, according to state police. Police [said they had] provided details in [previous] news conferences but wanted to eliminate any confusion or misinformation. Police said they found a Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips, a Glock 10-mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun inside the school. Police identified Adam Lanza as the gunman who shot and killed 20 first graders and six staff members. Police also searched Lanza’s car, which was in parking lot, and found an Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun. The medical examiner was therefore correct, not mistaken, when he stated that the rifle was the primary weapon used in the shootings. (A video clip of an early NBC news report from 15 December 2012 which misstated the types of weapons Adam Lanza had with him on the day of the shootings was circulated, a month after the fact, as “proof” that Lanza did not use an AR-15 rifle in the shootings. As noted above, this clip was one of many examples of errors in reporting which occurred in the crush to put out information in the immediate aftermath of the shootings and was soon corrected.) 4) The video questions whether “frantic kids [wouldn’t] be a difficult target to hit” and suggests that a “20 year old autistic psyco [sic] with no gun history” would be unlikely to hit so many targets 3 to 11 times each. Such a statement is mind-bogglingly inane: Adam Lanza was not picking off comprehending adults who had free range of action to escape his onslaught; he was using a semi-automatic rifle to shoot at terrified schoolchildren who were trapped in small, enclosed spaces and had little or no understanding of what was taking place. 5) The answer to the question arising from the initial misidentification of Adam Lanza as his brother Ryan, about how Adam Lanza “could possibly have Ryan’s valid ID if he has not seen him in years?” is a simple one, provided by Ryan Lanza himself: “Ryan told police that his brother … might have had his ID even though they had not seen each other in two years.” Ryan had last seen his brother in 2010, and many forms of ID are valid for two years or more. (And nothing says the ID in Adam Lanza’s possession had to be “valid”: even expired ID found on a person is generally assumed to belong to that person until proved otherwise, unless the ID is immediately ruled out due to an obvious mismatch with the characteristics of a photograph or physical description.) 6) One of several erroneous pieces of information promulgated in early reporting on the Sandy Hook tragedy was the claim that Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy was a kindergarten teacher at that school. By the following day, most major news outlets were correctly reporting that Nancy Lanza did not have any connection to Sandy Hook Elementary School.Sarah (Sally) Cox, the Sandy Hook school nurse whom USA Today mistakenly reported as saying that Nancy Lanza was a “very caring, experienced kindergarten teacher” is in fact a real person who gave numerous interviews about what she experienced during the shootings. A search run on the Connecticut state eLicensing web site using her given name of Sarah Cox (rather than “Sally Cox,” as shown in the video) confirms that she is indeed a registered nurse in the state of Connecticut. 7) Out of all the interviews and public statements made by parents, relatives, friends, and classmates of Sandy Hook victims, the video plucks two brief snippets of Robbie Parker (father of slain 6-year-old Emilie Parker) and Lynn McDonnell (mother of slain 7-year-old Grace McDonnell) smiling and laughing in conjunction with television appearances in which they spoke about their children, offering this as evidence that a hoax is being perpetrated by people who are merely pretending to be grieving parents. But parents who have lost children don’t all walk around afterwards utterly glum and disconsolate, never allowing themselves to exhibit any emotion other than sadness. Either of them might have been laughing and smiling during or immediately prior to talking about their children for any number of reasons: because they were reacting to something funny, because they were expressing nervous anxiety about facing a national television audience, or because they were recalling fond memories of their deceased children. Indeed, the audio from the portion of Lynn McDonnell’s interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper which was used in this conspiracy video is conveniently muted so that viewers can’t see for themselves exactly why she was smiling — because she was remembering what a terrific, happy child her daughter was, and how much she loved her: COOPER: What do you want people to know about Grace? LYNN MCDONNELL: Well, Grace had such a great spirit. She was a kind and gentle soul. And she was just the light and love of our family. She was just truly a special, special little girl that we loved, and she loved her brother so much. And she loved her school, Sandy Hook. In fact, this week, I was telling somebody she had a stomach ache one day, and I said to her, “Why don’t you stay home with Mom?” And she said, “No way, I have too much fun there, and I don’t want to miss anything.” She would skip to get on the bus. It wasn’t even — you know, every morning, it was the backpack was packed the night before and ready to get on the bus in the morning and head off to school. We would blow kisses every morning to each other. And I remember that morning putting her on the bus. She had a habit of blowing kisses, but then she’d give me a big little liver lips like this. But then she — I knew she was so happy to go off and get there. So it — I’d like to say that she was at a place that she loved, and so we take comfort in that, that we know she was in a place that she really loved. 8) Gene Rosen, the man who sheltered in his home six children who escaped from the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, did not, as claimed by the video, take in a group of kids whom a bus driver unquestioningly left with a stranger and then keep custody of them for half an hour without contacting anyone or ascertaining what had happened to them. Rosen and the bus driver both stayed with the children at Rosen’s house, elicited from them what had taken place at the school (a process which took some time because the children were initially reticent to talk about what they had witnessed), obtained and called emergency contact numbers to reach their parents, and took them to authorities at a nearby fire station: [Rosen] went in his garage to feed the cats and when he came out he saw six children sitting in a circle on his front lawn. The six first-graders somehow had escaped from Sandy Hook Elementary School as a gunman shot and killed 20 young students and six educators. They ran down Dickinson Drive and around the corner to Rosen’s house on Riverside Road — less than half a mile away. They had just seen their teacher die. Rosen invited the children and a bus driver who was with them into the safety of his home. Two of the boys sat on a rug in front of the couch, Rosen said, and suddenly they began to talk. “One boy started saying loudly, ‘We can’t go back to the school, we can’t go back to the school, our teacher is gone. Ms. Soto is gone. '” The other boy joined in, “He had a little gun,” Rosen recalled the boy saying, “and a big gun.” A girl also began talking. She said she saw blood coming from Soto’s mouth, then the girl fell to the floor, Rosen said, and the narrative stopped. The children with Rosen knew their phone numbers, but [their] parents were not home. The bus driver called a supervisor and obtained emergency contacts for the parents and more calls were made. Parents of four of the six children were reached and learned their children were safe. They rushed to Rosen’s house, he said. After reuniting the children with their parents, the group walked to the firehouse next door, where students were being accounted for. Contrary to what is stated in the video, Gene Rosen, a retired psychologist, is not a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). The claim that he is a SAG member originated with a video showing the results of an Intelius search on a Gene Rosen who is listed as once having worked for the Screen Actors Guild. However, the Gene Rosen whose information is shown in that video is clearly a different person than the one who sheltered several schoolchildren in Connecticut, as the former is 62 years old and is listed as having lived in California, Texas, and New Jersey (but not Connecticut), while a similar search on the “real” Gene Rosen confirms that he is 69 years old and has not resided outside of Connecticut. The claim that Gene Rosen mentioned looking a casualty list that supposedly wasn’t released until two days after his interview is also false. As documented in a Telegraph article, state police made a casualty list publicly available the day after the shootings. 9) The video references photographs of President Obama posing with the families of Sandy Hook students a few days after the shootings, a group which supposedly includes Emilie Parker, a 6-year-old girl who was killed in the shootings. Apparently viewers are expected to believe in an incredible scheme under which the parents of a dead girl who isn’t really dead (because she and her parents are actually participants in an elaborate hoax) not only completely forgot that their daughter was supposed to be dead and cluelessly brought her along to meet the President of the United States, they were also foolish enough to post pictures of the event on the Internet for everyone to see.As demonstrated in another video, what the referenced photographs actually picture is one of Emilie’s younger sisters wearing a dress similar or identical to one once worn by Emilie. 10) The notion that Homeland Security is employing “crisis actors” to portray grieving parents and others connected with the Sandy Hook shootings (such as Laura and Nick Phelps) is based on nothing more than some superficial physical similarities between persons connected to the Sandy Hooks shootings and completely unrelated persons. It appears to have originated with material gleaned from WellAware1, a web site whose stock in trade is claiming that politicians, government officials, celebrities, and other people featured in media-covered events are actually imposters portrayed by actors, many of whom are supposedly members of the Greenberg/Sexton family. (Among other articles, the site maintains that Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney were both pseudo-persons portrayed by Kermit Roosevelt, son of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt. )The Crisis Actors organization is a private company (not a government entity) which supplies trained actors to simulate various types of disasters in order to improve the efficiency of first responders and other officials in responding to various emergencies. As noted on the Crisis Actors web site, their actors do not engage in any real-world crisis events, nor do they allow their performances to be presented at any time as real-world events. Contrary to what it stated in the video, it is not true that “there have already been numerous connections between the families of Sandy Hook and members of the Crisis acting team.” No person who works with Crisis Actors has been identified as having any link of any kind to the Sandy Hook shootings. 11) The video presents a few brief out-of-context excerpts from a press interview with chief medical examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver II intended to make him seem unsympathetic and even a bit sinister. Whatever his demeanor may have been at times in having to deal with the trying process of satisfying an endless crush of media requests after the shootings, he expressed dismay and sadness in noting that Sandy Hook was the worst murder scene that he had ever witnessed, saying: “I’ve been at this for a third of a century. This is probably the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues having seen.”Dr. Carver’s comment about how one can “control the situation, depending on your photographer” was not, as suggested by the video, an allusion to his attempting to manipulate the crime scene to present a particular contrived view of it to the public. It was a statement about his desire to protect the parents of the murdered students from further emotional upheaval by having them make identifications from photographs of faces only rather than from viewing the bodies of their dead children: Carver told reporters that he, four doctors, 10 other staff members and a college intern kept family members away from the bodies of the murdered, instead using photographs of the victims’ faces for confirmation. “There is a time and a place for up-close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this, we thought it best to do it this way and you can control the situation, depending on your photographer,” Carver said. As noted earlier in this article, Dr. Carver was in fact correct in stating that the victims were shot with an AR-15 rifle and that that weapon was not later found locked in the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car: the weapon stowed in the car trunk was a shotgun, not a rifle. The conspiracy video’s compiler, not Dr. Carver, is the “unreliable source of information.” 12) Connecticut’s Division of Emergency Services and Public Protection, under the Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS), did offer a FEMA course in “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters” on the day of the Sandy Hook shootings. However, the supposed suspiciousness of this coincidental timing is lessened when one considers that this very same course was offered a total of six times in various parts of the state on different days throughout November and December 2012. 13) The dates of some Facebook pages and snippets of Google search results related to Sandy Hook have been presented as supposed proof that material about the shootings was up on the Internet several days or more before the actual occurrence of those shootings. However, these dates do not provide reliable timelines: Facebook pages which were initially created prior to the Sandy Hook shootings for other reasons and then renamed/repurposed as memorials, tributes, condolences, and donation sites for Sandy Hook victims retained their original pre-shooting creation dates, and the dates prepended to Google search result entries are imprecise and do not always accurately reflect the dates on which the referenced material first appeared on the web (especially when the content of existing web pages has been modified to include new material).By using a date-restricted search, one can find many web-based examples of references to the Sandy Hook shootings which Google’s search results erroneously dates as having been published prior to the actual date of those shootings. 14) On 24 September 2014, conspiracy-centric site InfoWars published an article titled “FBI Says No One Killed at Sandy Hook,” concluding that the lack of murders included in the agency’s 2012 crime statistics amounted to proof that the massacre in Newtown was a “false flag attack”: However, as is often the case in this sort of misinterpretation, the conspiracy buffs at InfoWars neglected to factor in the complicated relationships between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies: the deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary fell under the jurisdiction of Connecticut State Police and thus were not specifically included under Newtown’s crime statistics for the year of 2012. (This bit of misinformation is debunked in a separate article on this site.)
|
6720
|
Mosquito breed known to carry Zika found in Nebraska.
|
A mosquito species native to tropical climates and known to carry the Zika virus has been found in Nebraska.
|
true
|
Health, York, Nebraska, Zika virus
|
State health officials said Tuesday in a news release that the Aedes aegypti mosquito was recently found in southeastern Nebraska’s York County. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services says it’s the first time that type of mosquito has been found in Nebraska. Health officials say the Aedes aegypti bites primarily in the daytime, only feeds on people, and can only fly about 500 feet. Besides Zika, it’s been known to spread yellow fever, chikungunya and dengue. State epidemiologist Dr. Tom Safranek says the spread of such diseases would require an infected person to be bitten by the mosquito that would then have to bite an uninfected person, making the risk of such infections in Nebraska low.
|
18530
|
"Caddy McKeown Says ""A baby in Coos County is two times as likely to be born to a mother who is someone who used tobacco during her pregnancy as is the average baby born in Oregon or the U.S."
|
Are babies born in Coos County twice as likely to be born to smokers?
|
true
|
Oregon, County Government, Public Health, Taxes, Caddy McKeown,
|
"Legislation to let counties set additional taxes on tobacco squeaked through the Oregon House last week on a 31-to-29 vote. Lawmakers opposed to higher taxes said it wasn’t fair to squeeze more revenue out of cigarette addicts. Lawmakers in support said smoking is a public health hazard and that local governments should be allowed to assert local control. Freshman Rep. Caddy McKeown, D-Coos Bay, said she too struggled with aspects of House Bill 2870, but then reeled off some disturbing statistics courtesy of the Coos County public health department, including this one: ""A baby in Coos County is two times as likely to be born to a mother who is someone who used tobacco during her pregnancy as is the average baby born in Oregon or the U.S.,"" she said. Twice as many smokers? What’s up, Coos County? Studies show that prenatal smoking puts babies at greater risk of low birth weight, respiratory illnesses and other potential health problems. State and county numbers McKeown’s office shared a 2011-12 annual report on the status of public health in Coos County. We also checked with Stephen Brown, a tobacco prevention program coordinator at Coos County. Figures from 2011 birthsshow that in Coos County, 23.4 percent of mothers used tobacco while pregnant. Statewide, the figure was 10.7 percent. That’s more than double. In real numbers, that means 135 of 577 babies born in Coos County in 2011 were born to smokers. Statewide, 4,795 of 45,136 babies born in 2011 were born to smokers. Brown says that studies show that people are less likely to smoke the higher their educational attainment. Prenatal tobacco use is greater among women who don’t finish high school than among women who graduate from college. People living in poorer households are more likely to smoke. Coos County lags the state in educational achievement and in per capita income. Certainly Coos is not the only county to post rates at least twice Oregon’s. Douglas and Josephine counties posted rates at 25 percent, and Lake County was the highest at 26.5 percent. Those are also rural counties similar to Coos in income and education demographics. Multnomah County was at 6.8 percent. National average A national average is harder to come by, mainly because not all states use the same ""certificate of live birth"" forms to collect prenatal information. The Annie E. Casey Foundation calculates a U.S. figure of 9 percent for births in 2010, but the number leaves out about 20 states. Oregon, which was included, was at 11 percent. Still, the average is backed up by a hefty Oregon Health Authoritydocument, which reports prenatal tobacco use across the country went from 13.6 percent in 1996 to 10.7 percent in 2005. In Oregon, the percentage of women smoking during pregnancy also dropped during that period, from 17.8 percent to 12.4 percent. The ruling: We can say with certainty that babies born in Coos County are twice as likely to have mothers who smoked during pregnancy than the average baby in Oregon. That also looks to be the case using older or incomplete national averages."
|
26116
|
“The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.”
|
"The CDC has not “confirmed” any mortality rate for COVID-19. The Facebook posts draw on the low-end of a range of estimates the CDC published in May saying the fatality rate for those showing symptoms was between 0.2% and 1%, with a ""best estimate"" of 0.4%. The estimated overall mortality rate of those with and without symptoms would be 0.26%. Several health experts said they project the mortality rate is on the higher-end of the CDC’s estimated range, closer to 1%, which is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu."
|
false
|
Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, California, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"Determining the death rate of COVID-19 is a big challenge, especially at this still-early stage in the pandemic. Health officials and epidemiologists say there are many unknowns: How many people got infected but were never tested? How many died of the disease without being counted as coronavirus deaths? The answer is a moving target and at least one health expert believes it could be many months before a precise mortality rate is known. ""We won’t know until a year from now,"" said Thomas Novotny, professor emeritus of epidemiology and biostatistics at San Diego State University. ""There’s so much we don’t know."" That uncertainty, however, hasn’t stopped claims from catapulting across social media saying the severity of the virus was overblown. Posts cut and pasted and shared thousands of times on Facebook and Instagram say: ""The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19,"" suggesting the rate is far lower than officials previously reported. The posts also claim that government officials misled the public about the number of coronavirus deaths and argue that closing down the economy wasn’t necessary. This is a screenshot of one of the many misleading and widely spread Facebook posts that claims the CDC ""confirmed"" a 0.2% mortality rate for COVID-19. The federal agency hasn’t established a mortality rate for the disease. Several of these posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed (Read more about PolitiFact California’s partnership with Facebook). The posts, some of which implore readers to ""make this viral,"" include multiple misleading and false statements. But for this fact check, we decided to focus on whether the CDC has really ""confirmed"" a 0.2% mortality rate and to offer some context on the lethality of the virus. We will base our rating on that specific claim. Background On Mortality Figures On March 3, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died. That figure is what epidemiologists call a ""case fatality rate."" The ratio is ""crudely calculated by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported confirmed cases,"" Carla Drysdale, a WHO spokeswoman, told PolitiFact National in March. She also said the ratio would change over time and vary from place to place. But the mortality rate, or ""death rate"" as the Facebook posts terms it, is much more difficult to determine. It is calculated by dividing the number of people who die from COVID-19 in a certain geographic area by the total estimated number of people infected. It doesn’t rely solely on confirmed deaths and infections. The biggest problem is the denominator. Many who develop mild cases of COVID-19 or show no signs at all are never tested and thus aren’t counted, skewing the ratio. Did The CDC Really ‘Confirm’ A 0.2% Death Rate? The Facebook post’s claim that the CDC ""confirmed"" a 0.2% death rate draws on information in a planning document the federal agency published in May. The 0.2% figure is included, but it’s the lowest in a range of five estimates. Earlier this month, USA Today analyzed the five scenarios in the document while fact-checking the same claim about a 0.2% death rate that had spread widely on Facebook and Instagram. ""The first four are varying estimates of the disease's severity, from low to high, while the fifth represents the 'current best estimate,'"" USA Today reported. ""The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. It also places the number of asymptomatic cases between 20%-50%, with a 'best estimate' of 35%. By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus – with and without symptoms – would be 0.26%."" The USA Today fact check concluded that saying the CDC has ""confirmed"" 0.2% as the death rate ""paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said the claim in the social media posts is simply ""wrong. The CDC did not confirm that."" He estimated COVID-19’s death rate at ""between 0.8% and 1.0%."" ""No serious examination of the data from this pandemic would lead one to conclude that 0.2% is a realistic possibility,"" Jha wrote in an email. The Facebook posts also attribute several quotes to ""the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute."" An online search shows Jha made similar statements, but on a completely separate topic. ""This is pretty stunning to me — my quote being misused to promote a falsehood,"" Jha said, noting he had not been aware of the posts before being contacted by PolitiFact California. Several health experts have described the CDC estimates as low and lacking in transparency. Nicholas Jewell, professor of biostatistics at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, questioned the CDC’s 0.26% mortality rate, saying ""it’s not transparent where that comes from."" ""That’s very much on the low-end of what’s been reported by good studies,"" he added. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Health officials have cited a May study from the University of Washington, which estimated that if all infections were known, the true death rate for Americans who show symptoms would be about 1.3%. From a public health perspective, Jewell said that claims like the one spreading on Facebook can ""do a lot of damage, largely because when it’s seized on, it undercuts your message"" to continue social distancing and wearing masks. ""The whole idea that this wasn’t so bad is just, in my view, nonsense,"" Jewell said. Asked about the mortality rate claim in the Facebook posts, Novotny, the professor of epidemiology at San Diego State University, said ""it misrepresents what the risks are."" Comparing COVID 19’s Mortality Rate To Influenza In March, Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told PolitiFact National that most experts believe the ultimate death rate for this coronavirus will wind up being higher than the rate for seasonal flu, which hovers around 0.1%. That lines up with what Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress during his March testimony. ""The percent mortality will depend on what the denominator of number of cases is,"" Fauci said. ""So if you’re not counting every case, the mortality will be high. If you are counting a lot of cases that are sub-clinical, mortality will become low. But no matter how you slice it, it’s many, many, many more times lethal than the influenza that we get in the season."" Our ruling Facebook posts claim the CDC ""confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19."" The claim draws from the low-end of a range of estimates the CDC published in May saying the fatality rate for those showing symptoms was between 0.2% and 1%, with a ""best estimate"" of 0.4%. The estimated overall mortality rate of those with and without symptoms would be 0.26%. Health experts, however, said it’s difficult to pin down a precise mortality rate early in a pandemic and that the federal agency hasn’t yet ""confirmed"" any rate but instead offered best guesses. Over time, it is possible that estimates will show a lower than initially expected mortality rate, especially as more testing is conducted in the United States. Currently, however, the true number of deaths and infections are hard to determine, as some deaths caused by the virus aren’t counted and many people with mild cases of the coronavirus are never tested. Several experts said they project the mortality rate is on the higher-end of the CDC’s estimated range, closer to 1%, which is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. In the end, the post wrongly suggests that health officials have established COVID-19’s true mortality rate and selectively picks the low-end of a range of estimates. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
1613
|
Ireland unveils minimum alcohol price plan to reduce drinking.
|
The Irish government, aiming to change the country’s “damaging attitude to alcohol”, approved on Wednesday plans for minimum prices for drinks in the hope of reducing one of Europe’s highest levels of alcohol consumption.
|
true
|
Health News
|
A bill to be submitted to parliament later this month would set a minimum of 10 euro cents per gram of alcohol, ban cut-price marketing, restrict “happy hours” and prohibit advertising for drinks near schools, playgrounds and public transport, a health ministry statement said. Alcohol advertisements could only be broadcast after 9 p.m., it said, and would be banned from sports grounds during events where most participants are children. “Ireland needs to change its damaging attitude to alcohol,” it quoted Health Minister Leo Varadkar as saying. “Four out of ten drinkers typically engage in binge drinking.” The bill, which Varadkar said was the first in Ireland to address alcohol as a public health issue, aims to reduce average annual alcohol consumption in Ireland from one of the highest levels in Europe at 11 liters per person to 9.1 liters by 2020. The statement noted that Advocate General Yves Bot of the European Court of Justice had said in September that a similar plan in Scotland might breach European law, but said it was working with him on drawing up the Irish law. The Scotch Whisky Association and two European federations for spirits and for wines have challenged the Scottish legislation, saying it restricted the trade of drinks between Scotland and EU member states and could distort competition. Ireland’s largest business lobby group IBEC on Wednesday said the legislation failed to tackle alcohol abuse and instead penalizes responsible consumers and could threaten jobs. C&C, the largest alcoholic drinks producer listed on Ireland’s stock exchange, said it welcomed the legislation but warned that the lack of restrictions on international sporting events and media platforms might put it at a disadvantage.
|
20396
|
Rick Perry Says you need a photo ID to purchase Sudafed in Texas.
|
Rick Perry says photo ID required to purchase Sudafed in Texas
|
true
|
Elections, Legal Issues, Texas, Rick Perry,
|
"Defending the blocked Texas law requiring voters to present photo IDs at the polls, Gov. Rick Perry pointed out that similar identification is already required for some activities. In an interview with Fox News on March 16, 2012, Perry told anchor Bill Hemmer: ""It goes without saying that in today’s world, having a photo ID -- whether it’s to get on an airplane, or whether it’s to cash a check or whether it’s to check a library book out -- is pretty standard fare."" Hemmer interjected: ""Well, you need a photo ID in New York to buy Sudafed."" Chuckling, Perry replied: ""And I might add, in Texas too."" The issue was raised a few days after the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that a Texas mandate that voters present photo IDs could prevent thousands of Hispanic Texas voters from casting ballots — thus violating federal voting-rights laws. According to a March 12, 2012, Associated Press news article, the government’s objection means the Texas law, which Perry signed in 2011, cannot be enforced unless a federal court in Washington clears the way. An aside: Perry may have overstated the hurdle for library books. In December 2010, we rated a similar claim by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.after finding that libraries did not require photo IDs at checkout, though patrons of most libraries had to show a photo ID when applying for a library card. We burrowed in to see if it’s correct that Texas purchasers of Sudafed must present a photo ID. Sudafed, a decongestant, contains pseudoephedrine, which is a precursor drug to manufacturing illegal methamphetamines. A 2005 Texas law required pharmacies to make a person purchasing pills containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or nopseudoephedrine to display a driver's license or other ID containing the purchaser's photograph, as noted online by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. A legislative summary of the proposal, offering the measure’s rationale, said that in 2000, the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse reported that 1,821 people were admitted into Texas treatment centers for methamphetamine abuse; as of 2004, that number had risen to 11,238. So, case closed? Pretty much, Gay Dodson, executive director of the state pharmacy board, told us, and she pointed out by email that a federal act, also approved in 2005, includes a photo ID requirement. According to information on a Department of Justice web page, the federal law requires customers purchasing products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine to show a photo ID issued by a state or federal government. If the purchaser lacks such an ID, other types may be used, such as a U.S. passport, certain unexpired foreign passports, a school ID card with a photograph or voter registration card, among alternatives. The Texas law requires a business making an over-the-counter sale of a product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or norpseudoephedrine to make the purchaser show a driver’s license or other form of photo ID that indicates the person is 16 or older. Dodson noted, too, that legislators in 2011 amended the law to specify that the presented IDs must be government-issued. Upshot: Perry’s Sudafed statement reflects both state and federal ID requirements. It’s ."
|
29432
|
Parents should keep any eye out for drug-laced Gummy bears and ecstasy (MDMA) disguised as Halloween candy being distributed to trick-or-treaters.
|
"What's true: Some forms of Ecstasy are brightly colored and look like candy. What's false: These forms of Ecstasy are not ""new,"" they're not intended to appeal to children, and they're not likely to end up in kids' Halloween trick-or-treat bags."
|
false
|
Horrors, Contaminated Products, ecstasy, gummi bears
|
In September 2015, many Facebook users shared photographs along with warnings that the images depicted a “new shapes of Ecstasy” that “can kill kids through overdoses,” and therefore parents should be vigilant to ensure no such items turned up in their children’s trick-or-treat bags on Halloween: If your kids get these for Halloween candy, they ARE NOT CANDY!!! They are the new shapes of “Ecstasy” and can kill kids through overdoses!!! So, check your kid’s candy and “When in doubt, Throw it out!! !” Be safe and always keep the shiny side up!!! Many of the readers commenting on the photographs observed that the substance depicted appeared to be MDMA (colloquially called “ecstasy”, “X”, “E”, or “Molly” for its more potent form), a popular party drug recognized partly by its colorful and candy-like appearance: The “ecstasy in Halloween candy” warning appeared to be a variant of age-old rumors about poison (and other dangerous substances) being randomly handed out to children in trick-or-treat loot, a persistent but largely baseless fear that’s dogged Halloween celebrations for decades. Despite long-held beliefs that Halloween candy tampering is both commonplace and regularly results in harm to children, reports of actual attempts to do so are virtually non-existent (or based on half-truths). Excessive concern over colorful drugs (such as strawberry meth) either making their way into the hands of kids or being manufactured to appeal to them isn’t a new concern either: tales circulated in the 1970s claiming LSD merchants were targeting children by peddling their wares via attractive temporary tattoos. By sharp contrast, dire warnings about drugs designed with a candy-like appearance intended to “hook” kids have never come true — which stands to reason, as schoolchildren aren’t the most promising market for illicit recreational drugs. (LSD and MDMA also are largely not addictive substances.) As is often the case with such rumors, the public seemed to conflate the existence of a drug that looked child-friendly (such as blue star tattoos, pink meth, or colorful MDMA tablets) with deliberate manufacture of those substances with an intent to attract children. Prior to its September 2015 circulation on social media as a cautionary tale, the photograph of Ecstasy used here appeared primarily on blogs discussing (presumably adult) recreational drug use. An important distinction to bear in mind is that the MDMA depicted is not a new form designed to appeal to children: MDMA tablets have historically been produced with a variety of shapes and colors befitting its status as a “party drug.” Another is that recreational drugs (including MDMA) are generally expensive. The small collection of pills depicted here represents a street value of hundreds of dollars, so the notion that a neighbor would be distributing them to trick-or-treaters for no ostensible reason is rather implausible (especially given how many drug users tend to carefully guard their stashes and often won’t readily share them with friends, much less randomly-selected small children). So while the image of Ecstasy circulating on Facebook might at first appear to represent a true threat to kids on Halloween, there’s little reason to suspect Molly will be lurking in any plastic pumpkins this year. Another related rumor warned parents of the potential for deadly, drug-laced, oversized Gummy bears being handed out to unknowing children on Halloween: This warning didn’t even specify the name or type of drug that these Gummi bears supposedly harbored, but we’re pretty sure drugs that cause “brain death and/or death” have few aficionados — and even fewer repeat users. Nonetheless, on 19 October 2015, police in Jackson, Mississippi, shared the popular “warning” about MDMA in Halloween candy. That claim was subsequently aggregated to blogs and news web sites as an “urgent Halloween warning” from police (not as repetition of a dubious, ancient urban legend): Police warn if you get these in your trick-or-treat bag, they’re not candy. https://t.co/knBDVIOc48 pic.twitter.com/r3ygkWckjB — AJC (@ajc) October 21, 2015 In May 2017, a similar warning about “pink teddy bear” ecstasy tablets began spreading on Facebook: PLEASE SHOW THIS TO YOUR KIDS AND WARN THEM NOT TO TAKE THIS FROM THERE FRIENDS BECAUSE IT IS NOT CANDY!!! IT IS ECSTASY!!! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!! Once again, images of MDMA tablets were taken out of their original context and presented as a tactic used by drug dealers to entice children. The image of the tablets in a bag first appeared on MDMA-related sites in 2016 (captioned “Purple Bears w/ 180mg MDMA”) aimed not at children, but at users of the substance. In March 2017, the British Sun tabloid utilized the same “stock image” in a news story about four young teenagers hospitalized after purportedly ingesting teddy bear-shaped MDMA tablets: FOUR schoolgirls, 13, were taken to hospital after “taking teddy bear ecstasy pills” in Manchester. The youngsters swallowed the pink, “teddy bear” pills near the Civic Centre in Wythenshawe, and were admitted to hospital [in March 2017], police have said. Sky News and the BBC also covered the incident, and all reports indicated the teenagers willingly ingested the “teddy bear ecstasy” as a recreational drug (not because the unknowingly believed it to be candy).
|
39918
|
Allegedly from a Ph.D.at the University of Vermont, this warning says that the 2006 pumpkin crop in New England in the U.S. is infected with a virus that results in toxic fumes coming from the pumpkin when it is cut open. The email claims that a woman in Vermont is in a coma because of having passed out and hit her head after being overcome by pumpkin fumes. The virus is allegedly called “squash mosaic Como virus.”
|
Beware of toxic pumpkins with deadly vapors
|
false
|
Food / Drink, Household, Warnings
|
This email is a hoax. There is no deadly squash virus spreading through New England that affects the health of humans. There is no documented report of anyone being overcome by fumes or in a coma. There are viruses that affect various plants that are called comoviruses including Squash mosaic comovirus. It’s a scourge to farmers who don’t want their crops infected with it but does not result in the kinds of effects that are described in the eRumor such as toxic fumes. In fact, according to Celeste Welty, an entomologist at Ohio State (the virus is spread by insects) some farmers cash in on the infected pumpkins because the virus can cause unique designs or bumps to appear on the pumpkins, which are attractive to some customers. Last updated 10/4/06 Comments
|
31993
|
The Communist Party of the USA endorsed Hillary Clinton.
|
After it became clear in July 2016 that Clinton’s rival in the primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders, would not be the Democratic nominee, CPUSA did issue a statement urging members to vote against Trump, even if they didn’t particularly care for Clinton. The group did not, however, formally endorse Clinton, Sanders, or any other candidate in the 8 November 2016 presidential election.
|
false
|
Politics, 2016 election, 2016 presidential election, communism
|
On 3 September 2016, news and current events blog NewsBusters posted an article claiming that the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) had endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The claim was contextualized with the idea that the media at large was ignoring the story in favor of reporting on the fact that a Klansman had thrown his support behind Clinton’s (ultimately victorious) rival, Donald Trump: So with all this attention to Trump on David Duke, surely you read the news about John Bachtell, right? He endorsed Hillary and the headlines were everywhere. Oh, wait, sorry. Mr. Bachtell’s Hillary endorsement was apparently not newsy enough to make the mainstream media headlines. Curious, yes? If the endorsement of Trump by the ex-head of the Ku Klux Klan is big news, one would expect a Hillary endorsement by the head of the Communist Party USA would be a big deal as well. It may indeed have been a big deal — if it were true. CPUSA sent us a statement emphasizing that the group had not endorsed Clinton, or any other candidate: The answer to your question is NO. In 2016 CPUSA did not have any candidates on the ballot, but nevertheless it does not issue endorsements of candidates of other parties. The Communist Party does, however, encourage all Americans to participate fully in the electoral process, voting and working with their unions and other community organizations in the pursuit of the goals of protecting the environment, union rights, immigrant rights, peace, raising the minimum wage, ending police abuse of African American, Indian and Latino Americans and other social justice issues that value people before profits and address the struggles of the 99%. As proof for their claim, NewsBusters links to a piece written by CPUSA chair John Bachtell on the blog People’s World, in which he urges progressive voters to cast their ballots for the Democratic ticket and to strive to influence the prospective Clinton administration with organization and activism. It is not a formal endorsement of Clinton, but a call to vote against Trump: Some are voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein to “send a message.” Still others hope a Clinton defeat provokes a crisis in the Democratic Party leading to its break-up. Others see the danger of Trump and want to defeat him. But like Sanders supporter and RootsAction.org founder Norman Solomon, they advocate a “safe state” strategy: vote for Clinton in the battleground states to ensure she wins but vote Green Party in the solidly blue (safe) or solidly red states. This is a flawed strategy. First, like it or not, we have a two party system. One of the two major parties will win and govern. If this were a parliamentary democracy different tactics would be called for. Wall Street interests may dominate both parties but they reflect vastly different electoral coalitions and class, racial and social make up.
|
22224
|
Under a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, people on Medicare will only have $15,000 from the federal government to spend on their health care.
|
Bill Maher says GOP proposal would limit seniors to $15,000 spending under Medicare
|
false
|
National, Federal Budget, Health Care, Medicare, Pundits, Bill Maher,
|
"During the April 15, 2011, edition of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the liberal host and his ideologically diverse panel had an animated discussion about a proposal to overhaul Medicare that has been offered by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan’s plan was included in a budget resolution that passed the House on a near party-line vote earlier that day. Republicans argue that bold proposals like Ryan’s are needed to rein in rising federal debt, while Democrats counter that the Ryan’s proposal for Medicare is too radical. Here’s what Maher said. (For purposes of clarity, we’ve cut a few interjections by other panel members.) ""This Ryan plan for Medicare … is to … get rid of Medicare as we have known it, give seniors a $15,000 voucher to buy Medicare, which probably does not cover the health costs for a lot of seniors. Not to mention, what insurance company is going to want to sell insurance to a 75-year-old sick person? Well, what happens when you run out of the $15,000? You get sick and die. … ""What happens to a person, if this plan is enacted, who uses the $15,000 -- which, by the way, if they’re in an assisted living facility, they’ll go through it in three months -- what happens to them? What do they do when they use up the $15,000 by this time of the year? What happens for the rest of the year? What happens to them? What happens? I’m just asking. ... ""But this seems pretty black and and white. (What happens) if you have $15,000 to spend and you run out of the $15,000 and still have more days to live?"" A reader who watched the show asked us to check whether Maher had described the proposal accurately. So we did. We turned to Ryan’s official proposal, but we found its description too general to fully compare it to what Maher had said. So we looked instead at an April 5, 2011, analysis of Ryan’s proposal released by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO is Congress’ nonpartisan arbiter of fiscal matters. According to CBO, Ryan’s proposal would ""convert the current Medicare system to a system of premium support payments."" People who turn 65 in 2022 or later ""would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance."" (People who turn 65 before 2022 would remain in traditional Medicare.) This premium support payment is similar (though not identical) to a voucher. With the payment in hand, beneficiaries ""would choose among competing private insurance plans operating in a newly established Medicare exchange,"" CBO says. ""Those plans would have to comply with a standard for benefits set by the Office of Personnel Management. Plans would have to issue insurance to all people eligible for Medicare who applied and would have to charge the same premiums for all enrollees of the same age."" The size of the premium support payment would vary depending on the beneficiary’s health status and income. The payment for 65-year-olds in 2022 would average $8,000 -- roughly the same as the federal government currently pays for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare (when calculated by subtracting beneficiary premium payments from the government’s Medicare outlays). The payment to beneficiaries would increase annually according to the general rate of inflation and the beneficiary’s age. The premium support would be reduced for those in the top 8 percent of the annual income distribution. CBO says that the ""projected net federal spending per capita for all people age 65 and older in traditional Medicare would be about $15,000 in 2022."" That appears to be the source of Maher’s $15,000 figure. That’s an average for all Medicare beneficiaries over 65 in 2022, so there would actually be quite a bit of variation in the amount paid to various beneficiaries. But that's not the basis for our ruling. Our takeaway from Maher’s comments is that he believes the elderly would have $15,000 to spend on health care overall, and if that money were to run out, they’d be out of luck. As Maher put it, what would happen ""if you have $15,000 to spend and you run out of the $15,000 and still have more days to live?"" Problem is, that’s not an accurate portrayal of how Ryan’s plan would work. The average Medicare beneficiary in 2022 wouldn’t have $15,000 to spend on all health-care-related expenses. They’d be given $15,000 to purchase a health insurance plan. That plan, in turn, would pay at least part of their medical bills. That plan might have limits and co-pays and deductibles -- as current Medicare does -- but the money the plan could spend on any given beneficiary’s health expenses would not be capped at $15,000 per year. The $15,000 limit only refers to what the government will pay for the insurance plan itself. We don’t take a position on whether the Ryan prescription for Medicare is good or bad policy. There’s a debate to be had, for instance, over whether $15,000 will be enough to purchase a good insurance plan for Medicare beneficiaries, who are older and sicker, on average, than Americans as a whole. And according to CBO, the typical 65-year-old would be responsible for a bigger share of costs -- including premiums, deductibles and co-payments -- under Ryan’s plan than under traditional Medicare, due to such factors as higher administrative costs (including profits) for private plans and a slower increase in the government’s contribution over time than the rate at which medical costs increase. Still, we think that Maher’s basic description of what Ryan’s proposal would do -- which was essentially unchallenged by his fellow panelists -- misleads viewers who are unfamiliar with Ryan’s proposal."
|
10305
|
Stem Cells and Weakened Hearts
|
"CBS claimed an “exclusive” with this report on the “first person ever to get an infusion of his own heart stem cells” to try to avoid future problems after a heart attack. OK, they had the exclusive report that the procedure was done. But they didn’t make clear that: There is currently nothing known about the benefits of this approach in people. That simply wasn’t emphasized in the story. Instead, it was referred to as a ""cutting edge"" clinical trial. Are there non-cutting-edge clinical trials? It was called a ""major advance."" It was called a ""trailblazing procedure."" But the onscreen graphic continuously trumpeted it as a ""CBS Evening News Exclusive."" The segment was clear that this treatment is experimental, but the failure to discuss potential risks, potential harms, costs involved, and current treatment options available to patients were huge omissions. For anyone who really wants to learn about this area of research, the National Institutes of Health has a website describing the current state of the art. It contains questions we wish the CBS segment had explored, such as (excerpt follows): ""What are the implications for extending the research on differentiated growth of replacement tissues for damaged hearts? There are some practical aspects of producing a sufficient number of cells for clinical application. The repair of one damaged human heart would likely require millions of cells. The unique capacity for embryonic stem cells to replicate in culture may give them an advantage over adult stem cells by providing large numbers of replacement cells in tissue culture for transplantation purposes. Given the current state of the science, it is unclear how adult stem cells could be used to generate sufficient heart muscle outside the body to meet patients’ demand. Although there is much excitement because researchers now know that adult and embryonic stem cells can repair damaged heart tissue, many questions remain to be answered before clinical applications can be made. For example, how long will the replacement cells continue to function? Do the rodent research models accurately reflect human heart conditions and transplantation responses? Do these new replacement cardiomyocytes derived from stem cells have the electrical-signal-conducting capabilities of native cardiac muscle cells?"""
|
false
|
"There was no estimate for the costs involved for this approach. While it is in its early stages of investigation, since the story closed with a quote ""If this works, it’s going to help so many people. "", it is worth some discussion about some of the costs involved. There is currently nothing known about the benefits of this experimental approach. That simply wasn’t emphasized in the story. Although the procedure involves two heart catheterization procedures, there was no discussion of possible harms. In addition to the risks associated with the catheterizations, what are the risks of injecting heart stem cells primed to grow? Will they stay put in the heart or is there a chance that they will migrate to other parts of the body, laying down muscle and vasculature where it doesn’t belong? Will the cells in the heart result in structural changes that will increase the risk of other cardiac problems? We don’t know and the report failed to raise this issue of uncertainty. The current trial, a phase I clinical trial, is designed to determine whether this treatment is safe. That was never mentioned in the segment, which instead focused on the hope of benefit. There was some discussion that it would be six months before they know if repair to the heart damage due the heart attack had taken place. It would have been helpful to focus the viewer on the fact that although this may appear to be an interesting possibility for treatment – there is currently no evidence that it works. While one can be hopeful that it works out for the featured patient, it is too early to know whether he will gain anything from undergoing the experiment. The story stated, ""Every year, more than a million Americans have a heart attack, and those who survive often live on with scarred or weakened hearts."" The implication of that — and of the patient profiled who was ""freaked out"" – suggests that all should live in fear of this ongoing threat. Though the segment included a patient and clinician involved in the trial, there were no independent experts to comment on the potential value of the treatment being investigated. An important omission from this story was information that there are actually treatments currently and widely available that improve the life expectancy and quality of life for individuals who have had a heart attack. The segment was clear that this is an experimental approach. It included interview material with the first patient. However – the segment failed to inform viewers that this experiment is currently a phase I trial, meaning that it is currently under investigation to evaluate safety. It is important for consumers to understand that not all clinical trials are the same. Although the segment appeared to be enthusiastic about this procedure, it did not include information about where viewers could go to learn more about the trial or even that the trial is still recruiting participants. If TV is going to cover such early research, at least it could refer people to a website for more information. (For more details: www.clinicaltrials.gov; this is the CADUCEUS trial, which NCT00893360.) The story was clear that this is a new experimental approach to the treatment of problems resulting from a heart attack. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release."
|
|
9787
|
Vitamin A may slash melanoma risk
|
Using language like this is simply not appropriate nor accurate to describe the findings from an observational study: “slash risk”…”reduce the risk”…”reduced risk was more pronounced in women than in men”…”protective effect”…”melanoma risk was reduced the most” When, oh when, will such news organizations become aware of and follow our carefully-prepared guidelines on the importance of language in describing such studies? We email someone from each news organization whenever one of their stories is reviewed. Anyone listening at MSNBC.com? Stories like this may simply become part of the background noise that overwhelms news consumers in the daily drumbeat of health care news coverage. That’s why this matters.
|
true
|
melanoma,vitamins
|
Not applicable. The cost of Vitamin A is not in question, although the amount we collectively spend on supplements — most of which are probably unnecessary — is substantial. At least in clearly describing the study’s findings, the story spelled out the absolute numbers: Among the 59,000 people in the study who had never taken vitamin A supplements, there were 506 cases of melanoma, while among the 5,800 people who were currently taking it and had used it regularly over the past 10 years, there were 28 cases. Providing these data as a percentage in addition may have helped some people interpret them, though. The story included the caution “that taking too much vitamin A could lead to such harmful conditions as birth defects, liver problems and bone loss. As mentioned in the summary above, the story didn’t include one caveat about the limitations of drawing conclusions from observational studies. No disease-mongering about melanoma. A dermatologist not involved in the study was quoted. The story discussed Vitamin A supplements and foods containing the vitamin. And from a risk perspective, the story noted: Reducing sunlight exposure has long been recommended to reduce the risk of melanoma. This includes limiting time in direct sunlight, wearing sun block and avoiding tanning beds. Unfortunately, not all melanoma is a result of sun exposure. There is also a strong genetic component. The availability of Vitamin A from different sources was clear in the story There wasn’t enough context provided about where this study fits into the overall picture of past/other research on this topic in this field. Because of the independent perspective provided, we think the story showed it did not rely solely on a news release.
|
11074
|
TGen identifies drug that could limit the spread of deadly brain tumors
|
This news release describes the discovery of propentofylline, a drug that researchers claim could help patients with brain tumors. But there’s no justification for calling this test of a drug on brain tumor cells in a lab dish “a significant breakthrough.” Because of the murky wording of the release, and the many mentions of potential benefits to patients, as well as references to clinical trials (without being clear that those trials involved patients with Alzheimer’s and other diseases, not brain tumors), readers may not realize that the number of patients in this trial was exactly zero. The release also miscasts the threat posed by glioblastoma multiforme. It calls the disease the most common primary tumor of the brain and central nervous system and warns that “it affects people of all ages,” without noting that the disease is diagnosed in only about 2 or 3 people per 100,000 population each year, or only about 1 percent of all cancer cases. Glioblastoma multiforme is a devastating disease with little in the way of effective treatments. It is for this very reason that reports of potential new approaches should be measured and free of hyperbole and false hope. Most people are unaware just how few experimental drugs that show encouraging results in laboratory tests eventually show they can help real patients. While the results of this cell culture test may be worth investigating further, it is far too early to crow about potential benefits to patients.
|
false
|
Foundation/nonprofit news release,Independent research center news release
|
Even though propentofylline, the drug being studied, is not FDA approved for use in people, the release could have easily included some basic price information since the drug is currently sold for use in elderly dogs in many countries. One online pharmacy quotes a price of $67 for sixty 100 mg tablets tablets. Of course, the price would likely be higher for a drug that meets FDA standards for human use. The release is riddled with suggestions — but no specifics — of potential benefits. Some examples: The release is explicitly silent on the fact that the research was confined to the laboratory and did not involve patients. Not only does the release fail to mention any potential harms, it dismisses such concerns with a quote about “minimal side effects.” Readers would be forgiven for not realizing this study was done only on cells in a lab, not real patients, since that fundamental fact is glossed over in the release. The release calls glioblastoma multiforme “the most common primary tumor of the brain and central nervous system,” without noting how rare brain tumors are. The release should have noted that glioblastoma multiforme is diagnosed in about 22,000 people in the United States each year, accounting for barely more than 1 percent of all cancer cases. Glioblastoma multiforme kills about 15,000 people in the U.S. annually, representing about 2-1/2% percent of the total deaths attributed to cancers of all types. This type of tumor is indeed usually life threatening, but this news release misleads readers when it uses the term “common” without providing the full picture. The release notes that the research was funded by the Ben & Catherine IVY Foundation and NIH grants. While there are no truly effective treatments for glioblastoma multiforme, in this case it would have been helpful to compare this experimental approach to others being studied. In particular, the release could have noted that gene therapy, therapeutic vaccines, radio-labeled drugs and antibodies are also being tested, including tests in patients, an important contrast to this study, which was just a cell culture test. Although the release is clear that this approach is experimental, by failing to clearly point out the fact that the drug has yet to be tested in a single glioblastoma multiforme patient, it obscures just how preliminary and tentative these results are.The release gives the reader the false impression that PPF has already been approved for this purpose with this statement: “An advantage of small-molecule PPF — which has been previously used in clinical trials in an attempt to treat Alzheimer’s disease and dementia — is that it can penetrate the blood-brain barrier and reach the tumor. And, the FDA has already approved it.” The release fails to note that other researchers have previously released similar findings based on tests on propentofylline in rats and cell culture. Propentofylline decreases tumor growth in a rodent model of glioblastoma multiforme by a direct mechanism on microglia. Propentofylline Targets TROY, a Novel Microglial Signaling Pathway Calling this lab test “a significant breakthrough” misleads readers. Quotes and text throughout the release refer to potential benefits to patients even though this test was done in cell cultures. The actual effects in patients with glioblastoma multiforme are unknown.
|
14179
|
The Obama administration has even joined Islamist governments in sponsoring a U.N. resolution that would shred our First Amendment by threatening to make discussion of radical Islamism potentially illegal.
|
"Sen. Ted Cruz said that the Obama administration has ""joined Islamist governments in sponsoring a U.N. resolution that would shred our First Amendment by threatening to make discussion of radical Islamism potentially illegal."" The United States in 2011 voted in support of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which promotes religious tolerance. That approval only came after the U.S. and its western allies successfully negotiated to have language criminalizing blasphemy dropped from the resolution to ensure it comports with free speech rights and the First Amendment. Cruz’s interpretation of the resolution’s wording, one expert said, more closely resembles that of Islamist governments than the Obama administration."
|
false
|
Terrorism, Texas, Ted Cruz,
|
"In an email to supporters March 28, 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas criticized the Obama administration’s approach to fighting terrorism. The email, with the subject ""If I Am Elected President, America Will Have a Commander-in-Chief Committed to Defeating Radical Islamic Terrorism,"" reprinted a Cruz op-ed column published that day in the New York Daily News. Cruz wrote the op-ed after New York City Police Chief William Bratton criticized his call to monitor Muslim neighborhoods in the aftermath of the Brussels terrorist attacks. Cruz, who since has dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for president, defended his plan to monitor Muslim neighborhoods by citing the Brussels neighborhood of Molenbeek, which has been connected to the architects of the Brussels attack. Then, he turned to President Barack Obama’s approach to terrorism and the differences between their two philosophies: fighting ""radical Islamic terrorism"" as Cruz and other Republicans call it, or fighting extremist groups, as Obama has clarified. ""In the wake of 9/11, there was a broad consensus in favor of a common-sense domestic counterterrorism strategy,"" Cruz wrote. ""But over the last seven years, the focus on protecting the homeland has been lost. The Obama administration has even joined Islamist governments in sponsoring a U.N. resolution that would shred our First Amendment by threatening to make discussion of radical Islamism potentially illegal."" It’s no secret Cruz and Obama disagree on what to call terrorists. But is it true the Obama administration ""joined Islamist governments"" to sponsor a United Nations resolution to ""make discussion of radical Islamism"" illegal in contravention of the First Amendment? U.N. resolution The Cruz campaign did not answer our queries about the basis of his U.N. claim, but Josh Greenman, opinion editor for the Daily News, replied by email that Cruz’s statement reflected the senator’s ""interpretation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18."" The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted that resolution in March 2011 with the purpose of ""combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief."" The resolution promotes religious tolerance and calls on member states to ensure proper representation of religious minorities. The resolution was a compromise, reached in 2011 after more than a decade of negotiations. In 1999, Muslim states, through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, began introducing resolutions intended to combat what they saw as the defamation of religion, often through the criminalization of blasphemy. Western states opposed the proposals, arguing they interfered with free speech. By 2011, the different parties agreed to modify the resolution to drop any references to blasphemy or defamation. The resolution passed unanimously after that compromise. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it a ""landmark achievement."" PunditFact checked a statement related to Resolution 16/18 on Jan. 14, 2015. PunditFact found a claim that the Obama administration, through the resolution, supported Muslim allies trying to establish an international blasphemy standard. One clause in the resolution supported that claim: In a list of ""actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect,"" the resolution calls on states to adopt ""measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief."" To defend the United States’ ability to support a resolution with that language without violating its Constitution, PunditFact reported, State Department officials Michael Posner and Suzan Johnson Cook cited a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. In its ruling, the high court held that all speech is protected ""except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."" Therefore, the State Department officials said, the resolution language was in line with U.S. law. PunditFact determined that negotiating with Muslim allies to tone down language on blasphemy and defamation laws did not equate to supporting their cause. However, the resolution language that leaves a door open to criminalization -- an interpretation some Muslim countries have insisted is the correct reading of the agreement. Cruz goes further Cruz’s claim is more extreme than the one PunditFact checked in 2015. Cruz says that the same resolution could ""shred our First Amendment"" and threaten to make discussion of radical Islamic terrorism illegal. A web search for experts on Muslim states and the U.N. led us to Turan Kayaoglu, an associate professor at the University of Washington Tacoma who studies the intersection of religion, human rights and international relations. Kayaoglu stressed that no U.N. resolution could in any way threaten the United States’ First Amendment. Whenever the United States signs an international document, Kayaoglu said by telephone, it insists on restrictions to exclude anything that would infringe on First Amendment rights. Kayaoglu said this insistence goes back to 1966’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a landmark agreement on international human rights that the United States also worked to ensure would not supercede its Constitution. As for the other portion of Cruz’s claim, Kayaoglu emphasized that Islamic countries attempted to criminalize blasphemy, or hate speech, through Resolution 16/18, which the U.S., European Union and other actors rejected, as explored by PunditFact. By claiming that the resolution would ""make discussion of radical Islamic terrorism illegal,"" Kayaoglu said, Cruz is interpreting the resolution in the same way as Islamic states, rather than through the understanding emphasized by the U.S. and E.U. When member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation attempt to criminalize blasphemy, they usually are focused on ""things like defaming Muhammad,"" Kayaoglu said. Blasphemy laws could extend to discussion of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups. Or, as Cruz calls it, ""radical Islamism."" ""In an interesting way, what Sen. Cruz is believing, is he’s following the interpretation of Islamist governments that’s been rejected repeatedly by the Obama administration and other European governments,"" Kayaoglu said. When the resolution passed in 2011, Clinton, then secretary of state, offered the United States’ interpretation of the agreement: ""The United States strongly supports today’s resolution, which rejects the broad prohibitions on speech called for in the former ‘defamation of religions’ resolution, and supports approaches that do not limit freedom of expression or infringe on the freedom of religion,"" she said. Our ruling Sen. Ted Cruz said that the Obama administration has ""joined Islamist governments in sponsoring a U.N. resolution that would shred our First Amendment by threatening to make discussion of radical Islamism potentially illegal."" The United States in 2011 voted in support of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which promotes religious tolerance. That approval only came after the U.S. and its western allies successfully negotiated to have language criminalizing blasphemy dropped from the resolution to ensure it comports with free speech rights and the First Amendment. Cruz’s interpretation of the resolution’s wording, one expert said, more closely resembles that of Islamist governments than the Obama administration. PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."
|
5817
|
Ocean changes affected deadly duo of Mozambique cyclones.
|
Warming waters and rising sea levels are affecting Indian Ocean cyclones such as those that have wrought havoc in Mozambique in recent weeks, making them potentially more deadly.
|
true
|
Climate, Climate change, International News, Rising sea levels, Oceans, Africa, Mozambique, Science, Indian Ocean
|
But experts caution it is premature to say whether the unprecedented double-whammy of storms to hit the southern African nation is a consequence of climate change, and whether these cyclones will become more common. Cyclone Idai, which swamped large parts of central Mozambique last month, killed over 600 people and displaced thousands. Cyclone Kenneth made landfall Thursday evening in the north of the country where no such storm has been recorded since satellite observations began in the 1970s. “There is no record of two storms of such intensity striking Mozambique in the same season,” said Clare Nullis, a spokeswoman for the World Meteorological Organization. “It is difficult to pronounce on one event like Idai, or even two like Idai and Kenneth. The statistical size of the sample is just too small,” she said. “But one thing is sure: The vulnerability of coastal areas will become worse with the sea-level rise induced by global warming.” Inland areas, too, are at risk because storms are getting wetter. Kenneth, which has weakened to a tropical depression, is expected to bring heavy rainfall to already saturated soil and dams at the end of the rainy season. “While attention is often given to wind speed, we know from experience that it is rainfall — and subsequent flooding and landslides — that can be even more dangerous from a humanitarian perspective,” said Antonio Carabante, an emergency relief delegate with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. “This was certainly the case for Cyclone Idai,” Carabante said, adding that many affected areas are prone to flooding and landslides even with normal levels of rainfall. “And this is far from a normal situation.” Such conditions can be particularly devastating for developing countries like Mozambique and neighboring Malawi and Zimbabwe, all hit by Cyclone Idai, where food stores can be quickly depleted in a disaster and the health care system struggles to cope with a sudden disease outbreak like cholera. “Cyclone Kenneth may require a major new humanitarian operation at the same time that the ongoing Cyclone Idai response targeting 3 million people in three countries remains critically underfunded,” said the U.N.’s emergency relief coordinator, Mark Lowcock, who described the situation as a “climate-related disaster.” Abubakr Salih Babiker, a meteorologist at the Nairobi-based Intergovernmental Authority on Development, said there are indications that tropical cyclones are becoming more common off East Africa as rising sea surface temperatures are a key ingredient for cyclones to form. “There’s a pattern here,” he said, citing recent violent storms from Somalia in the Horn of Africa down to Mozambique. “What used to be rare is not rare anymore.” And just as warmer seas are helping spark cyclones, hotter air is feeding the resulting rainfall, Salih Babiker said. “If the air is warmer, it has more ability to hold moisture.” The World Meteorological Organization said this year’s cyclone season in the southwest Indian Ocean has been exceptionally intense, with 15 storms including nine intense cyclones. It is now tied with the record season of 1993-1994. Nullis said the agency is sending an expert delegation to Mozambique to discuss with the government how to improve its resilience to extreme weather. Long and narrow with a 2,400-kilometer (1,500-mile) Indian Ocean coastline, the country is one of the world’s most vulnerable to global warming.
|
24404
|
"A data-storing microchip ""would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option."
|
Chain e-mail says those on public option will have to get microchip implant
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Privacy Issues, Chain email,
|
"It's a recipe for a great conspiracy theory: a big health care bill, an effort to centralize medical records and a new microchip that can be implanted under your skin. Just add outrage and stir! A chain e-mail warns darkly that an ""implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information"" would be ""implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option"" -- the government-run insurance plan designed as an affordable option for people who are uninsured or whose employers don't offer health coverage. The chip would ""collect data in medical patients,"" including ""claims data"" and ""electronic health records."" Americans, the e-mail continues, would likely flock to the the public option. This would mean that ""the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company [sic] may not survive."" This seems on its face to be so ridiculous that we wondered if it was satire. But we couldn't find its origins. Meanwhile, the e-mail is making the rounds (it was sent to us by a reader who wondered whether it's true) and we found it posted on dozens of blogs, so we decided to examine it. First, let's get out of the way the one grain of truth in the claim -- a rice-sized grain, to be precise. A company called PositiveID, which has its headquarters in Delray Beach, Fla., sells a small microchip that can be implanted under the skin for identification purposes. It can be read from a few inches away by a handheld scanner. The company began working on its product in December 2001, and by October 2004, it had received the Food and Drug Administration's approval to insert the device into patients. According to the company, a few hospitals have ""agreed to use the technology in their emergency departments."" Unlike the way the chip was described in the chain e-mail, the device provides only an identification number and does not, by itself, store health data. Instead, a medical provider would be able to access the person's medical records by scanning the device's unique number and using it to connect to the company's ""secure, private online database,"" which includes the person's health records. The device ""is always with you and cannot be lost or stolen,"" the company's Web site says. ""It provides emergency room doctors and nurses with your vital medical and emergency contact information, allowing them to treat you rapidly, accurately and safely during an emergency."" The company adds that the microchip does not contain ""any Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capabilities. And unlike conventional forms of identification, [it] cannot be lost, stolen, misplaced, or counterfeited. It is safe, secure, reversible, and always with you."" Now, this chip is probably not everyone's cup of tea. But lawmakers understand that reality and have not -- repeat, not -- required participants in the public option to sign up for insertion. Not even close. Indeed, as with a number of claims in chain e-mails we've reviewed relating to this year's congressional health care bills, the chain e-mail stitches together disparate words and phrases from the Senate and House health care bills to distort the truth. The bill produced by three House committees, H.R. 3200, included a provision to create a National Medical Device Registry, which would centralize data on medical devices (from pacemakers to artificial limbs) so that experts and the public could analyze how safe and effective different kinds of medical devices are. The bill decreed that items the FDA classifies as Class III — the 10 percent of devices that, according to the FDA, ""sustain or support life, are implanted, or present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury"" -- would be included in the registry, as would any Class II device (a category of less-complex items accounting for 43 percent of all devices) ""that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining."" And that's where the red-flag word ""implantable"" popped up in the bill. Lots of medical devices are ""implantable"" -- think of heart stents, artificial knees and dental fillings. But microchips make for a good conspiracy theory, so the e-mail focuses on them. Even if microchips had somehow been the target of that line in the bill -- and they're not -- the provision in question, which doesn't appear in the Senate bill, only talks about creating a database that keeps tabs on devices that have already been implanted in people. It says nothing whatsoever about requiring implantation ""in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option."" That part is fiction, pure and simple. Here's an odd postscript. As the final House version (H.R. 3962) approached a vote by the full chamber, the term ""implantable"" was removed from that section. It's not clear why the change was made, but the chain e-mail now has even less credibility than it did before (if that's possible). So add this one to the list of silly, discredited claims about the health bill. It's so ridiculously wrong, we rule it ."
|
10071
|
Shots more effective than FluMist in adults
|
First, we acknowledge that the version of the AP story that we found in the Charlotte Observer was less than half the length (327 words) of the AP story as we found it in other newspapers (734 words). So the reporter clearly did a lot more work than what was seen in the Charlotte paper. This is a troubling practice that we've written about elsewhere on the site. Nonetheless, the article accurately summarizes the availability of flu vaccines and the primary results of the new study in the New England Journal of Medicine — the proportion of children protected from the flu by each of two tested vaccines (i.e. the vaccines’ absolute efficacy). However, the story could provide more information to help readers judge the meaning of these results, the novelty of the “new” live, inhaled vaccine, its potential harms and costs, the overall quality of the research, potential conflicts among the story’s sources, and other health measures readers can take to prevent the flu. The AP report omits mention of costs—a significant feature of any major public health initiative. It’s unfortunate that the article fails to put the data on vaccine efficacy into a meaningful context. To begin with, the advantage of the killed vaccine shots over the live FluMist vaccine was not statistically significant. But the fact the shots were just as good as the inhaled vaccine was surprising. The researchers note that the main virus they were concerned about (type A) had changed or “drifted” from the strain that was in the vaccine. Earlier studies had led them to expect that the inactivated vaccine shots would be less effective in this situation. Instead, the shots and nasal spraywere very effective (74% each, according to the new study). The killed virus was also very effective against two strains of type B virus. More information on potential harms might also allay fears associated with live vaccines. Side effects described in the New England Journal of Medicine study were mostly minor–runny nose, headache, cough, and muscle aches among those receiving the live nasal spray vaccine and sore arms among those receiving the shots. The study authors attributed one serious complication to the live (nasal) vaccine—acute pericarditis, or inflammation around the heart and major vessels—a problem that required hospitalization. A little more information about the story’s sources would also help readers assess the new research. The story (as it appeared in the Charlotte paper) quotes a single university-based vaccine expert, but does not state whether he has any potential conflicts of interest. The story fails to note that two researchers received consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies–including MedImmune, which manufactures the FluMist inhaled vaccine in partnership with the researchers’ employer, the University of Michigan. Finally, the AP report misses an opportunity to explain other measures people can take to prevent the flu. In addition to vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend several (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm). These include using antiviral drugs and good health habits (e.g. avoid close contact; stay home when sick, cover your mouth and nose; clean your hands; avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth). It would be unfortunate if readers took away the message that flu prevention is not very effective or that a shot (or snort) has little value for the healthier members of a flu-prone community. What did the reporter put in the longer version of his story that you didn't read in the Charlotte paper? Quotes from two other physician-researchers. Caveats about interpreting the study results. Information from another flu study that appeared in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Information from an editorial in that journal. Information on the age groups approved for use of FluMist. Information on the number of flu deaths (36,000) and hospitalizations (200,000/yr.) from the flu. In other words, you missed a lot. So this is more of a review of the editing done by the Charlotte newspaper that picked up the story off the wire than it is of the work of the original AP reporter.
|
mixture
|
"The article omits mention of costs, an important public health issue. A flu shot costs about $11, whereas FluMist costs about $20. Even though equally effective in preventing the onset of flu, FluMist is less efficient than the flu shot. The AP story accurately reports the proportion of children who benefited from either the inhaled vaccine or shots, i.e. the “absolute efficacy” of the two vaccinations. Although the inactivated vaccine appeared to be more effective, the difference was not significant. The story states in closing that the two methods were similarly effective in preventing type A flu, the historically more common strain. But the headline is confusing and misleading. The AP report provides no details on potential harms. The New England Journal of Medicine study reported mostly minor side effects of the vaccines and one serious complication attributed to the nasal spray—hospitalization for acute inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart and great vessels (acute pericarditis). It's also worth noting that pericarditis has also been reported (rarely) with the inactivated vaccine. The article summarizes the effectiveness of each vaccine in clear, accurate language, but omits important information that would help readers interpret the meaning of these numbers. For starters, the advantage of the shots over the live FluMist vaccine was not statistically significant. But the fact the shots were just as good as the inhaled vaccine was surprising, the researchers note, because the main virus they were concerned about (type A) had changed from the strain that was in the vaccine. Earlier research had led experts to expect that the inactivated vaccine shots would be less effective in this situation. Instead, it was very effective. The killed virus was also very effective against two strains of type B virus that were circulating during the flu season they studied. The news story also neglects to mention methodological strengths of the new study—e.g. that the large trial was randomized and that both the patients and researchers were blinded to the treatment the patients received. There are no obvious elements of disease mongering. This story includes a quote from a single university-based vaccine expert, but it does not state whether he has any potential conflicts of interest. The story fails to note that two researchers received consulting fees from one or more pharmaceutical companies–including MedImmune, which manufactures the FluMist inhaled vaccine in partnership with the researchers’ employer, the University of Michigan. The story does not state whether there are any intrinsic advantages or disadvantages to the “new” vaccine. It also fails to note that FluMist is not approved for use in high-risk patients. Nor does it describe other actions people can take to prevent the flu. In addition to vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend several measures (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm). The AP report notes that FluMist was approved in 2003. Most readers will be familiar with flu shots and capable of determining their availability. The story said that FluMist was ""new,"" approved by the FDA in 2003. No obvious reliance on a press release."
|
|
28804
|
A list tallies some of the good deeds accomplished by Donald Trump.
|
A list tallies some of the good deeds credited to Donald Trump. How accurate is it?
|
mixture
|
Politics Politicians, donald trump
|
In July 2016, an image listing some of the good deeds accomplished by Donald Trump was widely circulated on social media as a response to criticisms that that the Republican presidential candidate was racist, sexist or elitist: Here is our examination of the claims contained within that image: POSSIBLY TRUE: Donald Trump sheltered Jennifer Hudson rent-free after her family was murdered. Tragedy struck the family of Jennifer Hudson in October 2008, when her mother, brother, were murdered, whereupon the Oscar-winning actress returned home to Chicago and took a room at the Trump International Hotel Tower. According to contemporaneous reports, Trump offered up a hotel suite to Hudson and her family and picked up their tab for their stay. However, all such reports stemmed from a single source, a statement Trump himself made to People magazine; given Trump’s penchant for exaggeration and self-promotion, we wouldn’t put this one in the “TRUE” column without additional confirmation. MIXTURE: Donald Trump sued the City of Palm Beach when he bought a segregated club, Mar A Lago, to open it to Jews & blacks. The battle between Donald Trump and the City of Palm Beach over the Mar-A-Lago estate is a long and complicated one, beginning with Trump’s claim that he drove the price of the estate down by threatening to block its beachfront view: Trump wanted [Mar-A-Lago] to be his. So, according to Trump, when his first offer of $28 million was turned down, he decided to play hardball. He said he bought the beachfront property directly in front of it through a third party and threatened to put up a hideous home to block its ocean view, he recalled in the interview. “That was my first wall,” he said. “That drove everybody nuts. They couldn’t sell the big house because I owned the beach, so the price kept going down and down.” In the end, Trump bought the landmark in 1985 for a bargain, paying $5 million for the house and $3 million for [its] antiques and lavish furnishings. Trump had Mar-a-Lago’s hedge on South Ocean Drive chopped down to ensure passersby could see his castle. But Trump didn’t literally buy a “segregated club,” as when he purchased Mar-a-Lago in 1985 it was a private estate and not a club. It wasn’t until the 1990s that Trump sought to convert the property into a private club, whereupon the town council imposed a series of restrictions upon his plans. Those restrictions didn’t require that Trump operate a segregated club; rather, Trump battled those restrictions, in part, by making the point that it was unseemly for the town to impose greater restrictions upon his plans to open an integrated club than they did upon existing segregated clubs: The town council, seeing Trump as an ostentatious outsider, handed him a list of restrictions as he sought to transform the property in the 1990s. Membership, traffic, party attendance, even photography — all would be strictly limited. But Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one. Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: A Gentleman’s Agreement, about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance. The move infuriated council members, who said it was a distraction from their concerns that Trump’s club would spoil a quiet street. But, in time, Trump got most of the restrictions lifted. “He won in the court of public opinion,” said Jack McDonald, who was a council member at the time and who went on to be mayor and to join Mar-a-Lago. Town council member Allen Wyett opined that Trump’s nondiscriminatory policy at the club was more of a business decision than a social one: Wyett, who is Jewish, said he would hear Trump talk with pride about Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy, but wondered if it was a business strategy: “Was he smart enough to realize that Palm Beach is about 40 percent Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?” MIXTURE: Donald Trump paid to ensure a Mexican-American boy would graduate from college when he saw a news story about his terminally ill mom. This statement about Trump and a Mexican-American boy refers to Melissa Young, a former beauty pageant contestant and Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005, who told Trump during a campaign stop on 30 March 2016 that she was suffering from a terminal illness. Although Young later thanked Trump for his support and said that he had enabled her young Mexican-American son to go to college, she was referring to donations made through Fundanything.com, a Kickstarter-like crowdfunding site launched by Trump, and not a personal contribution from the candidate: As my body is getting weaker, I am unsettled by the fact that I have never been able to directly thank you. Because of you and your efforts, my son Jack who is Mexican-American, has a chance at a better future and a solid education. You and the Miss USA pageant played a tremendous role in my life. About 3 years ago, Chelsea was in NYC and attended one of your many functions at Trump Tower, where you debuted FundAnything.com. This turned out to be a life changing event for my son and I. I am forever indebted to you. During the site’s launch Trump reportedly promised he would fully fund some FundAnything projects himself, but we found nothing indicating he had personally funded Young’s endeavor. TRUE: Donald Trump dispatched his plane to fly a sick Jewish boy for special care when he heard no airline would accommodate his medical equipment. This statement refers to an incident that occurred in 1988, when 3-year-old Andrew Ten and his parents could not get a flight from California to New York for seek medical treatment for the boy. When Andrew’s parents asked to use Trump’s private jet, the Republican Presidential candidate reportedly said “yes, I’ll send my plane out,” without hesitation. A more in-depth examination of this story was published as a separate article on this site. TRUE: Donald Trump sent $10,000 to hero bus driver Darnell Barton after seeing a news story about how he saved a woman from jumping off a bridge. In November 2013, bus driver Darnell Barton took a detour from his normal route in order to stop a woman from jumping off an overpass. Trump said he was moved by the gesture and promised to reward Barton with a $10,000 check: According to the Buffalo News, Trump followed through on his promise, and on 7 November 2013 Mayor Byron W. Brown delivered a check for $10,000 from the real estate mogul to Barton at a City Hall ceremony: Donald J. Trump wasn’t there himself. But in the well-appointed office of Mayor Byron W. Brown, a check for $10,000 from the real estate mogul was presented to the hero bus driver who brought a woman on the brink of suicide to safety. “Although I know to you it was just a warm-hearted first response to a dangerous situation,” Trump wrote to Darnell J. Barton, “your quick thinking resulted in a life being saved, and for that you should be rewarded.” TRUE: Donald Trump gave the job of constructing Trump Tower to Barbara Res, making her the 1st woman to build a skyscraper. Donald Trump did assign Barbara Res a role as vice president in charge of construction of Trump Tower, and she became the first woman credited with leading a skyscraper project (although Res suggested that one of the reasons Trump chose her was for the publicity value her hiring would generate): There were bragging rights that came with hiring her, (Res) says, and Trump “was quoted lots of places saying he’d hired the first woman to build a big skyscraper.” There were publicity bursts too, like the cover of Savvy Woman, with its very pre-Clarence-Thomas-hearing photos of women executives posing in some fairly unexecutive-like ways. In a February 2016 New York Daily News opinion piece, Res offered that Trump was not a pleasant person to work for, but that whatever his (apparent) outward failings might be, he was fair in his hiring of women when he thought they were best qualified for the job at hand: Donald Trump has been telling voters he is not a sexist, does not discriminate against women and will be “great for women” as President. As proof of this, he points to his hiring of a woman to oversee the construction of Trump Tower in 1980, when there were a very few women in construction. I was that woman. My view on his statement, and his candidacy more generally, in light of my experiences working directly for him and his then-wife Ivana: Even though he just went out of his way to repeat a pejorative reference to female anatomy to describe Ted Cruz, Trump is not as bad as he sounds. But he’s a lot worse than he says. Trump will tell you that everyone likes him. This is not the case. He can be very charming and ingratiating, but he is not nice. In my experience, he is nasty to the people who work for him. He can be very abusive and curt. He has an incredible temper and he lashes out at everyone, including [his daughter] Ivana. He has his fixed idea of how women work. He also used to have fixed ideas about certain nationalities, such as who are the best with money, who are the sternest masters, who are the cleanest. Just reflecting society — he profiled, but didn’t discriminate. He would always hire the person he thought was best without regard to gender. I know I never got a break like the one I got from Donald. Every employer I have ever worked for has considered me in terms of my gender. I would say that in that way, Trump was the best of them. He leered at attractive female employees. Yet I would call him more of a womanizer than a sexist, sort of like Bill Clinton. Trump says he loves women and I suspect he does, in his own way. But his public denigration of women and his association with objectifying activities like Playboy and pageants have the overall effect of blunting any assertion that he is not sexist, regardless of how many women Trump has hired.
|
14697
|
Anyone can die of a toothache.
|
"Cortes said, ""Anyone can die of a toothache."" It’s not so much that you’ll die of pain, of course, but dentists and research confirm that an untreated abscess can infect other parts of the body, either through the bones or the bloodstream. Most people won’t die from a toothache, but it’s a condition that if left untreated can lead to the worst: a fatal result."
|
true
|
Health Care, Medicaid, Florida, John Cortes,
|
"State Rep. John Cortes, D-Kissimmee, made a biting claim about the consequences of poor dental care during debate on a bill that would change the rules for Medicaid coverage. HB 819 is backed by MCNA, a Fort Lauderdale dental benefits company that lost its Medicaid contracts with the state after the 2011 switch to mandatory managed care. The bill allows the Legislature to take dental off the list of services that managed care plans are required to offer people on Medicaid. The state would then be able to contract with vendors like MCNA to provide the dental care instead. (Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised eyebrows for discussing the issue with Gov. Rick Scott on behalf of MCNA without first registering as a lobbyist.) Cortes, who voted for the bill, said he wanted to make sure proper dental care would be available for children, maintaining problems can easily arise without treatment. ""Anyone can die of a toothache,"" he said in a House Health Innovation Subcommittee meeting on Jan. 13, 2016. ""Believe it or not, you can."" The bill passed the committee by a 12-1 vote. Given this age of modern medicine, we wondered if Cortes was right. We decided to drill into this one to find out. The whole tooth We didn’t hear back from Cortes’ office, but unfortunately for all you odontophobes, you really should be getting checkups on a regular basis. ""Yes, it is possible to die from complications with an infected tooth,"" Thomas Porter, a faculty member at the University of Florida College of Dentistry, told PolitiFact Florida. ""Every year there are cases where the patient did not receive appropriate and timely treatment of an infected tooth. In most cases, the infected tooth starts as a localized site with pain and infection."" Obviously you’re not going to die of the physical pain, but these problems can start from some form of periodontal issue or, as is most often the case, cavities. The decay leads to abscesses, which are usually infections between the tooth and the gums. ""Not treated, the problem progresses and the patient becomes septic, which can lead to death,"" Porter said. Dr. Erin Sutton, a Fort Walton Beach dentist, pointed out the infection could either move to bone marrow or the bloodstream, causing sepsis and affecting major organs. This is not a new phenomenon, of course. Dental infections and other tooth-related problems were listed as the fifth- or sixth-leading cause of death in London back in the early 1600s. But it certainly happens today, too. The number of people who die from an untreated tooth problem is small, but the details can be harrowing. An oft-cited case is the 2007 death of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died when bacteria from an abscess infected his brain. He had two brain operations totaling $250,000 before he died, but he could have been saved with a timely tooth extraction that would have cost $80. His family had no health insurance and had lost Medicaid benefits. Kyle Willis, a 24-year-old unemployed father from Cincinnati, died in 2009 after being unable to afford a tooth extraction and prescription antibiotics for an infection. John Schneider of Mt. Orab, Ohio, was 31 when he died in 2014 after what he thought was a sinus infection but was actually an untreated abscess that eventually led to multiple organ failure. The scope of the danger was highlighted four years ago by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which found preventable dental conditions made up more than 830,000 emergency room visits in 2009. That was up 16 percent from 2006. While the number of deaths aren’t regularly examined, a 2013 study published in the Journal of Endodontics offered a quick cross-section of the issue based on one kind of condition. Researchers found that between 2000 and 2008, there were more than 61,000 hospitalizations nationally for periapical abscesses, an infection at the tip of a tooth’s root that is a common symptom of untreated tooth decay. Of those 61,000-plus stays, 66 patients died. Our ruling Cortes said, ""Anyone can die of a toothache."" It’s not so much that you’ll die of pain, of course, but dentists and research confirm that an untreated abscess can infect other parts of the body, either through the bones or the bloodstream. Most people won’t die from a toothache, but it’s a condition that if left untreated can lead to the worst: a fatal result."
|
18168
|
Jonathan Stickland Says Texas has more than 80,000 abortions each year.
|
"Stickland said there are ""80,000+"" abortions each year in Texas. That was last true in 2006, 2007 and 2008, according to the state, but the number has declined since, with 72,470 Texas abortions reported in 2011. Still, Guttmacher, a respected source, hasn’t updated its data since its survey reporting 84,610 Texas abortions in 2008, arguably giving Stickland’s claim an element of truth."
|
false
|
Abortion, Texas, Jonathan Stickland,
|
"CLARIFICATION, 11 a.m., July 11, 2013: We amended this story to clarify that the law requiring a sonogram and a 24-hour wait before an abortion was phased in starting Sept. 1, 2011, an indication that it would not have deterred abortions the whole year. As the Texas House renewed debate on proposed changes in abortion law July 9, 2013, state Rep. Jonathan Stickland said on Twitter, ""Today is about the 80,000+ children"" whose ""life is stolen"" per year in Texas. That’s a widely used number -- one we even reaffirmed as recently as a June 2013 tweet. But it’s also out of date and too high, according to the latest count finalized by a Texas state agency. The same 80,000 count was cited during the July 8, 2013, anti-abortion rally at the Texas Capitol, both by state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, and in a written statement from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that was read aloud. A July 1, 2013, Associated Press guide to the abortion-law fight used the figure as well. In February 2011, when state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, aired the 80,000 figure, we rated his statement based on information from Texas’ Department of State Health Services and the New York-based Guttmacher Institute. The number of Texas abortions reported in 2008 -- the year with the most recent data available at that time -- was 81,591, according to the state agency. The 2008 Texas tally was 84,610, according to Guttmacher, a research group focusing on reproductive health issues. Luke Macias, a Stickland consultant, told us by email that the Bedford Republican made his claim based on our 2011 article. Macias said, too, that Stickland depended on Guttmacher’s figure for Texas abortions in 2008 when he and fellow Tarrant County lawmakers sent 84,610 pieces of blue and pink paper to state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, on June 25, 2013, the day she famously filibustered to stall abortion legislation. The proposed restrictions were reintroduced in a second special session of 2013, which began the first week of July. The legislation would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, require any doctor performing abortions to have admission privileges at a nearby hospital and mandate that abortion clinics be certified as ambulatory surgical centers. But the number of abortions has decreased since Patrick’s statement, as we wrote in a Feb. 12, 2013, fact-check that drew on newer state information. Austin Democratic state Rep. Donna Howard claimed generally that abortions were decreasing, which was True, we found, on both the state and federal levels. The Texas tally had dropped for several consecutive years, while nationally the total hovered around 1.2 million from 2005 through 2008, by one analysis, and the number and rate decreased in 2009, according to information analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Our story included a chart, emailed to us by agency spokeswoman Carrie Williams, showing reported abortions in Texas rose from 76,121 in 2000 to a peak of 82,056 in 2006, then declined again to a preliminary 2011 total of 72,470. The Texas total was greater than 80,000 in 2006, ‘07 and ‘08, but below 80,000 in the other nine years on the chart. The average from 2007 through 2011 was 78,116. On July 9, 2013, State Health Services spokeswoman Christine Mann told us by phone and email that the chart’s figures were still correct, and that the 2011 figure of 72,470 released in August 2012 had been finalized Feb. 26, 2013. She said a 2012 count was not yet compiled. Guttmacher spokeswoman Rebecca Wind told us by phone July 9, 2013, that their count of 84,610 Texas abortions in 2008, drawn from survey research, was still the most recent available from the institute. Mann told us the state figures came from mandatory reports that providers file each year with her agency; Wind told us Guttmacher sends a survey every four years or so to ""all known abortion providers."" Year Abortions reported in Texas 2000 76,121 2001 77,537 2002 79,929 2003 79,166 2004 75,053 2005 77,374 2006 82,056 2007 81,079 2008 81,591 2009 77,850 2010 77,592 2011 72,470 Source: State Health Services Department So, Texas had about 72,500 abortions in 2011 -- down from about 82,000 in 2006, according to the state, whose figures also indicate there have not been more than 80,000 abortions since 2008. Neither the Texas agency or Guttmacher had guidance for us on why the number of Texas abortions has declined. A July 10, 2013, Austin American-Statesman news story cited Theodore Joyce, a professor at Baruch College in New York, as saying that after a 2003 change in Texas law, abortions at or beyond 16 weeks of pregnancy dropped by 88 percent. Joyce studied effects of the law, which required that such abortions be performed at ambulatory surgical centers rather than abortion clinics. In 2004, no abortion clinics in Texas qualified as ambulatory surgical centers, Joyce said, but by 2006 Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio had such centers. Changes made in 2011 to Texas law could also have decreased the number of abortions, according to a study from the University of Texas, the University of Alabama and Ibis Reproductive Health (a nonprofit group that advocates for access to abortions). The researchers concluded that new mandates for a sonogram followed by a 24-hour wait before abortions, requiring two clinic visits, caused fewer Texas women to seek abortions. That law was phased in starting Sept. 1, 2011. Regarding the latest state figures indicating about 72,000 abortions in the state in 2011, Macias said that with abortion totals ranging between ""72,000-84,000 over the last decade,"" Stickland believes ""both of those numbers and anywhere in between are too high."" Our ruling Stickland said there are ""80,000+"" abortions each year in Texas. That was last true in 2006, 2007 and 2008, according to the state, but the number has declined since, with 72,470 Texas abortions reported in 2011. Still, Guttmacher, a respected source, hasn’t updated its data since its survey reporting 84,610 Texas abortions in 2008, arguably giving Stickland’s claim an element of truth."
|
294
|
German scientists create see-through human organs.
|
Researchers in Germany have created transparent human organs using a new technology that could pave the way to print three-dimensional body parts such as kidneys for transplants.
|
true
|
Science News
|
Scientists led by Ali Erturk at Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich have developed a technique that uses a solvent to make organs such as the brain and kidneys transparent. The organ is then scanned by lasers in a microscope that allows researchers to capture the entire structure, including the blood vessels and every single cell in its specific location. Using this blueprint, researchers print out the scaffold of the organ. They then load the 3D printer with stem cells which act as “ink” and are injected into the correct position making the organ functional. While 3D printing is already used widely to produce spare parts for industry, Erturk said the development marks a step forward for 3D printing in the medical field. Until now 3D-printed organs lacked detailed cellular structures because they were based on images from computer tomography or MRI machines, he said. “We can see where every single cell is located in transparent human organs. And then we can actually replicate exactly the same, using 3D bioprinting technology to make a real functional organ,” he said. “Therefore, I believe we are much closer to a real human organ for the first time now.” Erturk’s team plan to start by creating a bioprinted pancreas over the next 2-3 years and also hope to develop a kidney within 5-6 years. The researchers will first test to see whether animals can survive with the bioprinted organs and could start clinical trials within 5-10 years, he said.
|
8522
|
With plastic sheets, Japan's convenience stores target social distancing.
|
Some of Japan’s ubiquitous convenience stores have taken a novel approach to social distancing by hanging plastic sheets from the ceiling to provide a barrier between customers and staff at the cash register during the coronavirus pandemic.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe declared a state of emergency in Tokyo and six other prefectures last week in response to the coronavirus outbreak. While many businesses in Tokyo and elsewhere are now shut, most convenience stores have stayed open as they are considered essential. There are around 58,000 convenience stores throughout Japan. Most are open 24 hours and sell everything from pre-made bento lunches to beer and neckties. They also offer package delivery and bill payment services. “I actually feel safer,” said 53-year-old restaurant owner Isao Otsuka, who was shopping at one of the roughly 150 7-Eleven stores, mainly in Tokyo, that have installed the transparent plastic curtains. 7-Eleven’s owner, Seven & i Holdings, has asked convenience store workers to wear masks, check their temperatures, wash their hands frequently and sterilise surfaces. The new coronavirus spreads from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth via coughing or sneezing, according to the World Health Organization. Scientists have also said the virus can remain infectious in droplets in the air for hours and on surfaces for days. Japan had recorded 7,411 cases of infection and 138 deaths from the virus as of Monday, public broadcaster NHK said, with more than 2,000 cases in Tokyo, a sharp rise from late March.
|
14188
|
Closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50,000,000
|
Our ruling Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead.rue.rue.
|
true
|
Public Health, State Budget, Missouri, Chris Koster,
|
"As part of his campaign to become Missouri’s 56th governor, Chris Koster tweeted a statistic about something he has been working to accomplish during his time as attorney general: closing the tobacco loophole. In his tweet, Koster called upon the legislature to #FixTheLoophole, which he says will save Missourians $50 million. The so-called tobacco loophole is money the state hopes to get from five big tobacco companies if it takes a tougher line with smaller ones. We looked into whether $50 million is really on the line. Tobacco background We reached out to the Koster campaign to find out what closing the loophole entailed. We heard back from David Turner, a spokesman for the Missouri Democratic Party. Turner told us that the tobacco loophole arose in 1998 as part of a master settlement agreement between the attorneys general of 46 states, along with Washington, D.C., and five U.S. territories, and the five largest tobacco companies in the U.S. The states had sued the tobacco companies for selling cigarettes which they knew caused cancer, emphysema and other diseases. The attorneys general wanted to recover the cost of caring for those people. The settlement said that in exchange for dropping the lawsuits, the states would receive roughly $10 billion dollars a year, essentially indefinitely. The annual payment to Missouri is about $130 million. As part of the deal, Missouri passed a law that required all nonparticipating tobacco companies to pay into an escrow fund. This was done in part to ensure that small cigarette makers didn’t gain a market advantage because they would be able to sell cigarettes at reduced prices. But there was a catch. If a state failed to ""diligently enforce"" the requirement that small companies make escrow payments, and the big tobacco companies lost a set amount of market share as a result, that state would lose a portion of its tobacco settlement money. According to a state auditor, that’s exactly what happened. The big tobacco companies lost an 8 percent market share from 1997 to 2003. As a result, the companies sued Missouri and other states for violating the settlement. In 2013, an arbitration panel found that in Missouri, of the 432 million cigarettes sold by nonparticipating manufacturers in 2002, companies made escrow payments on only $102 million. The panel ruled against Missouri and five other states, meaning the Show-Me State had to pay back $70 million from its 2014 payment. In February, Koster negotiated an agreement with the tobacco companies to return $50 million to Missouri — on the condition the state tighten the rules on the smaller cigarette makers. Which brings us to the loophole. Under current Missouri law, the smaller companies can trim the amount they pay into the escrow fund. Missouri is the only state that has yet to take steps to prevent this. The loophole The way escrow payments are calculated, small tobacco companies can get most of the money they pay back if they restrict their sales to only a few states. In order to close the loophole — and return $50 million to Missouri — the legislature would have to pass Senate Bill 1096. The bill would require all nonparticipating manufacturers to either join the master settlement or be subject to modified escrow rules which prevent the companies from gaming the system to keep their escrow money. SB 1096 has supporters on both sides of the aisle, but it is not without its opponents. Small tobacco companies have been fighting different versions of the bill for more than a decade, calling it a tax on their products and a move on the part of big tobacco to earn more market share at their expense. SB 1096 has yet to pass either chamber of the General Assembly, and the consequences are already being felt. Because the bill failed to pass before April 15, Missouri can no longer receive the $50 million for 2016. In order to receive the money in 2017, the bill must be signed by Gov. Jay Nixon by June 3. Taxpayer impact The loophole is the source of Koster’s $50 million figure, but will recouping the loss actually save taxpayers money? It certainly has cost the state. In October, Nixon withheld $46.1 million of the state's budget, relying on the passage of SB 1096 to fill the gap. Turner said that money would have gone to the Mental Health Department and the Department of Social Services, among others. For these programs to be maintained at their initial levels, Turner explained, taxpayers would be forced to cover the money lost in the tobacco arbitration. Gaining the $50 million dollars would allow those programs to remain uncut without costing the taxpayers any additional money. All things being equal, if the bill passes, taxpayers would win no matter what the state does with the money. If it’s spent on services, citizens get the benefit of $50 million worth of services. If the state cuts spending and lowers taxes, they save money when they file their taxes in April. And that’s just in 2017. If the loophole isn’t closed, Missouri could lose additional money in the years to come. The big tobacco companies have begun arbitration concerning Missouri’s diligent enforcement of the escrow laws in 2004. If an arbitration panel were to find against Missouri again, the state could be forced to forfeit more money. If SB 1096 passes, the companies would not seek arbitration for any of the years 2004 to 2014, per Koster’s agreement. Our ruling Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead."
|
16378
|
We have a retiree that is collecting a $17,000 paycheck a month . . . tax free.
|
"Jorge Elorza said, ""We have a retiree that is collecting a $17,000 paycheck a month . . . tax free."" The city's biggest retirement check goes to a retired fire chief who is getting $16,401. Although Elorza overstated the amount a bit, its close enough to rate his statement True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)"
|
true
|
Rhode Island, Debates, Debt, Deficit, Disability, Economy, History, Labor, Legal Issues, Pensions, Public Safety, Retirement, Unions, Workers, Jorge Elorza,
|
"If you're looking for reasons why Providence is in financial trouble, Democratic mayoral candidate Jorge Elorza says a good place to start is the city's pension costs. During a Sept. 30, 2014, mayoral debate, he was asked about the city's huge pension debt. Elorza blamed one of his opponents, Vincent A. ""Buddy"" Cianci Jr., an independent, for signing a consent decree when he was mayor that provided for 5- and 6-percent cost of living allowances for retirees. ""Now we have a retiree that is collecting a $17,000 paycheck a month . . . tax free,"" Elorza said. ""How many families in Providence don't make $17,000 a year."" ""You can thank the court for that,"" Cianci retorted. We were curious about whether that $17,000 monthly paycheck -- equivalent to $204,000 in annual tax-free income -- is real. Providence officials sent us the 2014 list of the 49 people receiving the largest pension payments. Thirty seven retirees are receiving checks totaling over $100,000 per year, or at least $8,333 each month. All but eight were firefighters. The rest were police officers. At least 28 of those 37 are tax-free disability pensions. Four others may be disability pensions but it's not clear from the list because the money is going to a surviving spouse. At the top of the list: Gilbert McLaughlin of Warwick, who retired in October 1991 with an accidental disability pension. He served as chief for 15 months before retiring, citing health problems stemming from a job-related injury to his neck and shoulders. His annual payment from the city as of May 2014: $196,813. That's $16,401 per month, or $599 shy of the $17,000 cited by Elorza. McLaughlin retired as the city's fire chief at the age of 55. At retirement, his base salary was $63,537 per year plus $6,959 in longevity pay for his 36 years, six months and eleven days of service. Total: $70,496. He received 83.7 percent of that as his pension, or $59,001 a year, according to Lawrence J. Mancini, the city's acting director of administration and finance. His payment grew so large because he received an annual 5-percent compounding cost of living adjustment that was increased to 6 percent in 1996, Mancini said. (Cianci's second stint as Providence mayor ran from 1991 through most of 2002.) All of this was part of a long-running legal war over pensions in the city. The stage was set around 1977, near the beginning of Cianci's first stint as mayor, when the General Assembly gave the city's unions a controlling number of seats on the city's Retirement Board. A 1983 City Charter change, when Cianci was still in office, gave the board extra power to make pension decisions. In 1989, with Joseph Paolino as mayor, the board granted compounded cost-of-living adjustments of 5 and 6 percent for all present and future public safety retirees and 3 percent for non-uniformed workers. In 1991, in the midst of a court battle over pensions, Cianci was back in office and he signed a consent decree that locked in some of the benefits, a decree that he would come to regret. In 2012, in an agreement Mayor Angel Taveras negotiated with the police and fire unions, the city ended the big compounded cost of living adjustments, so his annual pension remains frozen at $196,813. To put this in context, the salary of the current fire chief, Clarence Cunha, is $164,736 a year, including longevity pay. If McLaughlin's initial pension had risen with inflation, and not at 5 or 6 percent, it would be worth $103,036 today, or just under $8,586 a month. Our ruling Jorge Elorza said, ""We have a retiree that is collecting a $17,000 paycheck a month . . . tax free."" The city's biggest retirement check goes to a retired fire chief who is getting $16,401. Although Elorza overstated the amount a bit, its close enough to rate his statement . (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)"
|
5442
|
Source confirmed in Legionnaires’ outbreak at Atlanta hotel.
|
The Georgia Department of Public Health has confirmed the source of a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak at a downtown Atlanta hotel.
|
true
|
Georgia, Health, General News, Legionnaires disease, Atlanta, Disease outbreaks, Public health
|
According to news outlets, officials said Thursday that the bacteria were present in the Sheraton Atlanta’s cooling tower and in a decorative fountain in the atrium. The hotel has been closed for about a month since the first cases were confirmed. Health officials say the hotel passed an inspection Thursday and has been cleared to reopen. Hotel management conducted an extensive remediation of the water distribution system. Health officials have confirmed 13 cases of Legionnaires’ disease from the outbreak, including one death , and 66 probable cases. A lawsuit filed Monday accuses the hotel of negligence. Sheraton Atlanta General Manager Ken Peduzzi told the Associated Press that the hotel doesn’t comment on legal matters.
|
7999
|
Heroic nurses need full protection against coronavirus, association says.
|
More equipment is needed to protect the world’s nurses working on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic to save lives, the head of the International Council of Nurses said.
|
true
|
Health News
|
“They are heroic, I think there is no other way to describe what they are doing at this moment,” said Howard Catton, a British nurse who is the ICN’s chief executive officer. Infection rates of 9% and 12-14% have been reported among health workers in Italy and Spain, respectively, and deaths among nurses there and in Iran and Indonesia, he said. “We have no doubt that the rate of infections is related in part to the lack of PPE - personal protective equipment,” he told Reuters at the ICN offices along Lake Geneva. “There is a global shortage and nurses obviously are at a higher risk given the people that they are caring for.” The federation represents 130 national associations and more than 20 million registered nurses. The World Health Organization has called repeatedly for countries and manufacturers to step up production of masks, gloves, gowns and other equipment for vulnerable health workers amidst critical shortages. Nearly 700,000 people have been infected worldwide in the outbreak that began last December in China and has claimed more than 33,000 lives, according to the WHO. Catton said there had been problems with supply chains in hard-hit Italy and Spain, describing their health systems as “very close to being overwhelmed”. Nurses worldwide take samples from COVID-19 patients, give them medicines and oxygen, and help incubate those in serious condition. “They are working under intense pressure, often long hours, some working back-to-back shifts for days on end, even sleeping over in the hospital, the facility, in which they work.” Some nurses have been forced to re-use their gear or make their own masks and gowns, he added. “Wearing personal protective equipment when it is available is not easy either...Simple things like going to the loo and eating are of course much more difficult,” he said. Nurses across Africa and South Asia could be at greater risk as the virus moves to poorer settings. “We are very concerned that those countries that have weaker, more fragile health care systems could very quickly become overwhelmed by this virus if it takes hold in their countries,” Catton said. Nurses in Zimbabwe, fearing for their own safety, have been on strike due to a lack of information and protective gear, he said.
|
9871
|
Study Shows SAMe May Ease Depression
|
Without explaining the novelty of this new research, we’re given the hope without the real reason. The piece provides a number of important specifics about the evidence and tries to wrap the study in historical and geographical context. But there are enormous holes in that context, which we point out in this review — enough holes that the novelty of this particular study is a total mystery. It’s unclear how it fits into the prior evidence base that’s described, nor what it means that the supplement is already widely used for depression in Europe. (Spoiler: The true novelty is that this is the first placebo-controlled trial in which oral SAMe was added to antidepressant therapy.)
|
mixture
|
There’s a nice summary of costs and lack of insurance coverage, citing the editorial. However, we were surprised to see in this summary that “the cost is relatively low” when the cited editorial states “SAMe is relatively expensive.” This mistake may have been unintentional, and while it’s the exact opposite conclusion of the one in the source, we are inclined not to dock the article a point because the rest of the summary provides balance about copays and, most importantly, tells its readers the absolute monthly cost of the supplement.
|
|
7408
|
First embryo gene-repair holds promise for inherited disease.
|
Altering human heredity? In a first, researchers safely repaired a disease-causing gene in human embryos, targeting a heart defect best known for killing young athletes — a big step toward one day preventing a list of inherited diseases.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Health, Politics, North America, Genetic Frontiers, Science, U.S. News
|
In a surprising discovery, a research team led by Oregon Health and & Science University reported Wednesday that embryos can help fix themselves if scientists jump-start the process early enough. It’s laboratory research only, nowhere near ready to be tried in a pregnancy. But it suggests that scientists might alter DNA in a way that protects not just one baby from a disease that runs in the family, but his or her offspring as well. And that raises ethical questions. “I for one believe, and this paper supports the view, that ultimately gene editing of human embryos can be made safe. Then the question truly becomes, if we can do it, should we do it?” said Dr. George Daley, a stem cell scientist and dean of Harvard Medical School. He wasn’t involved in the new research and praised it as “quite remarkable.” “This is definitely a leap forward,” agreed developmental geneticist Robin Lovell-Badge of Britain’s Francis Crick Institute. Today, couples seeking to avoid passing on a bad gene sometimes have embryos created in fertility clinics so they can discard those that inherit the disease and attempt pregnancy only with healthy ones, if there are any. Gene editing in theory could rescue diseased embryos. But so-called “germline” changes — altering sperm, eggs or embryos — are controversial because they would be permanent, passed down to future generations. Critics worry about attempts at “designer babies” instead of just preventing disease, and a few previous attempts at learning to edit embryos, in China, didn’t work well and, more importantly, raised safety concerns. In a series of laboratory experiments reported in the journal Nature, the Oregon researchers tried a different approach. They targeted a gene mutation that causes a heart-weakening disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, that affects about 1 in 500 people. Inheriting just one copy of the bad gene can cause it. The team programmed a gene-editing tool, named CRISPR-Cas9, that acts like a pair of molecular scissors to find that mutation — a missing piece of genetic material. Then came the test. Researchers injected sperm from a patient with the heart condition along with those molecular scissors into healthy donated eggs at the same time. The scissors cut the defective DNA in the sperm. Normally cells will repair a CRISPR-induced cut in DNA by essentially gluing the ends back together. Or scientists can try delivering the missing DNA in a repair package, like a computer’s cut-and-paste program. Instead, the newly forming embryos made their own perfect fix without that outside help, reported Oregon Health & Science University senior researcher Shoukhrat Mitalipov. We all inherit two copies of each gene, one from dad and one from mom — and those embryos just copied the healthy one from the donated egg. “The embryos are really looking for the blueprint,” Mitalipov, who directs OHSU’s Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy, said in an interview. “We’re finding embryos will repair themselves if you have another healthy copy.” It worked 72 percent of the time, in 42 out of 58 embryos. Normally a sick parent has a 50-50 chance of passing on the mutation. Previous embryo-editing attempts in China found not every cell was repaired, a safety concern called mosaicism. Beginning the process before fertilization avoided that problem: Until now, “everybody was injecting too late,” Mitalipov said. Nor did intense testing uncover any “off-target” errors, cuts to DNA in the wrong places, reported the team, which also included researchers from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California and South Korea’s Institute for Basic Science. The embryos weren’t allowed to develop beyond eight cells, a standard for laboratory research. The experiments were privately funded; U.S. tax dollars aren’t allowed for embryo research. Genetics and ethics experts not involved in the work say it’s a critical first step — but just one step — toward eventually testing the process in pregnancy, something currently prohibited by U.S. policy. “This is very elegant lab work,” but it’s moving so fast that society needs to catch up and debate how far it should go, said Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn. And lots more research is needed to tell if it’s really safe, added Britain’s Lovell-Badge. He and Kahn were part of a National Academy of Sciences report earlier this year that said if germline editing ever were allowed, it should be only for serious diseases with no good alternatives and done with strict oversight. “What we do not want is for rogue clinicians to start offering treatments” that are unproven, as has happened with some other experimental technologies, he stressed. Among key questions: Would the technique work if mom, not dad, harbored the mutation? Is repair even possible if both parents pass on a bad gene? Mitalipov is “pushing a frontier,” but it’s responsible basic research that’s critical for understanding embryos and disease inheritance, noted University of Pittsburgh professor Kyle Orwig. In fact, Mitalipov said the research should offer critics some reassurance: If embryos prefer self-repair, it would be extremely hard to add traits for “designer babies” rather than just eliminate disease. “All we did is un-modify the already mutated gene.” ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
6294
|
NE Alabama hepatitis A outbreak grows.
|
Alabama health authorities are urging the public to get vaccinated after a hepatitis A outbreak in DeKalb and Jackson counties continues to spread.
|
true
|
Immunizations, Health, Hepatitis, Dekalb, Alabama, Public health
|
The Department of Public Health says more cases that may be related have been identified in Cherokee and Marshall counties, with March 3 as the latest known symptom onset. Currently, there are 22 cases in Jackson County, 12 in DeKalb County and one case in Marshall County. For more details about the current outbreak, please see Alabama’s Hepatitis A Outbreak Report at http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/immunization/assets/HepatitisAoutbreakreport.pdf . Health experts say to reduce the spread of the disease, people should get vaccinated as soon as possible. In addition, they should wash hands frequently especially before, during and after preparing food, after using the toilet, after changing diapers and after touching garbage.
|
7962
|
Coronavirus can spread one to three days before symptoms appear: CDC study.
|
People infected with the novel coronavirus can transmit the infection one-to-three days before symptoms start to appear, according to a study published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
|
true
|
Health News
|
The study, which underscored the importance of social distancing to fight the coronavirus outbreak, looked at 243 cases of COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, reported in Singapore between January 23 and March 16. It identified seven “clusters” where pre-symptomatic transmission was likely, and in four such groups, where the date of exposure could be determined, pre-symptomatic transmission occurred one-to-three days before symptoms appeared in the source patient. Of the cases in Singapore, 157 were locally acquired and 10 of these were likely transmitted before symptoms started to show. The fast-spreading virus has claimed over 43,000 lives globally, with nearly 4,000 in the United States. The findings suggest that it might not be enough for people showing symptoms to limit their contact to control the pandemic, the researchers wrote in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published online on Wednesday. The findings increase the challenges of containment measures, the researchers wrote, but said the magnitude of the impact depends on the extent and duration of transmissibility while a patient is pre-symptomatic and that has so far not been clearly established. The study authors suggested that public health officials conducting contact tracing should strongly consider including a period before symptom onset to account for the possibility of this type of transmission. Transmissions might take place through respiratory droplets or even speech and other vocal activities such as singing, with the rate of emission corresponding to voice loudness, according to the researchers. While the cases were carefully investigated, the CDC said it was possible an unknown source might have caused the clusters. And, the findings could also be affected by incorrect reporting of cases, especially if people had only mild symptoms. With the focus currently on testing only people who show symptoms, the researchers expect asymptomatic illness to be under-detected. Still, the CDC data adds to previous reports of individual cases in China that indicated the virus could spread before symptoms start to appear.
|
9946
|
New vaccine strategy better protects high-risk cancer patients from flu
|
This brief news release describes the findings from a study of patients with plasma cell disorders, including multiple myeloma, who were given two high-dose injections of Fluzone influenza vaccine in order to lower their risk of contracting the flu during the 2014-2015 flu season. The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. While newsy, we think the release should have included more details such as the size of the volunteer group, how the results compared to other vaccination strategies, and the cost and any harms associated with the vaccine. In addition, the headline and presentation of the results may be overly optimistic. Because of their weakened state, patients with cancers of the immune system are very susceptible to contracting influenza infections. Such patients are not only at a much higher risk of getting the flu but of dying from it. A booster vaccine that lowers risk significantly (without introducing bad side effects to people already feeling weak and sick) would be a welcome addition to the vaccine arsenal.
|
mixture
|
Academic medical center news release,Cancer
|
The news release doesn’t mention any costs associated with the high-dose vaccine. The New York Times reported last year that “The cost of the high-dose vaccine is $28.65 a dose, and Medicare covers one shot a year without a co-payment.” The release states that the flu infection rate fell to 6% in the patients who received a booster vaccine 30 days after the first shot, compared to the “expected” rate of 20% infection. We’d much rather see actual numbers here than percentages. How many people were vaccinated with the follow-up booster shot? Was there a comparison group that received only one high-dose shot during the same flu season? The release also claims that the booster strategy protected against all flu strains in 66% of patients. Again, 66% of how many? The study was small with just 51 patients. To say the vaccine lowered the infection rate to 6% is misleading because there was no comparison group. It would have been helpful to point out that a 6% infection rate is lower than historical controls, but that the effectiveness needs to be studied in a controlled clinical trial to really see the benefit. The release doesn’t mention any of the harms associated with the vaccine. While influenza vaccine is generally safe, there are some potential adverse reactions that are more common with the high dose formulation. According to a news release from Sanofi-Pasteur, the manufacturer of Fluzone, announcing updated prescribing information for Fluzone high-dose in patients 65 and older: “The most common local and systemic adverse reactions to Fluzone High-Dose vaccine include pain, erythema, and swelling at the injection site; myalgia, malaise, headache, and fever. Other adverse reactions may occur. Fluzone High-Dose vaccine should not be administered to anyone with a known hypersensitivity (eg, anaphylaxis) to any vaccine component, including egg protein, or to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine.” As mentioned above under “Benefits,” the release doesn’t describe the study protocol. We must assume it wasn’t a randomized, controlled trial — but what kind of study was it? How many were enrolled? Where was the patient population drawn from? According to the study abstract posted online, 51 patients were enrolled, 41 of whom were undergoing treatment and 10 who had no symptoms but their pathology showed they had abnormal proteins in their blood. The median age was 75 years old. Upon follow-up, just 4% — or 2 out of the 51 patients — developed influenza. A study of this size with no comparison group cannot make determinations about effectiveness and can only give a glimpse at safety. The release accurately points out the higher risk of contracting flu among patients with multiple myeloma and other cancers of the immune system without unnecessary fear-mongering. The release discloses that the study was funded by the Yale Cancer Center’s Arthur R. Sekerak Cancer Research Fund. Although this study examines a novel approach, it is still necessary to compare it to existing protocols. At minimum, we would like to know how the booster strategy compared with the single vaccination. We’re told the outcome is better with the novel strategy but we aren’t provided any of the data. The release notes that the Fluzone high-dose vaccine used in the study was approved by the FDA in 2009. A booster dose would currently be considered an “off label” use and may not be covered by insurance. The release notes that using a follow-on booster of the high-dose vaccine is a novel flu prevention strategy in patients with cancers that affect the immune system. This approach of adding a booster is used in immune-suppressed patients with other vaccines as well. The release doesn’t use overly unjustifiable language.
|
3896
|
US Sen. Reed says bill will help prevent veteran suicides.
|
U.S. Sen. Jack Reed said he believes legislation that recently cleared the Congress will improve suicide prevention and mental health resources for veterans.
|
true
|
Rhode Island, Mental health, Health, Jack Reed, General News, Legislation, Suicide prevention, Bills, Veterans, Veterans affairs, Donald Trump
|
The Rhode Island Democrat co-sponsored the Support for Suicide Prevention Coordinators Act, which requires the comptroller general to assess the responsibilities, workload and vacancy rates for suicide prevention coordinators at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Reed praised the Senate for passing the bill last week. Since the House of Representatives already approved the legislation, the bill now heads to the president’s desk. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year aimed at stemming a persistently high number of veteran suicides, urging expanded outreach by awarding grants to community programs. The order created a Cabinet-level task force to develop a national roadmap for suicide prevention. VA statistics show suicide prevention coordinators are managing care for almost 11,000 veterans who are clinically at high-risk for suicide, said Reed, who served in the Army. Reed worked on the bill with Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, of Alaska, the lead sponsor. “The wounds and scars of war and continued deployments are not always visible, and we’ve got to provide veterans with high quality physical and mental health care,” Reed said in a statement. Separately, Reed proposed shortening the 10-digit national suicide prevention hotline to three digits. The Federal Communications Commission endorsed that idea Thursday.
|
3009
|
Clinics awarded grants to help uninsured, underinsured.
|
Nearly four dozen clinics will share $860,500 through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Strengthening the Safety Net program.
|
true
|
Health, Michigan, Health care services, Detroit
|
The funding will help the clinics provide free or low-cost medical, dental and mental health care services to uninsured and underinsured Michigan residents, according to Blue Cross. The funding also pays for substance use disorder treatment. Grants of up to $25,000 each were awarded to 17 clinics. Another 30 clinics were awarded up to $15,000 each. Recipients expect to provide care to more than 60,000 people this year. More than 50,000 people received services through the program last year. Health care organizations offering primary care services also received more than $190,000 in matched funding through the program. Blue Cross has provided more than $15 million in grants since 2005 so safety net clinics can care for the uninsured and under-insured. Detroit-based Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit mutual insurance company.
|
6329
|
Shooting poses Virginia governor’s first test since scandal.
|
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wasted little time getting to Virginia Beach after a gunman killed a dozen people in a city office building, the first major test of his leadership since a blackface scandal almost forced him from office four months ago.
|
true
|
Shootings, Virginia Beach, General News, Virginia, Medical schools, Ralph Northam, AP Top News, Gun politics, Donald Trump
|
The governor, who is also a pediatric neurologist, worked to comfort victims of Friday’s shooting and their families, while helping coordinate the massive government response. He discussed the shooting with President Donald Trump in a private phone call, stood shoulder to shoulder with other elected officials at a news conference and pressed for tighter gun control to national audiences. The subject of widespread mockery after the racist photo from his medical school yearbook surfaced, the Democratic governor appears determined to project that he’s up to the task. “Actions speak a lot louder than words. And I will have the leadership that’s needed,” Northam said in an interview with NPR after the shooting, while discussing potential plans to push for increased gun regulations. Police said 12 people were killed and several others injured when DeWayne Craddock, an engineer with the city’s utilities department, opened fire inside a municipal building Friday afternoon. Northam quickly left Richmond after the shooting and drove to Virginia Beach, speaking to local, state and other officials on the way down to coordinate responses and share information. After a news conference Friday evening, Northam took a call from Trump to discuss the shooting, with the president offering the federal government’s full support. Michael Berlucchi, a Virginia Beach City Council member, praised the governor and other officials for their work to address the shooting’s aftermath from the city’s emergency operations center. “Nobody carried their baggage into that room,” Berlucchi said Sunday. “The only thing I saw was public servants coming together to address the worst tragedy in the history of our city.” On Saturday, Northam attended a vigil at a church where he told those gathered that “God is in control.” He visited a hospital to meet with survivors and thank doctors and staff. In broadcast interviews with national media, Northam stressed the need for action to prevent similar deadly shootings. “We lost 12 lives yesterday. If you look at the commonwealth of Virginia, we lost over 900 lives over the past two years to gun violence, gun-related accidents,” Northam said on CNN. “So I will make decisions in the upcoming days but we need to look at our laws: are they safe, do they keep people protected in the Commonwealth of Virginia?” The governor has long been an advocate for stricter gun control. He made the issue a top priority of his 2017 gubernatorial campaign, drawing from his experience as a pediatrician and Army doctor who has treated children and soldiers wounded by firearms. But a package of bills Northam pushed this year, including legislation to limit gun magazine size and give local governments broader authority to ban guns in city buildings, went nowhere in a staunchly pro-gun Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly. Northam hinted Saturday in media interviews that he may be considering some kind of executive action related to gun control efforts that would bypass the legislature, but his office declined to say what specific actions he may take. Any dramatic moves by the governor would face stiff resistance from his political opponents. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said Northam doesn’t have any real power to impose new gun limits and any efforts to do so would be an attempt to deflect attention away his scandal. “He’d be very happy to try and change the focus away from the blackface stuff,” Van Cleave said. Northam has been battling for months to regain a sense of normalcy in office after a picture surfaced in February of man in blackface and another person wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit on his medical school yearbook page. Northam has denied being in the picture, and investigators recently said they can’t conclusively establish the identities of either person in the 35-year-old photo. The governor withstood widespread pressure for him to resign, which weakened after scandal soon enveloped his potential successors . Two women publicly accused Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, which he denies, and Attorney General Mark Herring announced he’d also worn blackface in college, just days after calling on Northam to resign. Both Fairfax and Herring have also resisted calls to resign. Fairfax was also in Virginia Beach after the shooting. He attended a church service Sunday where and pledged to take “serious action” to prevent future mass shootings. “I think that thoughts and prayers from politicians are not enough,” Fairfax said. “We’ve had too many thoughts and prayers over the years and we’ve not acted in the ways to prevent these mass shootings in the future.” ___ This story has been corrected to say pediatrician, not pedestrian. ___ Contributors include Associated Press writer Ben Finley.
|
3368
|
Less common flu strain prominent this year in Virginia.
|
Public health officials say a type of flu virus that’s usually less prevalent is being reported more frequently in Virginia this year.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Flu, Public health, Virginia
|
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that of the more than 1,800 cases confirmed by lab reports since the start of the 2019-2020 flu season, 75% have been identified as type B, according to the Virginia Department of Health. That trend is in line with national statistics. Scott Pauley, a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the newspaper it’s the first time since the 1992-1993 flu season that influenza B has been identified more often than influenza A nationally. Pauley said that could mean a less severe season in terms of deaths, but still a strong one. The CDC, which recommends that everyone 6 months and older receive a flu vaccine, said it does not yet have vaccine effectiveness estimates for this season. So far there have been 255 reported pneumonia- and influenza-associated deaths reported by the Virginia Health Department this flu season, the newspaper reported. There have not been any reported pediatric deaths.
|
29180
|
An autumn 2018 outbreak of E. coli linked to romaine lettuce was caused by a decision by President Trump to reverse existing rules on agricultural water inspection.
|
What's true: The Trump administration FDA pushed back required start dates for agricultural water testing. What's false: Agricultural water testing regulations were delayed and not overturned, President Trump himself did not order the rollback of testing dates, the cause of the autumn 2018 E. coli outbreak has not been determined, and agricultural water testing would not have begun everywhere even if the original start dates had not been pushed back.
|
false
|
Politics, donald trump
|
U.S. government officials reported three major outbreaks of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria in 2018. One was associated with ground beef, but two others associated with romaine lettuce garnered widespread news coverage throughout the year. The first outbreak, during the spring, affected 210 people in 36 states and led to 96 hospitalizations and five deaths, while the second outbreak began in October and was still ongoing as of 4 December. Up to that date, 43 people in 12 states had been infected, with 16 of those requiring a visit to the hospital. On 25 November 2018, a viral tweet placed the blame for the autumn E. coli outbreak at the doorstep of President Donald Trump himself, claiming that his alleged decision to overturn Obama-era regulations about farm water testing was the cause of the outbreak. Dr. Eugene Gu. a controversial surgeon with outspoken progressive views and a large following on Twitter, posted the following claim: We have an outbreak of E. Coli O157:H7 which makes you vomit blood, have bloody diarrhea, and even pee blood as you lose your kidneys. It’s all because Trump overturned Obama-era rules to test our farm water. Farmers save $12 million so that we pay $108 million in medical costs. We have an outbreak of E. Coli O157:H7 which makes you vomit blood, have bloody diarrhea, and even pee blood as you lose your kidneys. It’s all because Trump overturned Obama-era rules to test our farm water. Farmers save $12 million so that we pay $108 million in medical costs. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) November 25, 2018 Dr. Gu’s claim, that the November 2018 outbreak of E. coli was “all because of” a purported decision made by President Trump or his administration to overturn existing regulations, was off the mark in a few ways. Postponed, not “overturned” First, the Trump administration did not “overturn” the regulations in question. Rather, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed (rather than definitively ruled) that compliance dates for beginning agricultural water inspections should be pushed back by four years. Moreover, the decision to offer that proposal was taken by the FDA itself and was not the result of a directive from President Trump. In his tweet, Dr. Gu appeared to allude to a set of regulations introduced in January 2016 that tightened standards and procedures around testing agricultural water for contaminants, including the presence of E. coli bacteria. As is standard practice for many new or enhanced agricultural or environmental regulations, businesses and farms were given time to get up to speed with the demands of the new rules. This preparation time is known as a “compliance period.” However, in September 2017 the FDA proposed extending these compliance periods after consulting with stakeholders from the agriculture industry. The 2016 regulations imposed different requirements and compliance periods for (broadly speaking) two kinds of farms: those involving sprouts and those not involving sprouts. This bifurcation was due to the fact that sprouts are unusually vulnerable to contamination due to what the FDA described as the “warm, moist and nutrient-rich conditions needed to grow them.” For all other farms, here is a breakdown of the compliance dates for beginning water testing under the original 2016 rules and under the FDA’s proposal to extend the compliance periods: Although the FDA only proposed pushing back the compliance dates, the agency also made it clear that they would not be enforcing the original compliance dates, stating: “The FDA does not intend to enforce the agricultural water requirements for covered produce other than sprouts while the rulemaking to extend the compliance dates is underway.” This meant that, in effect, the first of the three compliance dates (26 January 2018) had been postponed. However, the original compliance dates for the other two of the three categories of farm had not passed by the time the October 2018 E. coli outbreak began. This is important to bear in mind when evaluating Dr. Gu’s claim that the outbreak was “all because” of the decision to push back compliance dates. If the outbreak began in a farm or farms with an annual product value of less than $500,000, then the FDA’s decision was likely unrelated to the October E. coli outbreak. That brings us to the second weakness in Dr. Gu’s claim. Causes unknown As of 4 December 2018, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had not identified the exact cause and source of the autumn 2018 E. coli outbreak, although the agency did advise consumers to avoid romaine lettuce harvested in the Central Coastal region of California, adding “If you do not know where the romaine is from, do not eat it.” On their website, the CDC outlined how “Shiga toxin-producing E. coli” (STEC), the specific type of E. coli found in the autumn 2018 outbreak, can spread: Infections start when you swallow STEC — in other words, when you get tiny (usually invisible) amounts of human or animal feces in your mouth. Unfortunately, this happens more often than we would like to think about. Exposures that result in illness include consumption of contaminated food, consumption of unpasteurized (raw) milk, consumption of water that has not been disinfected, contact with cattle, or contact with the feces of infected people. Some foods are considered to carry such a high risk of infection with E. coli O157 or another germ that health officials recommend that people avoid them completely. These foods include unpasteurized (raw) milk, unpasteurized apple cider, and soft cheeses made from raw milk. Sometimes the contact is pretty obvious (working with cows at a dairy or changing diapers, for example), but sometimes it is not (like eating an undercooked hamburger or a contaminated piece of lettuce). People have gotten infected by swallowing lake water while swimming, touching the environment in petting zoos and other animal exhibits, and by eating food prepared by people who did not wash their hands well after using the toilet. Almost everyone has some risk of infection. So although the CDC identified romaine lettuce from a particular region of California as being related to that outbreak, it remains unclear how the infection spread and what role, if any, agricultural water may have played in carrying the bacteria. This lack of knowledge about the cause of the outbreak is an added reason to cast doubt on the notion expressed in Dr. Eugene Gu’s viral tweet that allegedly lax water inspection standards were to blame for the autumn 2018 E. coli outbreak.
|
32668
|
Americans are immune to the Zika virus.
|
Researchers recommended taking swift action to debunk unscientific conspiracy theories around Zika and other viruses in order to make sure that future vaccine campaigns — once the vaccine is developed — are effective.
|
false
|
Science, conspiracy theories, vaccine misinformation, zika virus
|
Several conspiracy theories were offered up around the Zika virus in 2016 as the disease spread across South America, then the rest of the world. One of the most outlandish of these rumors, the claim that Americans are immune to the virus, was posited on Twitter in May 2016: No scientific body, whether it is from the United States or anywhere else in the world, has reached the conclusion that Americans are immune to the Zika virus (nor is there any scientific reason U.S. citizens could be immune). In fact, the Center for Disease Control has issued a warning to any American traveling to destinations such as Mexico, Central America, or the Pacific Islands: Local mosquito transmission of Zika virus infection (Zika) has been reported in Costa Rica. Local mosquito transmission means that mosquitoes in the area are infected with Zika virus and are spreading it to people. Because Zika virus is primarily spread by mosquitoes, CDC recommends that travelers to Costa Rica protect themselves from mosquito bites. The mosquitoes that spread Zika usually do not live at elevations above 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) because of environmental conditions. Travelers whose itineraries are limited to areas above this elevation are at minimal risk of getting Zika from a mosquito. The following map shows areas of Costa Rica above and below 6,500 feet. * For more information, see Questions and Answers: Zika risk at high elevations. Sexual transmission of Zika virus from a male partner is also possible, so travelers are also encouraged to use condoms or not have sex. Hundreds of people in the United States have already been infected by the disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 500 Americans have already contracted the disease, and researchers at the annual meeting of the Global Virus Network warned that disease will likely become a permanent part of American life, as with West Nile Virus: Once Zika virus arrives in the United States, it will be here to stay. Leading experts now predict that the mosquito-borne disease will become a constant low-level threat that Americans will need to be vaccinated against routinely—as we do now for rubella, a virus that, like Zika, causes birth defects. That is, once there is a vaccine for Zika. The earliest possible deployment of Zika vaccines could be several years away… On 24 May 2016, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, George Washington University, and the University of Georgia published a study in the scientific journal Vaccine that examined Zika-related conspiracy theories. While claims that Americans are “immune” to the virus were not specifically addressed, the researchers did warn that misinformation on the internet could prove to be a significant health hazard: In the new study, the research team members unearthed several unfounded Zika-related claims. Some conspiracy theorists claimed that the increase in microcephaly was caused by the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. They also insisted that drug companies were blaming Zika virus in order to earn profits from the sale of future Zika vaccines. When other people who are searching for information about Zika come across a story like this, it may lead them to avoid vaccination and distrust health authorities, the researchers concluded. “Once people have made up their minds about something, it’s hard for them to change their opinions,” said lead author Mark Dredze of Johns Hopkins. “I’d find it surprising if this sort of story really had no impact whatsoever, and I can’t imagine it would make people more likely to pursue a healthy response.”
|
29602
|
Baby carrots are made from deformed full-sized carrots that have been soaked in chlorine.
|
"What's true: Baby carrots are often treated with small amounts of chlorine as an antimicrobial measure to reduce contamination. What's false: Most baby carrots are not made from larger carrots (deformed or otherwise) and are not ""soaked in chlorine."""
|
false
|
Food, carrots, Food Preparation
|
In March 2008, we began receiving an e-mailed heads-up cautioning consumers that what we call “baby carrots” are actually deformed (crooked) regular carrots that have been whittled down and marinated in chlorine: The “cute” cocktail carrots that you buy in grocery stores come from deformed crooked big carrots. They are put through a machine to become small cocktail carrots. This part everyone knows. After they are cut to size they are soaked in large vats of water mixed with chlorine to preserve them. The same chlorine you use for your swimming pools and laundry. The reason for this is because they don’t have the protection of the skin so they use a good amount of chlorine. Notice that after you have stored them in the fridge for a while, a white film forms on them… it’s the chlorine coming to the surface. At what cost do we risk our health to have aesthetically presentable VEGGIES? Well Folks… I think after reading this we will all start making our own carrot sticks out of fresh carrots and keep them in the fridge (a few at a time), right? It is true some food products labeled as baby carrots are made by cutting down larger roots, and that these items can be treated with chlorine during processing. However, it’s not true there’s anything wrong with the larger carrots they’re made from, or that the resultant vegetables reach consumers in a chlorine-soaked state. Most “baby-cut” versions are no longer made from imperfect larger carrots, although the motivation for the invention of this product was an initial desire to find a use for standard-sized carrots that otherwise would have had to be discarded: Prior to the mid-1980s, broken and misshaped carrots were discarded, leaving some farmers with as little as 30 percent of their crop to take to stores. Tired of throwing away perfectly good food, California carrot farmer Mike Yurosek took the carrots and used a potato peeler to reshape them into small pieces more suitable for quick munching. Yurosek purchased an industrial green bean cutter to quickly whittle the carrots into the familiar 2-inch portions we still see today — and their popularity took off. The carrots now used to make “baby-cut carrots” are typically ones that have been specially bred to contain more sugar than their standard-sized cousins, because this extra sweetness appeals more strongly to children. Likewise, their bright orange color has also been bred into them, as has the evenness of that color all the way through the root: Most baby carrots sold in U.S. supermarkets are really what the industry calls “baby cuts” — made from longer carrots that have been peeled and cut into a smaller size. These carrots have been specifically bred to be smaller in diameter, coreless and sweeter than regular carrots. Bob Borda, a spokesman for Grimmway Farms, the world’s largest carrot grower (it handles 10 million pounds every day), says that over the years the company has developed a hybrid that combines the best qualities from over 250 known commercial varieties. “Naturally, you breed carrots to get the sweetest flavor and crunch,” he said. As an antimicrobial treatment to minimize or reduce the contamination of the finished product, cocktail carrots can be treated with chlorine. Those that are so treated are subsequently rinsed with potable water to remove the excess chlorine before packaging: In order to create thinner vegetables, baby carrots are planted closer together than traditional carrots. In as little as 120 days from planting, the carrots are dug up and trucked to the processing house to be cut and peeled. But before packaging, all carrots receive a brisk scrub accompanied by a chlorine bath. Wait, what? Chlorine, you say, as in the same chemical you put in your pools? Grimmway Farms uses a chlorine solution on all its carrots — organic and non-organic — to prevent food poisoning, before a final wash in water. Grimmway says the chlorine rinse is well within limits set by the EPA and is comparable to levels found in tap water. Ashley Bade, nutritionist and founder of Honest Mom Nutrition, says the chlorine bath is a standard practice in many pre-cut food items. “The chlorine-water solution is a needed step in the process to limit the risk of food-borne illnesses such as E.coli,” she says. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the use of chlorine as an antimicrobial treatment is a current accepted practice in the processing for all fresh-cut ready-to-eat vegetables (see Section 4.4). As for the “white film” the e-mailed alert claims is the “chlorine coming to the surface,” that white blush is caused by dehydration of the cut surface — were you to pull a carrot from your own garden, slice it in half and place it in your refrigerator, it too would manifest that same whitish appearance on the cut portion once the carrot dried out a bit. Cocktail carrots are more prone to develop this only because their entire surface area is a cut surface. To keep cocktail carrots from drying out, store them at low temperature and in a high relative humidity environment. “Baby-cuts” are part of a sharp upsurge in the carrot’s popularity in the U.S. Between 1970 and 1986, Americans ate 6 pounds of carrots per person per year. However, American consumption of carrots began to take off in 1987, and by 2002 it had reached 11 pounds per person. Baby carrot products are now among the most popular produce items in the supermarket aisle, have surpassed potatoes and celery, according to a 2007 USDA report. To make “baby-cuts,” large sweet carrots are machine cut into 2-inch sections, then abraded (scraped) down to size, their ends rounded by the same process: Generally, consumers can determine whether small carrots are true baby carrots or not by looking at what’s listed on the packaging. Labels that say “baby carrots” appear on packages of very young carrots that are harvested while the vegetables are still quite tiny. Labels that proclaim “baby-cut carrots” appear on packages of petite carrots made by chopping down and polishing much larger versions of the vegetable.
|
33765
|
Forwarding an e-mail message will help Amy Bruce, a 7-year-old girl dying of lung cancer and a brain tumor.
|
A 2017 version changed the name to “Annakay Brown.”
|
false
|
Inboxer Rebellion, Medical Appeals
|
There is no 7-year-old girl named Amy Bruce dying of lung cancer and a brain tumor brought on by “repeated beatings,” nor will the Make-A-Wish Foundation donate money to anyone based upon the number of times an e-mail is forwarded. The decades-old “Amy Bruce” message is one of many variants of the same basic hoax, one which falsely claims that the American Cancer Society, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or some other charitable or medical organization will donate a set amount of money every time a particular e-mail is forwarded: 15 year old girl holds hands with her 1 year old son. People call her a “slut”, no one knows she was raped at age 14. People call another guy “fat”, no one knows he has a serious disease causing him to be overweight. People call an old man “ugly”, no one knows he experienced a serious injury to his face while fighting for our country in the war. Re-post this if you are against bullying and stereotyping. I bet 88% of you won’t,the other 22 aren’t heartless and will. Hi, my name is Amy Bruce. I am 7 years old, and I have severe lung cancer. I also have a large tumor in my brain, from repeated beatings. Doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fixed, and my family can’t pay the bills. The Make A Wish Foundation, has agreed to donate 7 cents for every time this message is sent on. For those of you who send this along, I thank you so much, but for those who don’t send it, what goes around comes around. Have a Heart. Put this as your status. Hi, my name is Amy Bruce. I am 7 years old, and I have severe lung cancer from second hand smoke. I also have a large tumor in my brain, from repeated beatings The doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fixed, and my family can’t pay the bills. The Make A Wish Foundation, has agreed to donate 7 cents for every name on this list. For those of you who send this along, I thank you so much, but for those who don’t send it, what goes around comes around. Have a Heart, please send this. 7 yr old with Cancer (this child is local) Hi, my name is Amy Bruce. I am 7 years old, and I have a large tumour on my brain and severe lung cancer. The doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fixed, and my family can’t pay the bills. The ‘Make A Wish Foundation’ has agreed to donate 7 cents for every time this message is sent on. For those of you who send this along, I thank you so much. But for those who don’t send it, I will still pray for you. Please, if you are a kind person, have a heart. Please, please, PLEASE HIT THE FORWARD BUTTON. Thank you, Amy Bruce The Make-A-Wish Foundation does not in any way assist in procuring medical treatment for sick children. It works to grant the wishes of youngsters with life-threatening medical conditions, but the Make-A-Wish Foundation is about “enriching the human experience with hope, strength, and joy” by helping to create special days for desperately ill children, not about collecting donations to pay for medical care. The fictitious Amy Bruce is often credited with penning the “Slow Dance” poem which was actually written by an adult male child psychologist. A March 2009 version of the hoax that was spread by text message to cell phones changed the name “Amy Bruce” to “Erik Bruce” or “Erick Bruce”: Hi, my name is Erik bruce. I’m 7 yrs old, I have a large tumor on my brain and severe lung cancer. The doctors say I will die soon if this isn’t fixed and my family can’t pay the bills.” The make a wish foundation has agreed 2 donate 7 cents 4 everytime this message is sent on 4 those who fwd this i thankyou but 4 those who don’t I’ll pray 4u anyway This is not a joke.
|
11931
|
"Sebastian Gorka Says Jake Tapper said Allahu Akbar was a ""beautiful phrase"" after a terrorist attack in New York."
|
France will absorb 10 billion euros ($11.1 billion) of public hospital debt, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said on Wednesday, in an emergency measure designed to end months of protests by disgruntled doctors and nurses.
|
false
|
Pundits, Religion, PunditFact, Sebastian Gorka,
|
Philippe also promised an extra 1.5 billion euros over three years for hospitals, including an 800 euro bonus for 40,000 nurses and carers earning less than 1,900 euros per month. “The hospital crisis is nothing new. But it has gone through one of its acutest phases in recent months,” said Philippe. “Healthcare workers can’t go on like this any longer.” The government had hoped the package would stave off further unrest by hospital staff as public anger toward pension system reform mounts. However, within hours, trade unions said the new measures were “very far from our members’ expectations” and called for a strike in hospitals across France on Dec. 17. French transport workers and civil servants are already due to go on strike on Dec. 5. The 10 billion euros to be hoovered up by the state over three years represents nearly one third of the total debt burdening the public hospitals’ balance sheets. The hospital protests began in March and thousands of health workers marched through Paris last Thursday carrying banners that read “Public hospitals in life-threatening emergency”. President Emmanuel Macron’s government faces a possible winter of discontent if doctors and nurses join up with other discontented groups such as transport workers, civil servants and students threatening to go on strike. Medics say multi-billion euro spending cuts have stretched a healthcare system that was once the envy of the world to breaking point, with elderly patients left for hours on trolleys and doctors exhausted by stressful conditions. Philippe said 300 million euros of the extra money would become available next year. That means a budget increase for hospitals of 2.4% in 2020, against the 2.1% rise proposed in the draft 2020 budget - figures that drew derision from some medics. “Three hundred million next year when we’re demanding four billion, you can see where the problem is,” Christophe Prudhomme, spokesman for the Association of Emergency Room Doctors, told BFM TV. “We’re demanding a shock to the system.” Mireille Stivala of the hard-left CGT union told Reuters: “There will be enormous disappointment.” France’s budget deficit is estimated at 2.2% of national output next year, so the government has some wriggle room to absorb the extra funds for the hospitals without pushing the deficit over the 3% limit set by the European Union. “My objective is not to increase indefinitely the public debt. It is to give our hospitals some room for maneuver,” Philippe said.
|
13520
|
If Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations.
|
"Cruz said: ""If Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations."" As of October 2016, the U.S. government is set to no longer have a contract to oversee certain internet-related duties having to do with all of us finding websites. The tasks will continue to be handled through a California nonprofit that’s been in place since 1998. Upshot: There’s no pending government handoff of control of the internet that we can see. Also, the member-countries of an advisory panel to the nonprofit’s board can only make a recommendation if every nation agrees; that’s not U.N.-like."
|
false
|
Foreign Policy, Government Regulation, Technology, Texas, Ted Cruz,
|
"Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas says the federal government is about to give away control of the internet. Really? A shift has been in motion, we found, yet not a handoff of all things web. As of October 2016, that is, contractual federal oversight of the California nonprofit that’s managed website domains since 1998--the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers--is set to end in what proponents including ICANN and administration officials describe as a long-planned shift to the greater world community. The transition plans accelerated, according to a March 2014 New York Times news story, in the wake of revelations in documents made public by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the U.S. had been intercepting internet traffic as part of global spying efforts. This summer, Cruz and a fellow Republican, U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act to bar any handoff of the internet-related duties unless Congress gives approval. Talking up the proposal, Cruz said in Sept. 8, 2016, floor remarks: ""In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations."" Cruz went on to say the administration is ""pushing through a radical proposal to take control of internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN, that includes 162 foreign countries."" Cruz warned too that this will empower countries such as Russia, China and Iran to censor speech on the web. Cruz’s backup We sought the basis of Cruz’s statement about the administration giving away control of the internet. By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack noted ICANN is slated to no longer be under contract with the federal government. His email said that under the slated-to-go arrangement, ""only the United States can authorize any changes to the authoritative root zone file, which is used to operate the internet and is essentially the master address book. By giving up those contracts, the United States is, in a very real sense, giving up control of the internet."" By ""root zone file,"" Novack was referring to the nonprofit’s coordination of the domain name system, meaning a text file of the top-level domains that form part of web addresses. Contrary to Novack's characterization, though, the root zone file is not the ""master address book"" of the Internet, Milton Mueller, a professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy and author of a book on ICANN’s creation, cautioned when we asked. Rather, Mueller said by email, the root zone file ""is just a list of top level domain names (like .COM, .ORG or .EDU)."" Mueller presents a longer description in this September 2015 blog post. Mueller told us the domain name system solely ensures ""that the domain names we use for websites and emails are globally consistent – if you type in an Iranian domain your browser knows where to find it. A lot of other aspects of Internet operations, such as routing, are completely separate from this."" And generally, Mueller said, the internet consists of about 50,000 different private networks worldwide that use the Internet protocols to interconnect. ""All of them operate their part of the Internet,"" Mueller wrote. ""All of them could bypass ICANN if they needed to or wanted to. They all use a common domain name root because it makes the system globally compatible."" Novack further excerpted a 1998 agreement reached by the U.S. Department of Commerce stating, in part, that written direction from a government official shall be requested before ""making or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file."" By the government giving up that authority, Novack suggested, free speech on the web is at risk. Advocates declare flaws in claim Experts supportive of the pending changes told us there’s a lot wrong in Cruz's claim. First, we connected with ICANN officials who told us the plan is to sever the corporation from its Commerce Department contract as of October 2016, leaving the ""global multistakeholder community""--meaning the private sector, in consultation with technical and intellectual property experts and government representatives--to guide and handle established duties, without a particular country holding oversight. Michael Chertoff, a former secretary of Homeland Security supportive of the shift, wrote in June 2016 that the federal ""stewardship has greatly diminished as the organization (ICANN) has matured from a small operation on a shoestring budget to a large, professional corporation with more than 350 employees in seven offices around the globe. Global stakeholders, including U.S. businesses, end users, technical experts, public interest organizations and academics, oversee ICANN,"" Chertoff wrote. We inquired into the countries that, with the U.S., advise the corporation’s 20-member board, which was chaired as of September 2016 by Steve Crocker, the CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro, Inc., a start-up; he’s also one of the originators of the internet. Samantha Eisner, an ICANN lawyer, confirmed that the 171 countries advising the board include Russia, China and Iran as well as the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries. ICANN spokesman James Cole emailed us the full list of participating countries. When we checked, the chair of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee was from Switzerland, its vice chairs from Argentina, Spain, Namibia, Thailand and Turkey. GAC membership, per the web page, stretched to include national governments ""and distinct economies recognized in international fora; and, usually in an observer capacity, multinational governmental and treaty organisations and public authorities (including all the U.N. agencies with a direct interest in global Internet governance such as the ITU, UNESCO and WIPO)."" And according to an advisory committee web page, the panel’s advice must be taken into account by ICANN’s board, which includes a single non-voting Governmental Advisory Committee liaison, ""and where the board proposes actions inconsistent with GAC advice it must give reasons for doing so and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution."" So, we asked, might the advisory panel add up to a kind of United Nations? David Conrad, ICANN’s chief technology officer, told us the advisory panel isn’t a mini-UN in part because it’s not a ruling body and any recommendation it makes must be unanimous--meaning any country can stop movement--though the committee can offer information or make suggestions to the board without a consensus. More broadly, Conrad and other ICANN officials stressed, it doesn’t make sense to suggest a country controls the internet which, Conrad said, ""is comprised of a set of privately operated networks which agree to exchange traffic using a common set of protocols. There is no central point of control of the internet at all. So, the idea that the U.S. is somehow giving up control through a contract that its entire purpose is to allow the administration of a set of identifiers is just sort of ludicrous."" Mueller, asked if Cruz’s claim holds up, said by phone: ""There’s no legitimate way for him to get to that conclusion. What he’s doing is fear-mongering and trying to create a bogeyman, which is the United Nations."" Mueller said the whole point of the approaching shift is to keep domain names’ governance away from direct government oversight. Daniel J. Weitzner, an MIT official who told us he worked on the ICANN transition as an Obama administration adviser in the White House and Commerce Department, also responded to our inquiry by phone, saying the push for years has to been to ensure that no one country land the power to oversee the internet. Weitzner called Cruz’s claim ""completely off base. There is no turnover to some nefarious organization."" Separately, Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor expert on ICANN, said by phone the U.S. government can’t give away what it doesn’t own--the internet--and Cruz’s invocation of the U.N. seemed ""rather grandiose"" in that the duties at issue will continue to be overseen by the nonprofit whose board is advised only occasionally, Froomkin said, by the GAC. That said, he noted, the U.S. government will no longer independently contract with ICANN and so it will have less influence that way. Cruz's recommended authorities Novack, apprised that the experts we reached found Cruz’s claim short of factual, urged us to consult others including Phil Kerpen, who heads the conservative American Commitment advocacy group and chairs the Internet Freedom Coalition, which opposes any UN attempts to manage the internet. By email, Kerpen said that in context, Cruz’s claim is accurate; he said Cruz’s reference to control of the internet refers to the about-to-go federal oversight and the UN mention reflects on the GAC which, Kerpen said, can only be overruled by a supermajority of the ICANN board. That’s correct: ICANN’s Cole told us that under revised bylaws, it’ll take 10 (rather than the current nine) of 16 voting board members to spurn GAC advice while, Cole noted, it’ll take even more votes to reject advice from the corporation’s private sector policymaking body, the Generic Names Supporting Organization. Novack also pointed us to Brett Schaefer, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation. By email, Schaefer suggested that while the intended transition wouldn’t lead to ""government ‘control’ of ICANN as would be the case in a UN body, governments will have more authority in ICANN than they do currently."" Schaefer and others said in a Sept. 8, 2016, white paper that governments will also be voting members of the new Empowered Community, which is vested with the power to dismiss the board or individual directors or reject or approve individual bylaw changes. ""Governments have not had a say in these matters before,"" the paper says. By email, ICANN spokeswoman Emily Crane Pimentel confirmed the fresh role for government representatives. Then again, she pointed out, other interest groups also will play new roles per a February 2016 document adopted by the ""multistakeholder community"" and, she said, governments won't end up with more power than other stakeholders. Our ruling Cruz said: ""If Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations."" As of October 2016, the U.S. government is set to no longer have a contract to oversee certain internet-related duties having to do with all of us finding websites. The tasks will continue to be handled through a California nonprofit that’s been in place since 1998. Upshot: There’s no pending government handoff of control of the internet that we can see. Also, the member-countries of an advisory panel to the nonprofit’s board can only make a recommendation if every nation agrees; that’s not U.N.-like. – The statement is not accurate.
|
23515
|
Over 81 percent of the babies that are born at LBJ Hospital right here in Houston are born of women who are not here legally.
|
Debbie Riddle says more than 81% of babies born at Houston hospital have moms here illegally
|
false
|
Immigration, Children, Families, Health Care, Terrorism, Texas, Debbie Riddle,
|
"State Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, has long expressed concerns about illegal immigration. She sounded that theme anew Aug. 10 during an appearance on CNN, telling host Anderson Cooper that mothers who are illegal residents routinely have babies in the United States to ""anchor"" their families in this country. ""The fact is it is documented,"" Riddle said. ""Over 81 percent of the babies that are born at LBJ Hospital right here in Houston are born of women who are not here legally. It is well-known that women come over here, cross the border in order to have the babies here because once they get here and once that little American citizen is born and becomes an anchor baby — look, I'm a grandmother of 10, I love children, but the fact is this is breaking the back of the taxpayers of Texas and the United States."" Eighty-one percent? Documented, well-known? We decided to check Riddle's claim, remembering that PolitiFact recently rated as Half True South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's statement that people come here to have babies and then leave. While there's ample evidence that many illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S. every year, PolitiFact's research found that the incentive for illegal immigrants to come here is based more on economic hopes than quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies. Cooper grilled Riddle after she claimed that pregnant women were entering the U.S. as tourists to give birth to their children ""with the nefarious purpose of turning them into little terrorists who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm."" Riddle didn't offer Cooper evidence to back up the claim, and when we contacted her, Riddle told us in an e-mail that she shouldn't have talked about the ""terror babies,"" as they've come to be known. ""I demand proof when my opponents challenge my viewpoints, and it's reasonable to expect me to do the same,"" she said. ""That doesn't mean the things I said aren't true; it just means that I shouldn't assert them as fact unless I'm prepared to show you the facts."" So what are the facts on the babies born at Houston's Lyndon Baines Johnson General Hospital to mothers who are not here legally? Jon English, Riddle's legislative chief of staff, said she based her claim on an opinion article by state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, published in the April 30 Houston Chronicle. Noting that Texas bears a cost from illegal immigration, Patrick wrote: ""In recent years, 81 percent of babies born at the LBJ General Hospital were born to mothers who were here illegally."" Patrick's chief of staff, Logan Spence, told us that Patrick heard the 81 percent number from officials at the Harris County Hospital District, which oversees LBJ Hospital. However, six years of delivery data from the district did not confirm that statistic. Melinda Muse, a spokeswoman for the district, told us that Patrick's figure may have also included mothers who are legal immigrants as well as deliveries at Ben Taub General Hospital, the other hospital in the district that delivers babies. In a search of newspaper stories, we found an Aug. 8, 2010, Dallas Morning News article which reported that 82 percent of the births at LBJ and Ben Taub in 2009 were to women who were not U.S. citizens. The article relied on Texas Health and Human Services Commission information derived from an emergency Medicaid program that reimburses hospitals for delivering the babies of poor women who lack U.S. citizenship. But Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the commission, said that information included births to both legal and illegal immigrants. She said that the state doesn't know how many of the Medicaid mothers were undocumented. We also found a September 2006 Houston Chronicle story on the rising number of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America coming to South Texas to give birth. The article quoted Shannon Rasp, then a spokeswoman for the hospital district, as saying that ""using anecdotal information provided us by our staff, statistics from other public hospital systems and our patient demographics, we believe that approximately 70 to 80 percent of our obstetrics patients are undocumented."" The best information we found to assess Riddle's statement was the district's six years of delivery data. A caveat: Delivery statistics refer to the number of women who give birth, not the number of babies born, which Riddle and Patrick were talking about. Deliveries of multiple children, like twins and triplets, mean that there are more babies than mothers in any given year. About 85 percent of the 8,974 deliveries at Ben Taub and LBJ in fiscal 2010 — March 1, 2009, to Feb. 28, 2010 — were to noncitizens, which include both legal and illegal immigrants. Forty percent of those were at LBJ. Of those, 2,418 were to undocumented mothers. That means that in fiscal 2010, 63 percent of total deliveries (3,818) at LBJ hospital were to undocumented immigrants. For fiscal 2009, that figure is 59 percent. Previous years saw higher percentages — 71 percent in 2008, 73 percent in 2007, 70 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 2005. Remember, those statistics are for mothers only. When we asked the hospital district for data that links babies born at LBJ with the immigration status of their mothers, Muse said the district doesn't keep that information. ""Since all babies who are born in the hospital are American citizens, we don't link them to either documented immigrant or undocumented immigrant mothers,"" Muse said. That means it is unlikely that Patrick accurately cited how many babies were born to undocumented immigrants because the hospital district doesn't have those figures. And Riddle was relying on Patrick's newspaper column when she made her claim. In an e-mail, Patrick told us that if he was off ""by a few percentage points, the big picture is still the same. The fact that the number ranges from 58 to 72 percent over the last several years at LBJ reinforces my message that the state of Texas cannot control its economic or cultural destiny until the border is secured."" Close but no cigar? According to the latest statistics at LBJ hospital, the proportion of deliveries to illegal immigrant mothers was 63 percent, not 81 percent. The average over the past six years: 68 percent. If Riddle had said those deliveries constitute a clear majority, she'd be on solid ground. But that's not the claim she made on national TV. As PolitiFact has noted before, numbers matter — and when it comes to issues as fractious as immigration and so-called ""terror babies,"" politicians have an obligation to be scrupulously accurate."
|
8979
|
Treating dementia with the healing waves of sound
|
This release by Tohoku University in Japan promotes a dementia-related study in mice, specifically a technique called low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, or LIPUS. It notes that previous research has looked at focused ultrasound on the brains of mice that were genetically engineered to simulate having Alzheimer’s disease, but notes LIPUS is a whole-brain ultrasound approach. The research suggests the technique “improved blood vessel formation and nerve cell regeneration without having obvious side effects.” While the release itself was clear that the research was performed on mice, the headline is not; it seems to present as fact the existence of a safe, sound-based “healing” treatment for dementia patients, when this is absolutely not the case. (There currently is no known safe and effective treatment for dementia.) Headlines are extremely important to get right, since many media outlets today are pinched for resources and time and often follow the framing of news releases when publishing stories about studies. The image accompanying the release is also misleading since it features a young man wearing headphones, when the study was not done in humans. About 47 million people lived with dementia in 2015, and more than 131 million people may be living with dementia by 2050, according to the World Alzheimer Report 2016. Safe and effective treatments for the disease have yet to bear out in any clinical trials involving humans, despite a lot of initially promising research involving animal models. If a reliable treatment could be created to improve, stabilize, or even just slow down cognitive decline in dementia patients, perhaps millions of people and their families would stand to benefit. This release is part of an ongoing and problematic trend in medical writing that leaves room for readers (be they journalists or the public) to assume that animal-model-based research is a reliable indicator of what happens in humans. In fact, most of this kind of research doesn’t lead to quality treatments in people — most of them do not make it through clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, detrimental side effects, and other issues.
|
false
|
dementia,Tohoku University
|
We don’t see any dollar signs, but we mark this one “not applicable” because the research is at such an early phase and just making the transition from animal models to clinical trials. And though it’s unreasonable to speculate how much a LIPUS device or treatment may cost, if it pans out to be safe and effective, ultrasound scans can cost anywhere between about $70 and $500 per body part in 2018 dollars, according to a 2005 study. We are not given enough detail about the findings nor given any evidence that this treatment will be of benefit to humans. We only get a cursory mention of benefits here for the mice in the experiments: “whole-brain LIPUS therapy markedly improves cognitive dysfunctions without serious side effects.” But the study is full of detailed numbers. For instance, LIPUS apparently improved the brain’s blood flow in mice modeled to have vascular dementia by a significant single-digit percentage, roughly doubled the memory performance of those mice in one experiment, and possibly halved the grade or severity of brain lesions. A more important issue with this release is the vagueness of its headline — i.e. “Treating dementia with the healing waves of sound.” This could be read as teasing a beneficial treatment for humans, yet using what is a very early animal-model-based study. The headline should have qualified the mouse-based nature of the research, even if it wouldn’t have been as interesting to journalists looking for a research study to cover. The release notes there were no “obvious side effects” in the mice. But we really have no idea if there would be harms in humans or even primate models. Ultrasound applied to the head has been shown to warm up tissues in the brain, though what possible harm this may cause is uncertain. High-energy frequencies (greater than those used by LIPUS) can cause a raft of detrimental effects, though, including temporary suppression of brain cell function and brain damage. The study goes into further detail on harms in the mice models by stating “LIPUS-treated mice showed no signs of cramps, paralysis, cerebral hemorrhage, hypothermia, hyperthermia, or increased mortality compared with control mice.” However, you can’t ask a mouse how it feels, and it’s uncertain how often LIPUS may be needed in a mouse, let alone a person, to reap any potential benefits. While the headline teases a possible therapy for what is currently two incurable diseases, its main text focuses on the mouse-model-based study. Still, we’re not given any indication of how the work was done. The research is built on prior studies of ultrasound use on the brains of porcupines, mice, and rats — not humans. A maximum of 25 mice were used for an experiment within the study, though more often less than a dozen were used. This is a small sample size that led to wide margins of error (so the same experiments on larger numbers of mice may produce different results). The release also ignored what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the study, which was its floating of a possible mechanism for how ultrasound might help mice brains afflicted with models for dementia: affecting a number of genes in mice that promote the creation of nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow and encourage the immune system to remove debris (perhaps including plaques associated with Alzheimer’s disease). The release wording suggests readers would just accept the “magic” of the healing waves of sound without an explanation of mechanism of action. The release doesn’t engage in disease mongering. It provides some context about the prevalence of dementia worldwide. In the release, the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development is listed as the funder. However, we note that the study’s supplementary study materials say the research was supported “in part” by the organization, which suggests there may have been other funding sources (though the authors declared no conflict of interest). The release states that “there are currently no curative treatments available for vascular dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, the most common causes of dementia.” The release states that clinical trials are underway, which tells us (not quite clearly) that the LIPUS treatment isn’t yet available to the public. The release notes how this study builds on previous LIPUS work (on the heart, nerve cells, and brain regions of mice) and goes after a whole-brain approach instead of targeting just one part of the brain with ultrasonic waves. However, a quick search of other studies show that ultrasound has been used before to explore its potentially therapeutic effects on mouse models for dementia; one of the more notable studies was published by a research group in Australia in 2015, though neither the release nor the study reference it. We found this quote from the lead author partly unjustifiable: “The LIPUS therapy is a non-invasive physiotherapy that could apply to high-risk elderly patients without the need for surgery or anaesthesia, and could be used repeatedly.” The quote is caveated — i.e. “could apply” — but it’s still a major leap to connect early results from animal-model research to a real-world treatment, especially the suggestion that it won’t harm anyone and remain effective with repetition (something the study doesn’t really address, as the treatment is front-loaded three times within five days). Also, most medical research doesn’t pan out; treatments often fail to work in clinical trials involving humans, or the potential harms detected tend to outweigh the possible benefits. A more responsible quote would have noted that a human treatment is the ultimate hope, but that much more research remains to show that it works in humans and that it’s safe when repeated, either in mice or humans.
|
10751
|
Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies
|
This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What’s more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.
|
true
|
The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study – 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors’ comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed.
|
|
35729
|
A school district in Utah included a template letter to send home if a student or staff member died after reopening amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
A crisis communication plan needed its own crisis communication plan.
|
mixture
|
Politics Education, COVID-19
|
In early July 2020, Facebook users shared a meme that claimed a school district in Utah included in their reopening plan a template letter to send home to parents informing them if a student or school staffer had died. The meme caption opined that if a reopening plan includes a template letter for student or teacher deaths, then “YOU SHOULD NOT BE REOPENING.” The post was widely seen on social media, likely because it reverberated with parents feeling anxiety over the upcoming school year, which was set to begin amid a spike in COVID-19 cases. It was also picked up by the news aggregation site Heavy, which originally ran the headline, “Utah School District’s Early Crisis Plan Included ‘Template Letter’ for Deaths.” But the July 11 Heavy post has since been updated with a new headline and a quote from the superintendent of the school district in question. The updated headline reads, “Utah School District’s Death Letter Template Is Not Unusual for Crisis Planning.” And Rick Robbins, superintendent of Canyons School District is now quoted by Heavy stating that the letter template notifying parents of student and staff deaths was part of a draft reopening plan, but has since been taken out: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify information in an early working draft of our state-required back-to-school proposal, which is still being developed with input from parents, employees, students and many others. As part of a directive from the Utah State Board of Education to create a return-to-school plan, local Utah districts also are being required to prepare advance communications regarding outbreaks, illnesses, and other issues that would affect school operations. Yes, you are correct: This is a continuation of an outreach practice we already have in place. When a school community experiences any kind of tragedy, we move quickly to address questions and concerns, as well as provide information about counseling and other social-emotional supports provided by the school district. As for this specific language in the early draft, there was no ill-intent nor intent to politicize, but we certainly recognize the reasons for the concern. New versions of the proposal have been changed to reflect the feedback. All this said, we’re truly trying to follow the state’s return-to-school requirements while also working hard to be transparent, collaborative, safe, and well-prepared as we head into a school year unlike any other. We reached out to Canyons School District, and were informed by a spokesman that the document containing the death notification letter template was a planning document — not the final draft. On July 14, 2020, the district finalized and approved its opening plans. The final version doesn’t mention a letter template for such tragedies.
|
37514
|
"A ""March to End COVID-19"" was held in Cleveland, Ohio."
|
Was There a ‘March to End COVID-19’ in Cleveland?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
A social media user playing on real-world ignorance over the COVID-19 pandemic succeeded in making a stir on March 26 2020 with a photograph he claimed at the time was an ill-advised gathering.The user’s post, which has been shared more than 6,000 times on the platform, purportedly showed a “march to end COVID-19 in Cleveland”:As the tech news site Daily Dot reported, there was no such event in Cleveland — or anywhere, for that matter. The photograph was actually taken on June 22 2016 during a victory parade celebrating the Cleveland Cavaliers’ NBA championship win.The bogus post not only fooled other Twitter users but inspired at least one to post a photo from another “parade” in Chicago.But one reason the “joke” may have worked is that, as news organizations from cities around the United States have reported, there have been several confirmed examples of people going to parks or other social settings, ignoring orders from their local officials to remain home in an effort to help limit the spread of the disease.On March 29 2020, United States President Donald Trump said that the U.S. would extend guidelines on social distancing practices through April 30. More than 139,000 cases of COVID-19 (a.k.a. the “coronavirus”) have been confirmed in the country and at least 2,425 deaths have been attributed to the disease — with many more expected.
|
32152
|
Scientists have officially declared the Great Barrier Reef to be dead.
|
While the Great Barrier Reef is far from healthy, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.
|
false
|
Science, great barrier reef
|
On October 11, 2016, Outside Magazine Online published a piece titled “Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC–2016),” which used the obituary format as a vehicle to describe the perilously fragile state of the Great Barrier Reef — the world’s largest coral reef system that lies off the coast of Queensland, Australia — in the face of increasing sea surface temperatures and ocean acidity. The obit opened with the statement that “The Great Barrier Reef of Australia passed away in 2016 after a long illness. It was 25 million years old.” This bleak assessment was a response to a number of different reports describing the extent of a massive coral bleaching event from earlier in 2016. Coral bleaching, as defined by Australia’s National Coral Bleaching Task Force: occurs when abnormal environmental conditions, like heightened sea temperatures cause corals to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called ‘zooxanthellae’. The loss of these colourful algae causes the corals to turn white, and ‘bleach’. Bleached corals can recover if the temperature drops and zooxanthellae are able to recolonise them, otherwise the coral may die. In March 2016, the Coral Bleaching task force, a joint effort between members of numerous educational and governmental research organizations, released a preliminary report that concluded that a section of the Great Barrier Reef was “experiencing the worst mass bleaching event in its history”: Aerial surveys of more than 500 coral reefs from Cairns to Papua New Guinea reveal that the most pristine section of the Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing the worst, mass bleaching event in its history, with the overwhelming majority of reefs being ranked in the most severe bleaching category. In May 2016, the Australian non-profit research group Climate Council also released a report that offered similar dire information: The latest surveys indicate that 93% of the individual reefs in the GBR have suffered some degree of bleaching, with reefs in the north the most severely affected. Australia’s marine biodiversity, and the jobs and economic prosperity that the reef supports, is under grave threat. This report also warned that similar events would be more frequent in the face of higher global temperatures: Moreover, climate change is very likely to make the extreme ocean temperatures that caused this year’s event occur every two years during March by 2034. Extreme coral bleaching will become the new normal unless serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are achieved. Adding to this grim outlook, a survey of the extent and severity of coral bleaching between March and June 2016 conducted by the Australian Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and released on 13 October 2016 found that: 22 per cent of coral on the Reef died due to the worst mass bleaching event on record. Eighty-five per cent of this mortality occurred in the 600 kilometre stretch between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island. Overall, the area south of Cairns escaped significant mortality. While the threats to the Great Barrier Reef are well documented and not controversial amongst the scientific community, no scientist has actually proclaimed the reef (which, in reality, is a massive sprawling collection of organisms) to be “officially dead”. It is also unclear what organization or individual would, like a doctor in an ER, have the authority to pronounce a massive ecological community “officially dead.”” In fact, scientists have expressed frustration with the virality of the Outside Magazine piece, arguing that it both misinforms the public and suggests that efforts made to reverse the damage to the reef are fruitless, as the Huffington Post observed: Russell Brainard, chief of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Program at NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, told HuffPost he expects the article was meant to highlight the urgency of the situation. But those who don’t know any better “are going to take it at face value that the Great Barrier Reef is dead,” he said. Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said that he was “not impressed by the [article’s] message that we should give up on the [Great Barrier Reef], or that it is already dead.” In the same Huffington Post report, Hughes noted that the Outside Magazine piece wasn’t entirely accurate, either: Additionally, Hughes said, the article is “full of mistakes.” It states that the Great Barrier Reef experienced its first mass-bleaching event in 1981. But Hughes said the first was in 1998. Additionally, the article mentions “the winter of 1997–98,” which of course would have been summer in the southern hemisphere. Above all, Brainard and Hughes stressed the importance of optimism when it comes to facing such a global crisis. As Brainard wrote in a comment on Outside Magazine’s Facebook post, “this sort of over-to-top story makes the situation much worse by conveying loss of hope rather than a need for global society to take actions to reverse these discouraging downward trends.”
|
14257
|
"Jerry Jones Says it’s ""absurd"" to say there’s enough data to establish a link between playing football and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy."
|
"Jones said it’s ""absurd"" to say there’s enough data to establish a link between playing football and CTE. In fact, scientists have reached consensus establishing this link, though research remains to be done on the degree to which football players and others involved in high-contact activities risk CTE. We find Jones’s ""absurd"" claim absurd. The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
false
|
Health Care, Science, Sports, Texas, Jerry Jones,
|
"The owner of America’s Team says science hasn’t cemented a link between playing football and chronic traumatic brain injury. Jerry Jones got into the tender topic on March 22, 2016, during the NFL’s annual meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, Dallas Cowboys spokesman Rich Dalrymple told us by email. We’d reached out to Dalrymple after seeing a March 23, 2016, news story in The Washington Post quoting Jones saying he’s not convinced medical and scientific research have established a link between football and brain disease. According to the Post, Jones was asked to clarify whether there is, in his view, enough data to establish such a link. ""No, that’s absurd,"" Jones told reporters. ""There’s no data that in any way creates a knowledge. There’s no way that you could have made a comment that there is an association and some type of assertion. In most things, you have to back it up by studies. And in this particular case, we all know how medicine is. Medicine is evolving."" Dalrymple emailed us a partial transcript indicating Jones was responding to a question about if data shows an established link between football and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a specific progressive degenerative disease of the brain: REPORTER: ""No data, in your mind, to have a relationship between CTE and playing football?"" JONES: ""No, that's absurd. There's no data that in any way creates knowledge. There's no way that you can have made a comment that there's an association or some type of assertion."" Contrasting NFL comments We asked Dalrymple how Jones reached that conclusion. Dalrymple said Jones hadn’t said then and Dalrymple didn’t think there would be follow-up. What Jones said in Florida lined up with a February 2016 response by Dr. Mitch Berger, who leads the NFL’s subcommittee on former players and long-term effects of brain and spine injury. At the time, Berger was asked by Bruce Arthur, a Toronto Star columnist, if he believes the link between football and CTE had been established. He said, ""No."" But the next month, at a March 14, 2016, roundtable discussion held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Jan. Schakowsky, D-Ill., asked Jeff Miller, the NFL’s senior vice president for health and safety, if the link between football and neurodegenerative diseases such as CTE has been established ""The answer to that question is certainly yes,"" Miller replied. An ESPN recap characterized that response as ""the first time a senior league official had conceded football's connection to the devastating brain disease."" Boston University leads research So, has science established a link between football and CTE? It seems so. For instance, it’s been three years since the publication of ""League of Denial,"" the book by ESPN reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru that walked through research signaling that players who take a pounding on the gridiron--much like boxers, as established decades before--risk brain damage. According to the book, the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy at the Boston University School of Medicine, home to neuropathologist Ann McKee, had quickly grown to be recognized as the nation’s leading authority of football-related brain effects--including CTE. The center, which says it collaborates with other institutions, partners and academic researchers to ""expand our understanding of CTE,"" says on its website: ""CTE has been known to affect boxers since the 1920s. However, recent reports have been published of neuropathologically confirmed CTE in retired professional football players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma. ""This trauma triggers progressive degeneration of the brain tissue, including the build-up of an abnormal protein called tau,"" the center says. ""These changes in the brain can begin months, years, or even decades after the last brain trauma or end of active athletic involvement. The brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, and, eventually, progressive dementia."" McKee said at a press conference before the Super Bowl in 2009 (seven-plus years ago): ""I have never seen this disease in the general population, only in these athletes. It’s a crisis, and anyone who doesn’t recognize the severity of the problem is in tremendous denial."" More recently, a March 16, 2016, ESPN news story by the ""League of Denial"" authors said McKee has diagnosed 176 CTE cases in five years, including 90 of 94 former NFL players whose brains were examined; 45 out of 55 college players; and six out of 26 high school players. ""It's overwhelming that this is occurring in professional players; we're just seeing it over and over,"" McKee said. National research perspective We tried to run Jones’ statement past McKee, hearing back from the center’s Chris Nowinski, a former pro wrestler and author of ""Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis."" By email, Nowinski pointed us to a web post by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, last updated in March 2015, stating the institute’s first ""consensus workshop"" of CTE scientists the month before had concluded that ""thus far, this pathology has only been found in individuals exposed to brain trauma, typically multiple episodes. How common this pathology occurs at autopsy and the nature and degree of trauma necessary to cause this neurodegeneration remain to be determined."" Nowinski also noted the March 16, 2016, ESPN news story both noting the scientific consensus and stating that brain bank studies had lately detected CTE ""in a large percentage of former high school football players and other athletes"" and scans newly showed ""signs of the disease in NFL players decades after their retirement. All that said, ESPN reported, Dr. Walter Koroshetz, director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, cautioned that much remains unknown about CTE such as how common it is, when and why symptoms develop, and how the disease -- associated with depression, dementia and memory loss -- spreads inside the brain. The story summed up: ""Although many questions remain unanswered, the research appears not only to reinforce the connection between repetitive head trauma and CTE, but also suggests that the disease may be prevalent among people in the general population who played contact sports, not just former NFL players."" Finally, the story noted an independent analysis of brain tissue from people who had played contact sports and those who had not. Researchers including Kevin Bieniek, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Mayo Clinic's Department of Neuroscience, reviewed 66 brains of people who had played contact sports -- primarily high school and college football, but also boxing, rugby, wrestling and soccer. They also examined the brains of 198 control subjects who hadn’t been exposed to contact sports. And in the end, they spotted CTE signs in the brains of 21 people who played contact sports -- at a rate of almost one in three -- but no such signs in the brains of the people who had not played contact sports. Other scientists We asked a Johns Hopkins medical expert, Kostas Lyketsos, to analyze Jones’ claim. Through Kristin Mears, spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Lyketsos emailed this statement: ""In my view, there is good evidence to support ‘a link’ between playing football and long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries such as developing CTE. The science, however, is still very limited in terms of the strength of the link and many other important aspects of this link. The research that would be necessary to clarify these issues is costly and will take a long time to complete."" We also connected with Dr. Vassilis Koliatsos, a Johns Hopkins professor of pathology, who said by phone there’s a risk of CTE from any contact sport, including boxing, rugby and ice hockey. ""The problem is not whether there is a risk,"" Koliatsos said, ""but how much of a risk there is. The answer is we really don’t know."" He said it would help to have a study following people over time bolstered by PET scans to look for tau buildups in the brains of living people. ""What we have now is backward data, brains from people who did poorly. We don’t know about people who have done fairly well. That is the scientific issue,"" Koliatsos said. Our ruling Jones said it’s ""absurd"" to say there’s enough data to establish a link between playing football and CTE. In fact, scientists have reached consensus establishing this link, though research remains to be done on the degree to which football players and others involved in high-contact activities risk CTE. We find Jones’s ""absurd"" claim absurd. ! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
15336
|
"Erick Erickson Says Donald Trump ""has supported a Canadian-style universal health care system."
|
Erickson said that Trump has supported a Canadian-style universal health care system. Trump’s own book from 2000 affirms that. By about 10 years later, he had changed his position. Erickson got it right.
|
true
|
Elections, PunditFact, Erick Erickson,
|
"The rise of Donald Trump is striking not merely because it has come so quickly, but because there’s much in his resumé that clashes with Republican orthodoxy. Conservative columnist Erick Erickson ran down the list in a recent post on RedState.com. Trump has given money to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. He has supported abortion rights. And ""he has supported a Canadian-style universal health care system,"" Erickson wrote. We decided to look into Trump’s track record on health care. The billionaire’s 2000 book The America We Deserve makes a strong pitch for universal health care. ""I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one,"" Trump wrote. ""We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by health care expenses. We must not allow citizens with medical problems to go untreated because of financial problems or red tape."" When he turned to how the country might achieve universal coverage, Trump focused like a laser beam on a Canadian-style, single-payer plan. He said it would eliminate many billions of dollars of overhead. ""The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America,"" he wrote. ""We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing."" Ever the pragmatist, Trump noted change would not happen overnight. ""While we work out details of a new single-payer plan, there are a number of ways to make the health care system now in place work more efficiently,"" Trump wrote. So, it’s fair to say that in 2000, Trump supported a Canadian-style health care plan. By 2011, his views had changed. As he contemplated a presidential bid, he told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., that ""I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it with something that makes sense for people in business and not bankrupt the country."" In an interview with the New York Times, Trump backed away from a single-payer plan, as well as another of his proposals from a decade earlier, a surtax on the wealthiest Americans. ''We had a much different country when I proposed those two things,'' he said, according to the New York Times reporter. We searched the Nexis database of news reports for any other views Trump might have voiced on universal health care between 2000 and 2011 and found none. In a recent radio interview, Trump did not so much reject his previous support for a Canadian-style plan as describe, in a roundabout fashion, a totally different approach. He gave few details but said, ""we're going to have great (private) plans,"" and that government should help people ""at the lower levels."" ""You can’t have a guy that has no money, that’s sick, and he can’t go see a doctor, he can’t go see a hospital,"" Trump said. ""I mean, because I’m actually a conservative with a heart."" Our ruling Erickson said that Trump has supported a Canadian-style universal health care system. Trump’s own book from 2000 affirms that. By about 10 years later, he had changed his position. Erickson got it right."
|
10165
|
Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease
|
This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.
|
true
|
Academic medical center news release,Cancer
|
There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.” While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected.
|
4699
|
More women in poor countries use contraception, says report.
|
More women and girls in poor countries are using modern contraception, signifying progress in efforts to involve women in family planning, according to a report released Monday.
|
true
|
Health, Africa, Rwanda, Kigali
|
The number of women and girls using contraceptives in 69 of the world’s poorest countries surpassed 317 million in 2018, representing 46 million more users than in 2012, said the report by Family Planning 2020, a U.N.-backed global advocacy group working to promote rights-based family planning. Access to modern contraception helped prevent over 119 million unintended pregnancies and averted 20 million unsafe abortions between July 2017 and July 2018, although populations continue to soar across Africa and other low income countries, the report said. “The best way to overcome this challenge of rapid population growth is by giving women and girls (the) opportunity to decide how many children they want to have,” Beth Schlachter, executive director of Family Planning 2020, told The Associated Press. The mix of contraceptive methods has improved significantly in 20 of the surveyed countries, “meaning that more women are able to find the short-term, long-acting, emergency, or permanent method that suits their needs and preferences,” the report said. But even as millions of poor women use contraceptives, millions more who want to delay or prevent pregnancy are still unable to access it, often due to lack of information, the report said, citing perceived health side-effects and social disapproval as deterrents. Under Family Planning 2020, which grew out of a summit on family planning held in London in 2012, donors have pledged millions of dollars to bring contraception to 120 million more women and girls in developing countries by the year 2020. Many of the 69 countries surveyed for the report are in sub-Saharan Africa, which is witnessing a population boom even as other parts of the world see dropping birth rates. Over half of the global population growth between now and 2050 will take place in Africa, according to U.N. figures. According to the new report, contraceptive use is growing fastest in Africa, even though the region’s fertility rates remain high. The most recent U.N. global population report estimates Africa’s fertility rate to be 5.1 births per woman. Because the region’s growing population is not backed by substantial rises in family incomes and the development of public infrastructure, there are concerns that a population boom may deepen poverty levels for many Africans. Over the years, family planning has often been difficult to sell in heavily paternalistic sub-Saharan Africa, with the matter becoming controversial as some African leaders challenge the view that a growing population is bad for the world’s poorest continent. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni insists Africa needs more people, and has lambasted what he calls “the shrill cries of NGOs about population control.” In February President John Magufuli of Tanzania encouraged polygamy, citing the 10 million more women than men in his country in advising men to marry “two or more wives” to reduce the number of single women. ___ Muhumuza reported from Kampala, Uganda.
|
26571
|
“My mask will keep someone else safe and their mask will keep me safe.”
|
Last weekend, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey recorded a message about how to stop the spread of the coronavirus and posted it on Twitter. His message was simple and direct – start wearing a homemade mask when you leave the house. He was the first member of Congress to suggest this. For weeks, public health officials advised healthy Americans not to wear masks. But on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the guidance had changed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now urging everyone to wear homemade cloth masks when they leave the house. Trump said the guidance shifted because research indicates that people who are infected with the coronavirus but aren’t showing any symptoms can still transmit the disease. He also reiterated that wearing homemade masks is not a replacement for other strategies such as social distancing and hand-washing.
|
true
|
National, Coronavirus, Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey,
|
"Last weekend, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey recorded a message about how to stop the spread of the coronavirus and posted it on Twitter. His message was simple and direct – start wearing a homemade mask when you leave the house. ""My mask will keep someone else safe and their mask will keep me safe,"" said Toomey, a Republican from the Lehigh Valley. ""I’m not suggesting this is any kind of guarantee. It probably doesn’t have tremendous value for the person wearing the mask but it probably does significantly reduce the risk that people could inadvertently transmit it."" Since masks for health care workers are in such short supply, we wondered whether Toomey’s claim is . For weeks, public health officials advised healthy Americans not to wear masks. But on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the guidance had changed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now urging everyone to wear homemade cloth masks when they leave the house, just as Toomey called for a week ago. He was the first member of Congress to advocate for the shift. But even as Trump announced the new rules, he said he didn’t plan to follow them himself. ""It’s voluntary so you don’t have to do it,"" Trump said at Friday’s daily coronavirus briefing. ""They suggest it for a period of time. I don’t think I’m going to be doing it."" Trump said the guidance shifted because research indicates that people who are infected with the coronavirus but aren’t showing any symptoms can still transmit the disease. He also reiterated that wearing homemade masks is not a replacement for other strategies such as social distancing and hand-washing. ""We want to make sure everybody understands it’s not a substitute for the presidential guidelines that have already gone out,"" Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, said Thursday. Toomey got another thing right. Homemade masks are significantly more effective at preventing asymptomatic carriers of the virus from accidentally spreading it than they are at shielding a healthy person from contracting it. And the efficacy of any homemade mask depends on how it’s made. The most effective homemade masks are made of thick cloth and make a tight seal around the wearer’s face. ""Given the current crisis, and lacking an alternative, many layers of densely woven fabric would be the most effective, because it allows for lots of voids in the layers where particles can be trapped,"" Richard Peltier, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, told us by email. ""The mask needs to seal as tightly as possible to the face to avoid leaks, though this may not be possible with different designs, fabrics, or face shapes. Thin or porous fabrics are the least likely to be effective."" A study published in October 2010 tested how cloth masks and common fabrics fared when sprayed with aerosols at different speeds. All of the materials performed worse than hospital-grade N95 respirators. But some, such as cotton towels and scarves, were in the range of some surgical masks. The authors cautioned that fabric materials ""show only marginal filtration performance against virus-size particles when sealed around the edges."" Another study from 2013 found that cotton masks only perform about half as well as surgical masks and ""should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals."" More recent research had similar results. So at best, using thick or layered fabric to make a homemade mask could be as effective as using some surgical masks. At worst, it prevents at least some of your respiratory droplets from spreading to others while in public. Under ideal circumstances, no face masks are intended to be worn for more than one encounter. That guidance also extends to homemade masks. ""At the end of the day, these cloth masks should be treated as contaminated materials that you bring in to your home — they need to be laundered in hot soapy water, and you’d need to consider sanitizing in bleach or hydrogen peroxide regularly,"" Peltier said. Toomey’s claim that his homemade mask would keep someone else safe and that someone else’s homemade mask would keep him safe matches the latest guidance from the CDC."
|
10240
|
A Portable Glow to Help Melt Those Winter Blues
|
Always an interesting topic – but we thought much more could have been done with this story. (Yes, we know you can’t do all things with all stories, but this story has been told so many times that we look for an emphasis on what’s new or on broader context.) The story does a credible job of explaining that physicians treat people diagnosed with seasonal affective disorder (SAD) with light to try to shift their biological clocks into a better rhythm. The discussion of actual clinical studies is disappointingly brief. We are not given any idea of how commonly light therapy is prescribed – only the unsubstantiated statement that “for the millions of Americans who suffer from mild to severe winter blues…bright-light therapy is the treatment of choice.” Our reviewers included a science journalist who lives in the Pacific Northwest, where stories about SAD abound, and who has written about these treatments…and a Duke professor of medicine and psychiatry. Millions of Americans suffer from depression (not necessarily the seasonal variety) and they take millions of dollars worth of antidepressant medications. Research on what is called chronobiology points to some effectiveness for light therapy on depressive disorders. This story could have delivered a deeper examination of drug vs. non-drug therapies. It stopped short of delivering that larger picture to the readers. The story does say that light therapy may “help” with depression, sleep disorders, dementia, bulimia, bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – but it does not provide much actual evidence about these wider implications.
|
mixture
|
Depression,New York Times
|
Light sources for therapy cost about $200, the story explains. But it gives an incomplete picture by not factoring in follow up visits to a health provider when getting light therapy vs. receiving medication or psychotherapy. The story raises a very big issue, but does not provide evidence. Do patients need the same level of followup from a physician when getting light therapy as those treated with medication or psychotherapy? Does avoidance of drug side effects lead to additional overall cost savings to the health care system? The story states “there is little profit to be made from it and no commercial incentive to promote the treatment.” At $200 per box online – and with “millions” using “bright-light therapy as the treatment of choice” – as the story claims – is there not some commercial incentive in those kinds of numbers? This story did not provide any quantified detail about the results of using light therapy for seasonal affective disorder. It quoted two patients, anecdotally, about how much they believed they had been helped. It quoted the American Psychiatric Association as saying the therapy is “an effective low-risk treatment” for both seasonal and major depressive disorder. But it did not give any metric for how well the treatment works, or how quickly or for how long. How many patients getting light therapy get a little bit better? Much better? No better? The story stated “Side effects include headaches and hypomania.” And it included the warning: “Using a light box is not as simple as it may appear. Experts recommend consulting with a knowledgeable health care provider.” Another point the story could have raised is that a person with a disorder that does not respond to light may self-diagnose and fail to seek more effective therapy or advice. The story tells readers about a 2006 “double-blind” study without naming the journal where it was published or the lead author. This is very selective reporting. There have been many trials and meta-analyses of these trials. The story could easily lead readers to conclude that there are few studies, when in fact there are many. Readers need that broader context in order to evaluate the qualitiy of the evidence. In fact, another story by the same reporter in the same paper just 10 months ago noted “a new, carefully designed randomized controlled trial — of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine — suggests bright light therapy deserves a closer look.” Granted, it was a study in elderly patients with nonseasonal major depressive disorder, but it was still part of the much larger evidence base for light therapy that could have been referenced. This story does not exaggerate the consequences of seasonal depression. The story uses independent sources, but strangely does not quote anyone who participated in the single research study cited from 2006. The story does mention the existing use of anti-depressant drugs for seasonal depression, but does not compare in detail the price or length of drug therapy vs. light therapy. This comparison would have been very helpful to consumers. Other alternatives – including cognitive behavioral therapy, psychotherapy or exercise – were not mentioned. The story makes it clear how widely used are the light boxes and that they are sold online and available for rent. The story doesn’t make any inappropriate claims about the novelty (or lack thereof) in light therapy. The story quotes four different people – two patient and two researchers. It does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
31119
|
Starbucks refused free product to Marines serving in Iraq, saying the company didn't support the war or anyone taking part in it.
|
Starbucks, like any other successful corporation that has a strong public presence, is fated to operate with the Damocles sword of public opinion hanging above its head. No corporation can fund everyone who comes to it looking for assistance, which means some deserving groups will always be refused. In less emotionally-charged times, the logic of such a policy is better understood, but the current climate makes it a dicey public relations proposition at best to say no to anything having to do with soldiers.
|
false
|
Business, shunned serviceman, starbucks
|
In these days of heightened patriotism and concern among Americans for their military troops, any rumor about a corporate giant snubbing those who are putting their lives on the line overseas is bound to make a number of folks hot under the collar, which is what a message originally circulated via e-mail back in 2004 did. That viral missive proclaimed that Starbucks had not only refused a request for free product from some U.S. Marines serving in Iraq, but had retorted that “they don’t support the war [in Iraq] and anyone in it”: I have indeed confirmed the fact that Starbucks charged rescue workers $130.00 for 3 cases of bottled water on September 11, 2001, so the following info that was passed on to me would not be surprising to me at all!! Dear everyone: Please pass this along to anyone you know, this needs to get out in the open. Recently Marines over in Iraq supporting this country in OIF wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffee and try to score some free coffee grounds. Starbucks wrote back telling the Marines thanks for their support in their business, but that they don’t support the War and anyone in it and that they won’t send them the Coffee. So as not to offend them we should not support in buying any Starbucks products. As a War vet and writing to you patriots I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this War might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support the boys on the ground fighting street to street and house to house for what they and I believe is right. If you feel the same as I do then pass this along, or you can discard it and I’ll never know. Thanks very much for your support to me, and I know you’ll all be there again here soon when I deploy once more. Semper Fidelis, Sgt Howard C. Wright 1st Force Recon Co 1st Plt PLT RTO We got in touch with the e-mail’s writer and asked him about the events that led to his penning the note about Starbucks’ response to Marines who had come to them looking for a donation of coffee. Sgt. Wright heard the story from a friend, who had gotten it from someone else. He talked things over with the Marine who had supposedly contacted Starbucks, and that, coupled with that night’s televised news about the goings on in Iraq, made his blood boil. He pounded out his thoughts into the form of an e-mail, which he mailed to ten of his friends. It is that e-mail which continues to circulate to this day. Sgt. Wright has since learned that what he heard was in error, and he has subsequently tried to set things right by issuing the following retraction: Dear Readers, Almost 5 months ago I sent an email to you my faithful friends. I did a wrong thou that needs to be cleared up. I heard from word of mouth about how Starbucks said they didn’t support the war and all. I was having enough of that kind of talk and didn’t do my research properly like I should have. This is not true. Starbucks supports the men and women in uniform. They have personally contacted me and I have been sent many of their Company’s policy on this issue. So I apologize for this quick wrong letter I sent out to you. Now I ask that you all pass this email around to everyone you passed the last one to. Thank you very much for understanding about this. Howard C. Wright Sgt USMC Sgt. Wright has been unable to produce the reply his buddy supposedly received from Starbucks, and the folks at Starbucks deny engaging in any correspondence on such matter prior to this rumor coming along. Given that no copy of the letter appears to exist, neither one resting in the hands of the Sergeant’s comrade, nor one residing in Starbucks’ files, the rumor about the java vendor’s harsh response to a coffee-hunting Marine should be dismissed. As for what Starbucks has to say about the matter, they have long since refuted the rumor on their website, stating: On behalf of Starbucks’ more than 140,000 dedicated partners (employees), we want to set the record straight on an old rumor concerning Starbucks lack of support for the military and our troops. This rumor, dating back to 2004, claims a lack of Starbucks support for the U.S. Marines, and has evolved to include a lack of support for the British Royal Marines. In both instances, the rumor is not, and has never been, true. When Starbucks learned of the original email, we immediately contacted the author, a Marine Sergeant, who subsequently sent an e-mail to his original distribution list correcting the mistake. Unfortunately, rumors have a way of continuing even after the truth has been revealed. At Starbucks, we respect the efforts of the men and women who serve their country in the military, including our fellow partners who serve during this time of war. In fact, Starbucks has partnered with the American Red Cross and the United Service Organizations (USO) to provide coffee to relief efforts during times of conflict, donating more than 141,000 lbs of coffee and over one million 3-packs of Starbucks VIA®. Additionally, troops all over the world are enjoying Starbucks VIA® Ready Brew in care packages they receive not only from Starbucks, but from their family and friends as well. In 2011, Starbucks provided over 220,000 3-packs of Starbucks VIA® to the USO for their care package program. Although Starbucks does not themselves directly donate to military personnel, they do get their coffee into the hands of those serving in the U.S. armed forces through their partnership with the USO. Under the terms of the Starbucks’ corporate giving policy, had such a request as presented in the much-circulated e-mail been made, the coffee giant would have had to say no to it. Such a refusal would have been in keeping with the corporation’s donations policy, in that Starbucks chooses to direct their charitable resources within the global community through grants from The Starbucks Foundation programs and to communities where its stores are located through local involvement. According to the guidelines in place at the time, a request for coffee from soldiers serving overseas would have been turned down. However, while it is true Starbucks as a corporate entity could not have donated coffee to java-seeking Marines, it would have passed along such a request to any number of its employees looking for military mailing addresses to send product to, as they has already done on many occasions. Starbucks partners receive one pound of free coffee each week as an employee benefit (known as “partner mark-out”). Many of them have elected to send their weekly mark-out to members of the military or military families, and related organizations. The claim that Starbucks would ever have said “they don’t support the War and anyone in it” is false, in light of what various news accounts show us about the coffee retailer’s attitude towards those who serve in the armed forces. In addition to what Starbucks themselves say of their beneficences to soldiers, we know from different newspaper articles of other instances of glad-hearted support. In July 2004, a Starbucks in Cincinnati was reported to have been practically overflowing with people making yellow ribbons in support of Keith “Matt” Maupin, a soldier whose fate was then uncertain (it has subsequently been reported that his remains have been found and positively identified), along with red, white, and blue ones to show support for American troops in Iraq. In June 2004 in Cleveland, when the mother of one serviceman called her local Starbucks to arrange for the shipping of some java to her son, the employees at that store insisted on paying for 30 pounds of coffee as their gift. As to another of the claims made in the e-mail, while it is true someone working at a New York City Starbucks did indeed charge ambulance workers $130 for three cases of water on September 11, 2001, it would not be quite fair to say Starbucks did this. However, act of a single, misguided employee or not, the corporation alone bears responsibility for afterwards spurning a number of opportunities to offer the rescue workers their money back or apologize to them — though the coffee giant finally took both those actions, they did so only after the story attracted online and print media attention. In addition to the “rescue workers charged for water” and the “spurned servicemen” story that is the focus of this piece, Starbucks has been the butt of a number of other unsavory rumors and mistaken beliefs just in the past few years, including:
|
23884
|
While in Congress, Nathan Deal was a leader when it came to protecting our borders.
|
Nathan Deal says he's a leader on immigration
|
true
|
Georgia, Immigration, Nathan Deal,
|
"During his campaign for governor, Nathan Deal has repeatedly cited his work on immigration issues as a U.S. congressman as evidence he has leadership skills. He brought it up in May during a gubernatorial debate in Gwinnett County. Fox Business TV host Neil Cavuto said Deal ""led the fight against illegal immigration in the House"" during an April 29 interview. And when fellow Republican Karen Handel challenged him to prove he was a leader on the issue during his 17-year tenure, he reiterated the point in a news release. “While Karen Handel was busy preparing her resume to run for Secretary of State or Governor, Nathan Deal was leading in Congress to protect our borders. ""The release outlined five of his accomplishments as proof. We will analyze these points one at a time. Deal ""led the fight"" to require citizenship verification for recipients of Medicaid services under the health care overhaul signed into law this year. He led the fight, but he didn't win it. Deal was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce in July 2009 when he offered an amendment to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 that would have required citizenship verification for people applying for and renewing their Medicaid benefits. The proposal was narrowly defeated, 29-28. Deal was ""lead sponsor"" of legislation to prevent automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants. Yes he was, again and again. We found four instances in which Deal sponsored bills that would end this path to U.S. citizenship: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009; the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007; the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005; and the Citizenship Reform Act of 2003.Even before Deal began sponsoring these birthright bills, he supported similar congressional efforts. He was a regular co-sponsor of such resolutions starting when he took office in 1993. He did so for 10 years before he began to sponsor the bills himself. None of the bills passed. Deal ""authored and passed"" a law that requires that the citizenship of Medicaid applicants be verified. Deal and the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood of Augusta share credit for this successful measure, which attracted widespread media coverage in 2005 and 2006. They introduced this provision as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a massive budget bill that trimmed funding for entitlement programs. It required that Medicaid recipients show proof of citizenship when they apply for benefits or renew them. Deal was a ""longtime leader"" in the U.S. House of Representatives' Immigration Reform Caucus. The Immigration Reform Caucus is a group of more than 90 U.S. congressmen, almost all Republicans, that advocates for placing more restrictions on illegal immigrants and immigration, as well as taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing existing laws. Deal was a member of the caucus and was mentioned in a March 2007 Roll Call article as leading its team on birthright citizenship, a cause he has supported since 1993. We have found articles mentioning his membership in the group dating to 2001. The group was founded in May 1999. Deal worked ""hand-in-hand"" with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which proposed to allow local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. This bill ""became the origin"" of the 287(g) program of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which delegates some immigration law enforcement power to certain state and local law enforcement agencies. Yes. And no. Deal did work closely with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, according to Greg Louer, who served as Norwood's policy director, and James R. Edwards Jr., a fellow for the conservative Center for Immigration Studies who consulted Norwood on the bill while he was with the conservative think tank the Hudson Institute. They fought for it for years. It was introduced four times, starting in 2003. While the bill never passed, it became influential, Louer said. Portions of its language appeared in as many as 20 similar bills. Deal's campaign argues CLEAR ""became the origin"" of the 287(g) program, and that it in turn opened the door for the March arrest of Kennesaw State student Jessica Colotl. Colotl entered the country illegally when she was 10 and was taken into custody and cited with immigration violations after she was unable to produce identification during a March traffic stop. Her case has since become a flash point for immigration policy debate. But CLEAR did not originate the 287(g) program. It was named after a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 -- seven years before the first CLEAR bill was even introduced. State and local law enforcement agencies began participation in 2002, one year before Norwood submitted the first CLEAR bill to Congress. Yet while CLEAR never made it into law, its popularity among conservative lawmakers did pressure ICE to beef up the 287(g) program, Louer and Edwards said. The program received additional funding. More law enforcement agencies signed up to take on immigration enforcement roles. Plus one of the legislation's major goals -- to improve information sharing on immigration violations between the federal government and local law enforcement -- was adopted administratively by ICE during the later years of the Bush administration.So was Deal a leader on immigration reform while he was in Congress? He certainly was consistent. His approach on illegal immigration stretches back to his first year in Congress. He was also persistent. He was willing to press issues such as birthright citizenship repeatedly. Deal is also recognized by a nationally known immigration watchdog group as taking a lead on the issue. ""He certainly was one of the leaders,"" said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.And while his success changing actual U.S. immigration law is limited and his campaign's portrayal of the CLEAR bill's influence over the 287(g) program is incorrect, Deal did play a notable behind-the-scenes role beefing up immigration enforcement.o be ."
|
5734
|
Lamont overrules official, wants more vaccine data released.
|
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Wednesday overruled his public health commissioner, saying school-by-school vaccination rates should be publicly released.
|
true
|
Ned Lamont, Immunizations, Health, General News, Connecticut, Hartford, Public health
|
Max Reiss, the governor’s spokesman, said the Democrat “finds this information important” and believes “the public has the right to know,” including state legislators, who’ve discussed possibly ending a religious exemption from vaccines. Reiss’ comments came a day after Department of Public Health Commissioner Renee Coleman Mitchell said she only planned to release county-by-county immunization data and not school-by-school vaccination rates, noting there have been no new measles cases in Connecticut since April. DPH is expected this week to release the latest statewide vaccination data, including how many students have sought the religious exemption. Reiss said county-by-county data will be released in October and school-by-school numbers sometime afterward, once it’s been verified for accuracy. House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, a Democrat from Hartford who has voiced concern about the growing number of vaccine exemptions sought on religious grounds, said it’s important for lawmakers to have the school-by-school data to identify pockets of unvaccinated students. He said county-by-county or statewide data gives people the “false impression” there are no issues with vaccinations. While Connecticut has high statewide vaccination rates, school-by-school information released earlier this year showed more than 100 schools with rates that fell below recommended federal guidelines. A Woodstock couple has sued DPH to stop the agency from publicly releasing additional immunization rate information at private and public schools, arguing their unvaccinated son suffered “mental and emotional distress” after the data released in May showed 18.5% of students at his private school in Meriden claimed the religious exemption.
|
12558
|
"Donald Trump Says of the GOP health care proposal, ""pre-existing conditions are in the bill."
|
"Trump said of the GOP health care amendment, ""Pre-existing conditions are in the bill."" The amendment says that health insurers can’t limit access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but that insurers can charge people more if states agree. In some states, health insurers would be able to charge sicker people more. And experts warn that high-risk pools -- the mechanisms meant to keep premiums lower for sick people -- might not be effective. Overall, the latest proposal seems to weaken existing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, not strengthen them."
|
false
|
Health Care, Government Regulation, Medicaid, Medicare, Florida, Donald Trump,
|
"President Donald Trump remains hopeful that he can deliver on his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a plan from the Republican Party. In an interview with CBS’ Face the Nation, Trump argued that the GOP’s health care plan covers pre-existing conditions, despite what news reports have said. ""Pre-existing conditions are in the bill,"" Trump said April 30. ""And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, ‘Pre-existing is not covered.’ Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, ‘Has to be.’ "" Trump was more than likely referring to the most recent version of the GOP health care overhaul, an amendment by U.S. Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., introduced in late April. ""This bill is much different than it was a little while ago, okay? This bill has evolved,"" Trump said. ""But we have now pre-existing conditions in the bill. We've set up a pool for the pre-existing conditions so that the premiums can be allowed to fall."" When CBS’ John Dickerson pressed Trump on whether everyone with pre-existing conditions would be covered, Trump said, ""We actually have a clause that guarantees."" White House spokesman Sean Spicer said at the May 1 news briefing that Trump was referring to the MacArthur amendment and that Trump is ensuring that ""coverage of pre-existing conditions is at the core"" of the legislation. But the reality of how the bill addresses pre-existing conditions -- which are health problems patients have before new insurance kicks in -- is much more complicated than Trump makes it sound. What the amendment says on pre-existing conditions In March, the Republican’s American Health Care Act died without a vote when Republicans couldn’t agree on the bill designed to replace the Affordable Care Act. Under the new bill, called ACHA, insurers had to cover pre-existing conditions, but they could have charged more for people who are recently uninsured. The MacArthur amendment would allow states to obtain waivers to some requirements of the Affordable Care Act, including the ""essential health benefits"" provision that requires maternity care or mental health services. The amendment has language that appears to protect those with pre-existing conditions stating that ""nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting insurers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions."" But experts say other parts of the amendment suggest that those with pre-existing conditions could struggle to maintain affordable health insurance. The amendment permits insurers to set premiums based on the ""health status"" of an individual by looking at their current and past health status and make predictions about how much an individual will use medical care in the future, said Linda Blumberg, senior fellow in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. That’s where pre-existing conditions could come into play, because it would mean that the costs rise for consumers who are sicker, said Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University School of Law emeritus professor. ""Health status underwriting is literally charging a higher (possibly much, unaffordably, higher) premium to people with pre-existing conditions,"" Jost said. ""Under the MacArthur amendment, they could not be refused coverage, but insurers could impose high enough premiums that coverage would be unaffordable."" The amendment says that the waiver would allow states to set up a high-risk pool or participate in a new federal invisible risk-sharing program to help states reimburse insurers for covering high-risk consumers. ""No state may obtain a waiver for health status unless it has taken these efforts to protect those who might be affected,"" stated a MacArthur press release. ""In states with a waiver, individuals who maintain continuous coverage could not be rated based on health status."" That means people who stay insured without any lapses can’t be charged more by insurance companies if they get sick. But experts said that many low-income people aren’t able to stay covered without breaks, and that questions remain about the effectiveness of the high-risk pools. The American Medical Association, which opposes the amendment, said in a statement that it ""could make coverage unaffordable for people with pre-existing conditions."" The AMA raised questions about whether the high-risk pool would be ""sufficient to provide for affordable health insurance or prevent discrimination against individuals with certain high-cost medical conditions."" Our ruling Trump said of the GOP health care amendment, ""Pre-existing conditions are in the bill."" The amendment says that health insurers can’t limit access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but that insurers can charge people more if states agree. In some states, health insurers would be able to charge sicker people more. And experts warn that high-risk pools -- the mechanisms meant to keep premiums lower for sick people -- might not be effective. Overall, the latest proposal seems to weaken existing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, not strengthen them."
|
15307
|
"Planned Parenthood is ""the only health care that a significant number of women get. About 30 percent of women, that's their health care."
|
"Reid said Planned Parenthood is ""the only health care that a significant number of women get. About 30 percent of women, that's their health care."" That’s not the case -- Planned Parenthood saw 2.7 million patients in 2013, not the 39 million it would have needed to see for Reid’s claim to be accurate. Even if every Planned Parenthood patient had no other health care options, the group would have seen about 2 percent of women, not 30 percent. His office acknowledged that Reid, making off-the-cuff remarks, got the talking point wrong. In this case, he really got it wrong."
|
false
|
Abortion, National, Health Care, Women, Harry Reid,
|
"An anti-abortion group recently released several secretly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue, and that has given opponents of the abortion-providing health organization new momentum to shut off federal funding. During Senate floor debate on July 29, 2015, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged lawmakers to focus on consequences for women who rely on Planned Parenthood for health care beyond abortions if the federal funding is cut off. Planned Parenthood ""is the health care backbone for American women during their lives,"" Reid said. ""In fact, it's the only health care that a significant number of women get. About 30 percent of women, that's their health care."" A reader thought that number sounded high and asked us to check it out. We started by doing some basic math. According to the 2013 Census Bureau population estimate, there were about 161 million women in the United States, of whom 131 million were age 15 or over -- the primary constituency for Planned Parenthood. Thirty percent of that number is about 39 million women. Did Planned Parenthood serve 39 million women who had no other health care options? Not even close. According to the most recent Planned Parenthood annual report, the organization saw 2.7 million patients in 2013, completing 10.6 million separate procedures. The biggest categories of procedures were sexually transmitted infection tests (3.7 million), reversible contraception (2.1 million), emergency contraception kits (1.4 million), pregnancy tests (1.1 million), and HIV tests (704,000). (For the record, the group disclosed that it performed 327,653 abortions during that period, or about 3 percent of all procedures.) Equally problematic, there's no indication in Planned Parenthood’s data that each of the 2.7 million patients had no other health care resources to rely on, as Reid said was the case. When we checked with Reid’s office, a spokesman said that the senator was speaking off the cuff and had meant to refer to a different statistic. That is a statistic -- often cited by Planned Parenthood itself -- is that ""one in five American women has chosen Planned Parenthood for health care at least once in her life."" But that’s not what Reid said. Our ruling Reid said Planned Parenthood is ""the only health care that a significant number of women get. About 30 percent of women, that's their health care."" That’s not the case -- Planned Parenthood saw 2.7 million patients in 2013, not the 39 million it would have needed to see for Reid’s claim to be accurate. Even if every Planned Parenthood patient had no other health care options, the group would have seen about 2 percent of women, not 30 percent. His office acknowledged that Reid, making off-the-cuff remarks, got the talking point wrong. In this case, he really got it wrong."
|
26379
|
Facebook post Says President Donald Trump is selling coronavirus-themed commemorative coins through the White House Gift Shop.
|
WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is selling COVID-19-themed commemorative coins for around $100. The gift shop has a historical connection with the White House that dates back to the Truman administration, but it was taken over by a private company. The federal government is not affiliated with the shop and isn’t involved in any of its products or operations, its owner says.
|
false
|
Corrections and Updates, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"Headlines going around social media are leading some people to wrongly believe that President Donald Trump is trying to profit from the pandemic by selling COVID-19-themed commemorative coins. The caption on one Facebook user’s post says: ""Just when you think that Trump couldn't stoop any lower.....we find ROCK BOTTOM HAS A BASEMENT!"" Attached is a screenshot of a headline from LGBTQ Nation that says: ""White House Gift Shop is selling coronavirus commemorative coins now."" The coins are being sold on WhiteHouseGiftShop.com — but the White House isn’t selling them. The gift shop featured is a private business. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The name confused a lot of people, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, who tweeted on April 29 that if Trump can sell $100 coins, he can use his power to manufacture more supplies for medical workers. If the White House Gift Shop is going to produce $100 COVID-19 coins, Trump can sure as hell utilize the Defense Production Act to manufacture the gloves, gowns, and masks our medical workers desperately need. https://t.co/Wr6Y1uwG0i The White House Gift Shop is a private company that is no longer affiliated with the U.S. government. The coins are listed at $125, and the company says it will donate the proceeds to COVID-19 medical research. The shop has sold other commemorative coins in the past, such as a D-Day memorial coin and one for the anniversary of the U.S. embassy moving to Jerusalem. In 2018, the website started selling a commemorative coin celebrating a summit meeting between Trump and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un that ended up getting canceled. The shop says the new COVID-19 coins are part of its ""Historic Moments in History Series,"" which includes a coin for the creation of the U.S. Space Force. ""White House Gift Shop"" and ""White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946"" are trademarks registered to Giannini Strategic Enterprises, a limited liability company based in Lititz, Pa., according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. Anthony Giannini is listed as the CEO on the company’s website. Giannini did not respond to a request for comment, but he told fact-checking website Snopes that the shop is ""not affiliated with the White House, nor is the White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations."" While the operation isn’t connected to the White House now, it once was and dates back to the Truman administration. According to a LancasterOnline.com report, the gift shop started as a fund to benefit the family of a slain officer of the White House police, now the U.S. Secret Service. It was originally set up in the basement of the White House before it relocated to the nearby executive mansion. The now-defunct Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund ran the gift shop before running into financial trouble. Giannini told Snopes that the ownership of the gift shop was officially transferred to his corporation in 2012, and he was awarded a trademark for the name in 2016. The gift shop no longer has a physical space and operates solely online. A private gift shop is located across the street from the White House, and the White House Historical Association also has a gift shop nearby. People on public White House tours can also buy souvenirs from the association. People are accusing Trump of trying to profit off the COVID-19 pandemic by selling $125 commemorative coronavirus coins. The White House Gift Shop is selling the coins on its website, but it's a private business. The shop has a historical connection to the White House, but it is not currently affiliated with the president, the White House, or any other government entity. CORRECTION (May 6): This article has been corrected to say the White House Historical Association manages souvenirs for White House tours."
|
29809
|
"Women and doctors meet to determine whether to ""execute"" newborn babies."
|
In a statement released by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Lisa Hollier, the organization’s president, called Trump’s comments inflammatory and offensive, saying, “The rhetoric used to describe the delivery of abortion care was offensive, wrong, and dangerous. Claims of this sort undermine the public’s trust in OB-GYNs and stigmatize necessary health care for women. Politicians must never use inflammatory language that can contribute to or encourage hostility or violence toward doctors, other medical professionals or individuals seeking or receiving health care.”
|
false
|
Politics
|
During a 27 April 2019 political rally in Wisconsin, U.S. President Donald Trump made a false and incendiary remark, claiming that doctors and pregnant women confer with each other to decide whether to “execute” newborn babies. There is no truth to this statement. In a speech in Green Bay, Trump stated, “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.” In his Wisconsin speech, Trump was referencing a veto by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers of a state-level law that mirrored the federal “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which Wisconsin’s GOP lawmakers had advanced. (Evers blasted Trump’s remarks, stating, “To say that doctors in the state of Wisconsin are executing babies is just a blasphemy.”) “It is not at all true,” said Dr. Daniel Grossman, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California at San Francisco, in regards to the president’s comments about “executing” babies. Doing so would be illegal, as illustrated by the infamous case of Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder in 2013 for delivering babies of unwanted pregnancies and ending their lives by severing their spinal cords at his Philadelphia abortion clinic. Stories about babies surviving abortions and either being killed or callously left alone to die is a common pro-life trope, as are over-representations about the frequency and legality of late-term abortions. Grossman says a fetus likely could not survive an abortion, and if it did, the law requires that it be cared for in the same manner as any other baby of its same gestational age. (Although there’s no bright line, fetuses are generally considered viable outside the uterus sometime between the 24th and 26th week of gestation, depending on its health, Grossman said.) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 1.3 percent of all abortions occurred at 21 weeks or more of gestation in 2015 (the latest figures available). Cases after 24 weeks are a small minority of that 1.3 percent, Grossman said. The majority of second-trimester abortions are done surgically, while the majority of terminations after 24 weeks are done with medication. Injections are used first to induce fetal demise, and then medications are given to induce delivery, Grossman told us. In rare cases a pregnancy must be ended to save the life of the pregnant woman. And those cases sometimes involve a delivery in which the fetus can’t survive outside the uterus or would suffer severe disabilities if it did, Grossman added. Conditions can include preeclampsia, a deadly condition that can occur as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy characterized by high blood pressure and organ damage in the woman. It can only be treated by delivering the fetus. Those cases result in painful decisions that the parents and their medical care team must make — either take what’s known as “heroic measures” to intervene aggressively in an effort to save the baby’s life, or to instead provide comfort care as the baby’s life ends naturally. “That’s a very difficult and personal decision that family has to make with their care team,” Grossman said. It’s also important to note that “heroic measures” in these cases can be painful, not just futile, as they involve starting intravenous (IV) lines in tiny, fragile blood vessels to push drugs; multiple blood draws’ and sticking a breathing tube down the baby’s windpipe to force air into the lungs. “These are really severe cases involving severe malformation [and/or] extreme prematurity, where really the chance [of survival] is close to zero if not zero, and it just doesn’t make sense to put both the baby and the family through that,” Grossman added. Grossman told us that Trump’s most recent remarks are worrisome because while the physical safety of abortion providers has always been an immediate concern, the statement widens the target to include regular providers. “What he said most recently, that wasn’t really just talking about abortion providers. He was kind of implying that regular OB-GYNs might do what he described.”
|
10078
|
Doctors screen for cervical cancer too often: study
|
This story was generally clearly written and delivered an important reminder to women that screening too often isn’t harmless – and that there’s a reason for evidence-based screening guidelines. Unfortunately, the story is confusing in a way that could mislead women about how often Pap smears are recommended. The story cites scenarios of TWO negative Pap smears and asks what the next step should be. “…a woman age 30 to 60 has had two consecutive normal Pap tests but no HPV tests; two normal Paps and a negative HPV test; or a negative HPV test but no recent Pap tests. In all of those cases, guidelines recommend waiting three years before screening the patient again..” But the standard recommendation is THREE negative Pap smears before moving to every 2-3 year screening. The study’s scenarios stipulated that a woman has “a current normal Pap smear result” in addition to the past history above. Readers could be misled, since the story implies that only 2 negative smears are needed (or a single negative HPV) before adopting less frequent testing. The story ended with some sound advice for women: “We need to shift toward the wellness visit as opposed to, ‘You have to come in here every year for a Pap,'” (one expert) said. There are other important preventive interventions that happen during a visit “just for a Pap smear,” such as counseling about smoking cessation, diet, and exercise, and screening for other problems such as sexually transmitted disease and depression. Doctors may be slow to adopt new Pap smear guidelines because the public health message about the benefit of routine preventive visits (what is confusingly termed here a “wellness visit”) has not been strongly articulated.
|
true
|
Cancer,Reuters Health,Screening
|
The story referred to “extra costs women may incur to get childcare and make it to the doctor’s office — plus the costs to a strained healthcare system of ordering more tests.” Not applicable. The story wasn’t about benefits, but rather, the suggested lack of benefit from screening too often. The story did a good job explaining that there can be harm from screening too often – something that often isn’t explained in screening stories: “…any extra screening increases the chance of getting a “false positive” result on a test — meaning the test finds something that doesn’t turn out to be cancer. In that case, women would need more invasive tests to rule out disease, Roland said, and risk “undue harm” from those procedures. “Some of it is, don’t go looking before you need to go looking because you’ll find stuff that you’d rather not find,” said (one observer), who was not involved in the new study. The story did not make clear who was surveyed. Family practitioners? Ob-gyns? There were other issues. The story never fully described the evidence behind the recommendations that “generally call for a three-year wait after normal tests.” Reuters may have thought that was outside the scope of the current news on the current study, but it would have better informed readers about the quality of the evidence. Then, of course, there’s the confusion over the screening intervals that was addressed in the review summary above. No disease-mongering at play here. An independent expert from the American Society for Clinical Pathology was interviewed – someone not involved in the study. Comparison of screening intervals was at the heart of the story: “There’s really no advantage to annual screening compared to screening every two or three years,” lead author Katherine Roland told Reuters Health. The entire story was about cervical cancer screening being made TOO available too often. The story reminded readers that this type of survey – and its findings – don’t stand alone: “Results from a survey of the same doctors have shown that many also give the HPV test alongside Pap smears to women under 30 — which is not recommended, because HPV is common in young women and often goes away on its own (see Reuters Health story of July 4, 2011. )” It’s clear the story didn’t rely on a news release.
|
33522
|
"Psychologist B. F. Skinner raised his own daughter in a ""Skinner box""; as a result, she grew up psychologically damaged, sued her father, and committed suicide."
|
Did psychologist B.F. Skinner raise his daughter in a 'Skinner box'?
|
false
|
Medical, b.f. skinner, baby
|
B.F. Skinner was a renowned behavioral psychologist who began his career in the 1930s and is best known for his development of the Skinner box, a laboratory apparatus used to conduct and record the results of operant conditioning experiments with animals. (These are typically experiments in which an animal must manipulate an object such as a lever in order to obtain a reward): When Skinner’s second daughter, Deborah, was born in 1944, Skinner (who then lived in Minnesota) constructed an alternative type of crib for her that was something like a large version of a hospital incubator, a tall box with a door at its base and a glass window in front. This “baby tender,” as Skinner called it, provided Deborah with a place to sleep and remain comfortably warm throughout the severe Minnesota winters without having to be wrapped in numerous layers of clothing and blankets (and developing the attendant rashes). Deborah slept in her novel crib until she was two and a half years old, and by all accounts grew up a happy, healthy, thriving child. The trouble began in October 1945, when the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal ran an article by Skinner about his baby tender. The article featured a picture of Deborah in a portable (and therefore smaller) version of the box, her hands pressed against the glass, under the headline “Baby in a Box.” People who didn’t read the article carefully, or who merely glanced at the picture or heard about the article from someone else but didn’t read it themselves confused the baby tender with a Skinner box, even though the article clearly explained that the baby tender was something quite different: When we decided to have another child, my wife and I felt that it was time to apply a little labor-saving invention and design to the problems of the nursery. We began by going over the disheartening schedule of the young mother, step by step. We asked only one question: Is this practice important for the physical and psychological health of the baby? When it was not, we marked it for elimination. Then the “gadgeteering” began.The result was an inexpensive apparatus in which our baby daughter has now been living for eleven months. Her remarkable good health and happiness and my wife’s welcome leisure have exceeded our most optimistic predictions, and we are convinced that a new deal for both mother and baby is at hand. We tackled first the problem of warmth. The usual solution is to wrap the baby in half-a-dozen layers of cloth-shirt, nightdress, sheet, and blankets. This is never completely successful. The baby is likely to be found steaming in its own fluids or lying cold and uncovered. Schemes to prevent uncovering may be dangerous, and in fact they have sometimes even proved fatal. Clothing and bedding also interfere with normal exercise and growth and keep the baby from taking comfortable postures or changing posture during sleep. They also encourage rashes and sores. Nothing can be said for the system on the score of convenience, because frequent changes and launderings are necessary. Why not, we thought, dispense with clothing altogether — except for the diaper, which serves another purpose — and warm the space in which the baby lives? This should be a simple technical problem in the modern home. Our solution is a closed compartment about as spacious as a standard crib . The walls are well insulated, and one side, which can be raised like a window, is a large pane of safety glass. The heating is electrical, and special precautions have been taken to insure accurate control. After a little experimentation we found that our baby, when first home from the hospital, was completely comfortable and relaxed without benefit of clothing at about 86°F. As she grew older, it was possible to lower the temperature by easy stages. Now, at eleven months, we are operating at about 78°F, with a relative humidity of 50 per cent. As Deborah Skinner described her experience with the baby tender many years later: My father’s intentions were simple, and based on removing what he and my mother saw as the worst aspects of a baby’s typical sleeping arrangements: clothes, sheets and blankets. These not only have to be washed, but they restrict arm and leg movement and are a highly imperfect method of keeping a baby comfortable. My mother was happy. She had to give me fewer baths and of course had fewer clothes and blankets to wash, so allowing her more time to enjoy her baby.I was very happy, too, though I must report at this stage that I remember nothing of those first two and a half years. I am told that I never once objected to being put back inside. I had a clear view through the glass front and, instead of being semi-swaddled and covered with blankets, I luxuriated semi-naked in warm, humidified air. The air was filtered but not germ-free, and when the glass front was lowered into place, the noise from me and from my parents and sister was dampened, not silenced. The effect on me? Who knows? I was a remarkably healthy child, and after the first few months of life only cried when injured or inoculated. I didn’t have a cold until I was six. I’ve enjoyed good health since then, too, though that may be my genes. Frankly, I’m surprised the contraption never took off. A few aircribs were built during the late 50s and 60s, and somebody also produced plans for DIY versions, but the traditional cot was always going to be a smaller and cheaper option. My sister used one for her two daughters, as did hundreds of other couples, mostly with some connection to psychology. Nonetheless, many people jumped to the conclusion that Skinner was raising his daughter in a cramped box equipped with bells and food trays and was conducting psychological experiments of the “rewards and punishments” variety on her. Outraged letter-writers protested that a child should not be “kept in a box” and “subjected to experiments like an animal.” Over the years the details about Skinner’s baby tender (which was unsuccessfully marketed under the names “Heir Conditioner” and “Aircrib”) became more fuzzily remembered, and by the mid-1960s (when Deborah turned twenty-one), the rumor had started that Skinner’s psychotic daughter had sued him for traumatizing her by raising her in a box and conducting psychological experiments upon her, and that she had enventually committed suicide. In fact, Deborah Skinner (now Deborah Skinner Buzan) grew up about as normally as can be, remained close to her father, and has been living and working in London as an artist since the mid-1970s. She quipped years later that “I’m pretty sure I’m not crazy. And I don’t seem to have committed suicide,” and of her unusual upbringing she said, “It wasn’t really a psychological experiment but what you might call a happiness-through-health experience. I think I was a very happy baby. Most of the criticisms of the box are by people who don’t understand what it was.” In 2004 author Lauren Slater touched off a brouhaha and accusations of shoddy research when she repeated many of the familiar “Skinner box” rumors in her book Opening Skinner’s Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. According to legend, she wrote, Skinner kept Deborah: … caged for two full years, placing within her cramped square space bells and food trays and all manners of mean punishments and bright rewards, and he tracked her progress on a grid. And then, when she was thirty-one and frankly psychotic, she sued him for abuse in a genuine court of law, lost the case, and shot herself in a bowling alley in Billings, Montana. Boom-boom went the gun. Deborah Skinner Buzan affirmed that these legends were nothing more than outrageous rumors: [T]here’s the story that after my father “let me out”, I became psychotic. Well, I didn’t. That I sued him in a court of law is also untrue. And, contrary to hearsay, I didn’t shoot myself in a bowling alley in Billings, Montana. I have never even been to Billings, Montana. Although some of the information presented in Slater’s book was indicated as being legend or rumor, Deborah Buzan felt that Slater inaccurately mischaracterized her father as a scientist who used her to “prove his theories” by putting her into a “laboratory box”, and that Slater “seriously libeled” her in claiming: “I did not come across any data that could convince me of [Deborah Skinner’s] mental status.” Ms. Buzan responded: [I]t’s not true. My father did nothing of the sort.The plain reality is that Lauren Slater never bothered to check the truth of [these rumors] (although she claims to have tried to track me down). Instead, she chose to do me and my family a disservice and, at the same time, to debase the intellectual history of psychology.
|
15602
|
Transgender individuals in the U.S. have a 1-in-12 chance of being murdered.
|
"Coleman told colleagues: ""Transgender individuals in the U.S. have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered."" We’re not judging here whether transgender individuals are at risk of attack. But we did not find evidence for this figure or even sufficient information to gauge if it was rooted in facts. All told, Coleman's claim was both unsupported and implausible. The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. UPDATE, 12:30 p.m., April 25, 2016: We revised this article after hearing from Kay Brown. The story now includes her analysis of how a 1-in-12 estimate came to be. These changes did not affect our rating of Coleman's claim."
|
false
|
Corrections and Updates, Criminal Justice, Crime, Sexuality, Texas, Garnet Coleman,
|
"State Rep. Garnet Coleman brought up murder in urging colleagues to add acts against transgender Texans to the state’s hate-crimes law. ""The facts do not lie,"" the Houston Democrat said in a May 6, 2015, hearing held by the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. Coleman, suggesting transgender Americans are more likely to be attacked, went on: ""Transgender individuals in the U.S. have a 1-in-12 chance of being murdered. The average person has a 1-in-18,000 chance."" His House Bill 2059 would add ""gender identity or expression"" to what a judge or jury could consider to declare an action a hate crime. We asked Coleman to elaborate on his declaration about the chances of a transgender resident, meaning a person whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth, being murdered. In a written statement we fielded by email, Coleman said the 1-in-12 figure turned out not to have a factual basis. In preparing his presentation, Coleman said, he drew the 1-in-12 element from Equality Texas, a group that says it advocates for ""full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Texans."" Coleman also told us a 2012 Human Rights Campaign press release no longer posted online publicized the seemingly unsupported 1-in-12 statistic. We shared Coleman’s response with Equality Texas and the Human Rights Campaign, which says it focuses on achieving equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Chuck Smith of Equality Texas confirmed it gave Coleman the figure. A campaign spokesman, Adam Talbot, replied by email that he couldn’t find any sign of the group bandying the 1-in-12 formulation. By phone, Coleman said: ""The information is false; it’s not verifiable."" We took our own look. Chances of a murder We recognized, for starters, that counting the number of murders across the population isn’t the same as calculating the chances of any member of a subgroup getting murdered. Various factors come into play including where someone lives and works, for instance. Regardless, Coleman told us the 1-in-18,000 general chances of murder in the United States he mentioned was based on FBI-collected figures for murders in 2000. By email, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer guided us to an agency chart showing 15,586 murders and nonnegligent homicides in 2000 when the U.S. had 281,421,906 residents, which suggests 1 in 18,056 residents were murdered. According to the most recent compiled data on the chart, in 2013, the 14,196 murders/nonnegligent homicides within the U.S. population of 316,128,839 residents suggests there was one person murdered for every 22,269 residents. Fischer pointed us to another FBI chart stating that nationally in 2013, law enforcement agencies tallied 5,928 hate-crime incidents with 1,233 incidents traced to bias against the victim’s sexual orientation. Some 277 incidents were categorized as anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexaul, or anti-transgender, the chart says. Separately, of 31 gender-identity hate crimes, according to the chart, 23 were anti-transgender and 8 were anti-gender-nonconforming (referring to a person who does not conform to the gender-based expectations of society as in a woman dressed in traditionally male clothing or a man wearing makeup). According to another FBI chart, none of the tallied 2013 victims of anti-transgender or anti-gender-nonconforming bias hate crimes were murdered. More recently, a March 2015 web post by the Human Rights Campaign and the Trans People of Color Coalition said that between January 2015 and March 10, 2015, at least seven transgender women were murdered in the U.S--after 13 transgender women were murdered in 2014. Smith from Equality Texas suggested by email that the 1-in-12 statistic originated in a master’s degree thesis written in the 1990s by a Californian, Kay Brown, who gave a course on transgender history based on her thesis, it appeared. However, neither Smith nor we could find a copy nor did we confirm any of these details. Next, some 11 months after we published this fact check, we heard by email from Brown, who said she once reached a ""back-of-the-envelope"" estimate on the chances of an androphilic (exclusively attracted to men) male-to-female transexual person being murdered. Brown said that result, which was not in a master’s thesis, evidently morphed elsewhere into a transgender murder rate. Brown also brought to our attention her August 2013 blog post on the topic. Separately, none of several online posts pointed out by Smith identified a factual basis for the 1-in-12. Notably, a May 2012 blog post by Christina Stephens of Missouri described her failed attempts to find a substantive basis. Stephens and others writing online speculated the statistic was referring to lifetime chances of being murdered with writer Parker Marie Molloy concluding in November 2013 that if estimates of the share of U.S. residents who are transgender are accurate, it’s not numerically reasonable for the 1-in-12 figure to hold up. A 2009 web post by the Washington, D.C.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, which calls itself the ""nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people,"" said that no agencies tally transgender residents and many aren’t public about their identities, but the center estimates that up to 1 percent of the population is transsexual. Even if one presumes the 1-in 12 statistic reflects the lifetime chances of getting murdered, Molloy called it ""extremely unlikely"" to be correct. ""Far too many trans people find themselves the victims of anti-transgender violence,"" Molloy concluded, ""but luckily for us, it’s not 1 out of every 12 of us."" Other research Thinking others might have sorted this out, we turned to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs whose latest report on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected hate violence, published in May 2014, covered U.S. conditions the year before. The report was based on public data and information provided by 14 member-groups including the Montrose Center in Houston, which means incidents were undercounted, the authors wrote. Overall, the report said, anti-LGBTQ and HIV-affected homicides in 2013 were down 28 percent from the year before, totaling 18 compared with 25 in 2012. But for the third year in a row, the report said, ""transgender, transgender people of color, and LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color experienced disproportionately severe violence."" Thirteen of the 2013 victims were transgender women, the report said. The report also said: ""Unfortunately, data on the prevalence of hate violence against queer, bisexual, transgender and HIV-affected people is virtually non-existent."" Also disconcerting, the report said, its 2013 report documented over 600 more survivors and victims of hate violence through 2012 than the FBI had (1,376 survivors and victims compared to 2,001 survivors and victims). We also reached Vincent Villano, spokesman for the National Center for Transgender Equality. By phone, Villano expressed unfamiliarity with the 1-in-12 figure. ""There really isn’t any data available out there,"" Villano said. Our ruling Coleman told colleagues: ""Transgender individuals in the U.S. have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered."" We’re not judging here whether transgender individuals are at risk of attack. But we did not find evidence for this figure or even sufficient information to gauge if it was rooted in facts. All told, Coleman's claim was both unsupported and implausible. ! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. UPDATE, 12:30 p.m., April 25, 2016: We revised this article after hearing from Kay Brown. The story now includes her analysis of how a 1-in-12 estimate came to be. These changes did not affect our rating of Coleman's claim."
|
11475
|
Quick fix for nearsightedness; 20-minute operation adds a permanent contact lens for instant vision upgrade
|
This is a story on a new medical device, an implantable collamer lens (ICL), which is never mentioned by name in the story. It was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of fairly severe nearsightedness. While the story mentions its limited use (only for those with serious nearsightedness) and the risks associated with its use (infection, glaucoma, and cataract), the story provides little information that would be useful for an individual interested in the weighing the options available for treatment. Where is the clinical trial data? For a story that profiles a 23-year old patient, it is noteworthy that there is no information about what’s known or not known about long-term use.
|
mixture
|
Lists cost of surgery at $3,500 per eye and notes it is not typically covered by insurance No quantification of benefit. FDA new device approval (see above) had some of this. Risks of harms (infection, glaucoma, and cataract) are listed but no rates are presented. Wouldn’t readers want to know how often these occur? The story presents a case of a 23 year old patient, which seems to demand information about the long term outcomes, but that info is not given (how long patients have been followed, how age-related changes in vision are affected by presence of the device, etc.). No mention of the clinical trials. The FDA new device approval mentioned “a clinical study of 294 patients who had the device implanted, 95% of whom had 20/40 or better (considered standard vision to get a driver’s license), and 59% had 20/20 or better after 3 years” Does not provide any context for the prevalence of myopia for which this treatment might be applicable. On the other hand, it at least points out that it is for treatment of more severe nearsightedness. But who fits in that category? How many? Two “true believer” patient quotes are included along with comments from an enthusiastic ophthalmologist. Are there other opinions? The story provides no evidence of a search for other perspectives. Reference is made to the intraocular lens implant that FDA approved in 2004 for treatment of similar range of myopia; as well as LASIK surgery, another procedure which can be used to treat the problem. The advantage of this new device as compared with LASIK is said to be elimination of the halo some experience at night; the advantage over the IOL is a smaller incision is used (mentioned) and less associated corneal endothelial loss because of differences in placement between the two devices (not mentioned). However – there is no clear hierarchy of treatment presented, i.e. glasses or contact lenses as first choice options; laser surgery for individuals with mild nearsightedness who want to avoid corrective vision devices. For those with more severe nearsightedness, this device represents a new option. Story mentions that only a handful of ophthalmologists have begun using it but that by April, it is expected to be widely available. (according to whom?) Mention is made of its FDA approval in December 2005. This article reports on an implantable collamer lens, which is a newly FDA approved medical device for correction of myopia (-3 to -15 diopters with only limited amount of astigmatism) or reduction of myopia (-15 to -20 D with limited astigmatism). We can’t be sure if the story relied solely on a news release.
|
|
28098
|
"In May 2018, President Donald Trump established a ""religious office"" to give religious groups a ""voice in government."
|
"What's true: In May 2018, President Trump established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The administration said the initiative would give faith-based organizations a ""voice in the White House."" What's false: The description of the initiative as a ""religious office"" did not come from the White House itself, and the meme left out the fact that Trump's 2018 initiative was not a radical new departure, but rather represented significant continuity from earlier similar initiatives in the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
|
true
|
Politics, donald trump, occupy democrats
|
On 3 May 2018, the “Occupy Democrats” Facebook page posted a meme which claimed that the president had violated the constitutional separation of church and state by setting up a “religious office”: President Trump did sign an executive order in May 2018 to establish a new faith-based initiative within the White House, but nobody from his administration called it a “religious office” — that description appears to have come from Occupy Democrats. Furthermore, Trump’s initiative represents significant continuity of, rather than a departure from, the previous two administrations. Although every detail and working of the new initiative has not yet been outlined, it certainly does not represent a radical change. Trump’s White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative bears a striking resemblance to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which George W. Bush set up in 2001, and which Barack Obama continued during his administration but renamed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In brief, Trump’s executive order — which he signed on 3 May 2018, the National Day of Prayer — replaces the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships with the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, keeping it within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The executive order also sets out the following: Beyond that, Trump’s order is somewhat vague on the exact workings of the initiative and the duties of the advisor who will lead it: One potentially significant provision in the executive order calls for those in charge of the Faith and Opportunity Initiative to contact the Attorney General if they see potential executive branch violations of a religious liberty memorandum published by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October 2017. The Sessions memorandum reiterated the positions set out by Trump in an earlier executive order, in which the President wrote: It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom…. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. President Trump has prioritized enhancing legal protections for religious freedom, including when it comes to obligations placed on faith-based organizations that receive federal funding, the freedom of employers and employees to abstain from practices (particularly in health care) which they feel compromise their religious beliefs, and in calling for an end to the Johnson Amendment, a long-standing provision that bars religious 501 (c)(3) non-profit groups from engaging in electoral activism. In his 2001 executive order establishing the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President George W. Bush emphasized that a driving force behind the policy was a desire to “level the playing field” in the disbursement of federal funding, and enhance the funding opportunities available for religious non-profit organizations — especially those focused on poverty, addiction, crime and other social issues: The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality. The Occupy Democrats meme is largely accurate. In May 2018, Trump did indeed establish an initiative within the White House which would give faith-based organizations what the administration called a “voice in the White House.” However, the description of the initiative as a “religious office” did not come from the Trump administration itself, and that is not its official name. Furthermore, Trump’s 2018 initiative represents significant continuity from predecessor offices set up by George W. Bush in 2001 and Barack Obama in 2009, although the exact focus, workings, and influence of Trump’s initiative remain to be seen. On 5 May, the “Being Liberal” Facebook page and web site published an article with the headline “Trump quietly signed an Executive Order allowing government to fund religious groups.” This is very misleading, and ignores the fact that the federal government has been providing grants, funding and tax write-offs to religious non-profit organizations for many years, including during the Obama administration. Trump’s creation of the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative did not usher in that state of affairs.
|
25986
|
Federal officials confirmed that the CDC “sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus.”
|
The CDC produced a batch of defective tests that were distributed to a limited number of public health laboratories in early February. The contamination came from a chemical substance that was later removed in the mass-produced tests. The test kits did not and could not contain the live virus.
|
false
|
Facebook Fact-checks, Facebook posts,
|
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention didn’t send out COVID-19 testing kits that were ""seeded"" with the live virus, as one Facebook post claims. The post shows an illustration of a nasal swab being used to test for the virus. Text on the graphic reads: ""COVID-19 test HAS the virus … ‘the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus, federal officials confirmed.’"" This is wrong. The CDC initially sent out a batch of defective COVID-19 testing kits to a limited number of laboratories in early February that had to be recalled — but the tests weren’t contaminated with the live virus and didn’t have the capability to infect people being tested. In fact, the tests were early in their development at the time and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. The 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.) The CDC first dispersed diagnostic COVID-19 testing kits to a network of public labs in February, but the agency had to recall the tests after a component turned out to be contaminated. The defective tests came out of the public health agency’s central laboratory complex in Atlanta. Media outlets first reported about the faulty tests in March. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General released a special report about what happened on June 19. A summary of the report said that the batch of tests relied on a reagent that was likely contaminated. Reagents are chemical substances that are used in tests to produce reactions. The defective tests were in the second of two sets of kits developed by the CDC in late January, the report says. The first set was sent to a limited number of public health labs and had no reported issues. The problem came with the second batch, which the CDC intended to manufacture for the first wave of testing — at least until commercial labs and diagnostic companies were able to mass-produce their own. ""One of the three reagents in this initial batch of manufactured test kits was likely contaminated. These tests are so sensitive that this contamination could have been caused by a single person walking through an area with positive control material and then later entering an area where tests reagents were being manipulated,"" the report stated. The public health labs attempted to validate the test kits before using them on swabs from people, but a negative control gave a positive result, and the kits were scrapped. Scientists eventually redesigned the test to be run without the reagent and in February began to distribute the approved kits. The CDC also confirmed that there was no live virus in the test. And Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Lab at Stanford Medicine, told PolitiFact that infectious live viruses are not used to produce tests. ""The HHS investigation indicates that there was likely contamination of the N3 reagents with the positive control material,"" Pinsky wrote in an email. ""No infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus is part of the kit, nor is it used in any step of its manufacture."" A Facebook post claimed that the CDC ""sent states tainted lab test kits"" in February that ""were themselves seeded with the virus."" This is inaccurate. The CDC sent out early COVID-19 tests to a limited number of public health labs that turned out to be defective due to a contaminated reagent. But these tests didn’t and couldn’t contain the live virus, as live virus isn’t used in test production in the first place. Meanwhile, the tests were early in their development and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing."
|
3416
|
Oak-killing fungus spreads to more places in New York.
|
A devastating fungus that kills oak trees has been found in an eighth location in New York state.
|
true
|
New York, Trees, Environment, Oak trees, Canandaigua, Schenectady
|
The Department of Environmental Conservation says oak wilt has been found in the Ontario County town of South Bristol. It’s the second location the disease has been found in Ontario County. There was a 2016 outbreak in Canandaigua, a few miles north of the new site. A landowner contacted DEC after several oak trees started dropping discolored leaves in July before rapidly dying. The current treatment method is to remove infected trees as well as nearby oaks that could become infected. Oak wilt made its first appearance in New York in the Schenectady County town of Glenville in 2008. It has since been found in Suffolk and Kings counties.
|
10203
|
Breakthrough asthma treatment
|
This story about an experimental new technique for controlling asthma spent a lot of time emphasizing benefits but glossed over the limitations, risks and unknowns. Our reviewers were particularly concerned by unsupported claims about effectiveness and a lack of balance and caution. Asthma attacks account for millions of emergency room visits each year and thousands of deaths. Thermoplasty might be an option for reducing this burden in patients whose severe asthma is not responding to available medications.
|
false
|
"The frequent emergency room visits described in this story represent a big cost burden that this treatment might help alleviate. But the treatment itself is also likely to be expensive and might counteract these benefits. Regardless, the story doesn’t mention costs. There wasn’t much quantification of the benefits observed in this study. And when there are no long-term data showing how people fare after treatment, we find it puzzling that the story would claim that asthma symptoms are ""generally gone for good"" in patients who receive this procedure. Moreover, we were concerned about the story’s emphasis on the impressive-sounding 84% relative reduction in hospital ER visits in the thermoplasty patients. As we note here, using relative risks can make a treatment’s benefits sound more impressive that they really are. Finally, we wish the story had mentioned the fact that patients treated with a sham thermoplasty procedure (the placebo) in this trial also had a big improvement and fared nearly as well as the thermoplasty group according to the study’s primary quality of life outcomes. (See the abstract for more details.) This would have provided a more reasonable perspective on what patients can expect from this treatment. There were a couple of openings for this story to better characterize the potential risks of this investigational procedure. At one point, the story says that the treatment ""doesn’t come without risks,"" but the only downside subsequently mentioned is that ""People will have to be trained to use the technique."" Later, an anchor says more directly, ""You are actually destroying some tissues in the lungs. Do they know anything about potential long-term complications?"" But the reporter responds that the treatment ""doesn’t seem to limit pulmonary, lung function at all."" Faced with the lack of any long-term data on how patients do with this procedure, we feel it would have been appropriate to at least discus the potential for adverse consequences or emphasize the uncertainty of the current evidence. Instead, the ""breakthrough"" framing came across as cheerleading. The story mentions a study that tested the new thermoplasty treatment in 300 patients, but what kind of study was it? Was it a case series or a placebo controlled trial? And if the latter, were the doctors conducting the study blinded to which treatment the participants were getting? These details make a big difference as to how much confidence we should have in the results, but the story focuses entirely on what the study found and not on how it was conducted. There was no overt disease-mongering in this story, but it could have cited what percentage of asthma patients have severe symptoms that are not adequately controlled The story failed to point out that the Dr. Castro, who led the study discussed in this story, is a paid consultant for Asthmatx, which manufactures the thermoplasty device tested in the study and which provided funding for the study. The story notes that other asthma treatments aren’t ""game-changers"" for patients who aren’t responding to medical therapy, the implication being that thermoplasty is. But we don’t really know whether thermoplasty represents a big improvement over medical therapy just yet. That being said, the story did emphasize that this treatment is only being considered for patients whose asthma isn’t being controlled by existing treatments. By providing this important context, the story does enough to satisfy the criteria. In the lead-in to her interview with the reporter, the CNN anchor states in passing that ""as always with things that are seeking approval, and there are benefits and there are of course risks."" She is alluding to the fact that this asthma treatment involves an investigational device that has not yet been approved by the FDA. However, this is never directly stated. We think there’s a good chance the average viewer will think that this treatment is already available, but it isn’t. While we were uncomfortable with this story’s characterization of thermoplasty as a ""new medical breakthrough"" (for reasons discussed here), the treatment is relatively new and different from existing techniques. We don’t think the story misled in this regard. This story was not based unduly on any news release that we could identify."
|
|
4654
|
Rejected medical marijuana grower applicant sues Missouri.
|
A southwest Missouri family that saw its application to grow medical marijuana rejected by the state is now suing the state, demanding a license to participate in Missouri’s fledgling medical cannabis industry.
|
true
|
Michael Brown, Medical marijuana, Health, General News, Marijuana, Lawsuits
|
The lawsuit filed Friday by Paul Callicoat and his family, of Sarcoxie, Missouri, came a day after the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services granted 60 licenses from the more than 500 companies that applied. The Callicoats, who had planned to open a cultivation facility called Sarcoxie Nursery, were not among those who won a license. The family’s lawsuit argues the state’s 60-license limit violates the state constitution’s “right to farm” amendment passed by voters in 2014. The lawsuit also challenges the state’s selection process that gave more points to businesses in high-unemployment ZIP codes, saying that “geographic bonus” was announced after the family had already paid a non-refundable $10,000 application fee. The health department did not respond to a request by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for comment. A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Monday. Missouri voters made medical marijuana legal in 2018. The licensing program is expected to wind up by February with the awarding of licenses to applicants seeking to sell cannabis products to Missourians holding doctor-approved cards.
|
7450
|
212 at Nebraska meat plant test positive for COVID-19.
|
More than 200 workers at a northeastern Nebraska pork processing plant have tested positive for COVID-19, according to plant owners and local health officials.
|
true
|
Omaha, Health, General News, Nebraska, Virus Outbreak, Public health
|
Tyson Foods said in a Tuesday news release that 212 workers at its plant in Madison tested positive for the virus; 74 of them had no symptoms. The numbers were the results from testing from May 1-4 of 1,467 workers, contractors and vendors at the plant, and the results were released jointly by Tyson and the Elkhorn Logan Valley Public Health Department . The plant was shut down in early May for deep cleaning and sanitization in the wake of a surge in coronavirus cases among meatpacking plant workers. Tyson workers who test positive receive paid leave and may return to work only when they have been medically cleared to do so, the company said. Tyson said most of those workers who tested positive are considered to be already recovered. Returning workers will undergo daily health screenings and temperature checks before they are allowed to enter the plant, the company said, and all workers will be provided mandatory face masks. A range of social distancing measures — including physical barriers between workstations and in break rooms — will also be practiced. Madison is about 100 miles (161 kilometers) northwest of Omaha.
|
10226
|
A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics
|
This story reports on the results of a newly published phase III trial demonstrating the benefits of the drug Lucentis for vision in those with diabetic macular edema. While including pertinent information about the possible benefits, harms, and costs, the story also included some information about another very similar medication available at lower cost. It raises important questions about the possible impact of corporate sponsorship of clinical trials. That’s something the other two stories didn’t do. In the study reported on, not only did the company supply its more expensive drug for use in the study, they contributed $9 million dollars to run the study with the caveat that the less expensive form of the molecular not be included in the study. While it is exciting to have a new treatment for diabetic macular edema, it seems unfortunate not to study both medications to determine whether the more expensive one really adds value. With promising results attributable to the more expensive medication it becomes almost impossible for government and commercial payors to not cover it. It is precisely these sorts of studies that have driven health care costs in our country beyond a sustainable level.
|
true
|
Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
|
|
25709
|
“QAnon violence! There is none.”
|
QAnon is a baseless conspiracy theory. The FBI has identified it as a potential domestic terrorist threat, and it has been linked to multiple instances of violence. QAnon has been associated with various crimes, including the blocking of a bridge near the Hoover Dam by a man in an armored truck and the killing of a New York mob boss.
|
false
|
Fake news, Crime, Pundits, PunditFact, Greg Gutfeld,
|
"QAnon, the sprawling and baseless internet conspiracy theory labeled by the FBI as a potential domestic terrorist threat, has on several occasions been linked to real-world violence. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld ly claimed in a recent episode of ""The Five"" that it had not. ""QAnon violence! There is none,"" Gutfeld said, while laughing and clapping, during an Aug. 20 exchange with co-host Juan Williams. ""That’s funny. You are hilarious."" In reality, the QAnon hoax has been connected to several incidents of violence or threatened violence. Gutfeld is wrong to say that ""there is none."" Gutfeld’s comment came one day after President Donald Trump demurred when he was asked for his thoughts about the conspiracy theory, telling a reporter who asked about the movement during a press conference that he had heard QAnon followers ""are people that love our country"" and ""like me very much."" The once-fringe conspiracy theory has expanded its influence since the start of the coronavirus pandemic by pushing miracle cures and misinformation. Supporters of QAnon believe or promote the belief that a cabal of Democrats and celebrities are Satan-worshipping pedophiles operating a global child sex-trafficking ring, and that Trump is leading a covert effort to stop them. The QAnon hoax takes its name from a user on the online forum 4chan, known as ""Q,"" who claims to be an anonymous government official. Q’s cryptic posts beginning in 2017 set in motion a wide-ranging conspiracy theory embraced by Trump supporters. Since then, QAnon symbols and paraphernalia have been spotted at Trump rallies and events. Trump has also amplified QAnon Twitter accounts and lent support to QAnon followers running for Congress, including Republican House candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia. On some occasions, the hoax has helped spur its followers to violence. Kathryn Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California, Davis, and the author of a book on conspiracy theories in American politics, said Gutfeld’s QAnon claim has ""no foundation."" ""It’s a theory about a deep-state coup against the president,"" Olmsted said. ""If its adherents truly believe the theory, it’s not surprising that they might turn to violence to stop the conspirators."" Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. The FBI named QAnon specifically in a May 2019 intelligence bulletin produced for distribution among intelligence and law enforcement agencies that described ""conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists"" as a growing threat in the U.S. The document was obtained by Yahoo! News. The memo detailed multiple cases in which violent incidents or the threat of violence inspired by QAnon and other conspiratorial beliefs led to arrests. ""The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,"" the memo said. West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, an academic institute within the United States Military Academy, also cited a number of examples of violence related to QAnon in a July report. ""QAnon has contributed to the radicalization of several people to notable criminal acts or acts of violence,"" the report said. Facebook, which recently joined other social media platforms working to crack down on QAnon content when it removed hundreds of groups that had promoted the conspiracy theory, cited the discussion of potential violence among those groups as reason for their removal. ""We have seen growing movements that, while not directly organizing violence, have celebrated violent acts, shown that they have weapons and suggest they will use them, or have individual followers with patterns of violent behavior,"" Facebook said in the statement. The FBI memo and the Combating Terrorism Center report both logged multiple instances where QAnon beliefs were connected to real-world crime, as have news outlets and activist groups such as the liberal research organization Media Matters for America. Those incidents of violence, potential violence or criminal activity include: In June, a Massachusetts man led police on a chase through Massachusetts and New Hampshire with his five children in the car. In a live-stream Facebook video of the event, the man discussed QAnon conspiracies. In April, an Illinois woman was arrested in New York City for driving onto a pier with a car full of knives in an apparent attempt to reach a Navy hospital ship housing COVID-19 patients. In a live stream of her travels, the woman threatened to kill Joe Biden over claims of sex trafficking. She also posted about QAnon on Facebook before the incident. In March 2019, a New York man killed Francisco Cali, a member of the prominent Gambino crime family. The man said the CIA had infiltrated the Mafia. The incident came after the man requested the arrest of several high-profile Democrats. He supported QAnon and during one court appearance scrawled ""Q"" on the palm of his hand. In January 2019, a Seattle man was arrested for allegedly killing his brother with a sword. The man posted about QAnon on social media, the Daily Beast reported. In June 2018, a Nevada man in an armored truck blocked traffic on a bridge near the Hoover Dam, demanding the release of a government document and fleeing after a standoff with police. Law enforcement found weapons in his car. The man discussed QAnon beliefs after his arrest and cited them in letters he wrote from jail. In May 2018, the leader of an unofficial local veterans aid group ly claimed that he had discovered a child sex trafficking ring at a homeless camp in Tucson, Arizona. He referenced QAnon as he and armed group members searched for other camps. He was later arrested for stealing and damaging water tanks belonging to a humanitarian group. QAnon has also been associated with various threats and other crimes, including vandalism. There have also been violent incidents related to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which has been largely subsumed into QAnon. Supporters of the Pizzagate theory also believe a child sex trafficking ring is being run by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic officials. One armed man entered a Washington pizzeria in 2016 to investigate the baseless theory; another man motivated by conspiracy theories started a fire at the same pizza joint in 2019. People may question whether QAnon caused the acts or was offered as a rationale after the fact, said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and the author of a book on American conspiracy theories. But it’s wrong to say that there’s been no violence related to QAnon, he said. Gutfeld said, ""QAnon violence! There is none."" In fact, there have been a handful of examples. The FBI identified QAnon as a potential terrorist threat in a May 2019 memo that listed some incidents of violence or threatened violence associated with the hoax and others like it. News reports, activist groups and an academic institute have also highlighted examples of violence. And two experts on American conspiracy theories said Gutfeld’s claim is wrong."
|
3921
|
FDA warns of breathing risks with popular nerve drugs.
|
U.S. health regulators are warning that popular nervous system medications can cause dangerous breathing problems when combined with opioids and certain other drugs.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Medication, Marijuana, Opioids
|
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it would add new warnings to packaging for Neurontin, Lyrica and generic versions, which are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, restless leg syndrome and other conditions. The new labels will warn doctors against prescribing the drugs with other medications that can slow breathing, including opioid painkillers. The breathing risks also apply to elderly patients and those with existing lung problems. The medications, known generically as gabapentin and pregabalin, are among the most prescribed in the U.S. Both physician prescribing and misuse have increased as doctors, hospitals and other health care providers have scaled back their use of opioids amid a national epidemic. Poison control centers have reported increased calls involving the nerve drugs, which are often abused in combination with opioids, cocaine and marijuana. Neurontin and related generics have long been considered nonaddictive and are not tracked as closely by regulators. While the nerve drugs are not FDA-approved for conventional muscle and joint pain, doctors frequently prescribe them for those uses and others, including treatment of migraines and psychiatric conditions. The FDA also said it will require drugmakers to conduct new studies of the abuse risks of the drugs, especially in combination with opioids. The agency said it received nearly 50 reports of breathing problems linked to gabapentin and pregabalin between 2012 and 2017, including 12 deaths. While drugmakers are required to report problems to the FDA, it’s voluntary for doctors and patients. ___ Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
18753
|
"Peter Courtney Says, ""Statistics indicate that one in eight children, and one in 18 adults in Oregon suffers from mental illness."
|
Do one in eight Oregon children and one in 18 adults suffer from mental illness?
|
true
|
Oregon, Health Care, Public Health, State Budget, Peter Courtney,
|
"Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, doesn’t tend to throw his personal weight behind many public bills. That’s why the Oregon Capitol stood at attention when Courtney called for more money -- new money, dedicated money -- to pay for a game-changing boost in mental health services for children and adults. In an accompanying press release, his office noted that: ""Statistics indicate that one in eight children, and one in 18 adults in Oregon suffers from mental illness. The Oregon Health Authority also reports that the state is currently serving less than half the adults and slightly more than one-third of the young people who need treatment."" PolitiFact Oregon was skeptical. Those stats seem high. The Senate president’s office directed us to the Oregon Health Authority. People there sent us to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, and specifically, to its State Data Infrastructure Coordinating Center. These people take census figures annually and apply a standard formula developed in the late 1990s to determine how many people have a ""serious mental illness"" or ""serious emotional disturbances."" We thought the number of diagnosed cases might drive the statistic, but that’s not the way it works. Instead, the research institute applies a percentage to the civilian adult population -- in this case, 5.4 percent -- to derive the estimated number of people 18 years and older with a ""serious mental illness."" The low side of the estimate is 3.7 percent and the upper side is 7.1 percent. In Oregon, 5.4 percent translates into more than 162,000 people out of 3 million adults. That translates into one in 18.5 adults. Let’s move on to the claim that one in eight children suffers from mental illness. Children are treated differently. The institute takes census numbers and applies a poverty formula, so a state that’s considered ""high poverty"" is calculated to have more children with a serious mental illness -- or in technical terms, ""serious emotional disturbances"" -- than states considered ""low poverty."" Oregon is a mid-poverty state. The percentages do not vary dramatically among the types of states, 9 percent to 11 percent of children for a low poverty state and 11 percent to 13 percent for a high poverty state. In Oregon, an estimated 10 percent to 12 percent of children ages 9 to 17 have a serious emotional disturbance. Ten percent of Oregon children is one in 10. Twelve percent is one in 8.3. The average -- 11 percent -- is one in 9.1 children. Again, this is just for children ages 9 to 17, so the calculation doesn’t capture the entire range of children. Remember that Courtney’s claim is one in eight. Now what do we mean by a serious emotional disturbance? Or rather, what do the experts mean? We spoke with Dr. Ronald Manderscheid, executive director of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors. He’s the person who developed the federal algorithm used to estimate the number of adults and children with mental illness or emotional disability. In other words, he’s a solid expert. There is an assessment scale used routinely by mental health professionals. The spectrum spans from 1 to 10 to 91 to 100, and assesses how well a person functions. A child in the top bracket would be ""superior"" in every facet of life, and have a healthy sense of confidence and take problems in stride. The scale also applies to adults. Anyone in the 51 to 60 bracket, or lower, is considered to have a serious emotional disturbance or mental illness. Adults in this bracket would exhibit ""moderate symptoms,"" such as occasional panic attacks, or ""moderate difficulty"" in social, work or school settings. Children in this group would have ""sporadic difficulties or symptoms"" in several but not all social areas. Symptoms would appear in times of distress. People in the 41 to 50 range would show ""serious symptoms,"" including frequent shoplifting or severe obsessive rituals, or ""serious impairment"" in social, work, or school settings. This person might have no friends or be unable to keep a job. Children in the 41 to 50 bracket would show serious impairment in one area or moderate problems with functioning in most social areas. Children may have frequent anxiety attacks or have an unhealthy preoccupation with suicide. The ""one in eight"" statistic cited by Courtney applies to children who top out at 60. How many children do we have in Oregon, in that age group? An estimated 437,053 in 2011. Just to give you an idea, that means about 48,000 kids in the age bracket who fall within the accepted definition. Again, that’s an average of one in 9.1 kids. We also talked with Bill Bouska, children’s mental health system manager, and Jon C. Collins, manager of health programs analysis and measurement, both at the Oregon Health Authority. We asked why go with the higher percentage? ""There’s not a lot of difference between 11 and 12 percent. These numbers are meant to be very general numbers, and to guide states,"" Collins said. ""They’re not meant to be precise figures, so picking something on the high side is a little bit safer than picking a number on the low side, since they are estimates."" Let’s go to our ruling. Courtney’s office relied on national statistics to claim that one in 8 children and one in 18 adults suffer from mental illness in Oregon. We found those statistics and talked to the person responsible for calculating the federal formula used to derive those statistics. We understand this is all about estimates, but if we’re going to boil it down to percentages, let’s see what they are. A 5.4 percent rate translates into one in 18.5 adults who suffer from a mental illness that makes functioning moderately difficult. Manderscheid, our national expert, says the percentage used now is 5.8 percent, which is one in 17.2 adults, so Courtney’s statement still rings true. (The number of adults who suffer from a mental health disorder in a given year is much higher -- one in four -- but they take medication or receive treatment so condition doesn’t affect their ability to function.) With children, we find that the one-in-eight statement is slightly more alarming than the average would indicate. The average in Oregon is one in 9.1 with a high of one in 8.3. It’s also important to understand that the statistic applies to a narrower subset of children, and that the statistic covers children who show sporadic difficulties in several but not all social areas.. Still, all in all, it’s hard to argue with a nationally accepted standard, so we find these details to be additional information missing from an otherwise accurate statement."
|
12769
|
"The Obama administration said ""they were going to be able to drive folks away from one of the most expensive areas for the provision of health care, and that is the emergency rooms. In fact, they did just the opposite."
|
"Price said the Obama administration said ""they were going to be able to drive folks away from one of the most expensive areas for the provision of health care, and that is the emergency rooms. In fact, they did just the opposite."" While the data varies a bit from study to study, the findings generally fail to provide any evidence that emergency room use has decreased after the law took effect. Indeed, several studies found increases in emergency room use, though modestly. Price overstated the case slightly, but he's basically correct."
|
true
|
National, Health Care, Tom Price,
|
"One of the arguments Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price made about why substantial changes in federal health care law were needed was that the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, had failed in one of its goals -- to cut down on emergency room use. Because emergency rooms by law cannot turn patients away, they can become a health care provider of last resort, even for more minor conditions that could be handled just as well -- and more inexpensively -- in a doctor’s office. ""One of the things that the previous administration said was that they were going to be able to drive folks away from one of the most expensive areas for the provision of health care, and that is the emergency rooms,"" Price said at a White House briefing on March 7, 2017. ""In fact, they did just the opposite."" Is Price correct that emergency room usage has gone up -- not down -- since passage of the law? Our research suggests that Price has a strong case. Did Obama say the law would lower emergency room use? He certainly expressed hope that it would. He mentioned it during an address on health care to a joint session of Congress, and during a nationally televised town hall on health care on June 24, 2009. During the town hall, Obama said this: ""One of the areas where we can potentially see some saving is -- a lot of those patients are being seen in the emergency room anyway, and if we are increasing prevention, if we are increasing wellness programs, we're reducing the amount of emergency room care, then that frees up doctors and resources to provide the kind of primary care that will keep people healthier, but also allow them to see more patients and hopefully give more time to patients, as well."" Has emergency room use gone up since the law has gone into effect? Different pieces of data vary somewhat, but all in all, there’s strong evidence that emergency room usage hasn’t declined much, if at all, since the law largely took effect in 2013. There’s also evidence that it has increased. Here are some examples of studies that looked at this question. • May 2015: A survey of more than 2,000 emergency-room physicians by the American College of Emergency Physicians asked whether the volume of patients in their emergency room had dropped or risen after the law took effect. The results: 28 percent said it had ""increased greatly"" and 47 percent said it had ""increased slightly."" Combined, that means three-quarters of emergency room doctors saw an increase. • February 2016: A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the change in emergency room use between 2013 (which was largely before the law) and 2014 (which was largely after the law took effect). ""ER use overall has not changed significantly after the first full year of ACA implementation,"" the report concludes. • August 2016: A study in the journal Annals of Emergency Medicine looked at emergency room use in Illinois by adults between 2011 and 2015, separating out patterns of visits before and after the law took effect. The study found that emergency room visits in the state ""increased after ACA health insurance expansion. ... A large post-ACA increase in Medicaid visits and a modest increase in privately insured visits outpaced a large reduction in (emergency room) visits by uninsured patients."" So the studies pointed toward a modest increase in ER use. Two other recent studies looked at state-based scenarios that mirrored the types of expansions of coverage in Obama’s law. Both of them -- a March 2014 study of Massachusetts and an October 2016 study of Illinois -- found increased emergency room use after coverage was expanded. Why isn’t emergency room use going down? Experts cite a mix of reasons. Medicaid reimbursement rates are lower than those for private insurance, so appointments at doctors’ offices may be hard to obtain for those who received Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In addition, ""two-thirds of emergency visits occur on weekends and when doctors’ offices are closed,"" said Laura Gore, a spokeswoman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. Demographics may play a role, too. Senior citizens are growing as a percentage of the population, and older Americans are likelier to have chronic health problems that require an emergency room visit, Gore said. In fact, the trend of growing emergency room use predates the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. ""Emergency department use has been rising since they were popularized after World War II,"" said Scott M. Dresden, a physician and assistant professor at Northwestern University who co-wrote the Illinois study. ""Research on health services use since the 1970s has shown that providing patients with assistance for health care costs, such as insurance, leads to increased health services use. So it's not particularly surprising that providing patients with insurance didn't decrease emergency department use."" But the biggest factor may be force of habit. ""Old habits are hard to break,"" said Gail Wilensky, who headed Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. ""People who were used to seeking care in ERs may continue to go there for a while. When Kaiser first started taking Medicaid patients, many continued their use of the ER for routine care like they had always done. It took a while to wean them away."" Katherine Baicker, a professor of health economics at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and co-author of the Oregon study, agreed. ""Expanding health insurance coverage leads to greater use of care across many settings, including the doctor's office, the pharmacy, the hospital, and the emergency room,"" she said. ""This is what one might expect from the basic economics: Medicaid took health care that was expensive and made it free, so people used more of it."" Our ruling Price said the Obama administration said ""they were going to be able to drive folks away from one of the most expensive areas for the provision of health care, and that is the emergency rooms. In fact, they did just the opposite."" While the data varies a bit from study to study, the findings generally fail to provide any evidence that emergency room use has decreased after the law took effect. Indeed, several studies found increases in emergency room use, though modestly. Price overstated the case slightly, but he's basically correct."
|
3980
|
Mild form of bird flu found in Minnesota turkey flock.
|
A mild form of bird flu detected in one flock of turkeys in a west-central Minnesota county is not the same virus that caused a devastating outbreak in 2015 and poses no public health or food safety risk, officials said Tuesday.
|
true
|
Animals, Health, Flu, Minnesota, Animal health, Bird flu, Public health
|
The World Organization for Animal Health said routine surveillance testing confirmed on Monday the presence of a low-pathogenic N5N2 virus in a flock of 40,000 turkeys in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota’s top turkey producing county. The virus originated in wild birds. The state Board of Animal Health said only one of four barns on the farm, housing 10,000, 13-week-old toms, was affected. The flock has been quarantined but has shown no signs of illness, the agencies said. The farm will be allowed to market the birds normally in a few weeks once the flock tests negative, said Dr. Shauna Voss, senior veterinarian at the board’s poultry testing laboratory in Willmar. The board has stepped up surveillance at nearby poultry farms as a precaution. The virus is different from the highly pathogenic H5N2 virus that caused a massive outbreak in U.S. turkeys and chickens in 2015, which resulted in the deaths of more than 50 million birds. Iowa and Minnesota were by far the hardest hit states. Losses across the U.S. economy were estimated at $3.3 billion. Voss said this was the first detection of any avian influenza virus in commercial poultry in Minnesota since that outbreak, although there was a low-pathogenic case in western Wisconsin last year. The 2015 outbreak led to tighter biosecurity measures on poultry farms to protect them from outside sources of infection, such as wild birds, rodents and farm workers who might track in viruses on their footwear or clothing. Producers now conduct enhanced surveillance during the spring and fall migrations, Voss said. The new detection shows that those security measures have paid off, she said.
|
41035
|
If someone with the new coronavirus sneezes, it travels about 10 feet before it drops to the ground and is no longer airborne.
|
Environmental factors impact how far droplets from a sneeze can travel, but it is likely to be several metres.
|
unproven
|
online
|
If you have a runny nose and sputum, you have a common cold. These are the symptoms for the common cold, but they don’t rule out Covid-19. Coronavirus pneumonia is a dry cough with no runny nose. Some Covid-19 patients do get pneumonia, and one of the symptoms is a dry cough. A runny nose doesn’t rule out Covid-19. The new virus is not heat-resistant and will be killed by a temperature of 26/27 degrees. It hates the Sun. There’s no evidence for this. There’s evidence that similar viruses transmit less well in the heat, but many countries with reported Covid-19 cases are experiencing temperatures higher than this. If someone with the new coronavirus sneezes, it travels about 10 feet before it drops to the ground and is no longer airborne. Environmental factors impact how far droplets from a sneeze can travel, but it is likely to be several metres. If it drops on a metal surface it will live for at least 12 hours - so if you come into contact with any metal surface - wash your hands as soon as you can with a bacterial soap. It’s not yet known exactly how long the virus survives on surfaces. It can survive for 6-12 hours on fabric and will be killed by normal laundry detergent . There’s no evidence the virus can survive in clothing and be transmitted this way. Drinking warm water is effective for all viruses. Try not to drink liquids with ice. There’s no evidence that the temperature of liquids consumed can protect you from viruses. Wash your hands frequently as the virus can only live on your hands for 5-10 minutes. There is no evidence yet on how long the virus can survive on the skin. But it is important to regularly wash your hands. You should gargle as a prevention with salt in warm water. There’s no evidence this will prevent or cure the virus. Covid-19 starts with a sore throat lasting 3-4 days. It then blends into a nasal fluid that enters the trachea and the lungs, causing pneumonia, which takes about 5 or 6 days. With pneumonia comes high fever and difficulty breathing. The nasal congestion makes you feel like you’re drowning. This is a roughly accurate description of the most common symptoms, although not everyone with Covid-19 gets pneumonia. The symptoms may not come in this order or at these times. There have been no reports of sufferers experiencing nasal congestion that makes them feel they are drowning. Claim 1 of 11
|
28317
|
The Food and Drug Administration has halted all food inspections due to the federal government shutdown.
|
What's true: The Food and Drug Administration has halted most of its food inspections due to the partial federal government shut down. What's false: The agency has recalled some inspectors back to work with no pay, and has restarted some crucial inspections.
|
mixture
|
Politics, donald trump, FDA, federal government shutdown
|
In early-to-mid January 2019, several major news outlets reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had halted inspections of various foods as a result of an ongoing partial shutdown of the federal government. Although it’s true that the FDA halted many inspections on 9 January 2019, the agency also resumed the most high-risk ones on 15 January 2019, when FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced that furloughed food inspectors would be recalled to carry on their work without pay. We reached out to the FDA’s press office but received only an automated response stating that employees were on furlough. Gottlieb, however, took to his Twitter account in an effort to keep the public updated and informed: We re-starting high risk food inspections as early as tomorrow. We’ll also do compounding inspections this week. And we started sampling high risk imported produce in the northeast region today. We’ll expand our footprint as the week progresses. Our teams are working. — Scott Gottlieb, M.D. (@SGottliebFDA) January 14, 2019 This work is being done by an inspectorate that’s largely going unpaid. These men and women are the tip of the spear in our consumer protection mission. They’re the very front line. And they’re on the job. The entire nation owes them gratitude. I’m inspired by their dedication. — Scott Gottlieb, M.D. (@SGottliebFDA) January 14, 2019 Sarah Sorscher, deputy director of regulatory affairs at the consumer advocacy organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, told us that due to the shutdown the FDA has been forced to halt roughly two-thirds of routine inspections. “The number of facilities that get inspected every year is pretty large, and the number of missed inspections [so far] is pretty small in relation,” she told us by phone. “The risk that someone would pick up food from a facility that missed an inspection is pretty small, but gets higher the longer the shutdown goes on.” Gottlieb had initially announced that the FDA would suspend routine inspection of foods including, “routine food safety inspections of seafood, fruits, vegetables and many other foods at high risk of contamination because of the federal government’s shutdown.” But the agency reversed course, recalling inspectors to resume inspections of the highest-risk food processing facilities. Routine inspections are unannounced visits at sites like food processing facilities and dairy farms where inspectors look for ” bugs, rodents, mishandled food, improper preparation and other hazards.” “We are concerned there may be a limit beyond which these workers can no longer support their own families and continue to do unpaid work,” Sorscher told us. “In the longer term, we’re in a labor shortage and a lot of these jobs are difficult to do and difficult to find people who will do them who are also qualified. There may be long-term impacts if the shut down goes on much longer.” According to Gottlieb, 31 percent of the agency’s work load comes from high-risk food inspections. Gottlieb said the FDA typically conducts about 160 inspections per week. High-risk foods include, according to Gottlieb: [M]odified atmosphere packaged products; acidified and low acid canned foods; seafood; custard filled bakery products; dairy products including soft, semi-soft, soft ripened cheese and cheese products, unpasteurized juices; sprouts ready-to-eat; fresh fruits and vegetables and processed fruits and vegetables; spices; shell eggs; sandwiches; prepared salads; infant formula; and medical foods. A partial federal government shutdown started 22 December 2018 after President Donald Trump demanded a $5.7 billion appropriation for border wall construction be included in the federal budget, something Democrats refused to agree to. The impasse resulted in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Workers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees meat and poultry, have all continued to perform inspections without pay. “People are lining up at the food bank to get food and are expected to be doing inspections to keep our food safe,” Sorscher said. “That’s a tough situation to put these workers in.”
|
13553
|
"Hillary Clinton Says Donald Trump supports ""an agenda out there"" to privatize the Veterans Affairs health care system."
|
Clinton said Donald Trump supports privatizing the Veterans Affairs health care system. Trump does support allowing more privatized care in cases where treatment at the VA is delayed or inadequate. In some cases he's talked about giving veterans a choice that would include doctors and hospitals outside the system. But that's not the same as privatizing the system, which would get the get the government out of the treatment business. Trump has never proposed that. Because Clinton's statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. https://www
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Veterans, Hillary Clinton,
|
"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton pledged to do ""whatever is required to move the VA into the 21st century"" during NBC’s Commander-In-Chief Forum, while adding that her opponent’s plan would be much worse for veterans. ""I will not let the VA be privatized,"" Clinton said Sept. 7, 2016, during the forum at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York. ""I do think there is an agenda out there, supported by my opponent, to do just that. I think that would be very disastrous for our military veterans."" We wondered if Republican nominee Donald Trump has proposed or supports privatization of the health care system for U.S. veterans. Trump, for the record, addressed the question head on when it was his turn to answer questions. ""I never said take the VA -- take the Veterans administration -- private."" ""I wouldn’t do that,"" Trump added. ""I do believe, when you're waiting in line six, seven days, you should never be in a position like that. You go out, you see the (private) doctor, you get yourself taken care of."" Trump's comments are consistent with what he's said before, and Clinton's concerns about privatization are a misleading Democratic talking point. In July, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine said that ""Donald Trump is a guy who has called for privatization"" of the VA. What we found then, and what holds now, is that Trump wants to give veterans access to private providers when they face delays at the VA. That's not the same as privatization. When we contacted Clinton's campaign about her statement, spokesman Josh Schwerin sent us several references where Trump's plan has been characterized as some degree of privatization and Trump’s explicit promise to give veterans the chance to go elsewhere for care. ""Every veteran will get timely access to top quality medical care. Every veteran,"" Trump pledged in a July 11, 2016, speech in Virginia Beach, Va. ""Veterans should be guaranteed the right to choose their doctor and clinics, whether at a VA facility or at a private medical center. We must extend this right to all veterans, not just those who can’t get an appointment in 30 days or who live more than 40 miles from a VA hospital, which is, unfortunately, the current and wrong policy."" The logistics of how that would work, of course, are another matter. Trump has spoken of letting VA patients go to any doctor or health care facility that accepts Medicare and getting treatment there immediately. The VA would pay for the bill. Experts we spoke with raised several issues with Trump’s plan and also debated whether Trump's plan should be considered a type of partial privatization. One concern is that non-VA providers don’t have the same level of experience that the VA has with treating veteran's health issues — including combat injuries, combat-related illnesses and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. There's also concern that letting veterans go anywhere for their care would result in fragmented, uncoordinated, and lower-quality care. Our ruling Clinton said Donald Trump supports privatizing the Veterans Affairs health care system. Trump does support allowing more privatized care in cases where treatment at the VA is delayed or inadequate. In some cases he's talked about giving veterans a choice that would include doctors and hospitals outside the system. But that's not the same as privatizing the system, which would get the get the government out of the treatment business. Trump has never proposed that. Because Clinton's statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression,
|
30016
|
Researcher Judy Mikovits was thrown in jail after she refused to discredit research that led to the discovery that deadly retroviruses have been transmitted through vaccines.
|
“In the United States of America … everything’s censored,” Mikovits said on the website of a man who guest hosts Alex Jones’ Infowars conspiracy ranting, “so to look at things like Natural News, to come to meetings like The Truth About Cancer, I was just floored today because today was the first time I was treated like a human being who had knowledge for a very long time.”
|
false
|
Science, big pharma, vaccines
|
In 2009, biologist Judy Mikovits, who was then the research director of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome-focused Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), published a paper on what she and many others thought to be a major scientific breakthrough in the prestigious journal Science. Her team alleged to have demonstrated an association between a newly discovered retrovirus called “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus” (XMRV) and the poorly understood condition known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), suggesting a potential viral cause for CFS. The paper received substantial international coverage. However, as with so many other potentially groundbreaking studies, nobody — including many of the same researchers involved with the original study — was able to replicate its results. Numerous attempts failed to replicate the study, and the research itself came under increasing scrutiny for sloppy methods and its reliance on misleading or manufactured figures. On 1 July 2011, Science’s editors issued a “statement of concern” about the paper. On 14 October 2011, the authors issued a partial retraction of their paper that touched on issues with some of their figures. Finally, on 23 December 2011, the editors of Science retracted the paper in full: Science is fully retracting the Report “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”. Multiple laboratories, including those of the original authors, have failed to reliably detect xenotropic murine leukemia virus– related virus (XMRV) or other murine leukemia virus (MLV)–related viruses in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients. In addition, there is evidence of poor quality control in a number of specific experiments in the Report … Given all of these issues, Science has lost confidence in the Report and the validity of its conclusions … We are therefore editorially retracting the Report. We regret the time and resources that the scientific community has devoted to unsuccessful attempts to replicate these results. Three months later, the Whittemore Peterson Institute fired Judy Mikovits amid concerns over the integrity of her work and her collaboration with an outside scientist, as reported in the multidisciplinary scientific journal Nature: The scientist behind a study that linked chronic fatigue syndrome to a virus has lost her job and is now facing accusations that she has misrepresented data. Judy Mikovits … was fired on 29 September after she clashed with the institute’s president and co-founder, Annette Whittemore, over the work of another researcher. The following day, in what seems to be a separate development, a blogger posted a figure from a 2009 paper that Mikovits co-authored in Science alongside one that Mikovits used in a recent presentation. The two figures, which are used to describe different results, look identical, except for the labeling. A few months after that, Mikovits was arrested in southern California “on an ‘out of county warrant’ from Washoe County, Nevada, for allegedly taking lab notebooks, a computer, and other material from the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nevada, after the WPI fired her.” The arrest came in conjunction with a lawsuit from WPI that sought a restraining order to block Mikovits’ destruction of data which they maintained belonged to the institute: After Mikovits was terminated on 29 September, she wrongfully removed laboratory notebooks and kept other proprietary information on her laptop and in flash drives and in a personal e-mail account. WPI, a nonprofit organization that’s based on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno, also won a temporary restraining order that forbids Mikovits from “destroying, deleting, or altering” any of the related files or data. The charges were dropped, not because of the merits of the case, but due to a variety of complicating legal factors related to the family that runs the Whittemore Peterson Institute: On 11 June, the district attorney’s office for Washoe County filed a petition to dismiss the criminal charges against Mikovits without prejudice (which means they can file a related complaint in the future), a clerk to the Justice Court of Reno told ScienceInsider. Mikovits, who was briefly jailed on the charges, is still defending herself in the civil case, which has taken several bizarre twists, including a judge who had ruled against Mikovits recusing himself. The judge removed himself from the case because he received campaign donations from WPI co-founder Harvey Whittemore, who himself has been criminally charged with making illegal campaign contributions to a federal official … Assistant District Attorney John Helzer, who filed the dismissal, says Whittemore’s legal troubles factored into his decision. “There’s a lot going on with the federal government and different levels that wasn’t occurring when we first became involved with prosecuting this case,” says Helzer. “And we have witness issues that have arisen.” Fast forwarding to 2018, we find that Mikovits has become lionized by the medical conspiracy community, appearing on unreliable websites such as Natural News and giving talks at fringe conferences such as The Truth About Cancer and Autism One, with her claims echoing through the various clickbait factories that regurgitate wholesale content from these dubious organizations. For example, the website “Real Farmacy” described Mikovits’ saga as follows in a 28 November 2018 post: If you have been following stories in recent years of scientists and researchers who make discoveries that are threatening to the Deep State and the bottom line of Big Pharma, you will have seen the pattern before. Those doctors are often ‘persuaded’ to recant their studies, offered bribes or other benefits to distance themselves from or even destroy their data, and even threatened with jail time or, if a legal case is too difficult to fabricate against them, they may simply be killed. Such is the tale of molecular biologist Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, in the disturbing true story first detailed in this Natural News article that included the video below of how she was thrown in prison for research that led to the discovery that deadly retroviruses have been transmitted to twenty-five million Americans through human vaccines … It was not long after the implications from the paper became clear and the Deep State saw the threat that was being posed to the vaccine industry that their powerful mechanisms of cover-up, obfuscation, and deception were activated. Astute readers may note that the 2009 paper discussed above did not concern vaccines. Mikovits, following the publication of her since-retracted paper, made a series of unsupported claims that XMRV was the cause of myriad other medical maladies, including autism and cancer, and that XMRV in humans could have its origins in mouse cells used in the vaccine production process — a notion that has been exhaustively discredited. Much of the material Mikovits used to make her point was also retracted, including a 2006 paper that alleged to show XMRV was present in human prostate cancer cells but actually produced erroneous results due to laboratory contamination. An exhaustive body of work, which includes some of the same researchers involved in the original 2009 paper, has discredited any link between XMRV and disease. “The bottom line is we found no evidence of infection with XMRV … These results refute any correlation between these agents and disease,” said co-author Ian Lipkin of Columbia University in a press release. To suggest that Mikovits’ arrest stemmed from a perceived threat to the vaccine industry or “The Deep State” and not her alleged refusal to return scientific data and equipment to the institute that fired her requires completely ignoring this large body of scientific work while solely relying on the narrative presented by Mikovits in her 2014 book, Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases. In the introduction to that work, which entirely ignored her firing from Whittemore, Mikovits alleged that the federal government had threatened to arrest her if she set foot on National Institutes of Health property to participate in the study that attempted to validate her previous work: While I was preparing to return to Dr. Frank Rusetti’s lab in Frederick, Maryland and participate in the multi-center validation study directed by Dr. Ian Lipkin, an email would be sent to Frank by none other than Dr. Tony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. In the email, Fauci stated I could participate in the study, but if I stepped foot on National Institutes of Health property, I would be immediately arrested! Dr. Frank Rusetti is a long-time collaborator of Mikovits’. We reached out to Dr. Tony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Health, about the existence of the email in which he allegedly threatened Mikovits with arrest, and he told us (via email): I have no idea what she is talking about. I can categorically state that I have never sent such an e-mail to Dr. Ruscetti. I had my IT people here at NIH search all my e-mails and no such e-mail exists. Having said that, I would never make such a statement in an e-mail that anyone “would be immediately arrested” if they stepped foot on NIH property. We also reached out to both Rusetti and Mikovits via their consulting website for more information about this alleged email but have not received a response. Since 2016, science has reached the consensus view that the XMRV detected in these various studies was a laboratory contaminant which affected the research cell lines used by the scientists conducting those studies, and that it was not a virus that had been transmitted to humans in any way. In a video produced by the conspiracy website Natural News in 2018, however, Mikovits made a series of additional claims that she had been fired and jailed for exposing that millions of Americans had supposedly been infected with viruses “that came from out of labs into humans via contaminated blood and vaccines”: The fact that [these allegedly human-derived viruses] were real was just too much for 25 million Americans are infected with the viruses that came from out of labs into humans via contaminated blood and vaccines. And that was what … so I was fired, jailed without cause, without hearing, without any civil rights at all, just drug out of my house in shackles one day, November 18th 2011. As noted above, Mikovits’ controversial paper did not demonstrate that XMRV “came out of the lab into humans via contaminated blood and vaccines”; rather, it speculated such after seemingly demonstrating a (now discredited) association between XMRV and CFS. To say Mikovits was jailed for exposing widespread virus transmission via vaccines or blood transfusions is false, not only because she was actually jailed for allegedly stealing property, but also because she never scientifically demonstrated the claim she suggests the government wanted to silence her over. In her interview with Natural News, Mikovits stated that the idea for the connection between viruses and vaccines came from another researcher in a paper published in 2011: So in 2011 another AIDS researcher in a journal called Frontiers in Microbiology wrote a paper that really cost me a lot. I didn’t know he was gonna write this paper but it basically said, “The most likely way that these murine leukemia virus related viruses, these types of viruses entered humans was through vaccines.” That paper, which referenced two other now-retracted papers in its abstract, only presented the vaccine scenario speculatively as a potential route for humans to acquire XMRV: The novel human retrovirus xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is arguably the most controversial virus of this moment. After its original discovery in prostate cancer tissue from North American patients [paper retracted], it was subsequently detected in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome from the same continent [paper retracted]. However, most other research groups, mainly from Europe, reported negative results … The detection of integrated XMRV proviruses in prostate cancer tissue [paper retracted] proves it to be a genuine virus that replicates in human cells, leaving the question: how did XMRV enter the human population? We will discuss two possible routes: either via direct virus transmission from mouse to human … or via the use of mouse-related products by humans, including vaccines. We hypothesize that mouse cells or human cell lines used for vaccine production could have been contaminated with a replicating variant of the XMRV precursors encoded by the mouse genome. That study did conclude by opining that the “most likely mode of XMRV transmission points to mouse-derived biological products” and stating that the authors hoped the study would “spur further discussion and help to resolve the many remaining XMRV questions.” But in a paper published just five months later titled “XMRV: Not a Mousy Virus”, those same authors walked back claims of XMRV’s prevalence (and even its existence as a true human virus) based on results which called earlier laboratory methods into question: XMRV was discovered in 2006 in tumor tissue from patients with prostate cancer [paper retracted] with a viral genome sequence highly similar to that of mouse xenotropic retroviruses. Sequence analysis suggested that XMRV is a novel recombinant derived from two fragmented endogenous murine viruses integrated in the mouse genome. XMRV was subsequently detected in other prostate cancer tissues and in blood from patients with CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome) [paper retracted]. However, most other studies failed to replicate these findings, especially outside the USA, suggesting either that the virus has a limited geographical spread, or that positive results were due to contamination of biological reagents or human samples with mouse DNA. Four recent papers indeed show that murine DNA sequences can be detected virtually everywhere, and that extreme care should be taken when amplifying XMRV sequences. These results certainly put into serious doubt some of the high prevalence results and proposed disease associations that could not be confirmed by others. Further research determined that all XMRV samples detected in these studies stemmed from a contaminated cell line affecting all the labs performing these studies, that it did not cause disease, and that it did not enter the population via vaccines or blood transfusions: Molecular biologists traced the development of XMRV to a recombination event in a laboratory mouse that likely occurred circa 1993. The virus was propagated via cell lines derived from a tumor present in this mouse and spread through contamination of laboratory samples. Well-controlled experiments showed that detection of XMRV was due to contaminated samples and was not a marker of or a causal factor in prostate cancer or CFS. Therefore, Mikovits’ speculative claims linking her research to vaccine science, drawing the ire of “Big Pharma” and the “Deep State”, and her subsequent arrest are not rooted in science or reality. But although she may have lost the support of the scientific community, she appears to have found a new home in the pseudoscientific conspiracy world.
|
4718
|
Dorian’s floodwaters trap people in attics in North Carolina.
|
A weakened Hurricane Dorian flooded homes on North Carolina’s Outer Banks on Friday with a fury that took even storm-hardened residents by surprise, forcing people to climb into their attics. Hundreds were feared trapped by high water, and neighbors used boats to rescue one another.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Hurricane Dorian, Floods, General News, North Carolina, Storms, Latin America, Bahamas, Business, Science, Hurricanes, Banks, U.S. News
|
Medics and other rescuers rushed to Ocracoke Island — accessible only by boat or air — to reach those who made the mistake of defying mandatory evacuation orders along the 200-mile (320-kilometer) ribbon of low-lying islands. “We are flooding like crazy,” Ocracoke Island bookshop owner Leslie Lanier texted. “I have been here 32 years and not seen this.” Its winds down to 90 mph (145 kph), Dorian howled over the Outer Banks as a far weaker storm than the brute that wreaked havoc on the Bahamas at the start of the week. Just when it looked as if its run up the Southeast coast was coming to a relatively quiet end, the Category 1 hurricane sent seawater surging over neighborhoods, flooding the first floors of many homes, even ones on stilts. “There is significant concern about hundreds of people trapped on Ocracoke Island,” Gov. Roy Cooper said. Over and over, longtime residents said that they had never seen flooding so bad, and that places in their homes that had never flooded before were inundated. “We were all on social media laughing about how we’d done well and there was really no flooding at all, just rain, typical rain,” Steve Harris, who has lived on Ocracoke Island for most of the last 19 years. And then, “the wall of water just came rushing through the island.” “It just started looking like a bathtub, very quickly,” said Harris, who was safe in his third-floor condo. “We went from almost no water to 4 to 6 feet in a matter of minutes.” The Coast Guard began landing local law enforcement officers on the island via helicopter and airlifting out the sick, the elderly or others in distress, Hyde County authorities said. National Guard helicopters also flew supplies and a rescue team in. Residents were told to get to the highest point in their homes in the meantime. “Several people were rescued from their upper floors or attics by boat by good Samaritans,” Ocracoke Island restaurant owner Jason Wells said in a text message. In Buxton on Hatteras Island, close to where Dorian blew ashore, Radio Hatteras volunteer Mary Helen Goodloe-Murphy said that people were calling in to report that “houses are shaking like crazy” and that “it’s never been like this before.” By evening, the governor said that officials were aware of no serious injuries on the Outer Banks from the storm. One 79-year-old man was airlifted from Ocracoke Island because of a pre-existing condition, authorities said. People in need of temporary housing were being taken to a shelter on the mainland, the governor said. “The hurricane has left behind destruction where storm surge inundated Ocracoke Island,” Cooper said. “Currently the island has no electricity and many homes and buildings are still underwater.” Around midmorning, the eye of the storm came ashore at Cape Hatteras, Dorian’s first landfall in the continental U.S. after a week and a half in which it spread fear up and down the coast and kept people guessing as to where it would go. By late afternoon, Dorian had peeled off the coastline and was finally making its exit out to sea. It is expected to remain a hurricane as it sweeps up the Eastern Seaboard through Saturday, veering far enough offshore that its hurricane-force winds are unlikely to pose any threat to land in the U.S. Power outages had dropped by about one-third, to around 213,000 in the Carolinas and Virginia. At least four deaths in the Southeast were blamed on Dorian. All were men in Florida or North Carolina who died in falls or by electrocution while trimming trees, putting up storm shutters or otherwise getting ready for the hurricane. As Dorian closed in, more than a quarter-million residents and visitors were ordered to evacuate the Outer Banks, which stick out from the Eastern Seaboard like the side-view mirror on a car. But many just tied down their boats, removed objects from their yards that could blow away, and hunkered down. Dorian slammed the Bahamas at the start of the week with 185 mph (295 kph) winds, killing at least 30 people and obliterating countless homes. From there, it swept past Florida and Georgia, then sideswiped the Carolinas on Thursday, spinning off tornadoes that peeled away roofs and flipped recreational vehicles. Still, the damage was far less than feared in many parts of the Carolinas, including historic Charleston, South Carolina, which is prone to flooding even from ordinary storms, and Wilmington, North Carolina, the state’s biggest coastal city. Joseph Pawlick went out Friday morning to rake leaves, twigs and other debris from the sidewalk outside his Wilmington home. “I slept like a baby last night. This, thankfully, was not bad,” he said. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia. Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Gary D. Robertson, Martha Waggoner and Jonathan Drew in Raleigh, North Carolina; Tom Foreman Jr. in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Seth Borenstein in Washington. ___ For more of AP’s coverage of Hurricane Dorian, go to: https://apnews.com/Hurricanes
|
18763
|
I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in.
|
An Oklahoma judge on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) to pay $572.1 million to the state for its part in fueling an opioid epidemic by deceptively marketing addictive painkillers, a sum that was substantially less than investors had expected, driving up J&J’s shares.
|
true
|
Housing, Florida, Marco Rubio,
|
The state’s attorney general had filed the lawsuit, seeking $17 billion to address the impact of the drug crisis on Oklahoma. It had been considered a bellwether for other litigation nationwide over the opioid epidemic. “The expectation was this was going to be a $1.5 billion to $2 billion fine,” said Jared Holz, healthcare strategist for Jefferies & Co. “$572 million is a much lower number than had been feared.” J&J said it would appeal the decision. Shares of J&J were up 2% in extended trading following the decision, after an initial gain of more than 5%. Other drugmakers that sell opioid painkillers and are defending against similar lawsuits also rose after-hours, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA.TA) up 2.6%, and Endo International Plc (ENDP.O), up 1.4% higher. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2000, some 6,000 Oklahomans have died from opioid overdoses, according to the state’s lawyers. Roughly 2,500 lawsuits have been brought by states, counties and municipalities nationally seeking to hold drugmakers responsible for opioid abuse nationwide. Oklahoma’s case was the first to go to trial. Some drugmakers have chosen to settle cases. In holding J&J liable after a seven-week, non-jury trial, Judge Thad Balkman of Cleveland County District Court in Norman, Oklahoma, said the state proved that J&J’s misleading marketing and promotion of its Duragesic and Nucynta painkillers created a public nuisance. “The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans,” Balkman said. Oklahoma wanted J&J to help it address the epidemic for the next 30 years by funding addiction treatment and prevention programs. Balkman said in his written ruling that the award covered only one year of addressing the crisis because Oklahoma did not demonstrate the time and costs needed beyond that. Lance Lang, a 36-year-old recovering user of opioids turned activist in Oklahoma City, said it was “short sighted” for the judge to have only ordered funding for a year. “There’s going to be people struggling with this for years,” he said in an interview. J&J said it will ask that the award be put on hold during an appeal process that could stretch into 2021. The company also said Oklahoma failed to show that its products and activities had created a public nuisance. “You can’t sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis,” Sabrina Strong, a lawyer for J&J, said at a news conference after the verdict. “Everyone must come together to address this. But J&J did not cause the opioid crisis.” The case was brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, who alleged that J&J’s marketing practices helped fuel the opioid epidemic by flooding the market with painkillers. “Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their actions,” Hunter said. The trial came after Oklahoma had resolved claims against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP in March for $270 million and Teva in May for $85 million, leaving J&J as the lone defendant. The verdict came as two Ohio counties prepare for a scheduled October trial before a federal judge in Cleveland. About 2,000 lawsuits out of some 2,500 filed nationwide are consolidated in the case in Cleveland. Endo International Plc (ENDP.O) and Allergan Plc (AGN.N) last week agreed to pay $15 million to avoid going to trial in October in a case by two Ohio counties, subject to court approval. Some plaintiffs’ lawyers have compared the opioid cases to litigation by states against the tobacco industry that led to a $246 billion settlement in 1998. Joe Rice, a lead plaintiff’s attorney for municipalities in the federal litigation, said if the Oklahoma award were extrapolated to other states, it could mean an annual abatement cost of around $38 billion. “It does indicate that if I’m in the pharmaceutical business, I’ve got to think long and hard about annual payments of my share of that,” he said. The judge overseeing the federal litigation in Ohio has been pushing for a global settlement. J&J, which is among multiple pharmaceutical companies that are defendants in the federal litigation, said it remains “open to viable options” to resolve the Ohio case, including through settlement. During the Oklahoma trial, lawyers for the state argued that J&J carried out a years-long marketing campaign that minimized the painkillers’ addiction risks and promoted their benefits. The lawyers called J&J an opioid “kingpin” and argued that its marketing created a public nuisance as doctors over-prescribed the drugs, leading to a surge in overdose deaths. J&J countered that its marketing claims had scientific support and its painkillers accounted for a tiny fraction of opioids prescribed in Oklahoma. The company said in a statement that since 2008, its painkillers accounted for less than 1% of the U.S. market, including generics. Teva said the ruling supported its rationale for settling the case before trial, and said it was preparing to defend itself in the upcoming trial in Ohio. Purdue, which is also among the defendants in the Ohio litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|
10342
|
Anti-smoking pill may help curb drinking
|
"The drug described in the article, varenicline, is an FDA-approved medication for smoking cessation. The article is an enthusiastic conjecture about the possibilty, suggested by a vaguely-described rat study, that this drug might work for alcohol dependence. The story suggests that there might be common neurochemical underpinnings for both smoking and drinking that a single drug might affect. This is a big stretch even for the rats studied, let alone for humans. The article also is vague about the distinction between any drinking, craving for drinking, and alcohol dependence (""alcoholism."") There is no mention of the size or durability of the effect in rats, and much other basic information is lacking. For example, a caution about side effects in humans would be reasonable, as would mention of approved treatments for alcohol dependence. The article suggests that studies of this drug for human alcohol dependence would be reasonable, and it would be prudent for the reader to reserve any excitement about this drug until such studies are conducted and analyzed. This article is interesting and exciting reading, but the implication that this medication may be an exciting treatment for alcohol problems is premature. It’s worth nothing that even the drug maker was reluctant to project a future for the drug: ""Without having considerable more data on this it would be very difficult for us to say we might pursue it or not. It’s almost a wait-and-see."" Perhaps the AP should have waited for more data as well, before projecting what could come from a single, not-well-explained rat study."
|
false
|
"The story contained no cost information about this medication. The story indicates that this medication would be unlikely to work for all drinkers. This is, of course, a leap of faith as there are no studies published to date about how effective this medication is in helping alcoholics stops drinking, let alone whether it is effective. The story did not provide insight into how well this drug worked in the rats studied, making it more difficult to speculate how it might work for people. There was no discussion about potential harms of treatment. In the FDA’s press release about approval of this medication to help with smoking cessation, it lists nausea, headache, vomiting, flatulence (gas), insomnia, abnormal dreams, and dysgeusia (change in taste perception) as the most common side effects. The story stated that ""New but preliminary research suggests it could gain a second use in helping heavy drinkers quit, too"". This seems like a bit of an overstatement as the preliminary research was conducted in rats. There is no description of the number of rats studied, duration of the study, nor the magnitude nor duration of the effect. The article states that this drug may help ""heavy drinkers"" to quit drinking and also to help ""people overcome addiction"" and to curb ""alcohol cravings."" Which is it? All three? How many ""heavy drinkers"" are there in the USA? How many alcoholics? The article needs to define better what disease or behavior is targeted, and to help the reader to understand how common or rare the condition may be. The story quoted several researchers explicitly described as not being involved in the highlighted study. The story failed to mention currently available treatment options for alcohol dependence. The story correctly mentions that the featured medication, varenicline, sold as Chantix, has FDA approval for a different use. So while the drug is available, its use for the purpose discussed in the story has not yet been assessed in humans. The story is clear that this would represent a new use for an already approved medication. The story does not appear to rely entirely on a press release, as it used several sources. However, the story provides the following quote from the scientist who led the study: ""The biggest thrill is that this drug, which has already proved safe for people trying to stop smoking, is now a potential drug to fight alcohol dependence"". This is the exact same quote in a press release from the University of California. Did the reporter actually interview her? Did she just happen to say the exact same thing she said in the news release?"
|
|
5407
|
Royal Botanic Garden seeks respect for world’s fungus.
|
The scientists at the renowned Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are trying to correct an injustice: They don’t believe fungus gets the respect it deserves.
|
true
|
Plants, Europe, Fungi, Ants, Science
|
That’s one reason behind the release Wednesday of their ”State of the World’s Fungi ” report, touted as the first ever global look at the way fungi help provide food, medicine, plant nutrition, lifesaving drugs — and can also spread death and destruction at an alarming pace. The focus on fungi is designed to call attention to potentially vital new uses now being studied — including possible deployment of a fungus that “eats” plastic and degrades it quickly, and one that may clean up radioactive waste — and to warn that climate change is threatening fungi habitat in various parts of the Earth. Director of Science Katherine Willis says researchers know relatively little about fungi — many of them hidden beneath the ground, or invisible to the naked eye, or living in a plant’s cells — even though fungus has been used to ferment food and drink for more than 9,000 years. “We have only just started to scratch the surface of knowledge of this incredible and diverse group of organisms,” she said. “When looking for nature-based solutions to some of our most critical global challenges, fungi could provide many of the answers. We ignore it at our peril.” She argues that fungi have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde profile: Helping 90 percent of the world’s plants get nutrients, while at the same time doing irreversible damage to some ecosystems. Ash dieback fungus, for example, has spread from Poland throughout much of Europe and now threatens not just the ash tree but 955 other species. The report says climate change is already having an impact on fungi reproduction, distribution and activity, but Willis cautioned that much more research is needed to say with confidence how the world’s fungi will be affected as the planet warms. The focus on fungus is new, but Kew’s astonishing collection of fungi samples goes back to the days of evolution theorist Charles Darwin and children’s author Beatrix Potter. She, too, was a devoted fungus fan who clashed with Kew’s top mycologist — as fungus specialists are known. In a sharp break with British decorum of the era, she even suggested he had become a fungus himself. Kew is known for taking a comprehensive approach to field research, but that is impossible in this case. There are up to 3.8 million species of fungi, but only about 144,000 have been identified. New discoveries are made all the time, but no one expects every species to be catalogued anytime soon. Nonetheless, the Kew fungarium, hidden outside of public view, houses roughly 1.25 million specimens, making it the largest fungus collection in the world, said chief mycologist Ester Gaya. Some date back to the 18th Century. It also houses — under lock and key — a rare collection of fungi known colloquially as “magic mushrooms” for their psychedelic properties. Scientists at Kew say more and more different types of psychotropic fungi are being discovered in many parts of the world. Fungi are hailed for their medical uses, having proved vital for antibiotics and for cholesterol-lowering statins, but even fungus fans admit there is a macabre element to some aspects of fungi life. There is the fungus, for example, that invades cicada nymphs and takes up residence inside the cicada’s body, slowly killing them. Then there are the fungi that live inside ants, controlling their movements before killing them. The fungi can infect an entire colony of ants with their spores, said Gaya. “They turn them into zombie ants,” she said But it’s not all bad. She points out that the compounds fungi use to successfully live inside some animals are valuable immunosuppressants that have been used to develop cyclosporine drugs that have proved invaluable in preventing organ rejection after transplants in humans. “It’s really disgusting,” said science director Willis of the way fungi invade ants. But she concedes the associated medical discoveries have helped humanity. “They’re really horrible and really good.”
|
7784
|
As Spain readies euthanasia law, dying sclerosis victim senses hope.
|
Painfully aware that his advancing illness will eventually leave him on life support, Spaniard Mariano Lopez has his hopes pinned not on a cure but on a parliamentary bill that would allow him to meet death on his own terms.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The government expects to make Spain the fourth country in Europe to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide before its terms ends in 2020. Right now, helping someone end their life carries a jail term of up to 10 years, and while there are still pockets of resistance in the traditionally Catholic country to dispensing with that penalty, for Lopez the debate is over. The 49-year-old former businessman was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) just over a year ago. He can no longer walk or move his right hand, the first stage of a degenerative process in which sufferers lose the ability to speak, eat and finally breathe. “It advances rapidly ... When a moment comes I want to have the option of deciding whether the life as it is offered to me, is worth it. And if it’s not, I want to end it,” Lopez told Reuters in a soft voice, his speech slightly slurred. The Catholic Church - long a lodestone for public opinion in Spain - considers euthanasia to be morally wrong, and the main conservative opposition People’s Party (PP) also wants it to remain a criminal offense. But the church’s influence has been on the wane ever since Francisco Franco’s dictatorship ended in 1975. The most recent national opinion poll taken last year showed 84 percent support for euthanasia, and most parties other than the PP have said they will back the minority Socialist government’s demineralization bill. The previous Socialist administration demonstrated its liberal credentials in 2005, when Spain became the third country in the world to allow same-sex marriage. Euthanasia has long grabbed public attention in Spain, which has the world’s second-highest life expectancy, and more notably so since Oscar-winning Spanish film ‘The Sea Inside’. The 2004 film was based on the story of Ramon Sampedro, a paralyzed man who for decades campaigned for the legal right to die. Courts denied him that right but he committed assisted suicide nonetheless. This is set to change, but Lopez’s hopes for the bill’s quick passage are mixed with concern that case-by-case evaluations it proposes could be a hindrance when the time comes to decide. He calls euthanasia “an intimate process”, leaving a person free to end a life that has become physically or psychologically unbearable, and would not say how he would proceed if it remained illegal. ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, destroys neural links between the brain and the muscles. Most sufferers die within 3-5 years and it affects about 4,000 people in Spain. A year ago, Lopez worked, played golf and cycled, seven months ago he could still drive a car. Now he relies on an electric wheelchair and his father, 78, helps him dress. Breathing problems have become a torture, he says. “In my head, I dream I’m riding a bicycle, going somewhere, but the truth is I can’t even go to the bathroom by myself,” he told said at his sister’s home outside Madrid where he moved after his diagnosis. Lopez plays with his niece who likes to press buttons on his wheelchair, exchanges jokes and small talk with his physical therapist and doctors, and says he wants his family to see him strong, “so they can move forward”. His 46-year-old sister Gema has not yet come to terms with the brother’s decision, but says his bravery must be respected. “If he wants to go on his own terms, it will be done so, no matter what anyone thinks or says,” she said.
|
31992
|
The characteristics of stereotypical millennial liberals make them less competitive, because they are in discord with the natural world.
|
The larger fallacy that Adams is committing is the serious problem: abusing scientific information to convince people that the natural world supports your version of humanity and that people who don’t fit that view are, as Adams put it, “little more than aberrations of nature.”
|
false
|
Science, biological fitness, mike adams, natural news
|
On November 12 2016, the alternative medicine website-turned-conspiracy-hub Natural News published a pseudo-scientific rant by editor and founder Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger”) arguing and celebrating the fact that liberal millennials (whom he calls “crybully snowflakes”) are not biologically fit and therefore not likely to survive the next “natural selection event”: Today’s precious snowflake crybully pussified college youth actually represent the least fit (and most likely to fail) members of a vast human gene pool that will be radically cleaned out at the next natural selection event. For anyone wondering what a “natural selection event” might be, this is what Adams suggested: What sort of event might that be? A global debt collapse, international war, a grid down terror attack on the power infrastructure, a massive coordinated cyber attack on the banking infrastructure, a domestic civil war, a deadly viral pandemic, a collapse of the global food supply, and so on. Adams’ piece, titled “TRIGGER WARNING: Why precious college snowflakes will eliminate themselves from the human gene pool at the next natural selection event”, is flawed for myriad reasons, most notably its repeated use of strawman arguments and conspicuous lack of citable evidence. In this article, however, we will dissect the Health Ranger’s argument strictly based on his flawed understanding of natural selection. To begin with, here is how he describes the characteristics of the two populations whose biological fitness he claims to be comparing: Political conservatives tend to be practical, real-world people, while political leftists tend to be delusional snowflakes living in artificial worlds that run on fragile, psycho-babble constructs that fall apart at the merest touch. Donald Trump is a competitive, adaptive survivor. So am I, and so are tens of millions of gun owners, police officers, fire fighters, EMTs, paramedics, outdoorsmen, hunters, inventors and business entrepreneurs. These are the kind of people who are fighters and problem solvers. They don’t curl up into pathetic sobbing balls of whimpering slobber when things don’t go their way. Instead, they regroup, rethink the problem and start kicking ass in a new way to overcome and succeed. Discounting the aggressively broad generalizations of both sides, we’ll turn to the science supposedly expressed here. What follows is Adams’ understanding of natural selection: Natural selection is a process by which the weaker, more fragile and less adaptive members of any species are killed off or denied reproductive partners. This weeds them out of the gene pool of the species, resulting in a stronger, more adaptive and more successful species that can survive a challenging, competitive world. In his view of natural selection, which, we will grant, is close to (but falls short of) being accurate, the process results in millennial snowflake liberals who are less fit because they don’t possess the following traits that “are universal across the natural world”: #1) COMPETITION: In competition, there are winners and losers. Winners get to live and pass their genes to the next generation. Losers die and are removed from the gene pool. #2) ADAPTATION: Successful organisms in any population show strong adaptive capabilities to handle challenging stresses that require alteration of the organism’s goals or strategies to survive and thrive. #3) STRONG MALES = SUCCESSFUL OFFSPRING: In mammals and many other types of living organisms, those males which are the strongest at protecting their families and beating out other competing males for reproductive rights are rewarded with genetic influence over the next generation of youth to be born. […] The issue, though, is that these three traits are far from universal in the natural world. On his first point, we can obviously agree with Adams that competition is a key part of natural selection. But do populations of organisms feature ruthless competition between members? No. In what could easily be branded as an example of the natural world’s version of the liberal welfare state, skilled vampire bat predators will give nourishment, unreciprocated, to those less able to feed themselves. A 2013 paper published by Proceedings of the Royal Society documented this behavior over a two-year period, finding that donors who offered the food to the recipients without prompting, and that this action occurred independent of kinship. The phenomenon is important, the authors argue, because: Vampire bat food sharing is potentially a powerful model for understanding the cognitive enforcement of cooperation, because this behaviour is completely natural, energetically costly, [and] occurs between kin and non-kin. Adams’ second point about the need to be “adaptive” to one’s environment results from a flawed reading of Darwin. When proposing his theory of natural selection, Adams repeatedly suggests: Successful organisms in any population show strong adaptive capabilities to handle challenging stresses that require alteration of the organism’s goals or strategies to survive and thrive. Adaptations are, of course, a big part of natural selection, but what Darwin was referring to in this case were genetically determined features of an organism, set at birth, that would give it a reproductive advantage — not the specific characteristic “adaptability” to rapidly changing environments, as Darwin stated in On the Origin of Species: Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring from their parents—and a cause for each must exist—it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection, of such differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important modifications of structure. Adams’ third point is a common rallying cry among those who argue that a patriarchal society is the only social structure existing in the natural world. The problem, of course, is that there are myriad animals, including primates, that live in female-dominant social structures all around the natural world. A small selection of those animals are listed in a 2008 study published in the journal Animal Behavior: Contrary to common conceptions portrayed in the literature, female dominance over males appears to be widespread among mammals and birds showing sexual size monomorphism. Female dominance has been reported for several nonprimate mammals with similar-sized sexes, including the hyrax (Procavia capensis), spotted hyena, rufous elephant shrew (Elephantus rufescens), velvet-furred swamp rat (Rattus lutreolus), brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), and nutria (Myocastor coypus). Outside of those primary claims, Adams make some even more inflammatory, and equally illogical, scientific claims. For example, he believes that liberal female college students don’t need to be selective in their choice of mates because of their easy access to abortions: Female college students don’t even have to be selective in their choice of possible sex mates because they always have abortion at the ready to remove any child that might start to form in their wombs. Thus, easy access to abortion services makes females “lazy” in their choice of reproductive partners, resulting in a kind of “backward evolution” force that drives humanity downward rather than forward. If anything, the opposite is true. Abortion rates and unplanned pregnancies have been declining since the Reagan administration of the 1980s, a fact researchers attribute to contraception, something college students generally have better access to than the population at large. This would put females explicitly in charge of whom they would want to have procreative sex with, making them (from an evolutionary standpoint) more selective. Another specious notion is the concept of a “natural selection event.” This is not a thing. Natural selection happens all the time, a point explicitly and poetically made by Darwin: It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were. The final and perhaps most alarming issue with Adams’ conception of natural selection is his omission of the fact that any trait selected for has to be heritable, which means it is controlled by genetics and is able to be passed on through reproduction. While there there is some evidence from studies that genetic differences can be found between people of different ideological persuasions, these studies are limited in their ability to tell us much about what specific aspects of ideology are hereditary. A 2012 review article on this topic by Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott published in Trends in Genetics concluded that genetics may account for a significant portion of political persuasion, but that the manner in which genetics controlled specific issues was not consistent (i.e., some issues appeared to be more genetically determined than others) and played a much smaller role in actually determining political party affiliation. The study also pushed back against the simplistic notion that there is a “liberal” gene and a “conservative” gene: Certainly, there is not a gene for liberalism or any political trait. Rather, whatever genetic influences exist probably operate through those emotional, cognitive, or rational processes that are instigated when individuals are asked particular questions about their attitudes. Some combination of mutation, genetic drift, assortative mating, recombination, culture, institutions, social learning, experience, and ecological adaptation drives variance on these traits. The manifestation of genetic influence on these preferences appears more complicated because of large scale societies, institutions, and modern social structures, such as states and governments. The labels and meanings of issues, groups, and policies might change across time and cultures. For Adams’ argument to work, he would have to find evidence that all or most of the traits he ascribes to the snowflakes and the conservatives are hereditary. It is unlikely that he would be able to find studies addressing the genetic basis of qualities like being “pathetic” and “pussified”, “metrosexual”, having an “everybody’s a winner” or “real-world” mentality, or having the desire for “feel good social conformity”. Arguably, Adams actually delves into the discredited and archaic theory of Lamarckism, which suggests that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring when he claims that parents inflicting liberal ideals upon their offspring will doom their genetic line: Teaching your child liberalism is, then, a form of genetic homicide against future generations, because when your pathetic, loser “snowflake” children are wiped out at the next natural selection event, your family tree gets cut off at the stump. Sure, Adams’ piece is meant to be political and is potentially even a poorly-executed attempt at satire (though his followers probably don’t see it that way), but it was published on a site that bills itself as “a science-based natural health advocacy organization,” and it is riddled with scientific errors in an effort to make a largely inflammatory (if not incoherent) point.
|
13601
|
"David Plouffe Says ""Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000"" to the Clinton Foundation."
|
"Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation."
|
true
|
Candidate Biography, PunditFact, David Plouffe,
|
"As Donald Trump amps up attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Democrats are pointing out that Trump himself has given to the nonprofit he now calls a pay-to-play operation. Recently released emails between Hillary Clinton’s aides when she was secretary of state and officials at the Clinton Foundation have demonstrated that some foundation donors did get access to Clinton, though there’s no evidence of direct favors. Addressing the topic on NBC’s Meet the Press, Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe noted the Clinton Foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS and malaria and Trump’s own ties to the charity. ""The Clinton Foundation, I think it’s a universal agreement, has done remarkable work around the world. I think Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000 to the foundation,"" he said. Plouffe is right that Trump gave at least $100,000 to the foundation, a fact that Trump and his campaign readily admit. One caveat: It appears that the money came through Trump’s own foundation, not directly from Trump. The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It’s not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump’s gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation’s donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. Breaking it down by dollar amount, however, Trump’s total contribution isn’t that big. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. In 2009, the Trump Foundation gave $926,750 to some 40 organizations (page 18). The Clinton Foundation received one of the largest gifts that year, matched or surpassed only by the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation ($100,000), the New York Presbyterian Hospital ($125,000) and the Police Athletic League ($156,000). Altogether, the Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 according to the nonprofit’s tax forms, Forbes found. Trump did not make any personal contributions to his foundations during this time. (Money for the Trump Foundation in these years came from others and from investment income.) Trump doesn’t deny that he donated to the Clinton Foundation that he now calls a criminal enterprise. During the first GOP primary debate in August 2015, Trump voluntarily brought up his giving to the Clinton Foundation when asked about his previous donations to Hillary Clinton. ""When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me,"" Trump said. ""With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world."" For the record, the Clintons did attend Trump’s third wedding to Melania Knauss, but that occurred in 2005, four years before the $100,000 donation. A few months later, Trump gave pretty similar answers when he was asked to explain the Forbes article on his charitable giving record in late January. ""I did give to the Clinton Foundation. What I didn't know is they'd be using it for private aircraft and things like that. The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me,"" he said on Jan. 31’s Fox News Sunday. ""Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."" Our ruling Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation.
|
1959
|
Sea defeats body, not spirit, of swimmer, 61.
|
An asthma attack, a painful shoulder and battering wind and waves forced 61-year-old swimmer Diana Nyad to abandon early on Tuesday her bid to become the first person to swim from Cuba to Florida without a shark cage.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Diana Nyad cries as she speaks to reporters and fans after arriving back in Key West, Florida August 9, 2011. An asthma attack, a painful shoulder and battering wind and waves forced 61-year-old swimmer Diana Nyad to abandon early on Tuesday her bid to become the first person to swim from Cuba to Florida without a shark cage. REUTERS/Rob O'Neal/Florida Keys News Bureau/Handout The American, who tried and failed the 103-mile swim more than three decades ago when she was 28, gave up after enduring nearly 30 hours of a crossing expected to last 60, exhausted by her body’s limits and the force of the elements. “I thought this was my time. We set out, thinking the conditions were favorable. They were not. The winds were stronger and the waves were bigger than what I’d expected,” she told Reuters after her escort boat Bellisimo brought her to the Key West Yacht Club on Stock Island. Nyad, a veteran long-distance swimmer, had started out strongly, stroking rhythmically through calm seas after she dived off from the Marina Hemingway on the western outskirts of Cuba’s capital Havana at 7:45 p.m. EDT on Sunday. But, she said in an interview with CNN, she suffered an unexpected bout of asthma that left her gasping for oxygen. An “excruciating pain” also developed in her right shoulder and these physical handicaps combined with contrary winds and seas that pushed her floundering off course. “Last night at midnight, I was trembling, the 11 hours of asthma had taken so much from my body ... I just knew that it wasn’t mind over matter any more, I was absolutely spent,” Nyad, wearing a white bathrobe, told CNN at Stock Island. She said that toward the end she was “limping” and “slapping around” in the water and even resorted to breast stroke instead of her usual crawl. Her doctor joined her in the water at one point to try to give her relief with an inhaler. CNN, which had a producer on one of the boats accompanying Nyad, said she was vomiting when she was brought aboard an escort boat at 12:45 a.m. EDT (0445 GMT) on Tuesday. Nyad, who later recovered to breakfast on scrambled eggs on her way to Key West, was disappointed but had no regrets about her motives for attempting the swim. She turns 62 this month. She had said her main aim in attempting the Cuba to Florida swim again, without a shark cage, was to help people her age and older realize they can still achieve many things. “I was the best person I could be ... that’s the message. I dug down, I dug deep ... Whatever you’re doing, do your job well,” Nyad, who has the muscled body and the steely resolve of a marathon swimmer, told CNN. Raised in southern Florida, she first tried the crossing from Cuba in 1978, but failed in the face of winds and heavy waves. The same swim was completed successfully in May 1997 by Australian Susan Maroney, who was 22 at the time. But Maroney used a shark cage. Nyad’s flotilla of escort vessels included specially equipped kayaks transmitting an anti-shark shield in the form of an electronic signal that is annoying to the sleek ocean predators that stalk the waters of the Florida Straits. When she was years younger, Nyad put herself into the record books by swimming around Manhattan in 1975 in less than eight hours and by completing a 102.5 mile swim from Bimini in the Bahamas to Florida in 1979. Despite her having to abandon her bid, her fans tweeted their admiration on Tuesday. “That was Diana’s whole point. Rethink old. Sorry she (had) to abandon but my admiration doesn’t waiver. Go Diana,” said one. Asked whether she would attempt the swim again, Nyad told CNN: “You don’t beat Mother Nature ... I think I’m going to have to go to my grave without swimming from Cuba to Florida.”
|
2931
|
Health reform's grand experiment: Will it play in Peoria?.
|
By all accounts, Sandy Wright of Mackinaw, Illinois, is a challenging patient. The spunky 69-year-old with a rare autoimmune disease has been in the hospital more than a dozen times since she was first diagnosed in 1997.
|
true
|
Health News
|
“You name it, I’ve had it,” Wright says. “I’m a very hard case.” Now, patients like Wright are at the forefront of an experiment, under way in Peoria, Illinois, and hundreds of other U.S. cities, that could transform the way doctors, nurses and hospitals deliver care to patients. Amid the barrage of criticism over the rollout of Obamacare, groups known as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are quietly going about the business of testing the potential for healthcare reform. The efforts, born of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, are part of the biggest experiment yet to fix the costly and error-plagued U.S. healthcare system. The new models of care, which encourage providers to form networks to coordinate care and cut costs, involve close monitoring of the sickest patients to address budding health problems before they cause a costly trip to the emergency room or an extended hospital stay. Providers that succeed in keeping patients healthy and cutting costs are rewarded with a portion of the savings. In Peoria, a city of 116,000 that is often seen as the archetypal middle American community, two hospital systems - OSF Healthcare and UnityPoint Health - are taking on the challenge. Progress so far is largely anecdotal, but early data showing declines in readmissions and emergency room visits offers a tantalizing glimpse into the potential for reform. Still, there are no guarantees that the savings will exceed the costs. OSF is in its second year of participating in the federal Pioneer Accountable Care Organization, a pilot program involving 32 hospital systems across the country that aims to improve quality while cutting costs in the government’s Medicare insurance program for the elderly. The program rewards doctors and medical centers that show gains on 33 measures of quality, including routine cancer and depression screenings, while still managing to cut overall costs. In its first year, 13 hospitals reported savings. OSF was not one of them, but it came close. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not allowed providers to disclose their full first-year results, but Tara Canty, chief operations officer of OSF’s Accountable Care Organization, said the hospital system saw a 30 percent drop in emergency room admissions and a 20 percent drop in inpatient stays among Medicare participants. Canty sees the first two years as a learning process but says she will be “upset personally” if OSF is not achieving savings by year three. Dr. Keith Knepp, chief information officer at UnityPoint Health-Methodist, says reforms are needed, but he sometimes finds it hard to stay optimistic. “Will there be reimbursement to reward the improved quality, or will we spend more money to take in less?” Success may depend on controlling costs among high-use patients like Wright. She is among the 5 percent of OSF patients who consumes more than 50 percent of the care delivered by the system. Wright spends most of her days in her tidy home in Mackinaw, outside Peoria, tooling around in a motorized wheelchair. Her legs swell up, making her prone to blood clots. Two years ago in November, she had a major complication from her blood thinner drug, Coumadin. “My brain started bleeding. They had to drill holes in my head,” Wright recalls of the ordeal, which kept her in the hospital for nearly a month. “I nearly died twice.” Wright was among the first of OSF’s Pioneer patients to be assigned a care manager, a nurse charged with keeping her healthy and out of the hospital. “The theory here is if you focus on the people with chronic disease who are your highest utilizers of care … and make a better outcome for those patients, you are able to invest that savings into some of the care for the larger population of patients,” said Michelle Conger, OSF’s chief strategy officer. Like most providers across the country, Peoria’s hospitals have been hit by federal budget cuts and burdened by an outdated reimbursement system focused on how many services they perform rather that quality. OSF, a system of eight acute-care hospitals with $6 billion in annual patient revenue, needs to cut $200 million over the next five years in response to reimbursement cuts from Medicare and other payers. It has adopted the ACO model to help it get there. An actuarial firm is combing through claims data for the 34,000 Medicare patients in OSF’s ACO to help identify patients like Wright, whose high-risk conditions are likely to require more emergency room visits or admissions. The system assigned 35 care managers to work with these patients and come up with ways to prevent more acute health crises. Sometimes that means simply helping patients keep track of their medications or arranging transportation to a pharmacy, said Priscilla Romans, a nurse who works in OSF’s call center. It also means routine checks on high-risk patients. During a call last month, a heart failure patient complained of shortness of breath and a headache. Romans asked whether she could put her shoes on that day. She was only able to get one on, a sign of fluid buildup, and she couldn’t wear her rings. Romans had the woman take her blood pressure, which was too high, and reported the findings to her doctor. The physician doubled the patient’s dose of Lasix to cut the swelling in her hands and feet, and started her on a blood pressure medication. When Romans called the next day, a Friday, the woman felt much better. Romans believes the time she spent on the phone with this patient helped avert a much more costly ER visit. Often, the issues driving health costs are social. In one case, OSF discovered that a patient who kept getting readmitted to the hospital for emphysema had not been taking her medication. “She was squirreling away her money to fix her roof,” said Dr. Stephen Hippler, OSF’s senior vice president for clinical excellence. The Catholic hospital system tapped into a charity program and made the repairs. UnityPoint Health-Methodist, Peoria’s second-biggest provider, has been taking part in Medicare’s Shared Savings ACO, a transitional program in which hospitals assume less risk than in the Pioneer ACO but have fewer potential rewards. The hospital has cared for about 10,000 Medicare ACO patients since July 2012. In November, UnityPoint acquired the 220-bed Procter Hospital, Peoria’s third-largest provider, giving it access to new addiction recovery services and skilled nursing care. The Procter deal follows Methodist’s decision in 2011 to join Iowa-based UnityPoint Health, the 13th-largest non-profit health system in the United States with annual revenue of $2.7 billion. The moves are part of a national consolidation trend among hospitals trying to fill out their menu of services and bring costs under centralized control. “There is a need for size and scale in the new environment,” said Terry Waters, vice president for strategy and development at UnityPoint Health. “You have to be able to diversify your financial risk over a larger patient population.” According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an estimated 14 percent of the U.S. population is covered by some form of accountable care organization, including 4 million Medicare beneficiaries. OSF could not say whether it has saved money on Wright’s care in the two years since she has been in care management because the system does not release financial information about individual patients. But Canty said the system “has seen significant and sustained declines in the cost of care for patients in care management.” As for Wright, she appreciates the quick access she now has to her doctors, but she still needs a lot of care. In May, a hip implant had become infected and had to be replaced. While recovering, Wright developed a bothersome cough that turned out to be pulmonary fibrosis, a dangerous scarring of the lungs. “Between May 21 and July 19, I had been released and admitted five times. Five times! It was dreadful.” Romans, who has helped coordinate some of Wright’s care, said her job is to try to keep patients out of the hospital, but that’s not always possible. “Here we are trying to be financially prudent with our dollars, but the patient needed the care.” Now, the goal is to stretch out the period between visits. Wright went from July to September with only one hospitalization. “It was quick. She went back home, and she hasn’t been back to the hospital since,” Romans said.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.