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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6634
|
GOP Congress rolls back rules on hunting, broadband privacy.
|
Hunters could soon target grizzly bears from the air on Alaska’s federal lands. Internet providers may get to sell the browsing habits of their customers. States will be able to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
|
true
|
Planned Parenthood, Bears, Politics, Environment, Michael Pence, Government regulations
|
Citing states’ rights, jobs and the right to bear arms, congressional Republicans are reversing dozens of Obama-era rules affecting the environment, education and the energy sector. The GOP is using a largely unknown but highly effective legislative tool that allows a simple majority in the House and Senate to overturn regulations that often took years to craft. Indeed, with an overhaul of health insurance going off the rails, Republicans are left pointing to the repeal of various government regulations as their crowning legislative achievement after some 70 days at work. The GOP casts the effort as overturning eight years of excessive government regulation and boosting business. “These things will help get people back to work, and after years of sluggish growth, give a real boost to our economy,” Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said this past week. The president has signed eight resolutions revoking regulations issued during the final months of Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency. Six resolutions have cleared Congress and are awaiting the president’s signature. A couple dozen more are on deck, with last Thursday the deadline for filing more. Trump has signed measures eliminating requirements that mining and oil companies report payments made to foreign governments. The rule was designed to shine a light on how much money foreign governments received for their nation’s resources, thus reducing the prospect of corruption. He also signed another measure reversing an Obama plan to prevent coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams. “These actions from Congress and the president are giving hope to businesses that they haven’t had in a long time,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi scoffed at the notion that Republicans were accomplishing anything with the regulatory repeals “because they do not meet the needs of the American people.” “They are about trickle-down. Their life is about giving more money to the high-end and to corporate interests, maybe it will trickle down, that would be good, but if it doesn’t, so be it, that’s the free market,” Pelosi said. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the regulatory repeals Congress pushed through will actually damage the economy more than it helps. He said that eliminating the stream protection rule may help coal companies, but it hurts other companies that stand to gain through healthier streams and water supplies. “If you look across the terrain of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, they are repeals of public measures that help, consumers, workers and the environment in very substantial ways, but are opposed by powerful corporate interests,” Weissman said. “The Republicans driving these measures are paying back their corporate benefactors at the expense of the public.” In some cases, the regulatory repeal efforts have had nothing to do with the economy, but addressed hot-button social issues that so often dominate Washington politics. Republicans blocked a Social Security Administration rule that would have prevented tens of thousands of mentally disabled beneficiaries from being able to purchase a firearm. The rule was targeted specifically at those beneficiaries with mental disorders who have a third party manage their financial benefits, and it was opposed by the NRA and several advocacy groups for the disabled. The latest repeal effort clearing both chambers required Republicans to bring Vice President Mike Pence to the Capitol so he could cast the tie-breaking vote on the abortion issue. The scrapping of the Health and Human Services rule gave states the go-ahead to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. One of the more closely contested repeals would kill an online privacy regulation. Fifteen Republicans sided with Democrats in opposing the repeal, which Pelosi said would allow internet providers to sell personal information without a user’s consent. “You should be very, very scared,” she said. The ability of Congress to void regulations with a simple majority was created in 1996 when Congress passed the Congressional Review Act. In the 20 years since, Congress was only able to use it once to repeal a regulation. Congress sent five repeal resolutions to Obama, but he vetoed each of them. Trump made clear early on that he would back the efforts of the GOP-led Congress. “I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most importantly with the American people until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find,” Trump said this past week. “We have a lot more coming.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has encouraged the regulatory rollbacks, weighing in with lawmakers on efforts affecting internet providers, federal contractors and energy companies. Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber, acknowledges that it’s hard to say how many jobs are created or saved through the repeal of one particular rule, but he says employers of all sizes tell the chamber government regulations are a top concern that makes it harder for them to flourish. “Any time we can roll back these regulations is another step forward to restoring the economic growth that I think is the top priority of the American people,” Bradley said. ____ On Twitter, reach Kevin Freking at https://twitter.com/APkfreking
|
26010
|
“The CDC tried to develop clear guidelines about what the stages of re-opening should look like — the administration delayed and scaled them back.
|
The White House requested that the CDC revise its initial reopening guidelines because they were “too prescriptive.” The CDC later released around 60 pages of detailed reopening guidelines, but certain sections were cut. The CDC said that the review and revision were part of a standard process with the White House coronavirus task force but some experts criticized the delay.
|
true
|
Public Health, Coronavirus, Joe Biden,
|
"Joe Biden berated President Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying in a recent speech in Delaware that Trump failed to take the necessary steps to get the virus under control. Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said the administration stifled and scaled back the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s initial guidelines on reopening the country. ""The CDC tried to develop clear guidelines about what the stages of reopening should look like — the administration delayed and scaled them back,"" Biden said June 30. Did they? Here’s what we found out. Biden’s campaign pointed us to a May 7, 2020, Associated Press report, which found that the Trump administration shelved part of a CDC document that contained step-by-step advice to local authorities on how and when to reopen businesses and public areas amid the pandemic. The 68-page CDC report, titled ""Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework,"" was supposed to publish on May 1, according to the AP, but the White House called it ""too prescriptive."" The White House told the agency revise its guide because it didn’t align with Trump’s strategy of giving states the final say. The CDC released the approved 62-page report on May 20. (Some sections were released a few days earlier.) While it’s slightly shorter than the original, it still provides a detailed reopening roadmap for schools, camps, restaurants, child care facilities and transit organizations. In a May 8 press briefing, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany countered that the CDC guidelines weren't ready and said that a rogue employee leaked a draft that was still in the editing process. After the final guidelines were released, she was asked in another briefing why Trump didn’t make an announcement. McEnany said that sections of the document were already out and different appendixes had to be discussed first. ""The 60-page document was merely an aggregation of a lot of what was already out there, so it’s not as if this was new information that we were announcing, but it was more guidance pursuant to our ‘reopening of America’ guidance that was issued several weeks ago,"" McEnany said. The CDC also said the guidelines are meant to be taken together with the White House’s reopening guidance issued on April 17, 2020. But the White House version makes clear reopening decisions are up to state and local officials, while the CDC’s version includes more details, such as recommendations to help businesses decide when to shut down in the case of future outbreaks. The original plan also included instructions for faith-based organizations, which were stripped out of the final version. CNN reported that this section was one of the main holdups for publishing the CDC documents, because the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights argued that faith-based organizations were being unfairly targeted. The department asked the CDC to ease social distancing recommendations for those groups, according to CNN, and encouraged federal health officials to let churchgoers congregate, saying that this aligned with the president’s agenda. The shelved CDC guide also recommended that nonessential travel should be avoided until the last phase of reopening, while the released version only mentions nonessential travel in relation to high-risk persons. The White House plan is looser on nonessential travel, too, and advises that communities ""minimize"" travel in Phase 1, and that in Phase 2, ""non-essential travel can resume."" Some health experts and officials have criticized the delay, saying that detailed recommendations should have been available earlier. ""While it is not unusual for there to be White House review of forthcoming guidance, it is highly unusual for there to be a wholesale rewriting of guidelines at the request of the White House,"" said Jeffrey Levi, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington University. ""The holding back of recommendations regarding places of worship was particularly egregious given the high level of risk such indoor, mass gatherings can pose,"" Levi said. ""The shorter versions that were first released diminished their effectiveness, since they didn’t provide as much detail as people needed to know how best to implement them. This delayed implementation of best practices — which could potentially have placed people at greater risk."" But the CDC told PolitiFact the report’s revisions were part of a standard interagency process with the White House coronavirus task force. ""There is an iterative effort to ensure effective, clear guidance is presented to the American people,"" said Benjamin Haynes, a spokesperson for the CDC. ""As part of the Administration’s whole of government approach to combating COVID-19, the CDC followed an inter-agency process of drafting considerations and submitting them to the White House Task Force for review and comment before posting the guidance for states to safely reopen."" PolitiFact reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back. Biden said that the Trump administration ""delayed and scaled back"" the CDC’s COVID-19 reopening guidelines. Biden is mostly on target. The CDC said that the delays were caused by review and revision that was part of a standard process. Still, the White House did request that the public health agency revise its initial guidelines to align more with Trump’s approach of leaving reopening decisions up to state and local governments."
|
5448
|
State Health Department calls for requiring outbreak plan.
|
State authorities called Thursday for a law requiring long-term care facilities to develop disease outbreak plans in response to the deaths of 11 children at a New Jersey rehabilitation center last year.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Disease outbreaks, New Jersey
|
The call was included in a state Health Department report on the adenovirus outbreak at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation. “Ensuring that all staff are regularly trained in proper handwashing protocols and other infection control procedures is the best way to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses in long-term care facilities,” Health Commissioner Dr. Shereef Elnahal said in a statement. One staff member and 36 residents, ranging in age from toddlers to teens, were diagnosed with a particularly severe strain of adenovirus in the outbreak at the facility in Haskell, which provides care to children and adults. Eleven children died. The report recommended a new law that would require long-term care facilities to put in place detailed plans to prevent and respond to disease outbreaks. The department already has guidelines for the control of respiratory viral outbreaks but is calling for a statute to require such planning. Among the other recommendations was that parents and guardians should be notified “immediately following an event of significance.” Some parents of the infected children told newspapers that they didn’t learn about the outbreak until reading about it in news reports. On Thursday, Paul Fishman, an attorney working on behalf of the center, said Wanaque had already adopted the recommendations the state suggested. “Everybody recognizes that if they can prevent what happened, they will do what they can to prevent that,” Fishman said in a phone interview. The report follows the March announcement that the federal government fined the center $600,000 over what it said were lapses. Those included insufficient hand washing and problems with infection control procedures as well as a lack of involvement by the facility’s medical director and other management. The center disputed those findings and has said it planned an appeal. Adenovirus typically causes a mild cold or flu symptoms and usually poses little risk for healthy people. The strain found in the rehab center outbreak — type 7 — is among the more potent types and sometimes causes more serious respiratory illness, especially among those with weak immune systems. The children at the facility all had serious underlying health conditions, and many were on ventilators The first symptoms showed up Sept. 26, and the state was notified of an outbreak Oct. 9, officials said.
|
31702
|
Peanut oil is secretly present in childhood vaccines and flu shots.
|
Despite this, Fraser’s book is still often offered as the definitive source for the “fact” that childhood vaccines (or flu shots) contain peanut oil.
|
false
|
Medical
|
Among the many epidemiological trends blamed on vaccines, one of the lesser known fallacies is that they are the cause of an increased incidence of childhood peanut allergies in the United States and other nations. Alternative health website and “alien false flag” watchdog Natural News, for example, used this argument in a 13 February 2017 story arguing that President Trump’s allegedly exemplary health is, in part, thanks to his never having received a flu shot: Have you ever wondered why hundreds of thousands of U.S. children are allergic to peanuts? A hundred years ago, peanut allergies were unheard of, yet today, as many as 2 million U.S. children are allergic to them. What changed? The flu shot. Though articles and individuals attempting to make this link propose a variety of mechanisms for the ways in which an inoculation could contribute to the development of peanut allergies, each relies on the false premise that vaccines (childhood and/or influenza) contain undisclosed traces of peanut oil. The most common narrative found online is that peanut oil is used as what is known as an adjuvant (a chemical that increases the body’s immune response to an inoculation) but loopholes in the legal system allow this information to remain undisclosed. This assertion appears to have its roots in the 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Heather Fraser, which has a section about the potential presence of peanut oil adjuvants in vaccines. Fraser attempts to argue that some kinds of adjuvants in injections (not specifically childhood vaccines) may have, through poorly understood mechanisms, sensitized children to peanut and other allergies. This specific chapter (and the evidence it cites) appears to be the basis for a number peanut oil claims on numerous anti–vaccine websites. The web site VaccineInformationNetwork.com summarizes that narrative in a way that is representative of many posts: Many different substances have been used as adjuvants over the last 100 years, and the scientists have been constantly on the lookout for more dangerous substances which produce extreme immune reactions in the human body, until one day they stumbled upon a substance that delivered the kind of deadly reaction they were looking for: Peanuts. Peanuts were first used as an adjuvant in vaccines in the mid-60s. We know this because the startling admission was made in the New York Times on 18 Sep 1964, where the author described how a newly patented ingredient including peanut oil was being added to the flu vaccine as an adjuvant in order to ‘enhance the vaccines strength’. Peanut oil became the model for subsequent vaccines, and by the 1980s it had become the preferred adjuvant for the manufacturers. Today, peanut oil is a common trade secret ingredient used in vaccine adjuvants. They claim it as a trade secret so their competitors wont [sic] ‘steal their vaccine formulas’, but in reality they do it so they don’t have to list it as an ingredient, in the hope that the unaware public wont realise it is the cause. While the Vaccine Information Network post is a bit more dramatic in its language, both that post and the book from which that information is derived make a number of claims that require investigation: Vaccines Have Used Peanut Adjuvants Since The 1960s — False The notion that vaccines containing peanut oil adjuvants were introduced to the public, as presented in Fraser’s book, relies on a 1964 New York Times report about a clinical trial conducted by the pharmaceutical company Merck of a flu vaccine that contained a new peanut-oil based adjuvant given the name “Adjuvant 65”, which at the time seemed to show considerable promise: A pharmaceutical manufacturer has developed a vaccine that it predicts will considerably lengthen immunity from influenza and other virus infections, thereby requiring fewer “shots.” The key ingredient, called Adjuvant 65, which contains peanut oil, was patented this week for Merck & Co., Inc., by Dr. Allen F. Woodhour and Dr. Thomas B. Stim. […] The current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports favorably on studies in which 880 persons received killed influenza virus in Adjuvant 65. This article, however, in no way demonstrates that vaccines commonly contained peanut-oil adjuvants in the 1960s; In fact, it makes it clear that they were not even approved for public use in the United States, explicitly stating “the new vaccine is still under study and is not yet licensed for general use.” This kind of bait-and-switch is also applied to another New York Times article from 1966. Here, crucially, Fraser says that in 1966, “Merck introduced this novel peanut oil additive to the public in a flu vaccine”, implying the product was approved for public use. The only problem is the story she cited concerns a conference presentation by the same researchers in the 1964 study, and it once again makes it clear that it is not a publicly available concoction, but instead still undergoing testing: Studies of an additive to an influenza vaccine show that it increases the potency and duration of the vaccine’s protective effect. This was reported today at an international conference on vaccines here that is sponsored by the World Health Organization and the Pan-American Health Organization. The additive — called an adjuvant — has been tested on 15,000 adults and children. To date, the studies suggest that use of the adjuvant produces a high level of immunity that lasts for several years. Ordinarily, it is believed that flu vaccine produced from a killed virus produces an immunity that is likely to last only one season. When asked for clarification, Fraser told us via email that she did not intend to suggest that Adjuvant 65 was ever used in American vaccines: Adjuvant 65-4 [the specific formulation tested then] was never licensed for use in the US. It was used in vaccines in clinical trials, some large scale over a period of at least 10 years. I did not mean to suggest that this adjuvant was used outside of clinical trials in the US. Intent or not, it appears likely that many anti-vaccine websites have taken these two citations as proof that Adjuvant 65, or some peanut oil containing progeny, is and remains a commonly used ingredient in vaccines. In reality, however, Adjuvant 65 was never approved for use in the United States and many other countries due to concerns about its toxicity. No human vaccines presently contain the compound. Peanut Oil “Became a Model” for Subsequent Adjuvants in Vaccines — False This wording is vague as it does not define what “became a model” actually means. One thing it does not mean, however, is that the failure of Adjuvant 65 resulted in a number of other more successful and widely used peanut based vaccine adjuvants, as there has not been a single such product licensed for use in human vaccines. A more accurate narrative concerning vegetable oil based adjuvants and the relative importance of Adjuvant 65 in medical history can be found in a 1993 review of the topic, which describes the efforts to create vegetable oil adjuvants (which can be metabolized by the body) as a replacement for mineral oil adjuvants (which, because they cannot, lead to health concerns): Various kinds of emulsions with different oil samples have been evaluated in a search for a stable, non-toxic and better adjuvant. As an alternative to mineral oil emulsion adjuvants, [the research group associated with Merck] designed a vegetable oil adjuvant, ‘Adjuvant 65’, consisting of 86% peanut oil, 10% Arlacel A […] as emulsifier and 4% aluminium monostearate as stabilizer […]. When tried in humans, this adjuvant appeared to be safe and potent but with less adjuvanticity than [the most common mineral oil adjuvant]. Although Adjuvant 65 was licensed for general use in one country, its use was discontinued due to reactogenicity for man […] Despite the absence of tumour formation in […] several thousand persons inoculated with Adjuvant 65 influenza vaccine followed for 10 years, further work on these adjuvants of vegetable oil with Arlacel A slowed down or even stopped when it was shown in one report that Arlacel A [might be carcinogenic in one strain of lab mice]. […] [One research group] developed an adjuvant with sesame oil double emulsion without Arlacel A which could be metabolized. This preparation had a good adjuvant effect on the antibody response of mice. Another preparation containing highly refined peanut oil emulsified in aqueous arbovirus vaccine with glycerol and lecithin increased antibody production and induced protective immunity in several experimental animals. Unlike Arlacel A, glycerol and lecithin are readily metabolized normal host constituents. This formula of peanut oil, glycerol and lecithin has been described as relatively non-reactogenic in tissues. However [as of 1993], there is still no oil emulsion adjuvant which may be used in humans. In her book, Fraser cites a single research paper testing a peanut-oil based adjuvant in a variety of animal models, as well as a handful of patent applications, to defend the claim that it was “a model” for other adjuvants at the time. While it is unclear what became of that particular adjuvant in that study, no peanut-oil adjuvant has ever been licensed for use in American vaccines, meaning it likely didn’t go anywhere. At least one of the patents Fraser cites, incidentally, certainly didn’t go anywhere — it is currently listed as expired because of lack of payment for administrative fees. Far from being a model for new adjuvants, peanut oil could more accurately be described as a dead end. By the 1980s Peanut Oil Was the Preferred Adjuvant for Vaccines — False This claim, incidentally, is not made in Fraser’s book, but is included on the VaccineInformationNetwork.com post, and may stem from a misreading of her statement that the inclusion of peanut oil in vaccine adjuvant patents became “common practice”. Regardless of the relative meaninglessness of the term “common practice” in this context (or the irrelevance of a patent application to a larger discussion of epidemiological trends) claiming that peanut oil was a preferred adjuvant for vaccines by the 1980s is about as “alternative fact” as they come. As discussed above, efforts to develop vegetable oil based adjuvants essentially stopped in the late 1970s. There are, currently, only two types of adjuvants approved for U.S. use: aluminum salts and a single, animal-derived oil emulsion used only in the Cervarix vaccine and only since 2009. Far from being the preferred adjuvant beginning in the 1980s, peanut oil adjuvants have never been licensed for human use in US vaccines, and are currently not licensed for human vaccine use anywhere else. There Are Loopholes That Make it Legal for Vaccine Manufacturers to Hide the Presence of Peanut Oil from the Public — False In case the complete and total lack of evidence supporting the claim that peanut oil can be found in vaccines convinced you that they were peanut free, anti-vaccine advocates also throw in a burden-of-proof logical fallacy to contend with: that pharmaceutical companies are doing it secretly and there is literally no way to know for sure. A number of websites make the argument that there are legal loopholes that allow pharmaceutical companies to “get away” with putting peanut oil in vaccines. Fraser makes that argument in her book, too, but without any supporting evidence: However, with the sharp rise in lawsuits against vaccine makers starting in the mid-1970s, public knowledge of exact ingredients in vaccines or other pediatric injections became circumscribed. Vaccine makers no longer excitedly announced new ingredients as Merck did in 1964 with the peanut-oil-based Adjuvant 65-4. The public had no way of knowing fully what was being injected into their children. The response to the increased number of lawsuits was not to reduce regulations regarding disclosure of ingredients, but to set up a “no-fault” vaccine court to settle lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines. This court significantly reduced pharmaceutical companies’ liability, which would make them less concerned with lawsuits, not more. United States law remains quite clear on the labeling requirements for vaccines, according to Section 610.61 of Title 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations. This code explicitly requires the presence of any sensitizing substance (proteins left over from a vegetable oil, for instance) as well as the specific adjuvant present (along with pretty much every chemical that would have been used at any point, even if no longer present) to be clearly defined: The following items shall appear on the label affixed to each package containing a product: […] (l) Known sensitizing substances, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; (m) The type and calculated amount of antibiotics added during manufacture; (n) The inactive ingredients when a safety factor, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; (o) The adjuvant, if present; (p) The source of the product when a factor in safe administration; (q) The identity of each microorganism used in manufacture, and, where applicable, the production medium and the method of inactivation, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; The complete contents of all US approved vaccines can be found on the CDC web site. Ok, So It’s Not in Adjuvants, But They Do “Brew” Vaccines in Peanut Oil — False Some venues avoid the concept of peanut oil based adjuvants entirely. These publications, most notably Natural News (which referenced a series of posts authored by a “doctor” who, by their own disclaimer, may not exist), instead claim that peanut oil is (or could be) used as a “growth medium” in the production of vaccines, which could then leave undetectable traces of peanut proteins or other allergens that companies would be under no obligation to disclose: The influenza vaccine is brewed in peanut oil that’s not listed as an ingredient because only “trace amounts” remain – not enough according to the FDA and CDC to harm people. Peanut oil has been used in vaccines since the 1960s, but because it doesn’t “show up” in the final vaccine product, the manufacturers are allowed to leave it off the package inserts. Peanut oil is just one “growth medium” that vaccine manufacturers use to make vaccines, like egg embryo (protein) and casein (milk). This is what they use to make MMR and influenza vaccines. By asserting that “peanut oil has been used in vaccines since the 1960s” — a reference to the previously mentioned trial study — Natural News may be conflating adjuvants with growth media. A “growth medium” is simply a concoction of nutrients, sugars and other hydrocarbons that help either bacterial cells or cells hosting a virus to survive. In a post explaining why animal products are sometimes used to achieve this goal, the Food and Drug Administration describes the basics: Vaccines contain either killed or weakened forms of disease-causing bacteria or viruses, or components of these that stimulate a response by the body’s immune system, which then protects against the development of disease. In the late 19th century, microbiologists began to grow bacteria in the laboratory. The early bacteriologists tried to mimic as closely as possible the environment in an infected person’s tissues by using solutions containing sugars, salts, and various meat extracts to make “growth media.” These kinds of conditions were quite successful in growing bacteria and then viruses in the lab, because these media supplied the many necessary nutrients. Although synthetic media have been developed for growth of many medically important microorganisms, some still require additional nutrients which are easily provided by animal-derived products such as serum and blood. Viral vaccines are produced in living cells, which, similarly, require the addition of complex growth media components, such as fetal calf serum. The generally untestable argument made here is that nothing is stopping pharmaceutical companies from using peanut oil in their growth media. From a legal standpoint, however, this too is false. As mentioned above, U.S. law requires “the identity of each microorganism used in manufacture, and, where applicable, the production medium” to be disclosed. The argument that pharmaceutical companies don’t need to report things that appear only in trace amounts or not at all is equally false. According to the disclaimer on the CDC’s list of vaccine ingredients: This table includes not only vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives), but also substances used during the manufacturing process, including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities. While some of these media are patented products, their method of production and ingredients are publicly known — and peanut oil free. The Bottom Line Despite all of the above hoops one must jump through to debunk this myth, the basic facts are quite simple. Arguments suggesting that peanut oil is present in vaccines of any kind rely on using a clinical trial for a peanut-oil based adjuvant in the 1960s as evidence that peanut oil adjuvants are and have been in widespread use. Those trials were a failure. No peanut oil based adjuvants (or growth media) are used in human vaccines, and there are no legal loopholes (at least in the United States) that would allow pharmaceutical companies to avoid disclosure of different compounds used in their production. In response to our inquiry about the claims made in her book, Fraser told us: While the oil has a history of use in pharmaceuticals, I have no evidence that it is used in childhood vaccines.
|
17820
|
"Ann Kuster turned ""a blind eye to those in need of funding"" by voting ""against funding for our nation’s veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health."
|
"The NRCC said that Kuster has turned ""a blind eye to those in need of funding"" by voting ""against funding for our nation’s veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health."" The NRCC is correct that Kuster did vote against each of the resolutions that would have temporarily provided funding for veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health. However this only tells part of the story. The Democrats say they are pushing for a measure to fund all of government, not just a few pieces chosen by House Republicans. Notably, a number of advocacy groups whose funding Koster is accused of turning a ""blind eye"" to, are actually on the record saying they agree with Democrats that the government should be funded in its entirety and for a longer period of time, rather than in a short-term and piecemeal fashion."
|
false
|
New Hampshire, Children, Federal Budget, Health Care, Public Health, Science, Veterans, Women, National Republican Congressional Committee,
|
"As the government shutdown continues into its third week, Republicans and Democrats are still exchanging jabs over who is to blame. The National Republican Congressional Committee -- the campaign arm of House Republicans -- asks Americans in a recent web video to tell U.S. Rep. Ann Kuster, D-N.H., along with six other House Democrats, to end what it calls partisan gamesmanship. In the accompanying news release, NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek said Kuster ""has turned her back on women, children and our nation’s veterans throughout President Obama’s shutdown, and it’s time for her and her liberal allies to stop the partisan games."" ""The House has passed bipartisan bills to help the American people while the shutdown continues, and Kuster has continued to turn a blind eye to those in need of funding."" The other Democratic lawmakers targeted by the ads are U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Esty of Connecticut, Bill Enyart of Illinois, Ann Kirkpartick of Arizona, and Rick Nolan and Tim Walz of Minnesota. The NRCC’s video draws on a series of House measures that would have opened specific portions of the government even as the larger shutdown continued. When those measures came up for consideration in the House, Kuster ""voted against funding for our nation’s veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health,"" the NRCC says. We wondered if Kuster did indeed vote against funding for programs that support veterans and low-income families, groups for which she’s pledged her support. We turned to the House roll call votes for the topics highlighted by the National Republican Congressional Committee. In recent weeks, Kuster -- along with virtually every Democrat -- has voted no on the following resolutions. All of these measures would have given agencies in question the same level of funding as in fiscal year 2013, which ended Sept. 30. The resolutions would have extended funding through Dec. 15. • House Joint Resolution 72 to approve a continuing resolution for veterans benefits. The resolution passed 259 to 157. • House Joint Resolution 77 to provide money for the Food and Drug Administration. The resolution passed 235 to 162. • House Joint Resolution 75 to fund the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. The resolution passed 244 to 164. • House Joint Resolution 73 to give money to the National Institutes of Health. The resolution passed 254 to 171. • House Joint Resolution 59 to approve continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014. The resolution first passed on Sept. 20, in a 230 to 189 vote. Kuster voted against the resolution on that date and on two other dates when the House approved Senate amendments to the resolution. Democratic lawmakers have said they won’t support budget bills that cherry-pick which agencies or departments receive money. Each resolution above passed along strong party lines, as have most of the resolutions that would have directed money to specific departments without ending the shutdown. In addition, President Barack Obama has promised to veto any such legislation that makes it to his desk. In other words, this has been a unified Democratic strategy to fund the entire government, rather than offering piecemeal funding for limited portions of the government proposed by House Republicans. Kuster offered this rationale when we asked her to explain why she voted no on the resolutions highlighted by the NRCC. Rob Friedlander, a Kuster spokesman, said the congresswoman believes the right way to support students, veterans, small businesses and middle-class families is to reopen the entire government. He pointed to a recent opinion piece Kuster wrote. In that op-ed, Kuster argues that piecemeal funding isn’t a solution to the shutdown because it would leave much of the government closed. ""Let me be perfectly clear: these measures are not solutions. They’re cynical political ploys. They’re half-hearted half-measures. They’re empty gestures that attempt to create the appearance of progress where none exists,"" she wrote. Friedlander also said that groups representing some of the constituencies named by the NRCC have said they, too, oppose legislation that funds individual agencies in place of reopening the government with a full budget. In a letter to U.S. House and Senate leaders, veterans representatives said that short-term continuing resolutions for the Veterans Administration aren’t acceptable because they don’t take into account the effects of inflation, increased demand for services or costs of starting new programs. The letter was co-authored by leaders of AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars. The groups had more nuanced views on the specific bill -- H.J.R. 72 -- that would have provided money for disability checks and survivors compensation but not reopen other Veterans Administration offices, including information technology, medical research and National Cemetery Administration. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars did not take an official position on the measure, but the groups, to varying degrees, expressed dissatisfaction with that model of legislation. ""That (resolution), in general, is bad policy,"" said Carl Blake, legislative director for Paralyzed Veterans of America, which expressed the clearest discomfort of the four groups about the short-term funding approach. Meanwhile, a news release from the American Public Health Association said that while the group supports the important research done through the National Institutes of Health, it ""opposes efforts to fund individual agencies at the expense of others."" Finally, the National WIC Association, which advocates for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), opposed House Joint Resolution 75. While that resolution would have given money for nutrition assistance to low-income women and children, the association called the resolution a way to use mothers and young children as pawns for political ends, and said the program has enough money to operate through October, giving lawmakers enough time to agree on a full budget. The National Republican Congressional Committee said Kuster's votes speak for themselves. ""It’s a fact that Kuster voted against funding for our nation’s veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health,"" said NRCC spokesman Daniel Scarpinato. ""Don’t take my word for it, or some other organization, just take a look at the votes cited in the release."" We disagree; in this case, the context matters. Our ruling The NRCC said that Kuster has turned ""a blind eye to those in need of funding"" by voting ""against funding for our nation’s veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health."" The NRCC is correct that Kuster did vote against each of the resolutions that would have temporarily provided funding for veterans, low-income women and children, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health. However this only tells part of the story. The Democrats say they are pushing for a measure to fund all of government, not just a few pieces chosen by House Republicans. Notably, a number of advocacy groups whose funding Koster is accused of turning a ""blind eye"" to, are actually on the record saying they agree with Democrats that the government should be funded in its entirety and for a longer period of time, rather than in a short-term and piecemeal fashion."
|
11629
|
Folic acid might be losing its sheen
|
This story does a good job alerting readers to scientific debate about the benefits and harms of fortifying food with folic acid. It is a welcome contrast to stories that either adore or vilify vitamins. The writer neatly lays out the historical points about supplementation of the grain supply in 1998, the benefits with regard to neural tube defect, and the newer concerns about colorectal and prostate cancer. This is a nuanced discussion, and the reader comes away with a pretty good feeling for the problem at hand. However, the story highlights the views of a single nutrition researcher in a way that blurs the distinction between his personal beliefs and the published evidence of potential links between folic acid fortification and certain cancers. The story also fails to address apparent discrepancies between the cancer statistics quoted by the researcher (which seem to indicate colorectal cancer rates rose around the time folic acid fortification was introduced) and those published by the CDC (which highlight a decline in colorectal incidence over the years since fortification began.)
|
true
|
The story includes one expert’s estimate of the cost of treating brain and spinal cord defects, but it does not discuss those costs may be affected by folic acid fortification or how the cost of fortification affects food prices. Though individuals don’t face a huge cost, the aggregate cost of fortification is substantial. The story could have mentioned this at least briefly. The story highlights the decline in birth defects that is attributed to folic acid supplementation. However, it does not include a source for the statement that “fortification with the vitamin prevents an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 brain and spinal cord defects in both countries.” By contrast, a CDC web page on folic acid supplementation states that each year in the U.S. “[a]n estimated 1,000 more babies are born healthy since fortification.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/data.html The story performs a service by bringing attention to the complex and difficult balancing of benefits and harms that comes with decisions about adding supplements to food. As mentioned above, the overall thrust of the story adequately captures the basic point that researchers are struggling to determine whether, what, and for whom folic acid supplementation may present potential harm. However, in some cases the comments of Dr. Mason portray a much stronger association between folic acid supplementation and cancer risk than even his own journal publications put forward. By intertwining the researcher’s personal statements with references to published trials and reviews, the story blurs the distinction between speculation and evidence. The story makes clear the complexity of and uncertainty surrounding possible associations between folic acid supplementation and cancer. However, the story exaggerates what is known about potential cancer risk by highlighting comments supporting a potential link with folic acid supplementation, while failing to provide context or contrary information. The story includes an estimate by Dr. Joel Mason that “excess folic acid consumption may cause an extra 15,000 cases of colorectal cancer each year in the U.S. and Canada.” But the story fails to define excess consumption, nor does it note that the are more than 160,000 new cases of colorectal cancer reported in the U.S. and Canada each year. And while the researcher may have told the reporter that he believes supplementation may be boosting cancer rates, a journal article Mason recently co-authored states that “Future studies need to explore whether a causal relationship exists between supraphysiological levels of folate intake and colorectal carcinogenesis.” Also, while the story states that “researchers noticed that rates of colorectal cancer went up in North America around the same time that fortification began,” the reporter should have explained the apparent discrepancy with CDC statements that between 1998 (when mandatory folic acid supplementation began in the U.S.) and 2005 both colorectal cancer incidence and deaths declined. References: Mason article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057184 Cancer stats: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/ http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx A story of this length on a subject that is hotly debated among nutrition researchers should include comments from more than one nutrition researcher. The story fails to note that according to a disclosure statement in one of his recent journal articles, Dr. Mason has been a paid consultant to Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, a manufacturer of multivitamins. Reference: Disclosure statement with Joel B. Mason, Aaron Dickstein, Paul F. Jacques, Paul Haggarty, Jacob Selhub, Gerard Dallal, and Irwin H. Rosenberg A Temporal Association between Folic Acid Fortification and an Increase in Colorectal Cancer Rates May Be Illuminating Important Biological Principles: A Hypothesis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007 16: 1325-1329. However, because the story does touch on several aspects of the debate, we will give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion even though we wish other sources had been named or that other nutrition experts had been quoted. The story points out the foods that are fortified with folic acid. However, there is no advice about how individuals could estimate their daily intake of folic acid or alter it, if they desired. The story points out that folic acid supplementation of flour has been required in the U.S. since 1998. It would have been helpful to also discuss whether and how consumers could reduce their intake of folic acid, if desired. Questions about potential harms of folic acid supplementation are indeed a hot topic in nutrition research. However, most of the studies and other reports mentioned in this story were published more than two years ago, so the debate is not as new as the story implies. Given the different aspects of the debate reflected in the story, we think it’s safe to assume this didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release – although we wonder why it relied so heavily on one nutrition expert’s perspectives.
|
|
5844
|
Oklahoma follows national trend in increase in sex diseases.
|
Oklahoma is following a national trend with a sharp increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases.
|
true
|
Sexually transmitted diseases, Health, Oklahoma, Syphilis
|
The Oklahoma State Department of Health says chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis cases rose from 29,716 in 2016 to 31,779 in 2017. The health department announcement came after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Wednesday that there were 2.3 million cases of STDs in 2017, an increase of more than 200,000 from the year before. The diseases can be cured with antibiotics. Left untreated, they can lead to infertility, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth, and increased risk of the virus that causes AIDS. The health department encourages regular testing for STDs, having protected sex, limiting the number of sexual partners and avoiding the use of shared needles.
|
13093
|
"Gavin Newsom Says Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ""advocated diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy."
|
In a glass-walled laboratory, chemists puff on vaping devices as they test liquid nicotine flavors. Nearby, staffers with cartons of instant noodles on their desks tap away at laptops, messaging suppliers and customers.
|
mixture
|
Civil Rights, Corrections and Updates, Gays and Lesbians, The 2018 California Governor's Race, California, Gavin Newsom,
|
Here at the Shenzhen offices of e-cigarette start-up RELX Technology, workers scramble to keep pace with the rush of firms vying for sales in the world’s biggest tobacco market. Their potential-customer base starts with 300 million Chinese smokers of traditional cigarettes – about nine times the number in the United States. Founded by former employees of Didi Chuxing, China’s answer to Uber, RELX aims to become China’s answer to Juul Labs Inc, the San Francisco startup that captured a huge share of the U.S. vaping market with a sleek and addictive e-cigarette. RELX makes an almost identical product: a stick-shaped device that burns high-nicotine liquids packaged in plug-in “pods.” But it won’t have to compete with the U.S. e-cigarette giant. Juul has yet to crack China’s market even as it aggressively expands elsewhere in Asia and faces a regulatory crisis in the United States here over a surge in youth vaping. Juul’s delayed entry into China – potentially its most lucrative market – underscores the complexity and risk of operating here. E-cigarette sales have grown slowly in China compared to other industrialized nations. Its market is about one-ninth the size of the United States, according to market research firm Euromonitor. One main reason: China Tobacco, which is both the government-owned cigarette company and the national tobacco regulator. The state monopoly has not clearly signaled how it will regulate e-cigarettes – or whether it will sell them. If it does, it has the power to regulate its competitors out of the business. One investor in a Chinese e-cigarette startup likened the combined regulatory and competitive threat to “a knife on the neck.” China Tobacco did not respond to written questions from Reuters. The cigarette giant’s power stems in part from its contribution to the national purse - accounting for 5.45% of China’s tax revenue in 2018. That amounts to 10.8 trillion yuan ($1.5 trillion), according to calculations by Professor Rose Zheng of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. Still, China Tobacco sells cigarettes for a fraction of what they cost in most nations – as little as 3 yuan per pack, or less than half a U.S. dollar. RELX sells a device and one pod for between 299 yuan to 399 yuan. Foreign firms, particularly U.S. firms, face the additional obstacles of the U.S.-China trade war, cultural challenges in marketing and distributing, and competition from a host of new Chinese e-cigarette startups including RELX, which was valued at $2.4 billion based on recent investments. In September, Juul briefly started selling devices on two popular online commerce sites, Tmall and JD.com Inc. But the products were pulled from the websites days later for unknown reasons. Juul, Tmall parent company Alibaba Group Holding Ltd, and JD.com declined to comment on the Juul product removals or China’s regulatory environment. China Tobacco issued a notice Nov. 1 urging e-commerce platforms and e-cigarette companies to shut online stores offering vaping products, a move aimed at stopping youth sales. Juul declined to comment on its China strategy. RELX CEO Kate Wang said she’s “not worried” about the government’s impact on the sector. The products will continue to remain available, she said, “as long as there’s proof that this is a good solution for smokers.” Many e-cigarette startups still see boundless opportunity in China. Nearly half of Chinese men smoke cigarettes, according to the World Health Organization. Chinese factories make 95% of the world’s e-cigarettes, according to Electronic Cigarette Industry Committee, a Chinese trade association. But almost all of that production is exported. Juul’s explosive U.S. growth only recently convinced Chinese e-cigarette firms of the viability of small, high-nicotine vaping devices in China. They had focused on larger, box-shaped devices that spew vast clouds of vapor and spawned a subculture in the Chinese hip-hop community. The box vapes were less effective in delivering nicotine but offered better profit margins, said Michael Gao, founder of Chinese e-cigarette company Moti. “The old box-style models, you could sell for $100,” compared to about $30 for a Juul-like device, Gao said. “So everyone had doubts about the pod model.” Juul’s success quelled those doubts. Dozens of Chinese startups released pod-style vapes starting in 2018. Many had roots in China’s technology industry. Shenzhen-based Laan, for instance, was founded by former employees at WeChat, the messaging app owned by Tencent. YOOZ, based in Beijing, was launched by Cai Yuedong, an online media entrepreneur. Samuel Liu, who launched the Evove brand of e-cigarettes, envisions a mass market. “It’s a legal drug; it’s a fast-moving consumer good; and it’s an electronic product,” he said. “Electronic cigarettes will be the second item you carry in your pocket, after your phone.” And yet Liu and others acknowledge the risk posed by China Tobacco. “When VC’s come to me, I always tell them they shouldn’t get too excited,” he said. “You don’t know when the government will come in and just claim this market for itself.” Some VCs are embracing the risk. In April, RELX closed on $75 million in venture capital funding from high-profile investors including Sequoia China and Yuri Milner. In addition to e-commerce sites, RELX sells its products through bars, cafes and smartphone repair shops, and says it has more than 900 branded storefronts as franchise partners. The company also plans to soon open flagship stores in Southeast Asia and London. The company’s most popular flavors are mung bean, a common ingredient in Chinese desserts, and laobinggun, a type of popsicle popular in the nineties in China. “We search for flavors that are pretty familiar to people over 30, things that are old-fashioned and inspire emotion,” says Wang. China Tobacco dominates the nation’s tobacco supply from manufacturing to retailing. The same entity controls regulation under a different name – the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration. The administration has at times worked against efforts to limit smoking. In Hangzhou, for example, the local government in 2018 attempted to ban indoor public smoking. The movement lost momentum after the tobacco administration pushed for lighter measures including more designated smoking areas, which it said allowed for “civilized smoking” in a statement to Reuters at the time. In May 2017, the regulator claimed jurisdiction over heat-not-burn smoking devices - an alternative type of e-cigarette that creates a vapor from raw tobacco leaves. The decision effectively barred Phillip Morris International Inc from Chinese sales of its IQOS device, a heat-not-burn e-cigarette popular in Japan. China Tobacco subsidiaries have since begun testing their own heat-not-burn devices and selling them in limited quantities. Phillip Morris said in a statement it had no current plans to sell IQOS in China but did not comment on the nation’s regulation of the heat-not-burn sector. The government has sent conflicting messages on whether it intends to regulate e-cigarettes that vaporize liquid nicotine blends - or sell them itself. In March, state broadcaster CCTV aired a segment highlighting the potential health risks from inhaling nicotine and other chemicals in e-cigarette liquids. The spot was part of a program - broadcast annually on China’s national “Consumer Day” - that targets industries the government alleges have wronged the public. Industry players say they struggled to interpret the government’s message in the segment. They hoped it signaled that the tobacco monopoly would continue allowing e-cigarette sales but start regulating their quality and safety. They had the same hopes in May, when a government regulator submitted draft regulations for exported Chinese e-cigarettes to the World Trade Organization. Many industry observers, however, continue to believe China Tobacco will eventually enter the e-cigarette market itself. State-owned enterprises such as China Tobacco are “bloated and slow to take action,” said Maggie Chen of ESun, a Shenzhen-based consulting firm that helps companies comply with import and export regulations. “But they are definitely paying attention to this sector.”
|
6268
|
Family history leads Kentucky candidates to different places.
|
As a child, Andy Barr watched his sister battle juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. She spent her childhood in and out of hospitals, undergoing at least 25 surgeries while his parents struggled to find affordable insurance coverage.
|
true
|
Health, Donald Trump, Kentucky, Andy Barr
|
Beginning in high school, Amy McGrath watched her parents battle cancer. Her mother had a mastectomy and her father had disfiguring surgery. She said her mother’s background as a doctor is the only thing that kept insurance companies from fleecing them. Now Barr and McGrath are running for Congress against each other in Kentucky in one of the most competitive and expensive races in the country. But their families’ struggles with insurance companies has led them to different places. Whoever wins could help determine which party controls Congress for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term and shape health policy for millions of Americans. “It’s the No. 1 issue,” said McGrath, a Democrat and retired Marine fighter pilot. “People are worried.” Barr, a Republican first elected in 2012, wants to end Kentucky’s expanded Medicaid coverage for low-income adults and instead give them refundable tax credits to help them pay for private insurance plans. McGrath wants to keep the Medicaid expansion while broadening other health programs. She’d like to let people buy into Medicare before they turn 65 and wants the government to offer health plans to the public, which she says would keep prices down by competing with private insurers and giving people more options. The public option did not make it into the Affordable Care Act. But it did include nonprofit health care cooperatives to compete with private insurers. But many of those co-ops, including one in Kentucky, failed despite millions of dollars in loans from taxpayers. And Barr says the Medicare buy in plan would just add to the debt of a program already near insolvency. The debate gives voters in the state’s 6th congressional district a fresh chance to weigh in on what has been a deep partisan divide over how effective the Medicaid expansion has been in Kentucky. More than 400,000 people have gotten coverage through the program, reducing Kentucky’s uninsured rate and paying for drug treatment programs amid a devastating opioid epidemic. But it’s been expensive, and the state still lags other states in key health indicators. Amy McGrath’s mother, Marianne McGrath, was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 50s when Amy was in high school. She had a mastectomy and has been cancer free for 25 years. But Amy’s father, Donald McGrath, had a tumor in his face that required surgery, disfiguring him and preventing him from eating or talking. He struggled with health issues for 14 years before his death earlier this year. Amy McGrath said watching her mother battle insurance companies over the years convinced her “the system is really broken.” But she says the Affordable Care Act is “a step in the right direction.” “I can’t tell you how many people have come up to me and said, ‘Hey, the Affordable Care Act saved my life’,” she said. “The answer is to fix it, not to throw it away and basically throw people with pre-existing conditions under the bus to make it too hard for them.” Barr’s older sister was diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis as a child, which led to extensive surgeries and treatment. His father was an accountant, and most of his clients were doctors. He said his parents got insurance with a small group plan through his father’s business, but “it wasn’t cheap.” The experience in hospitals led his mother to become an Episcopal deacon and hospital chaplain. Barr’s sister is an Episcopal priest now living in the northeast United States. Through his campaign, she declined to be interviewed for this story and asked that her name not be used. But Barr has described her situation publicly, including touting his membership in the Congressional Arthritis Caucus. “Our family, personally, knows how difficult it is to obtain affordable insurance when you have a problem like that,” he said. But he says expanding Medicaid is not the answer, even though many of the 400,000 people included in Kentucky’s expanded Medicaid program live in his district. Barr said it’s “a good thing” that more people have coverage but questioned the quality of that coverage. Medicaid, he said, “is a waiting line.” “Medicaid is terrible. Medicaid is the worst kind of coverage you can get. I want less people on Medicaid and more people on private commercial insurance with a subsidy to buy it or a tax credit to buy it,” he said. Critics, including the Kaiser Family Foundation, say the tax credits offered in the Republican plan would be smaller than what’s currently available. Barr noted the plan he voted for in the House would have protected people with pre-existing conditions, like his sister, from losing their coverage. That’s true, but it would have also allowed health insurance companies to charge older adults five times more than younger adults instead of three times as much under the Affordable Care Act, according to Dustin Pugel, a research and policy associate for the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy. “The older you get, the more likely it is you were going to have a pre-existing condition,” he said. “You’ve lived more life.”
|
2930
|
Americans unlikely to move to get better Medicaid benefits: study.
|
Americans are unlikely to move to another state to obtain better medical coverage, according to a Harvard study released on Monday that debunks fears expanded Medicaid in some states under the U.S. Affordable Care Act will trigger big and costly migrations.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The study could scratch one item off a long list of complications plaguing President Barack Obama’s launch of his sweeping health care law, also known as Obamacare, which kicked in January 1. About half of U.S. states have opted to expand Medicaid eligibility to poor Americans under the law, raising concerns those states could attract low-income people from elsewhere, increasing the burden on state budgets. “This is known as the welfare magnet hypothesis,” according to the study from the Harvard School of Public Health, which said its research into previous state medical aid expansions “found no evidence of significant migration effects.” The Harvard study used U.S. migration data from 1998 to 2012 to focus on the impact of medical insurance expansions in Arizona, Maine, New York, and also Massachusetts - whose own health care reforms served as a model for the Affordable Care Act. “These results suggest that migration will not be a common way for people to obtain Medicaid coverage under the current expansion and that interstate migration is not likely to be a significant source of costs for states choosing to expand their programs,” according to the study. “Our findings are relevant for forecasting the cost and coverage consequences of states’ decisions about expanding Medicaid eligibility,” it said, noting four states - New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Utah - are still considering whether to expand Medicaid under the law. Arguments in favor of expanding Medicaid eligibility have tended to focus on improving access to medical care for the poor and bringing in federal dollars to bolster states’ social programs, while counterarguments have focused on the potential unintended costs to state budgets. A joint Harvard-MIT study released last week focusing on Oregon’s expanded Medicaid program, for example, showed adults covered by Medicaid used emergency rooms 40 percent more than those in similar circumstances who are uninsured. MIT led another study in 2013 focusing on Oregon that showed “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years” but “did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.” The latest Harvard findings come after a rocky start for the Affordable Care Act, which relies on a website that suffered repeated crashes, glitches, and security concerns that hampered enrollment. After some fixes, more than 2 million people have been able to enroll for coverage under the law, the most sweeping social program since the 1960s. President Obama has also been criticized for telling Americans they would be able to keep their old insurance plans under the new law if they wanted to - an assertion that turned out to be false in many cases. The law was passed in 2010 to help millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans, but Republicans have opposed the reform as an unwarranted expansion of the federal government and say it is too costly and eliminates healthcare choices for many.
|
29690
|
Mark Zuckerberg admitted or bragged that Facebook banned pro-life advertising, in particular, during Ireland's 2018 abortion-referendum campaign.
|
It was to this that Zuckerberg was referring in his Aspen remarks, when he said “leading up to that referendum, a bunch of pro-life American groups advertised … to try to influence public opinion there.” The prospect of undue influence from foreign actors, who happened to hold pro-life views, was one of the catalysts for the later blanket ban on foreign advertising, rather than their pro-life stance being its target.
|
false
|
Politics
|
During the summer of 2019, remarks by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg prompted a wave of reports, mainly by right-leaning and pro-life websites, that the social network founder had “admitted” to having banned pro-life advertising in the lead-up to Ireland’s May 2018 referendum on abortion, and even that he had “bragged” and “boasted” about it. The conservative PJ Media website published an article with the headline “Mark Zuckerberg Brags: We Didn’t Allow Pro-Life Groups to Advertise Before Ireland’s Abortion Vote.” That article cited a tweet posted by pro-life activist Lila Rose, who wrote that Zuckerberg had “blocked pro-life ads ahead of Ireland’s abortion vote”: FB CEO @MarkZuckerburg blocked pro-life ads ahead of Ireland’s abortion vote FB COO @sherylsandberg donated $2M to Planned Parenthood Twitter CEO @Jack banned my & @LiveAction’s pro-life ads, allows @PPFA ads, & says legal protections for preborn babies are “bad for business” pic.twitter.com/ZkrLoY9H2b — Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) July 8, 2019 The pro-life website Life Site News similarly published an article with the headline “Facebook Intentionally Blocked Pro-Life Ads During Irish Abortion Vote, CEO Admits.” The conservative website The Blaze, founded by former Fox News presenter Glenn Beck, also claimed that Zuckerberg had “bragged” that his company “blocked pro-life ads ahead of Ireland’s vote,” reporting that: “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg boasted last month about his company’s decision not to allow pro-life ads from American groups to run in Ireland ahead of the country’s referendum vote on abortion last year.” Irish Central, an Irish diaspora news website based in New York, reported that: “Facebook deliberately banned pro-life advertisements from the US during the Irish abortion referendum after the Irish government told them they had no laws on the books either way to cover such foreign advertising. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted his company deliberately blocked pro-life ads from American groups seeking to influence the recent abortion referendum in Ireland.” Each of these reports significantly distorted and misrepresented what actually happened, by leaving out two crucial facts. Firstly, that Facebook banned all advertising — both pro-life and pro-choice — that originated from outside Ireland and had to do with the country’s contentious abortion referendum in May 2018. Secondly, that Facebook continued to host both pro-life and pro-choice advertisements in the lead-up to the referendum, provided they originated within Ireland. None of the articles cited above made any mention of these crucial facts, thereby creating the false impression that Facebook had exclusively targeted pro-life advertising on its platform. Facebook did not do that. However, the wording of Zuckerberg’s remarks in June 2019 could reasonably create the impression that the catalyst for Facebook’s blanket ban on foreign, abortion-related advertising may have been an influx of pro-life ads, many of them created by U.S. actors, on the Facebook feeds of Irish users, in the early days of the referendum campaign. On May 25, 2018, the Irish electorate voted in favor of repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution, by a margin of 66.4 percent to 33.6 percent. (Under Ireland’s constitution, any constitutional changes must be ratified by referendum). After the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, Ireland’s parliament was free to pass its own laws on the availability of abortion services, which it duly did in December 2018, legalizing abortion up to 12 weeks, and after that point in cases where a risk exists to the life of a woman, or a serious risk to her health. The Eighth Amendment had been passed in 1983, enshrining in Ireland’s constitution the “equal right to life” of “the unborn” and “the mother,” and giving constitutional backing to Ireland’s existing and long-standing ban on abortion. However, the inherent tension in the law between the rights to life of the unborn child and its mother created ambiguity and uncertainty in how it should be interpreted, especially in cases where a pregnancy posed a threat to a woman’s life. In 1992, Ireland’s Supreme Court ruled that a threat to the life of a mother, including the risk of suicide, was a legitimate ground for abortion. However, Irish lawmakers did not implement that ruling in legislation until 2013. After five years of activism and debate, and following lengthy consultations involving a parliamentary committee and a “citizen’s assembly,” in March 2018 the Irish government set the date for a vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment, formally launching the referendum campaign. Irish election and referendum campaigns are very short in comparison with campaigns in the United States (the second phase of Ireland’s 2018 presidential election lasted only 30 days, for example). As a result, the period between late March and late May 2018 saw a flurry of intense campaigning and debating on both sides of the abortion-referendum campaign, including targeted social media activism and paid advertising on Facebook and Google (including YouTube). Unlike in the U.S. and other countries, political advertising is banned on radio and television in Ireland, and broadcast media are also governed by strict regulations around fairness and balance in hosting political debates, especially once a campaign has been formally opened. Social media, by contrast, is not governed by any law when it comes to political content, and that gap in Irish regulations prompted concerns about a lack of transparency about the identity, affiliations and funding of those who created various referendum-themed social media pages, posts and paid advertisements. In particular, the role of foreign actors became a cause for concern among some transparency activists and political commentators in the lead-up to the May 25 vote. As part of that push for enhanced transparency, on April 25 Facebook expanded its “View Ads” feature (which had been tested in Canada) to Ireland, meaning only authorized advertisers could purchase political and “issue” advertisements. (In order to become authorized to publish political advertisements, individuals must verify their identities and location with Facebook). The expansion of the “View Ads” feature also meant Irish Facebook users who were targeted with an advertisement on a particular page could also see a list of all the other advertisements published by that page, in principle creating further context and transparency around political advertising. On May 8, Facebook went further, announcing it had decided not to accept any further advertisements relating to the Eighth Amendment referendum campaign, if those advertisements were being sought by actors based outside Ireland. In a news release, the company wrote: “Facebook will no longer be accepting ads related to the forthcoming referendum if they are from advertisers based outside of Ireland. Concerns have been raised about organisations and individuals based outside of Ireland trying to influence the outcome of the referendum on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland by buying ads on Facebook. This is an issue we have been thinking about for some time. Today, as part of our efforts to help protect the integrity of elections and referendums from undue influence, we will begin rejecting ads related to the referendum if they are being run by advertisers based outside of Ireland.” The announcement made no reference to the viewpoint of those “individuals based outside of Ireland,” meaning the claim that Facebook targeted or banned pro-life advertisements, in particular, was false. Facebook also continued to allow referendum-related advertisements from authorized advertisers, regardless of their viewpoint on the issue of abortion, but provided Facebook determined they were based inside Ireland. The Transparent Referendum Initiative, a crowdsourcing project overseen by volunteer transparency advocates and technology experts, collated a database of referendum-related advertisements that appeared on the Facebook feeds of Irish users during the campaign. That database contains multiple examples of pro-life paid advertisements being posted to Facebook after the company announced its crackdown on foreign advertising purchases on May 8. This further disproves any claim that Zuckerberg had either admitted, bragged or boasted that Facebook “didn’t allow pro-life groups to advertise” before the referendum. Facebook did allow that, but simply barred actors based outside Ireland — whether pro-life or pro-choice — from doing the same, after May 8. For its part, Google went a step further than Facebook on May 9, banning any and all referendum-related advertising from YouTube and Google AdWords. On June 26, 2019, Zuckerberg appeared at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado and made remarks about how Facebook operates in countries where certain regulations are lacking, particularly around political advertising. The company’s CEO encouraged national governments to pass their own laws regulating political content and advertising, rather than relying on large technology companies such as Facebook to intervene in the interests of transparency. He offered the Eighth Amendment referendum campaign in Ireland as an example: There are other types of laws around the world that I think would be positive as well. For example, we had an issue — this is not an American example — but we had an issue in Ireland. In the last year there was a referendum on abortion, and during that election [sic], leading up to that referendum, a bunch of pro-life American groups advertised, leading up to this Irish election [sic], to try to influence public opinion there. And we went to the Irish and asked folks there, ‘Well, how do you want us to handle this? You have no laws on the books that are relevant for whether we should be allowing this kind of speech in your election, and really this doesn’t feel like the kind of thing that a private company should be making a decision on.’ And their response at the time was, ‘We don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.’ We ended up not allowing the ads, but at the end of the day, that feels like the kind of thing, around the world in different democracies, that you’d really want the local countries to be deciding for themselves — what kind of discourse they want and what kind of advertising they want in their elections — not a private company. The first thing to note about Zuckerberg’s remarks is that he is clearly not “bragging” or “boasting” about Facebook’s intervention during the abortion referendum in Ireland. In fact, he expressed reticence on the part of Facebook about having a decisive role in regulating political advertising in the country in that case, and he was using the Eighth Amendment campaign as an example of why it would be better, in his view, for individual national governments to use local statutes, rather than private companies, to regulate that kind of content. Furthermore, some reports have assumed that in describing consultations between Facebook and “folks” in Ireland, Zuckerberg was saying that Facebook intervened in the Eighth Amendment campaign after conversations with members of the Irish government, which had proposed the repeal of the constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, a spokesperson for Facebook clarified that the company had not had any conversations with members of the Irish government on the issue, but rather consulted with an electoral watchdog called the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO). SIPO is independent of the government of Ireland, and operates on a strictly non-partisan basis. It is responsible for investigating and enforcing laws around political ethics, election spending, donations, and so on. So it is false to claim, as some reports did, that Facebook had consulted with the Irish government who, motivated by a desire to see the Eighth Amendment repealed, persuaded Facebook to intervene by specifically targeting pro-life advertisements. (After the publication of this fact check, LifeNews.com edited a report which had claimed Zuckerberg told the Aspen Ideas Festival that Facebook “asked pro-abortion politicians last year whether it should ban pro-life ads” during the campaign. The amended article subsequently stated that Facebook had put that enquiry to “an Irish government agency,” an apparent allusion to SIPO. The article did not include a correction, or an explanation of the source of that detail, since Zuckerberg did not mention any “Irish government agency” in his Aspen remarks). Rather, in April 2018 Facebook raised concerns with SIPO that it may have discovered evidence of a violation of Ireland’s law against foreign donations to political campaigns, in the form of a U.S.-based actor paying Facebook to “boost” a post that had been created by an Irish-based abortion-campaign page. The case was rather complicated, and involved several inter-connected Facebook pages that shared the same administrators, one of whom was Irish and one of whom was American, and in the end SIPO reached no clear conclusion about whether a breach of the law against foreign campaign donations occurred. In email correspondence released under Ireland’s Freedom of Information law, Facebook representatives were scrupulous in not revealing to SIPO the nature or viewpoint of the campaign pages in question. Separately, a spokesperson for Facebook told us that in the first weeks of the campaign, Facebook had become aware of several concerns about foreign actors attempting to influence the campaign, and that one of those concerns related to U.S.-based, pro-life groups paying for advertising on the platform. That concern, the spokesperson told us, partly informed Facebook’s later decision to implement a blanket ban on all foreign referendum-related advertising, but only because of an overarching concern for the integrity of the election, and not because of the views those U.S. groups happened to hold.
|
14303
|
The state that has the highest per capita number of … guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont.
|
"Clinton said ""the state that has the highest per capita number of … guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont."" Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with ""trafficking."" These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context."
|
mixture
|
National, Crime, Guns, Hillary Clinton,
|
"As the April 19 New York presidential primary approached, Hillary Clinton sought to draw a contrast with rival Bernie Sanders on gun policy. During an April 11 appearance in Port Washington, N.Y., for what was billed as a ""conversation on gun violence,"" Clinton took issue with Sanders’ characterization of his home state, Vermont, in the gun policy debate. Sanders has said that Vermonters have a more tolerant attitude toward guns than more urbanized states like New York, because of their state’s small, rural nature. In Port Washington, Clinton said that doesn’t excuse Vermont from being part of the problem for cities grappling with the spread of out-of-state guns. ""Here's what I want you to know,"" Clinton told the audience, according to CBS News. ""Most of the guns that are used in crimes and violence and killings in New York come from out of state. And the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont. ""So this is not, 'Oh, you know, I live in a rural state, we don't have any of these problems,' "" she added. ""This is, you know what, it's easy to cross borders, criminals, domestic abusers, traffickers, people who are mentally ill, they cross borders too and sometimes they do it to get the guns they use. This has to become a voting issue for those of us who want to save lives."" This talking point was several days in the making; PolitiFact attempted to fact-check a similar claim she reportedly made during a closed-door event on April 4. But we were unable to nail down the wording through a recording -- until Clinton offered the version in Port Washington a week later. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Clinton’s claim Three Pinocchios out of a maximum of four -- not a very favorable score. But we’ll take a fresh look here. When we asked the Clinton campaign for evidence, they pointed us to a report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives covering calendar year 2014. The report looks at firearm ""tracing"" data, an investigative and statistical tool used by the ATF to discern how a gun traveled from its point of origin to its ultimate destination, at which point the gun is often involved in the commission of a crime. A chart in the report included Vermont in the top 15 ""source states"" for guns, with 55 guns from Vermont ending up in in New York. Here’s that chart: That’s actually one of the smallest raw numbers of any of the 15 highlighted states -- beyond New York itself, the biggest states in raw numbers of guns were Virginia, Georgia and Pennsylvania. These states, especially Virginia, are more commonly associated with the ""Iron Pipeline"" that some analysts have described in which guns flow up Interstate 95, from southern states with looser gun laws to northern states with stricter laws. But it’s important to note that Clinton said ""per capita."" So we divided the per-state gun haul by the state’s population and confirmed that Vermont does indeed have the highest rate per capita, thanks to its tiny population. (Guns from elsewhere in New York ranked second, followed by South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia.) So we have no quarrel with the accuracy of Clinton’s numbers. Instead, the dispute is about whether this per-capita number has any relevance to the gun-policy debate. In a statement, the Clinton campaign said that the per-capita number is ""critically important"" because ""it shows just how dangerous Vermont's laws are relative to other states. If Vermont had the population of California, it would source roughly 3,800 crime guns each year to New York -- far more than the top 15 total source states for New York crime guns combined."" However, the academic experts we checked with echoed the concerns from the Fact Checker article -- that the raw numbers matter much more than the per-capita numbers do. John Roman, a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, told PolitiFact that ""many guns used in violent events come from a very small number of dealers, usually unlicensed gun show folks or shady businesses. That's the problem with this denominator -- the size of the state's population doesn't matter, the number of bad dealers does."" The strongest support we found for using the per capita data came from Ted Alcorn, research director at Everytown for Gun Safety, an anti-gun-violence group. But even he was even-handed about the comparative usefulness of the two measures. If you were a policymaker, Alcorn said, and you ""had the ability to turn on off the spigot, of course you’d want to reduce the top-source states"" as measured by raw numbers, he said. At the same time, he added, having an analytical tool along the lines of a per capita measurement is valuable for deciding where to pinpoint law enforcement resources. ""If you’re looking at the state level, and if you’re just concerned with the absolute numbers, you’ll only focus on the big states and never focus on the small states,"" he said. That said, Alcorn said other types of measurements will often be more valuable than the state per-capita data Clinton is pointing to -- particularly if you can drill down to whether specific stores are seeing a disproportionately large share of the guns they sell end up in New York. Experts we checked with offered a couple other concerns with Clinton’s statement: • The ATF’s trace data is not random or comprehensive. In fact, this point was made in the very same report the Clinton campaign cited. It said: ""Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. ... The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe."" Jay Corzine, a sociologist at the University of Central Florida who studies gun issues, said this is an important caveat. ""The ATF tracing data is the best we have, but for a gun to show up in the data set, it has to be recovered by the police and the police have to make the decision to have the source of the gun traced,"" Corzine said. ""Nobody really knows what the level of bias happens to be. It may be minimal or it may be substantial."" • Traced guns have not necessarily been trafficked. This is the case even though Clinton used the specific word ""traffickers"" in her comments. ""If Joe Gunowner moves from Vermont to New York, gets burglarized and loses a gun, and that gun is used later in crime, is recovered by police, and is traced by ATF, it will show up as a crime gun that originated in Vermont -- but it most definitely did not involve gun trafficking,"" said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. It’s impossible to know how common this scenario is, but Kleck believes it’s substantial. The flow of guns across state borders is ""a reflection of the very mobile character of the American population,"" he said. • Geography matters. The question of geography cuts both ways when measuring the validity of Clinton’s claim. On the one hand, a small-population state with relatively loose gun laws that happens to share a long border with New York may carry added significance than a larger-population state with equally loose gun laws that’s located much further away. On the other hand, it may be the case that the guns from Vermont are flowing into the neighboring areas of Upstate New York, rather than higher-crime areas around New York City that are more supportive of restrictive gun laws. (Corzine is one who thinks that’s quite possible.) We don’t know the answer to this question for sure, however, due to laws restricting the public release of data with greater detail. Our ruling Clinton said ""the state that has the highest per capita number of … guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont."" Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with ""trafficking."" These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so"
|
5744
|
Summer camp is newest front in battle with measles outbreak.
|
The battle to contain the worst U.S. measles outbreak in 27 years has a new front: summer camp.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Immunizations, New York City, New York, Measles, General News, Health, U.S. News, Religion
|
Vaccinations have been made mandatory this summer for campers and staff in several counties north of New York City that annually fill up with kids from the Orthodox Jewish communities that have been hit hardest by measles. Ulster County took the extra step of mandating the measles vaccine or proof of immunity at all day camps and overnight camps, becoming the latest county in the area to issue immunization requirements. Rockland County announced a similar order this month, following mandates from Sullivan and Orange counties. “We have to make sure our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted in making sure all these vaccination records are in and have been fine-combed through to make sure everything is in compliance,” said Rabbi Hanoch Hecht, of Ulster County’s Camp Emunah, which hosts many girls from a Chabad community in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights. “In the past where we accepted religious exemptions for certain things,” said Hecht, who is getting his own blood checked for immunity, “now we cannot.” The state of New York requires summer camps to keep immunization records for all campers, but doesn’t bar children from attending if they haven’t gotten a measles shot. Children are required to get the measles vaccine to attend schools in New York, however, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation Thursday eliminating an exemption for kids whose parents object to vaccinations on religious grounds. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of June 1, more than 1,000 measles cases had been reported in the U.S. since the start of the year, up from fewer than 100 cases a year a decade ago. The bulk of those cases have been diagnosed in ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and suburban Rockland County. The CDC recommends everyone over a year old should get the vaccine, except for people who had the disease as children. Those who have had measles are immune. The vaccine, which became available in the 1960s, is considered safe and highly effective — paving the way for measles to be declared all but eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. But it has had a resurgence several times, including 667 cases in 2014. Hecht and others stressed that vaccinations are widely accepted by most members of the Orthodox community, echoing rabbis in Brooklyn and Rockland County who say it is a relatively small group of parents influenced by anti-vaccination propaganda — not religious teachings — who have resisted inoculations. The Orthodox Union said it has previously required up-to-date vaccinations, including the MMR vaccine, for its 37 summer programs. “Most of the leaders and rabbis have taken the approach that vaccination is required,” Hecht said. Health officials in New York City have taken a tough approach, making measles vaccinations mandatory for everyone living in the Brooklyn neighborhood that is the epicenter of the outbreak, fining people for failing to get inoculated and closing 12 schools for failing to exclude staff and students who couldn’t document immunity. The city announced the two most recent closures Thursday. Now, as schools prepare to close down for the summer, the fight is spreading into the Catskills and Hudson River Valley. Sullivan County is in the heart of the traditional Borscht Belt, and the lake-laden area still attracts thousands to its camps and bungalow colonies each summer. Of the 170 state-regulated camps in the county, 139 are Orthodox Jewish camps. “We draw such a population from New York City, where this measles outbreak was,” Sullivan County spokesman Dan Hust said. “It was considered prudent and wise.” Not everyone agrees. The orders from Sullivan and Orange counties were challenged in state courts by parents of various religious faiths. However, civil rights attorney Michael Sussman said Friday he believes those cases will have to be withdrawn given New York’s removal of religious exemptions. Several camp administrators interviewed by The Associated Press expressed no objection to mandatory vaccinations. “We have no issue with that,” said Yoel Landau, director at Camp Rav Tov, a camp for Hasidic boys in Monticello. Landau said schoolboys from New York City attending the camp should have already been vaccinated because of the city’s order in April. Rabbi Dovid Teichman, director of Camp Govoah, which caters to Orthodox campers in rural Greene County, said staffers were “combing through each and every application to make sure that everyone is vaccinated.” “I can’t jeopardize anybody,” he said. “So if I find somebody that’s on the list that’s not vaccinating, I’m not taking them into camp.”
|
3112
|
Bloomberg health plan aims to lower costs, cover more people.
|
Putting his stamp on the top issue for Democratic voters, Michael Bloomberg on Thursday unveiled a health care plan that would expand coverage and cut people’s costs by building on the current system, not replacing it.
|
true
|
Michael Bloomberg, Health, General News, Legislation, Politics, Joe Biden, Campaigns, New York, Business, Medicare, Nancy Pelosi
|
The former New York mayor and Democratic presidential candidate embraced a new government-run “public option” to compete with private insurance and called for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, using an approach similar to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent legislation. “It’s in the Biden-Buttigieg world rather than Sanders-Warren,” said John Holahan, a health policy expert with the nonpartisan Urban Institute think tank. Holahan reviewed an outline of the plan provided by the Bloomberg campaign. On health care, leading 2020 Democrats are divided between the step-by-step strategy favored by moderates like former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and the “Medicare for All” plan envisioned by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and seconded by progressives wanting a single, government-run system for all Americans. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has that as her ultimate goal. Bloomberg announced his plan during a speech in Memphis. The state of Tennessee is one of 14 that has not expanded Medicaid for low-income people under the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, or ACA. Tennessee copes with a high burden of chronic illness and ranked 44th this year in an annual state-by-state report card from the nonprofit United Health Foundation. “Leadership isn’t dreaming up a plan that can never pass Congress,” Bloomberg said, taking a swipe at backers of Medicare for All. “Every American who already has private insurance will be able to keep private insurance if they choose,” he added. “We’ll work aggressively to enroll uninsured Americans.” The Memphis speech came a day after a federal appeals court in New Orleans left “Obamacare’s” future in doubt, ruling that the law’s now toothless requirement for Americans to get health insurance is unconstitutional. The decision keeps the rest of the law in place for now, subject to additional court review. Bloomberg said as president he’d defend the ACA in court. But he wouldn’t reinstate its unpopular “individual mandate,” as the Obama-era coverage requirement is known. Instead, he’s calling for an extensive outreach campaign to voluntarily sign up uninsured people, relying on a strategy he piloted as New York mayor. The campaign said the plan would cover most of the nation’s estimated 27.5 million uninsured people. Key elements of the Bloomberg plan include: — Extending subsidized coverage under the ACA to cover more people and creating a permanent federal program to help insurers pay for the costliest patients, an approach that has been shown to lower premiums. — A new “public option” health insurance plan run by the government and modeled on Medicare. It would be focused on low-income people and residents of states that have not expanded Medicaid. Individuals would be eligible for help paying their premiums through the ACA’s subsidies. — Empowering Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest brand-name drugs, capping prices at 120% of the average in other economically advance countries. Privately insured patients would be able to get Medicare’s prices. Seniors’ out-of-pocket costs for medicines would be capped at $2,000 per year. — Creating a new Medicare benefit for dental, hearing and vision care with a premium of $25 a month for beneficiaries. Expanding Medicaid benefits to include dental care for low-income people. — Ending so-called “surprise medical bills” for people covered by private insurance when they’re treated by a provider outside their plan’s network. The plan would cap out-of-network hospital charges at 200% of what Medicare pays. The Bloomberg campaign said the plan would cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with some of that covered through expected savings on prescription drugs. Officials said Bloomberg intends for the plan to be fully paid for, so it would not add to the government’s mounting debt. Bloomberg said he’s working on a separate plan to improve basic public health throughout the country, striving to reverse recent declines in life expectancy blamed in part on the opioid epidemic.
|
34194
|
Georgia's House Bill 481 would, when implemented, leave women open to prosecution for criminal abortion, murder, or second-degree murder for having abortions or miscarriages.
|
In fact, Georgia had declared unborn children to be persons, something that may or may not open up the possibility of murder prosecution against those who intentionally end the life of a fetus, or second-degree murder prosecution for those who act recklessly with the result of ending the life of a fetus. And in order for HB 481 to have the effect of leaving women open to prosecution for self-administering abortifacients, a court would likely have to overturn decades of precedent that have interpreted Georgia law to mean women cannot be criminalized for their own actions in securing abortions.
|
unproven
|
Politics
|
In May 2019, a cluster of news reports and social media postings asserted legislators in the state of Georgia had passed a law that could subject women to significant prison sentences for having abortions or miscarriages. On 7 May, for example, Slate published an article with the headline “Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison,” reporting that: Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a ‘fetal heartbeat’ bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country — not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty. … HB 481 would also have consequences for women who get abortions from doctors or miscarry. A woman who seeks out an illegal abortion from a health care provider would be a party to murder, subject to life in prison. And a woman who miscarries because of her own conduct — say, using drugs while pregnant — would be liable for second-degree murder, punishable by 10 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Prosecutors may interrogate women who miscarry to determine whether they can be held responsible; if they find evidence of culpability, they may charge, detain, and try these women for the death of their fetuses. A viral tweet posted by Alexis Isabel claimed that the law had “imposed life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty for women who obtain abortions or miscarry”: So not only has Georgia just criminalized abortion, but they have imposed life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty for women who obtain abortions or MISCARRY. This is an extreme, terrifying and imhumane attack on human rights and EVERYONE should be up in arms about this. — alexis isabel (@lexi4prez) May 8, 2019 Some commentators also claimed that House Bill (H.B.) 481 had also made it an offense for a woman to travel to another state to obtain an abortion: One of the many terrifying parts of the Georgia abortion bill is that they will prosecute women who leave the state to get an abortion where it is otherwise legal. This law follows people out of the state. This is codifying residents, specifically women, as property of the state. — T-Rex (@PhillyTRex) May 9, 2019 On 7 May, Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law HB 481, the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act. Its provisions will go into effect on 1 January 2020, barring a successful legal challenge. The bill was first proposed in the Georgia House of Representatives on 25 February by Republican members Ed Setzler, Jodi Lott, and Darlene Taylor. The House passed the bill on 7 March, the Georgia Senate followed suit on 22 March, and both chambers passed the reconciled version of the legislation on 29 March, forwarding it for Kemp’s signature. The bill introduces several changes in Georgia law, the most significant of which is that it codifies an “unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” as a living person with rights, stating that “It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.” Fetal heartbeat The bill outlaws abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected. This can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, meaning HB 481 would effectively prohibit many abortions that would otherwise be carried out in Georgia. “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined … to have a detectable human heartbeat.” The legislation outlines the following exceptions to this prohibition: HB 481 also amends Georgia’s “Woman’s Right to Know” (informed consent) law by requiring that, 24 hours before an abortion is scheduled to be carried out, a woman must be informed that a fetal heartbeat has been detected, along with the existing requirements to inform her of the gestational age of the fetus, as well as the medical risks of both terminating and carrying the pregnancy to term. The law also requires that a doctor check for the presence of a fetal heartbeat before performing any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency or a medically futile pregnancy. Notably, HB 481 does not state that a woman who self-induces an abortion, under the law, be regarded as having committed murder and therefore liable to prosecution for murder and, upon conviction, life imprisonment or execution. HB 481 also does not state that a woman who miscarries as a result of her own actions would be prosecuted for second-degree murder. These claims, made by Slate and others, are therefore not statements of fact or a description of provisions that are explicitly outlined in the text of HB 481. Rather, they are inferences drawn from the legislation’s recognition of an unborn fetus as a person and its expanded definition of abortion. If HB 481 declares an unborn fetus to be a person, the argument goes, then it must follow that Georgia law will, after the bill is implemented, treat intentionally ending the life of an unborn fetus as murder, recklessly ending the life of a fetus as second-degree murder, and so on. However, significant disagreement exists over what the legal effects and consequences of HB 481 might end up being. So we consulted Ronald L. Carlson, a former trial lawyer and the Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law, who has carefully followed the progress of HB 481. Could a woman be prosecuted for having an abortion? Speaking from his office in Athens, Georgia, Carlson challenged the certainty of claims that HB 481 would cause women to be prosecuted and convicted for having abortions, although he emphasized that the full implications and consequences of the law would need to be resolved in court, “sooner rather than later.” Georgia currently prohibits “criminal abortion” (16-12-140 in the Georgia Code). The law states the following: “(a) A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141, he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion. (b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal abortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.” Carlson highlighted the “third person” dynamic of this law — a criminal abortion entails an individual’s administering a substance “to any woman” or using an instrument “upon any woman” with the goal of inducing a miscarriage or abortion. The legal status quo in Georgia law, he told us, means that it is not women who undergo abortions who are liable to be prosecuted for criminal abortion, but rather the doctors, nurses, and so on who perform and participate in criminal abortions. This precedent was cemented in the 1998 case Hillman vs. the State, Carlson told us, in which the Georgia Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of an 18-year-old woman who shot herself in the abdomen while eight months pregnant, causing the death of the fetus she was carrying. The woman was convicted under Georgia’s 16-12-140 criminal abortion statute in Walton County Superior Court, but the Court of Appeals overturned that conviction, declaring that “This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved … By its plain meaning, OCGA § 16-12-140 does not criminalize a pregnant woman’s actions in securing an abortion, regardless of the means utilized.” Carlson told us that because HB 481 did not amend 16-12-140, Georgia’s criminal abortion statute, it was “very likely” that the precedent set in Hillman would remain the status quo, but he noted that any ambiguity surrounding the new legislation could embolden prosecutors to attempt to charge a woman in her own abortion anyway: “Even though the punishment hasn’t been prescribed … in order to prosecute the woman, that doesn’t mean that an aggressive [District Attorney] somewhere will not bring a charge against a woman, just to test this out.” However, Carlson added, his understanding was that the “thrust of the law” still leaned towards protecting the woman from a criminal abortion prosecution. The ambiguity to which Carlson alluded could come in the form of the second part of Georgia’s “criminal abortion” law, as contained in Section 16-12-141 of the Georgia Code, which sets out in detail what constitutes a criminal abortion. This is the section of the law that HB 481 did amend, declaring that, with certain exceptions, “No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined … to have a detectable human heartbeat.” However, HB 481 also amended 16-12-141 by including a definition of abortion that, some observers have speculated, could leave women vulnerable to criminal abortion prosecution for inducing their own abortions. In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern wrote that “HB 481 redefines abortion to be ‘the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.’ That means abortion includes something one person does to herself. A woman who takes misoprostol to induce miscarriage is ‘administering’ a ‘substance’ to ‘terminate a pregnancy’ and is therefore liable under the law.” Stern is right to point out that HB 481 inserts into 16-12-141 the following definition of abortion: “‘Abortion’ means the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child …” Viewed in isolation, this definition might suggest that a woman who self-administered abortifacients such as misoprostol and mifepristone after the detection of a fetal heartbeat could be regarded as having performed a criminal abortion. However, Section 16-12-140 still retains the “third person” dynamic highlighted in the Court of Appeals ruling in Hillman vs the State, even if the actions in question are deemed to have been “in violation of Code Section 16-12-141.” Section 140 states: “A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141, he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.” It is also worth remembering what the Court of Appeals wrote in their Hillman ruling: “16-12-140 does not criminalize a pregnant woman’s actions in securing an abortion, regardless of the means utilized” (emphasis added). However, it remains an open question whether 16-12-141, soon to contain HB 481’s new definition of abortion, could “criminalize a pregnant woman’s actions in securing an abortion.” Could HB 481 lead to murder convictions for abortions? “Declaring [fetal] personhood, as the heartbeat bill did, does carry significant legal implications,” Carlson told us, adding that the question of whether performing an abortion could be charged as murder was “ripe for court interpretation”: “With the declaration of [fetal] personhood, could, again, an aggressive prosecutor make a successful murder charge? … There are strongly differing views on that,” he said. Asked whether HB 481’s declaration that an unborn child is a person with rights could lead to an interpretation of the law whereby any and all abortion — intentionally ending the life of a fetus — could be treated as murder, Carlson told us: “I think that argument is going to be made by a [District Attorney] who wants to pursue strongly punishments under the bill. And I think that’s why we probably need some court clarification, sooner rather than later, on whether the bill does raise that possibility.” Carlson noted that one of HB 481’s authors, Republican State Rep. Ed Setzler, had indicated it was not the intention of the law’s authors to bring about murder prosecutions, but rather prosecutions for criminal abortions in circumstances where abortions were performed after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. In examining HB 481, Carlson said, a court would take into account the legislative history of the law and could note, as Setzler has publicly stated, that the intention of the authors of the legislation was not to see murder charges brought as a result of their bill. However, Carlson noted, that might not be a deciding factor in the court’s deliberations. Could HB 481 lead to convictions for miscarriages? The text of the legislation provides several exceptions to its relatively expansive definition of abortion, one of which is as follows: “If the act is performed with the purpose of … removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion [miscarriage].” In other words, actions that would otherwise be treated as characteristic of an abortion would not be treated in that way in the event a woman had already unintentionally miscarried. This text provides a certain level of protection from prosecution for women who have accidentally miscarried. The argument that, under HB 481, women could face criminal prosecution for a miscarriage is essentially an extension of the argument relating to murder examined in the previous section of this article. If, under HB 481, Georgia law regards an unborn child as a person, the argument goes, then anyone who acts recklessly (if not intentionally) in a way that leads to the death of an unborn child could be prosecuted for second-degree murder. As Stern wrote for Slate, “A woman who causes her own miscarriage from drinking or drugs may have committed second-degree murder (penalty: 10 to 30 years in prison) …” We asked Carlson whether it was possible, given the new declaration of fetal personhood, that a woman could face a second-degree murder prosecution in the event that she suffers a miscarriage that appeared to have been caused by her reckless actions, such as drug abuse. He replied: “I think the odds are in favor of protection of the woman in that situation, but it’s certainly possible and not out of the question.” Could HB 481 lead to convictions for women who seek abortions outside Georgia? In his analysis of the legislation, Stern claimed that HB 481’s assertion of fetal personhood could also leave women open to prosecution for conspiracy to murder if they seek to obtain abortions outside the state of Georgia. He wrote: “Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are ‘conspiring’ to end of the life of a ‘person’ with ‘full legal recognition’ under Georgia law.” Prof. Carlson challenged this assessment, writing in an email: “Under most cases, the object of a conspiracy must be a ‘crime’ in order for the mother’s actions to violate conspiracy law. ‘The essence of the offense of conspiracy is an agreement to pursue a criminal objective.’ (Kurtz, ‘Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Georgia’ 224, 2017 ed.). Is the woman aiming to accomplish a criminal objective? Because the woman cannot be punished for an abortion under [Code Section] 16-12-140 [as interpreted in Hillman vs. the State), her effort to go out-of-state to do one would not appear to be an action ‘in pursuit of a criminal objective.’ “Simply stated, the vast majority of decisions require a punishable, substantive offense to be the object of a person’s efforts in order to make her liable for a criminal conspiracy. The Hillman case eliminates that needed element when it declares ‘the General Assembly has refused to criminalize a pregnant woman’s acts in securing an illegal abortion. '” Carlson’s overall conclusion about the potential effects and consequences of HB 481 was: “There are some very important open questions here, and given the passions on both sides, pro and con, I think it’s relatively certain that we’re going to get court tests down the road in the near future, on some of these critical issues.” Conclusion Ultimately, the potential effects and consequences of HB 481 will have to be adjudicated in court. For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vowed even before Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the law that the organization would challenge HB 481 in court. The arguments made by Stern and others certainly have merit, and as Carlson points out, the legislation’s declaration of fetal personhood “carries significant legal implications.” However, some observers have made several assertions with a level of certainty that simply is not warranted, at this stage. This includes Slate‘s headline claim that under HB 481 “Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.” That outcome cannot reasonably be stated as fact, before a court has taken even a preliminary look at HB 481, and before the law has gone into effect. Similarly, the claim made by Alexis Isabel in her viral tweet that HB 481 had “imposed life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty for women who obtain abortions or miscarry” is an overstatement of the reality.
|
17919
|
Since sequester began federal employment has been subtracting 6,000-7,000 jobs per month
|
Math on sequester job cuts doesn't add up
|
false
|
Georgia, Federal Budget, Jobs, The Political Line,
|
"There has been a renewed focus on jobs and how many the economy has lost as Republicans and Democrats continue to do battle and threat of a government shutdown looms. Recently a political commentator took to Twitter highlighting job losses since across-the-board, automatic federal budget cuts -- known as sequestration -- took effect March 1. ""Since sequester began federal employment has been subtracting 6,000 to 7,000 jobs per month,"" the Political Line Twitter post said. If Political Line’s claim is correct, that would mean between 30,000 and 35,000 federal jobs have been lost for the five months, through August, that the sequester has been in effect. That type of possible job loss had us intrigued, so we decided to follow the numbers. PolitiFact Georgia emailed Political Line and visited its website for more information about the claim and about the author but received no response to our requests. Political Line is a political blog of postings on a variety of national topics from health care to drug policy, along with an aggregation of news stories. Under sequestration, the federal government will cut about $85 billion in spending by the end of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. As a previous PolitiFact sequestration fact check noted, putting money into the economy does create jobs, and less money leads to fewer jobs in the short run. There have been numerous reports of the sequester’s impact, including departments limping along on tight budgets, employees forced to take unpaid furlough days and Head Start students being cut from the rolls. And this week, Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray blamed the horrific Navy Yard shooting on the sequester. When asked by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo how shooter Aaron Alexis, who was being treated for mental health issues, was still able to get access to areas that he probably shouldn’t have had, Gray responded: ""As I look at, for example, sequestration, which is about saving money in the federal government being spent, have we somehow skimped on what would be available for projects like this and then we put people at risk,"" Gray said on CNN’s ""New Day"" the morning after the shooting. Those accounts have provided anecdotal evidence about sequestration’s impact. But when it comes to the actual number of jobs lost to sequestration, we really just don’t know, said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow and federal budget policy expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning D.C. think tank. ""There isn’t anyone, including (the federal Office of Management and Budget), that has gone agency by agency and says what did you do, and how did you do it, and say how many jobs were lost,"" Lilly said. As for Political Line’s claim, with millions of federal employees, the 6,000-7,000 monthly job loss is statistically not a big thing, Lilly said. ""You could lose that many with just inaccurate or inconsistent reporting. It makes sense to me."" With no official analysis, numbers from multiple studies and financial reports have been used to detail sequester job cuts. In February, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 750,000 more full-time jobs would be created in the U.S. economy by the end of the year without sequestration. A Goldman Sachs study, released this month, noted that the sequestration could end up costing another 100,000 federal jobs in the next few quarters, and that federal jobs have declined by 71,000 since last year. To get a more accurate count, we reviewed month-to-month federal government employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from March 2013 (when sequestration began) through August, the most recent data available. Month All federal employees Month-to-month change Federal employees, minus postal workers Month-to-month change March 2,762,000 2,173,400 April 2,777,000 15,000 2,169,000 (4,400) May 2,757,000 (20,000) 2,168,200 (800) June 2,761,000 4,000 2,172,100 3,900 July 2,753,000 (8,000) 2,162,000 (10,100) August 2,752,000 1,000 2,162,100 (100) The BLS data showed that federal employment varied from month to month. Some months saw job losses exceeding Political Line’s claim of 6,000 to 7,000 jobs lost; but other months saw job gains. So what about Political Line’s claim? The political blogger said in a Twitter post that since sequestration, federal government jobs have decreased 6,000-7,000 jobs a month. There has been no official analysis of jobs lost to the sequester. There is anecdotal evidence that the budget cuts have hurt the federal sector, but at the same time, there have been job gains -- albeit marginal -- in the private sector. Using the best data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the numbers show that some months federal job losses reached and exceeded Political Line’s claim, but in other months, the losses were much less, and there were even job gains. Political Line’s statement contains an element of truth, but it needs clarification and additional information. Reviewing the data over the previous 12 months does show an overall downward trend in federal government jobs, but the monthly totals fluctuate. And overall the job reduction is far less than the statement would indicate."
|
7535
|
Health officials: It’s time to give flu vaccine another shot.
|
The flu forecast is cloudy and it’s too soon to know if the U.S. is in for a third miserable season in a row, but health officials said Thursday not to delay vaccination.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Health care industry, Health, General News, Flu, U.S. News
|
While the vaccine didn’t offer much protection the past two years, specialists have fine-tuned the recipe in hopes it will better counter a nasty strain this time around. “Getting vaccinated is going to be the best way to prevent whatever happens,” Dr. Daniel Jernigan, flu chief at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Associated Press. Last year’s flu brought double trouble: A new strain started a second wave of illnesses just as the first was winding down, making for one of the longest influenza seasons on record. The year before that marked flu’s highest death toll in recent decades. So far, it doesn’t look like the flu season is getting an early start, Jernigan said. The CDC urges people to get their flu vaccine by the end of October. Typically flu starts widely circulating in November or December, and peaks by February. “Painless,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar pronounced after getting his own flu shot at a news conference Thursday. If people shrug at the risk, “it’s not just about you,” Azar said. “Vaccinating yourself may also protect people around you,” such as how newborns have some flu protection if their mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy. Scientists are hunting for better flu vaccines, and the Trump administration last week urged a renewed effort to modernize production. Most of today’s vaccine is produced by growing flu virus in chicken eggs, a 70-year-old technology with some flaws. It takes too long to brew new doses if a surprise strain pops up. And intriguingly, newer production techniques just might boost effectiveness. For now, people who get vaccinated and still get sick can expect a milder illness — and a lower risk of pneumonia, hospitalization or death, stressed Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. He’s been known to tell such patients, “I’m always glad to see you’re still here to complain.” Here are some things to know: WHO NEEDS VACCINE? Everybody, starting at 6 months of age, according to the CDC. Flu is most dangerous for people over age 65, young children, pregnant women and people with certain health conditions such as heart disease, asthma or other lung disorders, even diabetes. But it can kill even the young and otherwise healthy. On average, the CDC says flu kills about 24,000 Americans each year. Last year, 135 children died. Parents wouldn’t “drive off with their child not restrained in a car seat, just in case they’re in an accident,” said Dr. Patricia Whitley-Williams, a pediatrician with Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. “So why would you not vaccinate your child against the flu?” HOW MANY GET VACCINATED? Not enough, the CDC says. Because flu mutates rapidly, a new vaccine is needed every year. Last year, 45% of adults and 63% of children got vaccinated, according to figures released Thursday. Some groups do a little better. Nearly three-quarters of children under age 5 were vaccinated last year, and just over two-thirds of seniors. HOW BAD WILL THIS YEAR BE? Flu is one of medicine’s most unpredictable foes. For example, last fall started off fairly mild. But in February, a strain notorious for more severe illness, called H3N2, suddenly popped up. Worse, even though each year’s vaccine contains protection against H3N2, the circulating bug had mutated so it wasn’t a good match. A vaccine that had worked well for the first few months of flu season suddenly wasn’t much use. But if that harsh bug returns, this year’s vaccine has been updated to better match it. LOTS OF OPTIONS Manufacturers say up to 169 million vaccine doses will be available this year, and people can ask about different choices. Most will offer protection against four flu strains. Traditional flu shots are for all ages. For needle-phobic adults, one brand uses a needle-free jet injector that pushes vaccine through the skin. And the FluMist nasal spray is for generally healthy people ages 2 through 49, who aren’t pregnant. Two brands are specifically for the 65-plus crowd, whose weakened immune systems don’t respond as well to traditional shots. One is high dose, and the other contains an extra immune-boosting compound. Those brands protect against three flu strains, including the more typically severe ones. And people allergic to eggs have two options, one brand grown in mammal cells instead and another made with genetic technology and insect cells. NO-EGG VACCINES GAINING NEW INTEREST Newer technologies could speed production, which is currently a six-month process. But there’s another reason going egg-free is getting scientists’ attention: Certain strains change a bit while growing in chicken eggs, an adaptation that can make the resulting vaccine a little less protective. It’s mainly a problem for those worrisome H3N2 strains. While it’s not clear how much difference that makes, Schaffner said some doctors already consider using egg-free brands for high-risk patients. OTHER STEPS TO TAKE Cover coughs and sneezes. Wash your hands frequently during flu season. One recent study showed washing is better than hand sanitizers. Ask about anti-flu treatments if you’re at high risk of complications. And most important, stay home if you’re sick to keep from spreading the misery. ___ 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.
|
8042
|
Spain acts to prevent layoffs as rising coronavirus death toll stabilises.
|
Spain’s government approved measures on Friday to prevent employers using the coronavirus outbreak as an excuse to fire staff after health officials said the rising death toll was stabilising.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Spain, which has recorded more coronavirus deaths than any other country except Italy, said the national death toll had increased overnight by 769 to 4,858, a rise of around 19%. “In percentage terms, today’s increase is roughly equivalent to that of the past three days, in which we seem to see a clear stabilisation,” health emergency chief Fernando Simon told a news conference. Businesses across Spain have been forced to close their doors because of the coronavirus, and two of the country’s largest unions have cautioned that as many as 1 million people could permanently lose their jobs. Speaking after an extraordinary cabinet meeting, Labour Minister Yolanda Diaz said employers must use temporary layoff programs, known as ERTEs, rather than permanently fire staff. Dismissing staff under ‘just cause’ is now completely banned. “I’m asking employers to set an example, to be responsible to their people and to conserve employment,” she said. Referring to the respiratory illness that can be caused by the coronavirus, she said: “You can’t use COVID-19 to fire people.” Despite the widespread disruption to business, government spokeswoman Maria Jesus Montero said food supply chains were functioning smoothly in the country of about 46 million, the European Union’s largest exporter of fruit and vegetables. With the number of infections rising overnight to 64,059 from Thursday’s 56,188, Spain is struggling to cope. Real Madrid’s Bernabeu soccer stadium has been converted into a medical supply store, a fairground in Madrid has been turned into a mass testing area and a skating rink is now a morgue. Patients continue to stream into Spanish hospitals, where staff face a shortage of protective gear such as masks. In the Basque capital Vitoria, an early centre of the outbreak, a Reuters reporter witnessed the funeral of a coronavirus victim, one of the few occasions for which Spaniards are allowed to break the lockdown and leave their homes. Undertakers in white overalls and masks lowered the casket while grieving family members stood back, keeping one metre (three foot) apart to minimise the risk of infection. More than 9,400 health workers have tested positive for the virus, Simon said. That is about 15% of those infected in Spain. Spain extended the lockdown on Thursday by a further 15 days to April 11 and said it was fighting a “real war” over medical supplies to contain the death toll. It is turning to China, where the coronavirus originated, for many critical products.
|
7354
|
New Zealand plans spending spree to counter virus job losses.
|
New Zealand’s government plans to borrow and spend vast amounts of money as it tries to keep unemployment below 10% in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
|
true
|
Health, General News, New Zealand, Financial markets, Business, Pandemics, Asia Pacific, Virus Outbreak, Grant Robertson, Economy
|
Finance Minister Grant Robertson on Thursday unveiled a budget unlike any in the nation’s history. Debt would shoot up from just over 20% of GDP to 54% by 2023, and thousands of jobs created by putting people to work building homes and improving the environment. Still, the increased spending will not be enough to offset the economic devastation caused by the pandemic. Unemployment is expected to rise from just over 4% to nearly 10% by June. And Robertson acknowledged that tourism, which had accounted for about 10% of the economy, was not going to be the same for many years to come. “We face a global economic and health crisis not seen since the Great Depression,” Robertson said. The budget was released on the same day the nation lifted most of its lockdown restrictions. Malls, retail stores and restaurants all reopened, and many people returned to their workplaces. That reflected the country’s success to date in its attempts to eliminate the virus. Health authorities on Thursday reported zero new infections for the third day in a row. New Zealand has reported a total of about 1,500 confirmed infections and 21 deaths. Under the budget plan, the government will spend 50 billion New Zealand dollars ($30 billion) over four years to help boost the economy. The government had entered the crisis running a surplus and with its books in good shape compared to many other countries. Robertson said the crisis called for increased spending rather than cutting back. “I’m not a fan of austerity,” he said. More than half of all workers in New Zealand are currently being subsidized by the government under a program that was quickly set up as the nation went into a strict lockdown in March. The budget would extend the scheme for hard-hit businesses. The plan also calls for 11,000 environmental jobs to be created, some of them temporary. People would be put to work killing pests and restoring wetlands. And up to 8,000 new homes would be built, creating thousands of construction jobs. Spending would also be increased on everything from health care and education to school lunches and the postal service. Opposition leader Simon Bridges said the plan lacked detail and accountability and would add the equivalent of a second mortgage of debt per household. “It’s our children and grandchildren who will be paying for it,” Bridges said. Lawmakers started discussions Thursday afternoon and were expected to approve the budget.
|
15342
|
"The five Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bowe Bergdahl ""are right now back on the battlefield."
|
A jury award that hit Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) with $8 billion in punitive damages for a case involving its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal highlights the risks of the drugmaker’s all-or-nothing legal strategy, several legal experts told Reuters on Wednesday.
|
false
|
National, Terrorism, Donald Trump,
|
The jury in a Philadelphia court awarded the $8 billion to a man who previously won $680,000 over his claims that it failed to warn that young men using Risperdal could grow breasts. J&J called the sum “grossly disproportionate with the initial compensatory award” and said it was confident it would be overturned. Legal experts agreed that the penalty was likely to be slashed. But the verdict, which helped drive J&J’s shares down 2% on Wednesday, is an example of how public outrage at the pharmaceutical industry for high drug prices has contributed to harsher verdicts against drugmakers accused of wrongdoing in recent years, legal experts said. Outsized penalties awarded by some juries highlight risks in a longstanding strategy by drugmakers such as J&J of taking their chances at trial rather then settle product liability lawsuits brought by patients. “Every pharmaceutical company needs to seriously consider if they want to litigate to verdict in the present environment, but with the settlement demands so incredibly high it’s not always clear what their alternative is,” said Barry Thompson, a partner at Baker McKenzie law firm who was not involved in the case. Drugmakers often prefer to litigate rather than settle in hopes of protecting their brands and discouraging future patient lawsuits, Thompson said. Companies also may use a series of early trial verdicts to gauge the size of any settlement it might eventually offer, as Merck & Co (MRK.N) did with its withdrawn Vioxx arthritis pain drug when facing thousands of lawsuits by patients who claimed harm from the drug. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision suggests that the upper limit of a fair punitive penalty in the Risperdal case would be about $6 million based on the earlier compensatory award. J&J could still get a favorable ruling on appeal that would give the company leverage in dealing with the remaining cases, said Benjamin McMichael, a professor at the Alabama School of Law who has researched punitive damage awards. “With such a large punitive damages award at issue, appellate courts may be more willing to come down hard on the plaintiffs,” McMichael said. J&J faces more than 13,000 lawsuits tied to Risperdal alleging that it caused a condition called gynecomastia in boys, in which breast tissue becomes enlarged. The company is also facing lawsuits involving its baby powder, opioids, medical devices and other products. “We’re operating within a very litigious environment, and we must at times be willing to go to trial when the science, facts and law are on our side,” J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz said in an email. “We also have to remain open to resolving cases through settlement when and where that’s appropriate to do. We have a proven track record of being able to successfully and appropriately manage this balance,” Knewitz added. The company has had its share of legal wins, losses and settlements. An Oklahoma judge in August ordered J&J to pay $572.1 million to that state for its part in fueling the opioid crisis by deceptively marketing addictive painkillers, although the sum was substantially less than investors had expected. Johnson & Johnson has said it plans to appeal the ruling. Earlier this month, the company agreed to pay $20.4 million to settle claims by two Ohio counties, avoiding a federal opioid trial. In 2013, J&J paid more than $2.2 billion to resolve civil and criminal investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice into its marketing of Risperdal and other drugs.
|
11305
|
You’ve Got Mail About Quitting Smoking
|
This story by U.S. News & World Report highlights the results of a trial of a digital aid to quit smoking: tailored emails. Researchers sent multiple encouraging messages, which also included links to information on how to quit, to willing smokers, then followed up six months later to see if the recipients had resumed smoking at lower rates than participants who received a single non-tailored email. The story did a good job of explaining how the study worked, seemed to grasp the quality of the evidence, and went out of the way to describe multiple alternative methods to quitting smoking (and their risks). However, the article would have been stronger had it had described previous research into email-based interventions, and compared the benefits of multiple emails to other effective approaches. We learn that more tailored emails are better than a single non-tailored email, but how do the quit rates seen here compare, numerically, with other approaches that smokers might try? Smoking kills nearly half a million Americans every year, according to the CDC, and dependence on tobacco products is seen by many medical professionals today as a chronic disease. Any new tool to help smokers quit and reduce their risks for disabling and life-threatening diseases would be a positive step.
|
true
|
U.S. News & World Report
|
The cost isn’t provided, since the work is not available to the public. But like most other digital aids for smoking cessation, we presume this method would be free. We’re told 36 percent of smokers who received multiple encouraging and informative emails said they didn’t smoke 6 months after the trial, whereas single-email subjects only had a 6-month abstinence rate of 26.5 percent. That’s enough detail for a Satisfactory rating. The story would have been stronger if it had specifically compared these effects with other approaches. The story implies that the email method might not work the first time, or perhaps even the first couple dozen times, since quitting is an incredible challenge. We also appreciated how the story detailed a few risks of popular alternative approaches to quitting smoking, including medications and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We were pleasantly surprised to see a paragraph dedicated to covering the weaknesses of this study, namely that study participants were well-educated and white, and how future research could make up for this and other shortcomings. The story also describes the controls — quitters who used NRT — and how the email method still seemed to have a positive effect when NRT was subtracted from the results. We didn’t see anything in this story that’d unnecessarily frighten or incense readers. The story quotes two expert sources who don’t appear to be involved with the study, though this fact isn’t pointed out. Both sources emphasize the difficult nature of quitting smoking, and how there’s no silver bullets out there. The story notes that trying multiple cessation methods is the most effective strategy, and that tailored emails are intended to be an additional aid — not a replacement for other methods. But several specific alternatives to quitting smoking are noted, including NRT, a text-message support program, mobile apps to support quitting, professional counseling, and medications such as varenicline and bupropion. The story would have been stronger if it had told readers how the 36% quit rate seen in this study after 6 months compares with other approaches. We’re told the tailored email program isn’t yet available to the public, but that the American Cancer Society hopes to take a similar program live in 2018. Research on tailored messages to help smokers quit goes back nearly two decades, and this isn’t the first study to probe the efficacy of emails. The story doesn’t provide this context. Nor does it note that the BMJ-published study appears to be the largest of its kind — more than 1,000 subjects participated. We didn’t detect any copy-pasted quotes in this story, or other evidence that it leaned on a news release.
|
35942
|
In September 2020, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a former post-doctoral student at Hong Kong University, appeared In multiple televised interviews claiming that she had proof SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was manufactured by the Chinese Communist Party in a Wuhan Lab.
|
In actuality, 89% of genetic similarity is very low. Previous research found that the human genome is almost 99% identical to chimpanzees and bonobos, yet there are very obvious differences between the two species. In terms of Yan’s genetic mapping, 89% would suggest that there are roughly 3,300 nucleotides not shared between the two viruses and, if SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured in a lab, researchers would have had to pinpoint the cause and effect of each of those nucleotides in order to make it both infectious and harmful to humans.
|
true
|
Politics Medical, COVID-19
|
Controversial and outright false claims made by Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng-Yan, a former post-doctoral student at Hong Kong University, reignited viral internet rumors surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 and the 2020 pandemic. Yan appeared as a featured guest on the Sept. 15, 2020, episode of Fox News talk show “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” during which she claimed that she had evidence to suggest that the virus was intentionally manufactured and released by the Chinese Communist Party. “I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, SARS-CoV-2 virus, is actually not from nature,” she told the television host. “It is a man-made virus created in the lab based on the China … the very unique bat coronavirus, which cannot affect people, but after the modification becomes a very harmful virus.” Yan did claim that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a lab, but the suggestion is false, misleading, and based on a non-peer-reviewed report that was published in pre-print server Zenodo, which means that the research had not gone through rigorous editorial critically evaluated by scientific experts with an extra degree of scrutiny. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise. A reviewed study, on the other hand, is on par with a well-vetted, expertly researched textbook. To facilitate the quick spread of new scientific information in the midst of the pandemic, pre-publication research has become more common in order to facilitate the quick dissemination of important information, particularly as peer-reviewed research can take a long time to publish. Despite its erroneous claims, the study had been downloaded more than half of a million times and received more than 700,000 views as of this writing. Since SARS-CoV-2 was first discovered in January 2020 and subsequently declared a pandemic the following month, conspiracy theorists have peddled notions that the virus was made in a lab and intentionally released as a biological weapon despite rigorous scientific research proving otherwise. According to one expert: “This particular conspiracy around deliberate release form a laboratory has been doing the rounds throughout the pandemic. It has been rebutted several times already. Ultimately, it could be damaging to public health if reported uncritically without looking at the wider evidence. If people are exposed to and then believe conspiracy theories, this will likely have a negative impact on efforts to keep COVID-19 cases low and thus there will be more death and illness than there needs to be,” said Dr. Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at the University of Southampton, in a statement. And Yan’s account of the origins of the virus is no different. The controversial doctor first made headlines in July 2020 when she told Fox News in an exclusive interview that she believed the Chinese government failed to tell the world about the virus’ origins at its onset, ignoring her research and potentially putting lives at risk. At the time, Hong Kong University (HKU) issued a news release confirming that Yan had previously been affiliated as a post-doctoral fellow but that she had since left the institution. The news release continued: While HKU respects freedom of expression, Dr Yan’s past or present opinions and views do not represent those of the University. HKU notes that the content of the said news report does not accord with the key facts as we understand them. Specifically, Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU during December 2019 and January 2020, her central assertion of the said interview. We further observe that what she might have emphasized in the reported interview has no scientific basis but resembles hearsay. HKU does not act on hearsay and we will not further comment on this matter. Snopes contacted HKU for further comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication. Emails sent from our team to the address listed on Yan’s report also went unanswered. In a September 2020 interview with the hosts of the British talk show “Loose Women,” Yan claimed that she had been chosen to do a “secret investigation” while studying a cluster of SARS-related viruses in December 2019 when she found out that the Chinese government was manufacturing a virus to use as a bioweapon. After confronting her supervisor, she claimed, she was allegedly forced to flee to the U.S. for her own safety. The story was reiterated in an interview with Tucker Carlson the following day when she directly blamed the Chinese Communist Party for manufacturing the virus. In less than a week after airing, the interview had been viewed more than 2.2 million times. Several media publications reported that Yan’s Twitter account was suspended as of Sept. 21, 2020. The first known mention of the suspension was on Tucker Carlson Tonight, however, Twitter declined to comment on the alleged suspension in an email sent to Snopes, and the platform did not flag the virologist’s interview. A video of the interview is also still available on Facebook and Instagram, however, both platforms flagged the video for its misleading content. The report was primarily authored by Yan and three other researchers who listed an affiliation with the Rule of Law Society on the cover page. The society is a political organization — not a research institution — that was founded by exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, who fled China in 2014 in advance of corruption charges, and Steve Bannon, an American businessman and political strategist who previously oversaw the far-right publication Breitbart News, and was recently arrested in connection to the “We Build The Wall” fraud scam. Dr. Andrew Preston, a biologist at the University of Bath, highlighted in a statement that the authors’ affiliation with a politically based organization rather than with a research institution was a conflict of interest and added that the “preprint report cannot be given any credibility in its current form,” given its unsubstantiated claims that have not been peer-reviewed. “The report is not based on an objective interpretation of the SARS-CoV2 genome. The interpretations made are not supported by data, are unsubstantiated and the interpretations are largely stated but not explained,” Preston said. The scientists continued that the report does not appear to start with an open hypothesis about the origin of SARS-CoV2. The language of the report is reminiscent of a conspiracy theory.” Yan’s primary argument is that the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 provided evidence that the virus was manufactured by researchers with the Chinese Communist Party by targeting select parts of the viral genome, a feat that would be nearly impossible, said Craig Wilen, assistant professor of laboratory medicine and immunology at the Yale School of Medicine, in an interview with Snopes. But first, it’s important to understand how a virus is sequenced and what researchers know about SARS-CoV-2. When a new virus is discovered, scientists around the world will work as quickly as possible to create a genetic map by sequencing every genome held within the virus. At the onset of the 2020 pandemic, researchers quickly transcribed the genetic makeup of the virus and uploaded what was known about the 30,000 base-pair genomes into a global database for future study. When mapped, the virus was found to contain roughly 30,000 nucleotides, which form the basis of each structural unit of DNA. Once a map of the base pair is determined, synthesizing a virus in a lab is not unheard of. In fact, many commercial companies hold repositories of “chunks” of genomic material, but in order to manufacture a virus such as SARS-CoV-2, a scientist would need to take the 30,000 base-pair genome, make that into ribonucleic acid (RNA), and then turn that RNA into a virus. Wilen said that expert virology labs could, in theory, manipulate SARS-CoV, the virus responsible for the 2002 SARS pandemic, or MERS-CoV, the virus that caused the 2014 MERS pandemic, to hypothetically manufacture a new virus, but would first need to know what each of those individual nucleotides is responsible for, and how to manipulate them to become harmful and infectious to humans — an enormous feat that is beyond the scope of many viral labs and research. “Being off by one could destroy the entire virus. As much as the world has studied this virus now, we have no idea what properties those 30,000 base pairs, which of those are important for infection, which of those make it spread asymptomatically, which of those cause disease,” Wilen said. “So, we are totally ignorant in terms of the biology in terms of being able to come up with the sequence de novo to then make it.” Wilen likened the manufacturing of a virus to taking one of Shakespeare’s sonnets, determining how many words it contains, then chopping up a dictionary and subsequently trying to build a sonnet from those chopped-up words. “Yes, you would get something that is the right length of a sonnet, but almost certainly it’s going to be incoherent and not useful,” he said. In her report, Yan argued that two strains of bat coronavirus were shown to be 89% similar to SARS-CoV-2, which seems at first glance to be quite a bit. Coronaviruses are a large family of closely related viruses that naturally circulate in a number of different species, including bats, camels, pangolins, and rodents. A huge amount of genetic diversity of coronaviruses occurs naturally in the environment, and when it comes to human pandemic coronaviruses, all three have exhibited cross-species transmission from a nonhuman host.
|
7350
|
Karen Pence: ‘It’s OK to not be OK’ during pandemic.
|
Karen Pence says it’s OK to not be OK during the coronavirus pandemic.
|
true
|
Anxiety, Karen Pence, Health, General News, Politics, Pandemics, Virus Outbreak, Michael Pence
|
While Vice President Mike Pence runs the White House coronavirus task force, his wife is leading a parallel effort to help people deal with anxiety and other unsettling emotions brought on by the pandemic. Two months into the crisis, millions of Americans are struggling to cope with the fallout, whether it’s losing loved ones, losing a job or staying at home more than they ever have. “This is something we’re all going through together, and it’s not like anything we’ve ever gone through before,” Karen Pence told The Associated Press in a recent interview. She is lead ambassador for the PREVENTS task force, an acronym for the President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide. It was created in 2019 to focus on veterans’ suicides but recently launched a social media campaign called “More Than Ever Before” to help reach Americans before they get to “the end of their rope,” she said. “We want them to know there’s help out there, and there are things that we can do to prevent some of the effects that this is having on our mental health as a nation,” Mrs. Pence said. She joined the PREVENTS effort early this year, before the extent of the coronavirus threat in the U.S. became clear. A majority of Americans say they have felt at least one negative emotional reaction in the last seven days, according to a new poll conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation. At least a third of Americans reported feeling nervous, depressed, lonely or hopeless at least one day in the past week. But taken together, 61% of Americans say they have felt at least one of those emotions at one point throughout the week. Nine percent also reported having a physical reaction, such as sweating, nausea or hyperventilating, when thinking about their experience with the pandemic on one or more days. The new poll, conducted last week, is the second wave of the COVID-19 Household Impact Survey. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say they felt lonely at least one of the last seven days. Sixteen percent said they felt that way on three or more days. And 38% said they felt hopeless about the future at least once, with 14% saying they felt that way on three or more days. Those patterns are similar for feelings of anxiety and depression. Mrs. Pence says there are four basic things people can do to help them cope with the situation, beginning with a daily “check in” with themselves to gauge how they’re feeling and then reach out to a friend or other individual if they need someone to hear them out. They should also figure out what puts them at ease, whether it’s reading, cooking or another activity, and schedule time for it. Mrs. Pence, a watercolor artist, said she’s been working on a painting of a friend’s house and is designing her family’s Christmas card. People should also talk about their struggles and successes and include children in those conversations. And if they’re concerned about themselves or someone else, they should feel comfortable calling the national suicide prevention lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK. “It’s OK to not be OK,” said Mrs. Pence. She posts tips and information about available resources on her Twitter page. Among those grappling with the new dynamics is Jody Garrison, who works from her Milwaukee home, turning old books into journals and selling them online. It’s the rare trip to the grocery store — or to the auto mechanic shop later this week to pick up her car after a repair — that brings on the anxiety. “You worry about, ‘Am I going to catch something from touching something?’ so I truly don’t go out in public much at all,” she said by telephone. Being retired helps, as Garrison had long settled into a routine. The 68-year-old plays with her grandchildren online and meets friends there, and is exercising and reading more, too. “I think what’s kept my sanity is that I’ve tried really hard to stay focused on things that kept me happy in the past to sustain the thought of being alone,” she said. “I’m trying to stay focused on the positive, and when you do that, it doesn’t seem quite so bad.” Anxious to see the U.S. economy humming again, President Donald Trump has pushed back against those who warn that coronavirus cases will spike after state lockdowns are lifted. He says more people will die from suicide and substance abuse the longer schools, businesses and workplaces remain closed and people stay at home. Experts say rates of suicide and substance abuse were rising before the pandemic, but it’s too soon to know how much they may have increased during the outbreak. Suicide prevention and mental health advocates said they welcome the PREVENTS effort but would like to see more spending on a more coordinated effort to reduce deaths caused by despair. “You don’t have to be a mental health expert to know we’re in deep trouble,” said former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., co-chair of a new public-private effort to respond to mental health and suicide prevention needs both during and after the coronavirus. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S., with 48,000 deaths reported in 2018, said Jerry Reed, who serves with Kennedy on the executive committee of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, which is separate from the virus-related initiative. Reed, a longtime suicide prevention advocate, said he’d like to see the same amount of effort that went into combating the coronavirus put into responding to mental health needs. “I like the fact that we all came together to flatten the physical curve of the virus,” Reed said. “I would suggest we all come together to flatten the mental health curve.” ___ Associated Press writers Tammy Webber in Chicago and Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report. ___ Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap ___ This story has been corrected to show that Kennedy represented Rhode Island, not Massachusetts.
|
28002
|
A photograph shows a small car loaded down with hundreds of pounds of lumber and other building supplies.
|
A photograph captures a small car impossibly loaded down with hundreds of pounds of lumber and other building supplies.
|
true
|
Fauxtography
|
The following item is a good example of the pitfalls of allowing pure skepticism to overwhelm ordinary evidence: The stupidity of some people in this world never fails to amaze me. This attached picture is real — not doctored in any way — and was taken last week in Waldorf, MD by a Transportation Supervisor for a company that delivers building materials for 84 Lumber. When he saw it there in the parking lot of IHOP, he went and bought a camera to take pictures. The car is still running as can be witnessed by the exhaust. A woman is either asleep or otherwise out in the front seat passenger side. The guy driving it was over jogging up and down on Rt. 925 in the background. The witnesses said their physical state was OTHER than normal and the police just shook their heads in amazement. The driver finally came back after the police were there and was getting down at the back to cut the twine around the load. They told him to get back until it was taken off. The materials were loaded at Home Depot. The Home Depot store manager made the customer sign a waiver before loading. Both back tires are trashed. The back shocks were driven up through the floorboard. On the roof are many 2X4s, 4X4s and OSL sheets of lumber. The load isn’t all that meets the eye either. In the back seat were ten 80-pound bags of concrete! They estimated the load weight at 3000 lbs. The car is a VW Jetta with FL plates and the guy said he was headed for Annapolis! After we originally put this picture and story up with an “Undetermined” status back in December 2000, we received plenty of mail from self-proclaimed digital photo experts offering numerous reasons (both physical and digital) why the picture couldn’t possibly be real. Then we starting hearing from people who were in Waldorf, Maryland, the day the photograph was taken (including employees of the Home Depot store where the building materials were purchased and the IHoP restaurant seen in the background of the photo) and who saw the car in question, some of whom snapped their own pictures of it and sent them along to us, such as the following:
|
18517
|
The Social Security disability fund is going belly up in 2016.
|
Sen. Rob Portman says the Social Security disability fund soon will run dry
|
true
|
Ohio, Social Security, Rob Portman,
|
"You hear it often: Social Security is going broke. What you hear less often is an analysis of Social Security’s components -- its old-age retiree program and its disability program. Sen. Rob Portman discussed both parts during a newsmaker breakfast on April 9 sponsored by Politico, the Washington-based newspaper and website. Portman’s remarks on the disability program could be considered jarring to those who don’t pay close attention, so we thought we’d take a step back to check them out. Portman said, ""The Social Security disability fund is going belly up in 2016."" And 2016, he noted, is ""right around the corner."" Portman is correct -- from an accounting standpoint, and as of right now. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the most recent Social Security trustees’ annual report, the Social Security account that disburses monthly disability payments will not only pay out more money in 2016 than it takes in through taxes, but also will spend the last dollar it has in reserve by the end of that year. As budget documents put it, the Disability Insurance, or DI, Trust Fund -- the account that held surpluses and was tapped to help make up any recent shortfall -- will be ""exhausted"" that year. This is the ""disability fund"" Portman was referring to. The same fate isn’t expected to hit the other piece of the Social Security pie, Old Age and Survivors Insurance, until 2036 (or 2038 under a different analysis). Disabled workers and their spouses and dependents account for 18 percent of overall Social Security payments, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The coming shortfall will occur because disability payments have exceeded the program’s noninterest income since 2005. This occurred for several reasons, including a liberalization of the Social Security screening process with a 1984 law that made certain non-fatal conditions such as back pain, arthritis and mental illness potential qualifiers; a rise in the program’s income-replacement computation, ""which strengthened the incentives for workers to seek benefits,"" and an increase in the female labor force that expanded the pool of insured workers, according to a 2006 analysis by economists for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The latter provided more tax money but also expanded the pool eligible for benefits. But there is another reason, cited by the CBO last July: the aging of the baby boom generation. ""More older people suffer from debilitating conditions; moreover, the program’s qualification standards for older workers are less strict than those for younger workers because older people are assumed to be less able to adapt to new types of work,"" the CBO reported. It noted that ""between calendar years 1996 and 2009—the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s—the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent."" But if payroll tax income to the program is insufficient already, why isn’t the DI program broke now? The answer is that the program still has money left from better days -- held in the Trust Fund in the form of government securities. That makes it still possible to pay 100 percent of all benefits. But in 2016, those savings will be depleted., A few numbers make this clearer. In 2011, the DI program paid out $132.3 billion, including $2.9 billion in administrative expenses. But it only took in $81.9 billion in dedicated payroll taxes and $1.6 billion in income taxes that some beneficiaries must pay (depending on their incomes). To make up the rest, it tapped the Trust Fund. It will not be able to do that and pay full expected benefits in 2016. From a practical standpoint, Congress and the White House are likely to act before then. A number of proposals provide ways to avoid a retiree and disabled-worker calamity, some with changes to the payroll tax, some with benefit cuts, some with both. That makes the odds slim that Social Security’s disability fund will actually go broke. But until that happens, all anybody has are the projections. And they are clear. So is this doomsday for Social Security? Not at all. Social Security will still take in enough money to pay a percentage of the claims. Although federal law says the Trust Fund must have assets for claims to be paid, Congress can change the law. More likely is a broader fix from Congress. Portman recognizes this, as he makes clear often -- and did so again at the Politico breakfast -- in his calls for entitlement reform. The Social Security trustees report in 2012 recognized this too, saying, ""The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now."" So yes, we can hope or expect that the problem will be solved before 2016. But as of right now, Portman’s claim -- that the ""disability fund is going belly up in 2016"" -- is accurate, or as accurate as Social Security’s trustees and the CBO can be."
|
4966
|
Booker urges activists, leaders to heed social justice call.
|
On his first trip to Iowa as a presidential candidate, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker urged Democratic activists and black leaders on Friday to heed his call for social justice and apply it to the fight for universal health care coverage and a fair criminal justice system.
|
true
|
Cory Booker, Iowa, Race and ethnicity, New Jersey, Health, Universal health care, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Mason City, North America, Politics, Waterloo
|
In a Mason City church basement, in a meeting with city leaders in racially diverse Waterloo, at a town hall-style meeting in Cedar Rapids and in a packed home in Iowa City, Booker continually likened domestic problems to the denial of civil rights. “You cannot have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you don’t have health care,” the Democratic senator told an overwhelmingly white audience of about 100 who turned out despite sub-zero temperatures. “That’s not justice.” Later, in a racially mixed crowd in Waterloo, Booker bemoaned a criminal justice system that disproportionately punishes racial minorities and “ultimately makes us a country that has a cancer on our soul.” Race is shaping up to be central to the Democratic presidential campaign. Democratic prospects have called President Donald Trump’s portrayal of immigrants racist and condemned his reaction to a deadly 2017 demonstration in Virginia as being sympathetic toward white supremacists. Booker, who is African-American, is starting his campaign for the Iowa caucuses by framing the election in terms of a movement, like those for civil and voting rights more than a half century ago. “We are a nation in crisis that is ripping itself apart with leaders who are pitting us against each other because of our race or our political party,” Booker boomed in Iowa City. “I believe we can light this world on fire again, and put the indivisible back in this nation again.” Jeannie Maybanks, who met Booker during an event in Cedar Rapids, called him “an inspirational figure.” “He’s got so much enthusiasm,” Maybanks added. “He says what he says with such conviction. It’s infectious.” Booker voraciously signed autographs, shook hands and stood for selfies, taking the now-commonplace political glad-handing a step further. Booker repeatedly took the phones of people he met and recorded digital video messages of himself and Iowans, smiling and joking with them. In Waterloo, Booker became the first presidential candidate this year to visit Black Hawk County, where the black population — at 9 percent — is more than twice that of Iowa overall. Booker, a former mayor of Newark, held a public panel discussion in Waterloo focusing mainly on issues facing the black community. Booker touted the passage of the a criminal justice reform bill in December as an act that benefits minority men, though University of Iowa law school student Daisy Cruz said the bill didn’t go far enough. “I thought he sounded defensive,” Cruz said. “He told us what he did, but not what more he’s willing to do.” Throughout his events, Booker sprinkled in references to civil rights figure John Lewis, a longtime Democratic congressman from Georgia. In Mason City, Booker bemoaned the influence of corporate and lobbyist money in elections, and told the audience he would not accept such contributions. However, Booker’s candidacy is being encouraged by a super political action committee started by wealthy Democratic donor Steve Phillips, a friend and former classmate of Booker’s at Stanford University. Booker told reporters he was frustrated by super PACs generally, but he did not expressly call for Phillips to shut it down. “I don’t think super PACs should be in a campaign for anybody, including Donald Trump. So, I don’t support the super PAC,” he said. “I’ve said publicly time and time again, I don’t think there should be super PACs in this race.” Phillips was undeterred. “Cory Booker’s candidacy is the best vehicle for inspiring the kinds of large voter turnout in communities of color that will be necessary for progressives to win up and down the ticket in 2020,” he said in an emailed statement. However, he added, the super PAC Dream United would likely support whomever the Democratic Party nominates. “What we are doing goes beyond Booker. We are doing this for our country,” he said. Booker planned to continue campaigning Sunday with stops in Marshalltown and Des Moines. ___ Associated Press writer Brian Slodysko in Washington contributed to this report.
|
13525
|
"Barack Obama Says Donald Trump's foundation ""took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself."
|
"Obama said that Trump’s ""foundation took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself."" Fahrenthold verified the anecdote about the painting with the painter, and his reporting found that, at the time the painting was auctioned, the vast majority of funds in the foundation’s coffers were from other people, not Trump. Based on the information available, the story seems solid."
|
true
|
National, Candidate Biography, Barack Obama,
|
"President Barack Obama went to Philadelphia on Sept. 13 to campaign for Hillary Clinton, who was recovering from pneumonia. In his speech, Obama didn’t hold back in his critique of Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump. In one particularly vivid line, Obama took a shot at Trump’s foundation, contrasting it with the Clintons’ foundation, which focuses on improving global health. The Clinton Foundation has been attacked by critics for taking money from donors who might have business before a future President Clinton. But Obama was having none of it. ""You want to debate foundations and charities?"" Obama said. ""One candidate's family foundation has saved countless lives around the world. The other candidate's foundation took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself."" Obama added, to laughter, ""I mean, you know, he had the taste not to go for the 10-foot version, but…"" We have previously written about how the Clinton Foundation helped 9 million people receive lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine, as well as the foundation’s controversies. But what about Obama’s statement that Trump’s foundation ""took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself""? The White House confirmed that the statement stems from a widely read Washington Post story by reporter David Fahrenthold, who’s written a series of stories about Trump Foundation and has inquired with organizations around the country to see if they actually received money from the real estate mogul. Fahrenthold provided new details of his investigations in a Sept. 10, 2016, Post article headlined, ""How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money."" Based on a review of 17 years of tax filings by the Donald J. Trump Foundation and interviews with more than 200 individuals and groups who were listed as recipients of its gifts, Fahrenthold found that ""nearly all"" of its money in recent years has come from people other than Trump, with his most recent personal gift to the foundation’s coffers dating from 2008. Experts told Fahrenthold that such an arrangement ""is almost unheard of for a family foundation."" The story by Fahrenthold includes the anecdote referenced by Obama in Philadelphia, which Fahrenthold wrote was one of two cases he found in which Trump used his money from the charity to ""buy himself a gift."" By doing so, he wrote, the foundation appeared to be flouting IRS rules by buying items that only seemed to be for Trump’s benefit. ""In 2007, for instance, Trump and his wife, Melania, attended a benefit for a children’s charity held at Mar-a-Lago. The night’s entertainment was Michael Israel, who bills himself as ‘the original speed painter.’ His frenetic act involved painting giant portraits in five to seven minutes — then auctioning off the art he’d just created. ""He painted Trump. ""Melania Trump bid $10,000. ""Nobody tried to outbid her. "" ‘The auctioneer was just pretty bold, so he said, ""You know what just happened: When you started bidding, nobody’s going to bid against you, and I think it’s only fair that you double the bid,"" ' Israel said in an interview last week. ""Melania Trump increased her bid to $20,000. "" ‘I understand it went to one of his golf courses,’ Israel said of the painting. ""The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, according to the charity that held the benefit."" Fahrenthold’s article notes that the Post submitted detailed questions to the campaign but officials declined to comment. The campaign did not respond to an inquiry from PolitiFact for this article. We asked Fahrenthold whether Obama’s version jibed with his reporting. ""It seems pretty accurate to me,"" Fahrenthold told PolitiFact. ""I talked to both the charity that held the auction and the artist who made the painting. They told me Melania Trump had actually been the one bidding on the painting at the auction, which she won for $20,000 -- half went to charity, half went to the artist. But the actual check came from the Trump Foundation, of which Donald is president and Melania is not an officer of any kind."" He added that the auction seems to have been held in 2006 but the check wasn’t cut until 2007, a year in which ""almost all of the money in the Trump Foundation was other people’s money."" Specifically, according to Fahrenthold’s reporting, the Trump Foundation began that year with $4,238 in the bank. Trump himself gave $35,000 to the foundation that year. But other donors gave $4.055 million, primarily a single $4 million gift from Vince and Linda McMahon, the founders of the WWE wrestling empire. Using the most generous calculation, Fahrenthold said, Trump’s own money accounted for less than 1 percent of the total amount that entered the foundation that year, $4,094,238. ""So it was almost all other people’s money,"" he said. So where is the painting? That’s a bit more mysterious. Even crowdsourcing the search through Twitter hasn’t produced a verified image of the painting. ""I can’t find the damn thing,"" Fahrenthold said. ""It’s out there somewhere. Neither the painter nor the charity -- the Children's Place at Home Safe, in Boca Raton, Fla. -- have been able to provide a picture of it."" Our ruling Obama said that Trump’s ""foundation took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself."" Fahrenthold verified the anecdote about the painting with the painter, and his reporting found that, at the time the painting was auctioned, the vast majority of funds in the foundation’s coffers were from other people, not Trump. Based on the information available, the story seems solid."
|
3179
|
Trump backing off banning vaping flavors popular with teens.
|
When President Donald Trump boarded Air Force One to fly to a Kentucky campaign rally two weeks ago, a plan was in place for him to give final approval to a plan to ban most flavored e-cigarettes.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Health, General News, Politics, Kellyanne Conway, Campaigns, Epidemics, Business, Ivanka Trump, Vaping, Melania Trump, Public health, Tobacco industry regulation, Donald Trump
|
By the time Trump landed back at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington a few hours later, the plan was off. And its future is unclear. For nearly two months, momentum had been building inside the White House to try to halt a youth vaping epidemic that experts feared was hurting as many as 5 million teenagers. Both first lady Melania Trump and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and senior adviser, pushed for the ban, which was also being championed internally by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, who has taken the lead on some public health issues. But as Trump sat surrounded by political advisers on the flights to and from Lexington, he grew reluctant to sign the ban, convinced it could alienate voters who would be financially or otherwise affected by a vaping ban, according to two White House and campaign officials not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations. A news conference scheduled by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to announce the ban was canceled, while more meetings with industry leaders and lobbyists were proposed, according to the officials. Trump tweeted last week that he’ll be meeting with vaping industry representatives, medical professionals and others “to come up with an acceptable solution to the Vaping and E-cigarette dilemma.” The White House has yet to announce a date for a meeting. This month, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale and others showed the president polling data indicating that e-cigarette users could abandon him if he followed through with the ban, the officials said. Campaign aides also highlighted an aggressive social media campaign — #IVapeIVote — in which advocates claimed a ban would force the closure of vaping shops, eliminating jobs and sending users of electronic cigarettes back to traditional smokes. Parscale also pointed out the risk that a ban could have on e-cigarette users in key battleground states that Trump narrowly won in 2016. Others in the West Wing, including Conway, have argued that a ban could be a winning issue with suburban voters, including mothers, who have fled the president in large numbers. Few would predict where Trump, who is known to abruptly change his mind, would end up since he recently has been consumed with other matters, notably televised impeachments hearings. The vaping industry’s largest trade group said Monday the administration was heading “in the right direction for adult smokers and their families.” “Bans don’t work, they never have,” Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, said in a statement. Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, an advocacy organization, added that the government should put in place “sensible and targeted regulations” before it resorts to prohibition, which opponents of a ban said could lead to the creation of an underground market for e-cigarettes. But Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said Trump would be guilty of “terrible public policy” and “bad politics” if he backs down. “This is one of the very few issues on which public views are unified,” Myers said in a telephone interview. “There are a small number of vape shop owners who are loud and don’t care. But there are millions more moms and dads who are deeply concerned.” Robin Koval, president and CEO of the Truth Initiative, a nonprofit, anti-tobacco organization, called on Trump to implement the original plan. “The health of America’s youth must come first and is not for sale or political gain,” Koval said in a statement. The first lady opened the White House to a group of young people from the Truth Initiative in October to tell her about their experiences with vaping. Trump’s initial pledge Sept. 11 to ban virtually all flavored e-cigarettes stunned vaping proponents and was immediately embraced by anti-tobacco advocates. In an Oval Office appearance with the first lady and Azar, Trump said the government would act within weeks to protect children from fruit, candy, dessert and other sweet vaping flavors, including mint and menthol. The announcement followed a tweet two days earlier by Mrs. Trump expressing concern “about the growing epidemic of e-cigarette use in our children.” “We need to do all we can to protect the public from tobacco-related disease and death, and prevent e-cigarettes from becoming an on-ramp to nicotine addiction for a generation of youth,” she said. But within days, Trump tweeted that e-cigarettes might be a less-harmful alternative for smokers, a point long made by the industry. Meanwhile, vaping lobbyists, conservative groups and Republican lawmakers from key states warned Trump that a crackdown could cost him with voters. The Vapor Technology Association launched ads and an online campaign promising to punish Trump and other politicians who support vaping restrictions. Conservative groups that have long promoted vaping as an alternative to smoking, including Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, joined the criticism. That group and others helped organize protests against banning flavors, including one outside the White House. Trump supporters also showed up at some of his campaign rallies holding signs expressing their opposition to a ban. The industry warned some 15,000 to 19,000 vaping shops across the country - and jobs - could be wiped out if flavors were eliminated. The administration was widely expected earlier this month to announce a scaled-back flavor ban that would exempt menthol, citing research that the flavor was not widely used by children. But no decision came. Trump instead told reporters on Nov. 8 — four days after his political advisers buttonholed him on the Kentucky trip — he was considering new approaches to curbing teen use, including raising the minimum age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21. Last week, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson sent Trump a letter warning against “unchecked government action that stifles innovation and restricts adults’ freedom to choose safer alternatives to smoking.” Asked how disappointed the first lady would be if the president did not follow through with a ban, her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, who also speaks for the president, said Mrs. Trump’s priority is the health and safety of children. “She does not believe e-cigarettes or any nicotine products should be marketed or available to children,” Grisham said. Underage vaping has reached what health officials call epidemic levels. In the latest government survey, 1 in 4 high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month. Anticipating a ban on flavors, Juul Labs, the nation’s largest e-cigarette maker, said this month it would stop selling its best-selling, mint-flavored nicotine pods. ___ Lemire reported from New York.
|
4015
|
Measles outbreak that sickened 312 in Rockland declared over.
|
Officials have announced an end to the measles outbreak that infected 312 people since last October in Rockland County in New York City’s northern suburbs.
|
true
|
New York City, Health, Measles, General News, New York
|
The state Health Department says Tuesday that 42 days have passed with no new cases in Rockland. That’s the equivalent of two incubation periods and the timeframe when measles outbreaks are typically declared over. The nation’s worst measles epidemic in 27 years emerged a year ago, with most of the cases centered in Orthodox Jewish communities in Rockland and New York City. Health officials administered nearly 30,000 measles vaccinations in Rockland County as part of efforts to stop the outbreak. Over the summer, the state eliminated non-medical exemptions for measles vaccinations required for school children and tightened rules for granting medical exemptions.
|
9726
|
Genetic tests for psychiatric drugs spur hope, doubts
|
This story, originally reported by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and published in partnership with the Boston Globe, describes the history and ethical implications of a loophole allowing genetic tests to bypass FDA approval before doctors prescribe them. Specifically, it outlines concerns regarding the use of genetic testing to help psychiatrists identify which drugs may work best for a patient with mental illness. The story evaluates the research that genetic testing companies use to demonstrate the effectiveness of their tests — and reports that most of these studies are funded or conducted by the companies themselves. The story makes clear that using these genetic tests to guide decisions on prescribing drugs poses risks for patients. The article overall is very well-researched and covers an emerging and important topic. According to the CDC, approximately 25 percent of U.S. adults have some form of mental illness. Finding the right drug and dose for treating a mental illness can be time-consuming — and mentally, physically and emotionally exhausting for both patients and their loved ones. As a result, the idea of using a genetic test to identify drug treatments that are most likely to be effective is incredibly appealing for all concerned. However, it’s important to recognize the limitations of the current research supporting such testing. The tests are costly and may not offer any benefit. The tests may slightly help doctors pick the right drug more quickly, or they may not, but the drugs that are picked after the genetic tests are done are subject to the same scrutiny as always.
|
true
|
antidepressants,genetic testing
|
While the story looks at genetic tests for prescribing psychiatric drugs broadly, it also uses one test in particular as a focal point. The story notes that this test, called GeneSight, cost one patient $3,800. The story also notes that GeneSight is covered by Medicare. Those are great points to make in a story like this one. However, since the story also notes that there are a lot of other, similar tests on the market, it would have been good to tell readers a little bit more about cost. Is $3,800 about average for testing costs? Is there a range that these tests fall into? Do other insurers pay for GeneSight? The story would have been stronger if it had touched on these issues. We would have liked to see more detail about the company-funded studies mentioned, especially sample size and the odds ratios or degree of benefit. It is easy and tempting to discredit studies because they are company-funded, but this does not necessarily mean they are wrong — simply that we should proceed with caution in interpreting them. And it’s true that in many cases, the company is the only group interested in investing the time/money to do the necessary research. With that being said, the story does note that “Finding a test to more precisely target treatment could help troubled people find help more quickly, cut down on side effects, and save money.” And, when discussing GeneSight in particular, the story points to “company-funded studies showing that when [patients with depression] took the medications recommended by the test, they had fewer symptoms after eight weeks compared with patients who did not use the test.” We’ll award a Satisfactory and leave the suggestions for next time. This area could have been stronger. The story begins with an anecdote about a patient who was prescribed a drug based in part on the results of a genetic test. That patient became suicidal within three weeks and checked himself into a mental hospital. That sort of story tells readers very little about risks associated with these genetic tests, precisely because it is anecdotal — and there was very little else in the story about potential harms. For example, the story quotes one researcher as saying that claims about such genetic tests are “not harmless and may be quite dangerous.” But the story doesn’t tell us what that means. Why aren’t these claims harmless? Why may they be dangerous? We suspect that the biggest harm here is in the high cost of the test. But what if the test is wrong? It might also cause delays in finding the “right” drug for patients — especially if the genetic test takes time to run and if doctors weigh the test results over clinical judgment or other factors, leading to poorer decisions. The focus of the story is on quality of evidence. It emphasizes the lack of independently-funded studies that have evaluated the efficacy of these genetic tests. Based on a review by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, “virtually all the evidence that these psychiatric tests work is based on limited studies funded by the companies themselves or researchers they fund, including all five studies used to promote GeneSight on the company’s website.” It would have been good to put some numbers there — “virtually all the evidence” is a somewhat vague description — but we think it does address the Quality of Evidence question in a meaningful way. Worth noting: an annotated version of this story that appeared on the New England Center for Investigative Reporting’s site includes links to supporting information that is of interest. It would have been good if the version of the story that appeared in the Globe had let readers know that the annotated version (and supporting documents) were available. No disease mongering here. A very strong point for the story. It quotes multiple industry and expert sources, with industry sources clearly identified. The story looks at the field of genetic testing to identify psychiatric drugs most likely to be effective to treat specific mental conditions in a given patient. The alternative to using such testing is for psychiatrists to prescribe drugs based on their diagnosis, which is often determined by symptoms. The story doesn’t state this explicitly, and that would have been useful. But the story does note that psychiatry does have “a lack of definitive tests for conditions and treatments alike,” and that doctors often take a “trial-and-error approach to medications.” We think the story did enough here to earn a Satisfactory rating. The story makes clear that many of these tests are currently available. The story notes that “Genetic tests to identify the most effective psychiatric drugs are the hot new technology in the race to create personalized treatments based on people’s DNA” and that “[m]ore than 600,000 of these tests have likely been administered in the last three years.” While it may have been nice to mention that genetic testing is done in some other fields (eg. to determine breast cancer risk) to provide context, the story does enough to earn a Satisfactory rating. This work doesn’t appear to be based on a news release at all — and even if it were, it clearly goes far beyond anything a news release might include.
|
20340
|
As the usage [of synthetic marijuana] has dramatically increased, instances of violence, bodily harm and even death have risen with it.
|
"Deal: Fake marijuana use rising, connected to death, violence and ""bodily harm"""
|
true
|
Georgia, Drugs, Marijuana, Nathan Deal,
|
"Phony marijuana targeted by recent state legislation sounds worse than the real thing, if you believe Georgia’s governor. Chase’s Law strengthens a ban on ""synthetic marijuana,"" ground-up plant material laced with chemicals that mimic marijuana. Chase Burnett, the bill’s namesake, was found dead in March in a hot tub at his Fayette County home, a packet of the drugs nearby. He was 16. The bill passed with overwhelming support. On March 27, Gov. Nathan Deal signed it into law. A press release warned of synthetic marijuana’s dangers: ""As the usage has dramatically increased, instances of violence, bodily harm and even death have risen with it,"" it said. We’ve heard that the drug is nasty stuff. But what’s this about violence, bodily harm and death? A Deal spokeswoman sent PolitiFact Georgia news stories and poison control data to prove the governor’s point. We also talked to researchers and law enforcement officials and reviewed news stories and scientific studies. The form of synthetic marijuana that’s sparking so much concern is sold at head shops and gas stations under brand names such as ""Spice"" and ""K2."" Georgia made it a felony to manufacture and sell it in 2010. Chase’s Law tries to keep underground chemists from tweaking their recipes to get around state restrictions. There’s little scholarly research on the drug, which appears to be new to the U.S. Federal labs first detected these drugs in November 2008, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The earliest U.S. news story we found about its rising popularity appeared in a Hutchinson Kan., newspaper in November 2009. All signs suggest that synthetic marijuana use is increasing dramatically, but data is in short supply. Workers at the American Association of Poison Control Centers began tracking synthetic marijuana calls in 2010 after they noticed more inquiries, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact Georgia. In 2010, they received 2,906 calls; in 2011, there were 6,959. About 11 percent of high school seniors reported using synthetic marijuana in the past year, according to 2011 results of an annual survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It was the first time researchers asked about the drug. Existing data support Deal’s claim that reports of bodily harm have climbed. Georgia Poison Center call data show 10 users were admitted to a hospital’s critical care unit in 2010 after using the drug. Forty-five were admitted in 2011. Rapid heartbeat, agitation, drowsiness, vomiting, hallucinations and nausea were among the drug’s most common effects, researchers have found. Media accounts report drug users injured in car crashes, falls and other accidents -- some fatal. Whether synthetic marijuana is directly responsible for deaths -- and whether they’re increasing -- is a more complicated issue. We found no published studies on the drug’s lethality, but there have been ""scattered reports of deaths,"" said Lloyd Johnston, a University of Michigan professor who conducted the National Institute on Drug Abuse survey. A count of news stories suggests there are more deadly cases. But whether the drug is a direct cause or contributing factor is not clear in some instances. Consider Burnett’s death. Toxicology tests are still in the works. Whether the official cause of death was drowning, the drug or something else is unsettled. Georgia Bureau of Investigation spokesman John Bankhead told PolitiFact Georgia of two other recent deaths: We found other accounts of synthetic marijuana-related deaths. For example, a South Carolina coroner ruled that it was directly responsible for the October death of a college basketball player who collapsed during warm-up, according to multiple news accounts. PolitiFact Georgia found less support for Deal’s claim about violence. We found no published studies on the subject. News stories, however, suggest there’s cause for concern. For instance: To sum up: Evidence supports Deal’s claim that use of the drug has ""dramatically increased,"" as has synthetic marijuana-related ""bodily harm."" Some evidence suggests that deaths have risen, too. The link between the drug and violence is less clear. News accounts suggest there is an increase in both, but we found so few cases it’s hard to tell. Deal’s statement could use clarification. Still, it earns a ."
|
11111
|
Safe form of estrogen helped Multiple Sclerosis patients avoid relapses in UCLA led clinical trial
|
This news release from UCLA Health Sciences uses a story-telling approach to inform readers how scientists observed that women with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) experienced lower rates of relapses during their third trimester. The story told here is well-written, engaging, and effective. The researchers discovered that these intermission periods coincided with the periods when women had the highest levels of estriol in their blood. Estriol is a relatively weaker and, it’s assumed, safer female sex hormone. When researchers gave estriol with conventional medication, or placebo and conventional drugs, to 164 MS patients they found a lower rate of relapses among those getting the estriol. The trial is published in the journal Lancet Neurology. It’s a Phase II, randomized and controlled trial that was first presented at a national neurological meeting in April 2014. The release offers important, interesting and substantial detail about the clinical observation that led researchers at UCLA to experiment with estriol but doesn’t explicitly state that it is still too soon for neurologists to recommend estriol therapy. The release also omits some key data concerning the reduction of relapse among the patient volunteers. There are precious few treatments that have a significant impact on MS relapse rates and none that can reverse or improve cognitive, visual and physical disabilities that occur in most patients over time. The availability of a relatively safe, effective, and likely low-cost hormone therapy that, taken as a pill, can reduce relapses and nerve cell damage due to inflammation would be welcome news. If confirmed in a larger Phase lll trial, estriol might have potential value, as the release points out, for MS as well as other autoimmune disorders.
|
mixture
|
Academic medical center news release,Multiple Sclerosis
|
The release could have used some explicit indication of the potential cost of adding estriol to treatment with injectable glatiramer acetate. The text suggests that the hormone is widely available and thus likely to be simpler and less costly to take. In the United States estriol is available only as a vaginal cream, not in tablet form. It is mostly used in “bioidentical” hormone replacement products obtained from compounding pharmacies. The release does a pretty good job of noting the apparent benefits in its narrative, but hard data are notably missing or under-reported. Readers would benefit from knowing, for example: How many of the women who took estriol along with their conventional medications showed reduced relapse rates, and to what degree, compared to women who took the placebo with conventional drugs? (Telling us that these women had “a third to a half as many relapses” is a relative comparison — we wanted to see absolute numbers.) If there were extended breaks between relapses, how long were they? What was the rate of inflammatory lesions in the brain and when did they occur? These numbers should be included for the current study, not the 2002 findings. Finally, the release could have noted an important reduction-in-the-reduction of relapse rates over time. For example, a Medscape news report on the 2014 presentation noted a 47% reduction in confirmed relapses compared to placebo group in the first year and a 32% relapse rate reduction in the second year. The release notes that the only significant adverse event for those on estriol was irregular menses. It could have gone into more detail, perhaps, but this passes muster. The point is that estriol is essentially a weak form of estrogen that has been shown in previous studies to be fairly safe, and whatever risks exist are likely outweighed by benefits in women with MS. It’s noted in the release that the study is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. This is important since randomized, controlled trials provide a higher quality source of evidence. The reader should come away with the idea that this is another good piece of evidence that estriol can, when combined with other medicines, safely decrease MS relapses. The release could have made clearer the limitations of the findings. Not all patients were helped and the effects decreased over time. No fear mongering here. The release goes into significant detail about the funders and their mission. Funders include the National Institutes of Health, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and a private foundation. The drugs and placebo used in the study were provided by Synthetic Biologics, the manufacturer. The release also notes, somewhat vaguely, that Synthetic Biologics has licensed some rights from UCLA. This is a comparison study that measures the results of taking estriol and conventional medications compared to placebo with conventional medications to reduce relapses. The release makes it clear that estriol is widely available now for other uses and that researchers have yet to complete Phase lll trials and apply for FDA approval for application in MS patients. However, it should be noted that estriol is far more commonly used in topical skin creams and not in tablet form as was the case with this study. Although the release mentions previous studies by the UCLA investigator dating back to 2002, the timeline for the relevance of some findings is somewhat confusing, and it would have been useful to mention that the current data were substantially presented in 2014. In the headline the release refers to estriol as a “safe” hormone. We think it would have been better to qualify the hormone as “safer” than others.
|
8715
|
Miracle cures? UK investigators go after fake coronavirus medicines.
|
British authorities said on Saturday they were clamping down on bogus cures for the coronavirus, which currently has no specific licensed treatment.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it was investigating 14 fake or unlicensed products to treat COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus. So far 3,605 Britons have died from the coronavirus, the latest data show, and experts have said deaths will continue to rise until the effect of recent lockdown measures filter through and slow the spread of the disease in the coming weeks. MHRA said it was investigating fake self-testing kits, miracle cures and so-called “antiviral misting sprays”. “Don’t be fooled by online offers for medical products to help prevent or treat COVID-19,” Lynda Scammell, MHRA enforcement official said. “There is no medicine licensed specifically to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore any claiming to do so are not authorised and have not undergone regulatory approvals required for sale on the UK market.” Scammell added that MHRA was working alongside law enforcement agencies to combat the spread of fake and unlicensed medical products.
|
9053
|
Weekly fish consumption linked to better sleep, higher IQ
|
Getty Images This observational study drawing a link between higher fish consumption, better sleep and higher scores on an IQ test has many potential variables that could influence the research results. Those variables as well as alternative explanations for the outcomes observed should have been included in the news release. While this is important research, appropriate caveats are missing here, and further details could have helped readers make better sense of the difficulties involved in this research. Note that this study was done in China, where the other aspects of a daily diet may differ markedly from those in North America. If simple dietary changes, such as an increased intake of fish, could result in better sleep and better cognitive development, then it follows that new dietary recommendations should be taken seriously. But this kind of observational, short-term research in a relatively small number of school children makes it difficult to draw conclusions and, while maybe hypothesis-generating, it would be premature to make any conclusive recommendations about how the diet of a nation’s children should change. We’ve prepared some tips to keep in mind when reading or writing about observational studies. Observational studies that draw connections between health and food intake sometimes raise more questions than answers and need to be treated with a high degree of caution.
|
false
|
fish diet,University of Pennsylvania
|
No details are provided that would let a reader estimate the cost of including more fish in a diet such as type of fish or the amount to be consumed. We are told that children who said they ate fish weekly “scored 4.8 points higher on the IQ exams than those who said they “seldom” or “never” consumed fish.” The children who reportedly “sometimes” ate fish consumers scored 3.3 points higher. How big is a 4-point difference on the IQ test and would it translate to better school performance or other outcomes that would be meaningful for the children? That question isn’t addressed. The release also claims that those who consumed fish had fewer sleep disturbances but doesn’t give us any clue as to how sleep disturbances changed — from what to what? It would also be useful to know how much fish they ate and what kinds. Current dietary recommendations include warnings about some commonly eaten types of fish that are high in mercury, but this or any other potential drawbacks associated with consuming fish were not mentioned. The news release notes that the researchers want to “add to this current observational study to establish, through randomized controlled trials, that eating fish can lead to better sleep, better school performance and other real-life, practical outcomes.” But elsewhere it assumes that fish consumption is already proven to be beneficial — for example when a researcher is quoted as stating, “If the fish improves sleep, great. If it also improves cognitive performance — like we’ve seen here — even better. It’s a double hit.” The release should have informed readers that a randomized controlled trial would be required to prove cause and effect. In terms of the changes or lack of change in IQ among children who ate fish weekly, sometimes or never, we aren’t told how many ate fish weekly. How much fish did they eat? How many never ate fish? These numbers are needed to weigh the evidence. In addition, some of the study data were collected using questionnaires completed by students and their parents. Questionnaires are not very reliable sources of scientific data since they are subject to recall bias. This should have been pointed out in the release as a limitation. There is no evidence of disease mongering here. We learn the connections between the funders of the research and the investigators and there is no sense that a conflict of interest exists here. The important question about the role of omega-3s supplementation versus fish consumption was mentioned, but there were no details how the supplements compared in IQ or sleep improvements. It’s pretty clear that fish is a common food source, available everywhere. The release’s description of how this study differs from earlier work. “Previous studies showed a relationship between omega-3s, the fatty acids in many types of fish, and improved intelligence, as well as omega-3s and better sleep. But they’ve never all been connected before. This work, conducted by Jianghong Liu, Jennifer Pinto-Martin and Alexandra Hanlon of the School of Nursing and Penn Integrates Knowledge Professor Adrian Raine, reveals sleep as a possible mediating pathway, the potential missing link between fish and intelligence.” Generally the language was satisfactory, but based on the observational nature of the research alone it seems the concluding advice may be premature: “The researchers recommend incrementally incorporating additional fish into a diet; consumption even once a week moves a family into the “high” fish-eating group as defined in the study.” Current US dietary guidelines already recommend at least 8 ounces of fish and shellfish at least once a week. The release could have clarified this.
|
2964
|
France's Carmat implants its first artificial heart in human.
|
France’s Carmat said on Friday it had carried out its first implant of an artificial heart that can beat for up to five years, adding that the operation had gone smoothly.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The implant operation was performed on Wednesday at the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris, the biomedical firm said in a statement. It said that the male patient was awake and talking and he was being monitored in the intensive care unit. “We are delighted with this first implant, although it is premature to draw conclusions given that a single implant has been performed and that we are in the early postoperative phase”, said Carmat’s CEO, Marcello Conviti. Heart-assistance devices have been used for decades as a temporary solution for patients awaiting transplants, but Carmat’s bioprosthetic product is designed to replace the real heart over the long run, mimicking nature’s work using biological materials and sensors. It is aimed at helping the thousands of patients who die each year while awaiting a donor, and reducing the side-effects associated with transplants. “It’s about giving patients a normal social life with the least dependence on medication as possible,” Alain Carpentier, surgeon and Carmat co-founder, told France 2 television. Carmat estimates around 100,000 patients in the United States and Europe could benefit from its artificial heart, a market worth more than 16 billion euros ($22 billion). “We already had devices of this type but they had a relatively low autonomy. This heart will allow for more movement and less clotting. The study that is starting is being very closely watched in the medical field,” Patrick Nataf, head of heart surgery at Paris Bichat hospital, told BFM TV. France’s Health Minister was quick to tout the operation as a sign of the country’s edge in the field of healthcare. “This news brings great pride to France,” Marisol Touraine told BFM TV. “It shows we are pioneers in healthcare, that we can invent, that we can carry an innovation that will also bring great hope to plenty of people.” Among Carmat’s competitors for artificial heart implants are privately-held SynCardia Systems and Abiomed, both of the United States. “We’re very happy for them and we wish them the best in their pursuit,” said a spokesman for SynCardia, whose artificial heart is the only one approved both in the United States and the European Union and has been implanted over 1,200 times. The longest a patient has lived with SynCardia’s heart is just under four years. In September, Carmat got the green light from French authorities to test the first human implants of the device on four patients in three hospitals. Earlier this year, it won approval to proceed with human implants in Belgium, Poland, Slovenia and Saudi Arabia. The Paris patient is the first worldwide to be implanted with the device, Carmat said. The patients selected for the trials suffer from terminal heart failure and the success of the device will be judged on whether they survive with the implant for at least a month. Conviti told Reuters last month Carmat hoped to finish human trials of the heart by the end of next year and to obtain approval to market them in the EU by early 2015. The Carmat device, developed by a team of engineers from Airbus parent company EADS, weighs about 900g (around 2 lb)- nearly three times more than an average healthy human heart. It is expected to cost 140,000 to 180,000 euros in Europe. It mimics heart muscle contractions and contains sensors that adapt the blood flow to the patient’s moves. It is powered by external, wearable lithium-ion batteries. Inside the heart, surfaces that come into contact with human blood are made partly from bovine tissue instead of synthetic materials such as plastic that can cause blood clots. Patients that will be implanted with Carmat’s devices are more likely to be men. Heart failure affects more men than women and the sheer size of the artificial heart means it can fit in 86 percent of men but only around 20 percent of women. But Carmat says it could easily manufacture a smaller version to fit the smaller bodies of women as well as patients in India and China. Carmat’s shares have risen five-fold since floating on the Paris stock market in 2010, giving the company a market capitalization of about 436 million euros. ($1 = 0.7315 euros)
|
11032
|
Blood Test May Spot Alzheimer’s Before Symptoms Appear
|
So many reports of potential tests for Alzheimer’s Disease have been announced recently that one might wonder what exactly is newsworthy about yet another announcement of a small study proclaiming preliminary results, particularly when the source is the founder of the company developing this test. This story about a blood test for antibodies that appear to be associated with Alzheimer’s meets almost all our specific criteria, but it would have been a better story if instead of merely announcing a “New Blood Test for Alzheimer’s” it had led with what distinguishes this potential test from others in development. The real challenge of diagnostic tests for a condition like Alzheimer’s is that you want a very specific test. That means that if we say you’re going to develop Alzheimer’s, you will. Though the story reports that the test correctly identified 92 out of 100 patients who didn’t have Alzheimers, what you really want to know is whether a person who tests positive or negative today is going to develop Alzheimers in the next 1, 2 or more years. The study didn’t do this and that’s the key problem with the study and the reporting of these very preliminary results. Memory loss with aging causes tremendous fear in our society – often for good reason. Alzheimer’s is particularly challenging because it can be hard to diagnose in its early stages and because there are no effective treatments that meaningfully slow the progression or ultimate outcome of this disease. Stories about potential tests need to acknowledge the fear, in part by clearly explain not only the potential benefits, but also the limitations and potential harms of tests.
|
true
|
Alzheimer's,WebMD
|
The story includes a tentative estimate of what this sort of blood test might cost if it is approved. It would be difficult for readers to get a true sense of the value of this test from this story. Readers should have been told more clearly that in this study, the test failed to correctly identify 4 percent of the Alzheimer’s patients and it mislabeled more than 7 percent of the healthy participants. Also, the phrase that “knowing early has many advantages” is likely to create a misperception about the potential benefits of testing – at least until some treatments are developed. The story mentioned only two potential benefits, financial planning and the ability to participate in clinical trials of experimental treatments. The story does not discuss the potential harms of this sort of test. As mentioned above, some healthy people would be told in error that they have signs of Alzheimer’s Disease. Such a misdiagnosis could have profoundly grave consequences. Although the story does include the results reported by the researchers, notes the small number of individuals in the study, and points out the preliminary nature of this work; it falls short. Although the headline proclaims “ Blood Test May Spot Alzheimer’s Before Symptoms Appear,” as the story points out lower down, the researchers have not yet studied people over time, so they cannot make any claims about predictive power. And, indeed, that’s really what people want to know, whether someone with some memory problems is going to progress to Alzheimer’s Disease, something that these researchers have yet to investigate. Then the lead sentence states the test is 96 percent “accurate,” which is not the full story. The researchers reported that this blood test correctly identified 96 percent of Alzheimer’s patients and 92.5 percent of healthy people. The story would have been better if it had pointed out that the second number means that as things stand, for every 100 healthy people tested, seven or eight would be misdiagnosed as having signs of Alzheimer’s, a frightening result for those individuals. The story does not exaggerate the extent or severity of Alzheimer’s Disease. However, it might have been helpful to include some description of the sort of individual who might consider using this sort of test. Stories like this need to be clear that since there is no meaningful treatment currently available for Alzheimer’s disease, many individuals may not want to be burdened with the prospect of impending dementia when there is no known way to do anything about it. The story would have been better if rather than focusing on individuals and the fearful prospect of Alzheimer’s, it had given more attention to the most likely near-term use for Alzheimer’s tests: as aids to researchers studying potential treatments in controlled trials. The story includes a spokesperson from the Alzheimer’s Association. It does not appear that this group was involved with this study. We would have preferred hearing from an independent scientist rather than someone from an advocacy group. Nonetheless the Association spokesman adds some important perspectives. The story does point out near the top that the lead researcher is the founder of the company developing the test. A strength of this story is that it prominently points out that many other potential tests for Alzheimer’s Disease are being developed. The story would have been better if it had explained why some people might choose not to be tested. Deep in the story, it explains that “if all goes well” the developer is hopeful the test could be available within a year. That is followed by an Alzheimer’s Association spokesman saying this is “preliminary.” So the developer’s optimism is tempered somewhat. This rating is a close call. The story does include comments pointing out that there are a number of other tests for Alzheimer’s Disease being developed, but it might have been better to frame the headline and lead in a way that immediately makes clear to readers where this test fits in the context of other research. The lead could have used a phrase such as “one more potential test for Alzheimer’s enters the pipeline.” The story includes interview quotes and does not appear to rely on a news release.
|
9557
|
Marisa Tomei opens up about her struggle with chronic dry eye
|
The Fox News story includes a link to the drug company’s page, where celebrity Marisa Tomei “shares her experience.” This is a celebrity-focused story on actress Maria Tomei’s use of Restasis, a prescription drug to increase tear production. The story is problematic on many fronts. Medically, it fosters confusion about “chronic dry eye,” a problem that includes many different causes of dry eyes, and keratoconjunctivitis sicca, a much less common autoimmune disorder. Journalistically, it’s missing all the basic details that make up solid reporting–there’s no quotes from independent experts, nor any mention of costs, evidence, harms, alternatives, or conflicts of interest. It is essentially advertising. This is also a classic of disease-mongering and overdiagnosis, and chronic dry eye was used in the 2015 Preventing Overdiagnosis conference as an example of the “formula” for the selling of a disease. According to the FDA-approved product label, Restasis is “indicated to increase tear production in patients whose tear production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation associated with keratoconjunctivitis sicca.” Keratoconjunctivitis sicca is caused by inflammation that decreases tears and salivary secretions, and may be associated with other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. This is not the same as chronic dry eyes, which have many causes, including decreased tear production (most commonly from aging) and contact lens use; and increased tear evaporation (from dry air, diminished oil production with aging by glands in the eyelid, prolonged screen use without blinking, and other conditions). Artificial tears are the first line in treating all these conditions. It’s hard to imagine that the blurring of these two diagnostic groups–which would expand the potential product users from those with keratoconjunctivitis sicca to everyone with chronic dry eyes–is anything but deliberate. Also, cyclosporine ophthalamic solutions similar to Restasis have been around more than 30 years, and yet the thrust of this story is to get consumers to go to the manufacturer’s website to take a self-diagnostic test which is the entree to the physician’s office, and hence likely to lead to a new prescription specifically for Restasis.
|
false
|
disease mongering
|
Costs are not mentioned in this story. A quick internet search shows that two packets of 30 vials of Restasis costs more than $300. For comparison purposes, a bottle of generic artificial tear drops costs about $10. Also, there is no mention of the issue of insurance coverage for the cost of Restasis. Some insurers limit coverage for topical cyclosporine or require cumbersome prior authorization to approve coverage. We learn that “Allergan’s prescription drug RESTASIS®, works by increasing the eyes’ natural ability to produce tears,” but nothing about how it was tested or how well it actually works. Nothing in this story discusses any harms, but the product label tells us that “In clinical trials, the most common adverse reaction following the use of RESTASIS® was ocular burning (17%). Other reactions reported in 1% to 5% of patients included conjunctival hyperemia, discharge, epiphora, eye pain, foreign body sensation, pruritus, stinging, and visual disturbance (most often blurring).” The label also says: “reported reactions have included: hypersensitivity (including eye swelling, urticaria, rare cases of severe angioedema, face swelling, tongue swelling, pharyngeal edema, and dyspnea); and superficial injury of the eye (from the vial tip touching the eye during administration).” No evidence was cited. There was a systematic review in 2013 of 18 randomized trials of topical cyclosporine; 9 out 9 symptoms evaluated showed improvement, but there was no improvement for patients with dry eyes from surgical procedures such as LASIK or contact lens use. This is pretty clearly as over-the-top disease mongering as you’ll find, and the helpful-sounding self-diagnostic questionnaire is a huge red flag indicating that people are about to be turned into patients. Also, turning chronic dry eye into an acronym–“CDE”–elevates it to medical jargon status. Presumably the celebrity in question, Marisa Tomei, is working for the company, but even that detail was not presented. The article said that the actress Marisa Tomei “turned to RESTASIS® because she didn’t want to keep worrying about constantly using eye drops.” So how does the product compare to standard artificial tears? Again, another lost opportunity to inform. With this drug, according to the product label, you still have to put it in your eyes at least twice a day. It’s available and as “simple as going to your doctor,” according to the celebrity spokesperson. (But as we discuss in the Costs criterion, it’s not free nor necessarily covered by insurance.) How does this product differ from the other cyclosporine ophthalmic solutions on the market? This article does not tell us. The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release, since it includes novel quotes from Marisa Tomei. That would normally merit a Satisfactory rating. However, considering Tomei has a partnership with the drug manufacturer, it’s hard to say this story really goes a step beyond the PR effort. We’ll split the difference and give this a N/A rating.
|
15929
|
There are countries in Africa where they have higher vaccination rates than here in the United States.
|
"Kay said, ""There are countries in Africa where they have higher vaccination rates than here in the United States."" We found ample evidence to back up her point, with several African countries boasting better vaccination rates than the United States. Mauritius, Tanzania and Morocco have nearly complete vaccination of 1-year-olds, according to World Health Organization data."
|
true
|
Health Care, Public Health, PunditFact, Katty Kay,
|
"Sunday show talking heads continued to debate vaccinations of children -- specifically, how there should be no debate -- as they analyzed political missteps from the past week. BBC World News America anchor Katherine ""Katty"" Kay made a startling comparison to highlight how Americans have been less diligent in making sure their children are properly immunized. ""There are countries in Africa where they have higher vaccination rates than here in the United States,"" Kay said on NBC’s Meet the Press. ""Because when people really need it, and they see the effects that measles can have on their communities, they will make sure that their children vaccinate."" Rhetoric about the measles outbreak stemming from Disneyland in California, home to a significant measles-resistant population, is keeping PunditFact and PolitiFact busy. We wanted to continue our look at this re-emerging viral threat by examining the accuracy of Kay’s claim. While we did not hear back from her by our deadline, we have a pretty good idea of Kay’s source. The World Health Organization, which recommends infants be vaccinated with at least one dose of the MMR vaccine before their first birthday, maintains immunization rates for the measles vaccine among 1-year-olds by country. The most recent data is for 2013. There were 16 African countries that beat the U.S. rate of 91 percent for the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in 2013, according to the WHO data. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the measles immunization rate in the United States is 91.9 percent. But the WHO and CDC measure the statistic in different ways, and as you'll see, it doesn't make a difference.) The countries besting the United States are Algeria, Botswana, Burundi, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Seychelles, Tanzania, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. United States 91 percent * Algeria 95 percent Botswana 94 percent Burundi 98 percent Egypt 96 percent Eritrea 96 percent Gambia 96 percent Kenya 93 percent Lesotho 92 percent Libya 98 percent Mauritius 99 percent Morocco 99 percent Rwanda 97 percent Seychelles 97 percent Tanzania 99 percent Tunisia 94 percent Zimbabwe 93 percent Of course, many African countries facing steep impoverished conditions have lower and substantially lower rates, such as Central African Republic (25 percent), Chad (59 percent), Equatorial Guinea (42 percent), Ethiopia (62 percent), Nigeria (59 percent), South Sudan (30 percent) and South Africa (66 percent). More broadly, it’s not just African countries beating the United States. Latin American countries with rates about the same as or exceeding the United States’ include El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. South Africa-based think tank Good Governance Africa spurred news about the United States trailing some African countries in a Feb. 5 press release highlighting the WHO data. Researcher Kate van Niekerk hailed the improved availability and widespread usage of the vaccine as a ""major public health success"" that has reduced child deaths even though the disease continues to kill about 400 children every day. Still, Dr. Cathy Troisi, infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, said the nearly universal use of the measles vaccine in some parts of Africa is the result of a large international effort to reduce child mortality. Reducing by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate between 1990 and 2015 was one target of the United Nations millenium goals. Unlike in some regions of Africa, where measles remains a leading cause of child death, some American parents are strangers to scary, eradicated diseases that afflicted prior generations, she said. Americans also generally value individual rights over community needs, she added. ""I’m old enough that I was born before the polio vaccine became available,"" Troisi said, ""and you can bet when it came out, my mom was first in line to get me vaccinated. Part of the reason we’re seeing this refusal is because parents haven’t seen what these diseases can do."" Because we were curious, we wondered how the U.S. vaccination rate stacked up against its more populous companions. The U.S. population is about 319 million, making it the third-most populated country. China, with 1.36 billion people, is at 99 percent. India, with 1.24 billion people, has a rate of 74 percent. Indonesia, at 253 million residents, had a rate of 84 percent. Brazil and its population of more than 200 million residents had a measles vaccination rate of 99 percent. Our ruling Kay said, ""There are countries in Africa where they have higher vaccination rates than here in the United States."" We found ample evidence to back up her point, with several African countries boasting better vaccination rates than the United States. Mauritius, Tanzania and Morocco have nearly complete vaccination of 1-year-olds, according to World Health Organization data."
|
17917
|
More than 400 car crashes occur each year on the current, congested Columbia River Bridge.
|
Are there 400 crashes on the Interstate Bridge each year?
|
false
|
Oregon, Infrastructure, Transportation, Dennis Richardson,
|
"The Columbia River Crossing -- the maybe-dead-maybe-not proposed bridge project to connect Oregon and Washington -- is nothing if not controversial. Even the folks who agree that it’s needed can’t agree on how to pay for it. In a recent newsletter to his constituents, Oregon Rep. Dennis Richardson argued against Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber’s plan for Oregon to build the bridge on its own without a financial commitment from Washington. Richardson, a Republican, lists a number of reasons, ultimately concluding ""I do not approve of the Governor's plan to go forward with the CRC Project."" Even so, he mentions throughout the newsletter that there are several reasons a new bridge would be beneficial, calling it ""a much-needed infrastructure project."" As support, he notes the traffic accidents on the bridge. ""More than 400 car crashes occur each year on the current, congested Columbia River Bridge,"" he wrote. ""This exorbitant number of collisions results in broken cars, broken lives and broken hearts for hundreds of Oregonians and the families of those injured or killed in Columbia River Bridge traffic every year."" This caught us by surprise. Some quick mental math and you realize that means there would have to be at least one accident a day on the bridge. Now, PolitiFact Oregon knows it’s a busy bridge, but we haven’t seen an accident on our many trips to the Washougal River this summer, so we decided to see if he had his stats right. Richardson got back to us straight away and explained that he’d gotten his figures from a September 2012 briefing on the Columbia River Crossing. He emailed us a copy of the document and indeed, it noted that ""there are approximately 400 vehicle crashes per year in the CRC project area, making it one of the most accident-intensive sections of the corridor."" We were able to verify this figure through Dave Thompson, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation. He pointed us to a passage in the Columbia River Crossing’s final environmental impact report, which noted that during the five-year period between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006, ""2,051 crashes were reported on mainline I-5 and its ramps within the CRC project area."" If you take that figure and divide it by five, you wind up with 409 crashes a year on average during that time period -- or about 1.12 per day. Here’s the rub, though. That figure isn’t just for the bridge, it’s for the entire project area, a considerably larger area, it turns out. Thompson told us, and we did a little Google Map work to back check him, that the project area is close to five miles long while the bridge itself is about 2/3 of a mile. Naturally, we wondered, then, how many accidents actually occurred on the bridge. That took a little longer, but Thompson was able to get an answer for us. Over the same five-year time period, 248 crashes happened on the Washington side of the bridge and 294 happened on the Oregon side. That’s a total of 542 -- or an average of 108 per year. There are some caveats for this data, too. These figures don’t include accidents on the ramps and they were collected using DMV and police report data, meaning they won’t include unreported accidents. Still, the number of crashes on the bridge itself seems to be about a quarter of the number in the project area, which is the number Richardson cited. When we called Richardson to get his take, he said the numbers were never presented in a very clear way. He pointed to the environmental impact statement and the way it describes crashes as having been ""reported on mainline I-5 and its ramps within the CRC project area."" ""I try my best to be honest and accurate,"" he said. Honestly, we agree, the data weren’t presented in the clearest of terms. And, to be fair, it’s not as though Richardson’s larger point about safety is completely invalid. There are an exceptional number of accidents occurring around the current Columbia bridge. According to the same environmental impact study, the crash rate in Washington’s project area is about 60 percent higher than it is on other similar highways, and in Oregon’s project area it’s about 50 percent higher. That said, Richardson wrote to constituents that ""more than 400 car crashes occur each year on the current, congested Columbia River Bridge."" That’s not even close. The statement is ."
|
6075
|
Flint hospital wants hearing on order over Legionella risks.
|
A Flint hospital ordered by the state to take steps to reduce the risk of exposure to Legionella bacteria wants a hearing on the matter.
|
true
|
Health, General News, Flint, Legionnaires disease, Michigan
|
McLaren Flint Hospital on Friday requested an administrative hearing before the state enforces the terms of an order over issues with the bacteria that causes Legionnaires’ disease. The Flint Journal reports McLaren’s attorneys say the order issued Wednesday by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs contains allegations, findings and conclusions that are untrue. Flint, while under state financial management, switched to the Flint River for water in 2014 without treating it to reduce corrosion. Lead leached from pipes, contaminating the system. At the same time, a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak occurred that led to criminal charges against government officials. ___ Information from: The Flint Journal, http://www.mlive.com/flint
|
8195
|
Coronavirus cluster in Japan's Nagoya tied to elderly day care center.
|
A cluster of coronavirus cases in Japan’s Nagoya city has been linked to an elderly day care facility, underscoring the difficulty of shielding the aged from the outbreak in a country with the world’s oldest population.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Elderly people are especially susceptible to serious illnesses caused by the virus and aged care facilities have been linked to coronavirus outbreaks in other countries including the United States and Australia. Nagoya, the capital of Aichi prefecture in Japan’ central industrial heartland, has 99 confirmed cases of the coronavirus outbreak and has been struggling to find beds for patients. Aichi is the country’s second hardest-hit region, with 123 cases. Nagoya accounts for all 14 of the prefecture’s deaths from the virus, a prefecture official said. At least 12 of those were linked to the cluster originating in the elderly day care facility, public broadcaster NHK said, although officials declined to give details. “Many (of the deaths) were elderly,” a Nagoya city official said. In total, 50 cases linked to the elderly day care facility have been confirmed and all the patients are in hospital, a prefecture official said. A city official said an unspecified number of similar facilities had been told to close temporarily. The cluster was one of two identified in Nagoya - the other linked to a sports gym - by the health ministry, which on Monday published a map of 15 clusters of five or more cases nationwide. The biggest cluster was in the Osaka area in western Japan, with more than 50 cases centered around a music venue. Japan had 821 domestic confirmed cases of coronavirus and 28 deaths as of Tuesday morning, not including those who had been on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship that had been docked for weeks at Yokohama, near Tokyo, according to NHK. Including the cruise ship brought the total to 1,547 cases and 35 deaths, NHK said.
|
4788
|
New lab trains welfare workers who probe child abuse claims.
|
The troubling scene inside the dingy Chicago apartment seems real: dangling exposed wires, open pill bottles near a sleeping baby and a kitchen strewn with dog feces and cockroaches.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Chicago, Health, General News, Child welfare, Illinois, Child abuse, U.S. News
|
But the mock apartment — with a lifelike infant doll, candles emitting foul smells and plastic insects — is part of a new simulation lab to train workers who investigate child abuse claims across Illinois. “Sometimes textbooks, they sugarcoat things. Teachers sugarcoat things, but this is real life,” said Beth Brown of Murphysboro, who recently trained at the so-called “dirty apartment.” ″This is what you’re going to experience.” Illinois’ use of such experiential training focused on child welfare workers is being held up by experts as a national leader as the state plans to expand with a third simulation lab and its university experts write new research on the topic. But the accolades come as the agency faces serious systemic deficiencies, with some of its investigators under fire for high-profile deaths — including a 5-year-old suburban Chicago boy this year. The agency is under multiple court orders, including for high caseloads, leading the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and others to question the expansion. “Training is a great thing, but all the training in the world isn’t going to fix the foundational problems that DCFS is struggling with,” said ACLU attorney Heidi Dalenberg, who was involved in the caseloads court order. More than 700 front-line employees have undergone simulation training in Illinois with hundreds more expected to follow suit. Child investigators and experts call it invaluable preparation for a dangerous, high-burnout job at the heart of child protective work. The use of simulation training isn’t unusual for first-responders: Many medical schools have opened multimillion-dollar facilities. However, it’s a newer concept in child welfare, said Victor Vieth, a longtime expert who has trained child protective workers nationwide. The first child welfare simulation labs emerged roughly 15 years ago at universities. Dozens have since added them, and it has spread to state agencies. New Jersey has trained child welfare workers at a New Brunswick academy for about five years. Kansas started offering child protective employees simulation training in 2017. The University of South Carolina Upstate opened a training center in 2010 used by thousands of teachers, students and social service workers. But Illinois is notable in targeting front-line workers through multiple centers and its university experts use the data for some of the first research on the topic. While some state-of-the-art facilities are pricey, Illinois has spent relatively little. The first lab opened in 2016 inside a home on the University of Illinois Springfield campus that was a gift. In Chicago, DCFS officials spent roughly $60,000 to convert existing office space into a lab that opened in April. A third is expected downstate within a year. The state requires all new investigators, who follow hotline calls alleging abuse and neglect, undergo a week of simulation training. That was extended this year to veteran front-line workers, following an outside report on the agency’s systemic issues and high-profile deaths. The labs use real cases, which Illinois officials say helps others avoid missteps. Early Springfield trainings were based on a child who died during a DCFS investigation. “Once they go into a home, they have to use all of their senses,” said Monico Whittington-Eskridge, a DCFS deputy director in Chicago. “We are giving a picture of what are some of the typical things that they may encounter when they go into a home. Not every home is a potential dirty home.” The Chicago lab includes another apartment with less obvious potential trouble: a cabinet of empty liquor bottles. There’s a courtroom to practice witness testimony and space set up as a doctor’s office or police station. All have cameras, two-way mirrors and microphones for observation. The Associated Press recently observed the Chicago lab where more than 60 employees have trained, including walking through the “dirty apartment.” Investigators are taught to look for possible issues as they follow up on abuse claims, for instance asking about the open prescription pill bottles near the baby or checking if televisions are anchored down to protect young children. It all factors into the eventual determination of whether abuse or neglect claims are founded and whether the child will be removed from the home. The state hires actors to portray family. Trainees are instructed to remain calm, plainly state facts and avoid accusations, in hopes of building trust to learn critical details. Brown knocked on the door of the “dirty apartment” and encountered distraught, mistrusting parents. “We don’t abuse our children at all. We take very good care of our kids,” said the actor playing the mother, who grew emotional. “You’re not coming to take our kids, are you?” “That is not my intention,” Brown responded. “This may not even be an accurate report. My job is to see if it is accurate. I’m not here to accuse you of anything.” Brown’s supervisor later entered to debrief, praising her calm demeanor and reminding her not to keep her back to the door, a safety precaution in the risky job. Veteran investigator Stephen Mittens, who’ll soon undergo the training, has witnessed gunfire. Last year, an investigator died after being attacked while trying to take a child into custody. “Oftentimes we’re walking into families’ homes into some of the worst situations,” Mittens said. Investigators are also the first blamed when things go wrong, he said. That includes the death of Andrew “AJ” Freund, the 5-year-old who had extensive DCFS contact for abuse. His parents face murder charges. An investigator and supervisor were removed from casework. Attorneys said they were overloaded, a longtime problem and under court supervision at DCFS. The agency’s other issues have been well-publicized and exacerbated by ongoing state budget problems, including inadequate care for juveniles with mental health problems, a hotline with slow response and over a dozen agency directors in the past decade. There’s also high turnover, typical of child welfare agencies. The Seattle foundation Casey Family Programs estimates average turnover rates from 20% to 40%. First-year Gov. J.B. Pritzker has allocated funds for more investigators and agency officials have conducted a full review. Some experts suggest the simulation training could help, particularly with burnout. Illinois researchers are studying data from the centers. UIS professor Betsy Goulet, who helped design the centers, said early signs suggest trainees are less likely to leave. For Brown, 40, the simulations are refreshing after the classroom. “It’s not something that a teacher can tell you what to do,” she said. “This is something you need to experience in order to get better and understand the job.” ___ Follow Sophia Tareen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sophiatareen
|
32375
|
A customer discovered a deceased and discarded baby in a Kentucky Walmart's discount DVD bin.
|
Associated Media Coverage expanded its scope into darker fabrications, promulgating upsetting falsehoods about a transgender bathroom controversy-related shooting (while the issue was a hot-button one nationwide) and falsely asserting Casey Anthony was opening a home daycare center. Although many fake news sites featured disclaimers informing readers their content was not to be taken as real news, Associated Media Coverage did not.
|
false
|
Junk News, associated media coverage
|
On 13 August 2016, the Associated Media Coverage website published a disturbing account of the discovery of a deceased and discarded newborn baby girl in a “discount DVD bin” at a Kentucky Walmart: 42-year old Diane Jessop received the surprise of her life while shopping at her local Roy County, Kentucky, Walmart Saturday morning. According to police statements, Mrs. Jessop was sorting through the store’s discount DVD bin in attempt to find a few movies to give her granddaughter on her upcoming birthday when she discovered a lifeless newborn buried in the middle of the bin. According to on-scene witnesses, several customers made their way to the DVD bin when they heard Mrs. Jessop scream and call for help. Jessop told police that as she was sorting through the DVD’s she saw what appeared to be a small foot. The bin was in close proximity to the store’s toy isle so Mrs. Jessop initially assumed that someone had placed a doll in the bin. It wasn’t until she grabbed the foot and pulled the body from the pile of DVD’s that she realized that it was not a baby doll, but the body of a lifeless newborn girl. Local police and responding paramedics confirmed that the child had been dead for approximately 48-hours and was estimated to be around 2-months old. If it seemed unlikely a legitimate news outlet would describe such a tragic and gruesome discovery as the “surprise of [someone’s] life,” that’s because the claim was one of many hoax articles published by Associated Media Coverage. The problem of fatal newborn abandonment is tragically real, but the story as reported was entirely fabricated. The now-defunct Associated Media Coverage website typically spreads false alarms about non-existent laws and statutes, including stories about a motorcycle curfew in March 2016, a motorcycle speed ban in August 2016, a looming FDA e-juice ban, and a bogus claim about several jurisdictions codifying a “two-pet maximum” ordinance.
|
25975
|
“There is no science or data to suggest that kids are at risk from COVID.”
|
A California state lawmaker claimed there is “no science or data to suggest that kids are at risk from COVID.” Medical experts say that’s just plain wrong. There are studies that have examined children and found they are at risk of COVID-19, albeit less risk than adults. There’s also a lack of data and uncertainty about how much children could spread the coronavirus among teachers, family members and the wider community once schools reopen.
|
false
|
Education, Public Health, California, Coronavirus, Melissa Melendez,
|
"A California state lawmaker jumped into the national debate on whether to reopen schools this fall amid the rapid spread of COVID-19, by claiming there’s no evidence children are in harm’s way. ""There is no science or data to suggest that kids are at risk from COVID,"" Republican state Sen. Melissa Melendez tweeted on Thursday. Melendez, who represents much of Riverside County, went on to argue for a full reopening. ""Students should return to school, in person, and all school sports/activities should resume. Let’s stop robbing our kids of the education we owe them. We can do this safely."" We won’t put a Truth-O-Meter rating on the second half of her tweet because it’s her opinion. But the first part makes a claim about the facts. Are there really no COVID-19 studies showing a risk to children? We decided to check that out. Our research Benjamin Linas is an associate professor of epidemiology and an infectious disease physician at Boston University School of Medicine. He wrote a recent article in Vox advocating for the reopening of schools this fall. But when asked about Melendez’s claim, he called it ""an oversimplification and untrue."" ""There absolutely are studies of COVID-19 risk in children. It is silly to say that kids do not have risk,"" Linas wrote in an email. ""The good news is that medical consensus at this time, based on data, is that children generally have a mild form of COVID and that many are asymptomatic. Overall, if your child contracts COVID, they will be OK. That is good news. But to take that and say that kids are ‘not at risk’ is an oversimplification and untrue. Some children have died of COVID, some have been in ICUs."" In his Vox article, Linas pointed to public health reporting that showed children under the age of 18 made up only 2% of coronavirus cases in the United States, even though they represent 22% of the total population. He wrote that similar studies in Chicago and Massachusetts found that children make up fewer COVID-19 cases than anticipated, as have studies in Italy, South Korea, and Iceland. Looking at data nationally and worldwide at the end of May, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded: ""Based on these early studies, children of all ages are at risk for COVID-19; however, complications of COVID-19 appear to be less common among children compared with adults based on limited reports from China and the U.S."" Lee Riley, professor and chair of infectious disease and vaccinology at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, also disputed Melendez’s claim. ""This lawmaker is wrong,"" Riley wrote in an email. ""Though rare, there are well documented cases of severe complications kids develop with COVID-19. In Europe and the US, several cases of Kawasaki-like disease have been reported. (New York City) had about 100 cases with 3 deaths."" Riley is referring to a rare but serious condition found in young people this spring known as Multisystem-Inflammatory Syndrome. Doctors in Europe and the United States have attributed it to complications linked to COVID-19. While the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 is low for children, the professor added that ""kids can serve as a reservoir for transmission to their parents and other relatives. Parents who may have diabetes, high blood pressure, and other underlying medical conditions will be at risk for severe complications and even death."" When asked about the claim in question, a spokesperson for Sen. Melendez said her tweet was based on statements made at recent White House Coronavirus Task Force events. He acknowledged ""the exact phrasing"" of those statements ""is not the same"" as the senator’s tweet. Here’s a sample: ""We really don’t have evidence that children are driving the transmission cycle of this,"" CDC Director Robert Redfield stated on Wednesday at the task force briefing. ""Children are less likely to become infected and they are less likely to spread infection,"" American Academy of Pediatrics President Sally Goza said at a White House event on Tuesday. Those statements line up with what other health experts have said. But they don’t specifically support Melendez’s broad claim ""There is no science or data to suggest that kids are at risk from COVID."" A day after Goza’s remarks, White House health advisor Dr. Deborah Birx disputed the idea that children have been proven to be less likely to spread COVID-19, saying there’s not enough data to arrive at that conclusion, CNBC reported. Looking at the age groups tested in the United States, ""the lowest tested portion is the under-10-year-olds,"" Birx said Wednesday. ""There’s no data one way or the other right now,"" to determine how much children will spread the disease, added UC Berkeley’s Dr. Riley, in a follow-up phone interview. Our rating California State Sen. Melissa Melendez recently claimed there is ""no science or data to suggest that kids are at risk from COVID."" Medical experts say that’s just plain wrong. There are studies that have examined children and found they are at risk of COVID-19, albeit less risk than adults. As one infectious disease expert put it, some ""children have died of COVID, some have been in ICUs."" While children aren’t at a high risk for complications of the coronavirus, experts said the data is not yet clear about their role in transmitting it. There’s a tense debate nationally about whether reopening schools will lead to a greater spread of COVID-19 not just among children but also among family members and wider communities. That debate is still playing out. What’s clear is that Melendez went too far in her claim, reducing a complicated topic to an oversimplified, unsupported tweet. – The statement is not accurate."
|
22664
|
General Beauregard Lee Says he predicts the weather better than Punxsutawney Phil.
|
Metro Atlanta groundhog boasts more accuracy than Punxsutawney Phil
|
true
|
Georgia, Weather, General Beauregard Lee,
|
"Politics, step aside. The Truth-O-Meter must address a matter of Southern pride. The honor and reputation of our local groundhog General Beauregard Lee. For three decades, the South’s most esteemed weather prognosticator has lived in the stout and lumpy shadow of Punxsutawney Phil. Phil makes the rounds yearly on the morning talk shows. He’s made appearances with Oprah Winfrey and President Ronald Reagan. His agent even scored him a gig with Bill Murray in the 1993 movie ""Groundhog Day."" On Wednesday, PolitiFact Georgia scribes rolled our eyes as the public fawned over Phil once again during Wednesday’s annual Groundhog Day celebration. Phil never saw his shadow, news accounts said. Spring will come early. But should you really trust Phil? Beau’s website says our metro Atlanta celebrity is accurate 94 percent of the time. Phil’s record is a measly 85 percent, it said. That stat has been picked up by various news outlets. Does Beau really deserve second place to that Yankee glory hog? PolitiFact Georgia decided to settle this matter once and for all. For the scoop on Beau’s record, we talked to Art Rilling, CEO and founder of Lilburn’s Yellow River Game Ranch, an attraction featuring people-friendly wildlife northeast of Atlanta. Beau lives there in a plantation-style manse named ""Weathering Heights."" For the past 10 years, his staff has calculated the General’s accuracy by noting the number of days local temperatures hit the freezing mark during the six weeks after Feb. 2. Beau, like Phil, predicted an early spring for 2011. Sadly, Phil’s staff has not tracked their groundhog’s predictions so diligently. Their official stance is that their marmot is ""incapable of error, so his accuracy rate is 100 percent,"" said Mike Johnston, vice president of the Inner Circle of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. Wednesday was Punxsutawney’s 125th groundhog celebration. German settlers brought the tradition, which is based on ancient myths that say hedgehogs, which resemble groundhogs, have the power to predict the weather. Phil’s predictions are not site-specific. If he says that spring will come early, it will, Johnston said. Somewhere. When Phil’s really wrong, Johnston added, it’s the fault of poor Groundhogeese-to-English translation. ""People complain and tell us we’re just making it up as we go along,"" Johnston said, ""but after 125 years of doing it, we don’t need to."" Before we go further, the staff of PolitiFact Georgia feels obliged to mention that meteorologists have officially determined that groundhogs cannot predict the weather. Really. A tongue-in-cheek analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center concluded groundhogs show ""no predictive skill."" (Why do this? To help get kids interested in the science of weather.) Or, more bluntly, ""you can’t take any stock in a groundhog predicting the weather,"" said Tom Ross, a meteorologist who helped put together the NCDC’s report. It showed that between 1988 and 2010, Phil gave accurate national weather predictions 10 times out of 23 for a rate of 43 percent. True, but that won’t stop us. Our groundhog’s honor is at stake. Since the keepers of Beau and Phil do not keep comparable statistics, we performed an independent analysis using the NCDC study and National Weather Service data for 2001 through 2010. We defined ""early spring"" as a February with above-average temperatures. We then compared each groundhog’s prediction with temperatures nationally and in his respective hometown. The NWS does not keep average February temperatures for the hamlet of Punxsutawney, Pa., so a kindly meteorologist gave us figures for Putneyville, Pa., a town at a similar elevation about 15 miles away. We found that the General predicted whether spring will start early nationally with 60 percent accuracy. Phil’s rate was 30 percent. Beau predicted Atlanta weather with 50 percent accuracy. Phil got Punxsutawney’s right 40 percent of the time. By our analysis, Beau’s staff overestimated his success, but he’s still 10 to 30 percentage points ahead of Phil. Georgia’s underhog is the champion, paws down. General, emerge from the shadows. Stand tall on your stubby legs. The Truth-O-Meter salutes you with a ."
|
8325
|
UK group calls for grounded planes to be used as intensive care wards.
|
Airlines, airports and regulators have given their backing to a plan to turn large passenger aircraft into intensive care wards during the coronavirus pandemic, a UK-based group working on the idea said on Monday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The group, calling themselves Caircraft, believe that big aircraft like A380s and A340s, which are grounded due to coronavirus travel restrictions, could be stripped down and refitted with ICU beds and equipment in seven to ten days. Between 100-150 beds could fit on each aircraft depending on the size of the jet under the group’s design plans, and it is now waiting for government support for funding and coordination. “We’ve had various conversations at various levels. And we absolutely appreciate how busy they are with everything else going on,” aviation economist Chris Tarry said of contact with government. “It’s a question of reaching the right desks at the right time.” Tarry has joined entrepreneur Nick Dyne, Jonathan Sackier, Visiting Professor of Surgery at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and others on the plan. The group is also talking to the U.S. government, Canada, Germany and Malaysia about the idea, Dyne said. UK airlines with parked-up widebody jets support the idea, said Dyne without naming them, although they are believed to include British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, as well as a number of UK airports and the UK aviation regulator, the CAA. Britain is bracing for the epidemic to peak in the coming weeks, and is building field hospitals in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff to bolster its state-run National Health Service (NHS). Under the Caircraft plans, which the group has been working on for a week, the aircraft would first fly to the place where they were to be needed, before being fitted out. They would not move once treating patients. “What we don’t want to do is to be a flying hospital. The regulatory issues regarding that are just too great,” said Dyne. The group say the advantage of using planes is that not only are they mobile and there are plenty of them now available, but also that their filtered, one-way airflow systems mirror those of an operating theatre. Dyne declined to comment on the how much it would cost to convert each aircraft.
|
6538
|
Lower-cost biotech drug gets thumbs up from FDA panel.
|
The second-biggest selling drug in the world could get some cheaper competition in the U.S., after a federal panel endorsed an alternative version of the pricey medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.
|
true
|
Health, Medication, Rheumatoid arthritis, Arthritis, Patents
|
A panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira, a biotech drug that raked in nearly $15 billion last year, according to IMS Health. While not binding, the recommendation likely paves the way for FDA approval of the knockoff drug. For years, biotech drugs faced no competition because there was no regulatory way to approve copycat versions, even after patents had expired. If approved, Amgen’s drug would join a new wave of so-called biosimilars, which have the potential to generate billions in savings for U.S. insurers, doctors and patients. But it could take years for those savings to arrive. Evercore ISI analyst Mark Schoenebaum says the earliest Amgen could launch its product would be March 2017, though that would risk infringing patents which Abbvie says protect its drug until at least 2022. Wall Street analysts expect the patent issue to be fought in court, and then for Amgen’s drug to launch sometime between 2018 and 2022. First approved in 2002, Humira has long been among the most profitable drugs in the world. It accounted for 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue last year. The injectable drug, which blocks chemicals linked to inflammation, is approved for multiple uses, including rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Thousand Oaks, Calif-based Amgen is seeking FDA approval to market its version, known only as ABP 501, for seven diseases. Amgen is itself a biotech powerhouse, and it too has medications facing competition from cheaper versions. The company is working to hedge those loses by developing lower-cost versions of competitors’ drugs. Biotech drugs are powerful, injected medicines produced in living cells that are typically much more expensive than traditional, chemical-based drugs. In 2015, six of the 10 top-selling medicines globally were biotech drugs, with more than $56 billion in combined sales. The FDA only approved the first lower-cost biotech drug last March, a Novartis version of the Amgen drug Neupogen. Pfizer won approval to market a second biosimilar in April, a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but it is not yet for sale. Questions remain about just how much savings U.S. biosimilars will deliver. Novartis’ Zarxio sells for 15 percent less than the original Neupogen. Experts predict biosimilar discounts of 15 percent to 30 percent in the U.S. In Europe, where governments regulate prices, discounts are higher. Development of lower-cost anti-inflammatory drugs like Humira is considered pivotal in reducing U.S. spending on specialty drugs, which has doubled to $150 billion since 2010, according to IMS Health. On Wednesday, the same panel of FDA advisers will review a Novartis version of Enbrel, which is marketed by Amgen.
|
10302
|
Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed
|
The news that stents do not prolong life or prevent heart attacks in patients with stable heart disease came as a big surprise to many this week, as the results of a large randomized clinical trial were presented at the week's American College of Cardiology meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine. These latest results put the use of stenting under further scrutiny, as did the recent finding that coated stents actually increase the risk of clotting. This story accurately reports on the availability and novelty of stenting as well as the design of the current study. Furthermore, the story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. In addition, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. However, while the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms of stenting and the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. Overall, a good job working within the usual limitations of TV news.
|
true
|
While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
|
|
22059
|
Unions don’t have to comply with Obamacare.
|
In ruling on this statement, we understand that the Obama administration would hardly admit to it if it were giving unions special treatment. But looking at the numbers of waivers that have been given to both union and non-union groups, we don’t see any pattern that would support a case for special treatment. The number of waivers are a small sample of all health plans, and many more waivers were given to big companies and corporations. We looked for additional information or evidence on this point and didn’t find it. But there are additional problems with the ad. The ad doesn’t mention that the waivers only apply to annual coverage limits, that they’re intended to be in place only until 2014 and that many for-profit companies have received the same waivers. It gives the impression that unions are entirely exempt from the health care law, which they are not. Because the ad gives the impression that unions are exempt from the entire law, and because it’s evidence for special treatment is so thin.
|
false
|
National, Health Care, Unions, Crossroads GPS,
|
"An ad from the Republican controlled campaign group Crossroads GPS asserts that unions are exempt from the new health care law as a political favor from President Barack Obama. The ad shows union leaders and Obama speaking in favor of health care reform, then shows a Fox News anchor asking, ""Is the Obama administration exempting some from complying with the new health care law as a political favor?"" Video shows Obama at a political rally, shouting, ""Because we fought together, we had worked together, they walked doors (door-to-door) for me, they made phone calls for me, they turned out the vote for me."" Text on the screen then says, ""Over 185 union waivers. All exempt from Obamacare mandate. If unions don’t have to comply with Obamacare, why should we?"" We spent a good bit of time looking into this claim, because it’s based on some very wonky details of the new health care law, things like annual benefit limits, phase-ins to 2014 and rules advertised in the Federal Register. We’re going to explain all those details momentarily, but we’ll start by giving you the bottom line: Unions do have to obey the mandates of the health care law like any other organization. And if there’s concrete evidence that they’re getting special treatment, we didn’t find it. For simplicity’s sake, we’re going to start at the very beginning, before the passage of the health care law. Insurance limits and the new law Prior to passage of the health care law, insurance companies could place limits on what they would be willing to pay for a person’s health care per year. A typical annual limit for someone with pretty good insurance might be $1 million, but it could be lower, sometimes much lower. If you were never sick, you might not be aware that the limit existed. But it would be a different story if you were sick, particularly if you suffered from something that was expensive to treat, like cancer. One in 10 cancer patients, for example, exhaust benefit limits and have to find more insurance or pay for treatment themselves, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Low-wage workers were particularly vulnerable to plans with low annual limits. In some cases, annual payouts would be as low as $2,000. Those types of plans are often called ""mini-meds,"" and consumer advocates say they’re almost always a bad deal. The health care law phases out annual benefit limits so that people wouldn’t be caught without coverage, according to the HHS. The phase-out started this year, with new rules saying that all insurance plans must offer at least $750,000 in payouts per year. The number goes up every year so that by 2014 no caps at all will be allowed. Last year, though, companies started complaining, saying that if they had to meet the new requirements, they would either have to increase premiums paid by their employees or end coverage altogether. The Obama administration didn’t want that to happen, so they started granting waivers to the new rule. The waivers would be granted to health plans annually until 2014, according to the HHS, when people will be able to buy standard health insurance policies using new state-based ""exchanges."" That same year, low-wage workers will be eligible for tax credits to help them buy insurance. ""It is essential that we make sure that Americans who have insurance today – even if that insurance is highly limited – can keep that coverage until reforms take effect that will increase their ability to choose among comprehensive, affordable insurance options in 2014,"" said Steven Larsen, who oversees the waiver process, in testimony before Congress in March. So far, employers like McDonald’s, Jack in the Box, Cracker Barrel and O’Reilly Auto Parts have successfully applied for waivers for their health plans. Other approved applicants include Sunview Vineyards of California, Securitas Security Services USA, Mesa Air Group and Dish Network. (See all the approved applications here.) There are also several union health plans, which are the basis for the claims in the Crossroads ad. We contacted the HHS and asked for the number of waivers they’ve granted so far. A spokeswoman told us that they have approved 1,372 applications and denied 92. Of the approved applications, 27 represent unions and another 315 represent plans jointly managed by unions and employers. Even if you took the broadest definition possible, counting all the joint plans as union plans, only 25 percent of the waivers have gone to unions. The rest have gone to plans offered by employers, insurance companies and other non-union groups. To be clear, though, the waivers do not exempt these groups from the health care law. They only allow them to continue offering their current health plans with annual limits until 2014. We should note that some Republicans are firm in their opposition to the waivers. Two congressional hearings have been held on why waivers are being offered and if the process is transparent. A law firm for Crossroads GPS has filed a federal lawsuit against HHS, claiming that the agency has not responded quickly enough to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about how the waivers are being awarded. The lawsuit says it's seeking ""the criteria to be applied by HHS in deciding whether to grant or deny applications for waiver of the annual limit requirements."" On its website, though, HHS said it approves waivers if ""a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver."" Special treatment? Consumer advocates, we should note, have mixed feelings about the waivers. ""Our concern with the waiver process in general is that they’re targeted at the very type of health policy that health care reform was meant to get rid of -- extremely low-benefit policies that cost consumers more than they’re worth,"" said Carmen Balber, the Washington director of the nonprofit group Consumer Watchdog. In fact, we wondered why unions would need waivers, because unions have a reputation for offering good health care benefits. The experts we spoke with said it could be one of two scenarios. In some cases, unions, like companies, may offer policies that come in just under the $750,000 limit. In other cases, union workers get limited benefits while their private counterparts get none. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) offered the example of janitors in Houston who are covered by a health plan with an exemption. ""It’s important to remember that the coverage we are talking about are low-cost plans that cover low-wage workers, some of whom have never had health care coverage in their lives,"" said the union in a statement, after we asked about the matter. But we can’t say for sure which plans might fit which category, because HHS hasn’t released every detail about the plans that are getting these waivers. The agency releases information about the company offering the plan, how many workers are covered, and the dates of application and approval. But it doesn’t list what the annual limits are or other details of the health plans. When we asked Crossroads GPS about the ad, a spokesman cited a lack of transparency in the approval process and claimed that a disproportionate number of waivers were going to unions, because only 11.9 percent of the country is unionized. The Obama administration ""is in the very least giving the appearance that waivers are going to those with political connections,"" said spokesman Jonathan Collegio. But Balber said she saw no evidence that unions were receiving special treatment. ""Pretty much anyone who applied, received them,"" she said. ""The claim that this was special treatment falls a little flat. As a consumer organization, we think the waivers were granted too broadly, but HHS was being consistent."" We also reviewed the most recent congressional testimony on how the waivers were granted. None of the witnesses provided evidence that there was special treatment. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., questioned the administrator of the waivers on the point, specifically asking about complaints from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Cummings: ""Now some critics have suggested that the process by which annual limit waivers have been issued is biased and favors certain groups such as unions. For example, the February 10th, 2010, letter to the secretary, Chairman Issa made this statement, and I quote, ‘The current process gives credence to the perception that bureaucrats are picking winners and losers in a politicized environment where the winners are favored constituencies of the administration.’ Is that accurate?"" Larsen: ""That's not true. We do not favor any particular type of applicant, or any applicant from a particular sector, and we've applied the standards that we set out fairly across all the applicants."" Cummings: ""Is political support for the Obama administration or health care reform a factor your office uses in evaluating applications for annual limit waivers?"" Larsen: ""It is not."" Cummings: ""And you understand you're under oath?"" Larsen: ""I do, sir."" Our ruling In ruling on this statement, we understand that the Obama administration would hardly admit to it if it were giving unions special treatment. But looking at the numbers of waivers that have been given to both union and non-union groups, we don’t see any pattern that would support a case for special treatment. The number of waivers are a small sample of all health plans, and many more waivers were given to big companies and corporations. We looked for additional information or evidence on this point and didn’t find it. But there are additional problems with the ad. The ad doesn’t mention that the waivers only apply to annual coverage limits, that they’re intended to be in place only until 2014 and that many for-profit companies have received the same waivers. It gives the impression that unions are entirely exempt from the health care law, which they are not. Because the ad gives the impression that unions are exempt from the entire law, and because it’s evidence for special treatment is so thin."
|
29295
|
"In September 2017, authorities in Houston, Texas warned residents to use gas masks as they sprayed the area with a neurotoxic insecticide that ""causes brain damage""."
|
What's true: Authorities in Harris County, Texas did spray for mosquitoes using the insecticide naled, which can be considered a neurotoxin, though these effects are dose dependent. What's false: Authorities did not warn residents to don gas masks; the risk of neurotoxic damage in humans is limited to exposure to naled at a far higher concentration than would be experienced with ultra-low volume aerial spraying.
|
false
|
Science, EPA, harvey, houston
|
In September 2017, the “Stranger Than Fiction News” Facebook page claimed in a post and video that authorities in Houston, Texas had warned residents to put on gas masks while aircraft sprayed for mosquitoes in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey: HOUSTON WARNS RESIDENTS TO USE GAS MASKS AS C-130 GUNSHIPS RAIN DOWN TOXIC SPRAY IN FIGHT AGAINST MOSQUITOS. The video features graphics (edited to look like those used in authentic news reports) which read: “Breaking news: Houston to spray neurotoxin for mosquito control.” In the video, a local news broadcast is edited so that a narrator’s voice claims that aircraft are “spraying neurotoxins everywhere”: What makes this worse is that the neurotoxin they’re using — naled — is banned in the European Union and other countries because it’s a known neurotoxin that causes brain damage. Authorities in Harris County, Texas did schedule mosquito spraying during the week of 14 September 2017, and they did sanction the use of naled, which is not allowed for use as a pesticide in the European Union but is authorized for use in the United States. The process by which the European Union and the United States review potential risk from chemicals differs, and often times results in conflicting assessments. In the European Union, naled is not authorized for use as a pesticide; it carries warning labels indicating that it is a toxin and an irritant, though these effects occur at higher concentrations than would be expected from mosquito spraying. On 13 September 2017, the Harris County Department of Public Health announced that a program of aerial spraying would begin the following day in order to counteract the risk posed by mosquitoes, which had been present in unusually large numbers in the surface water left behind by Hurricane Harvey: The rain left behind by Hurricane Harvey has created large areas in Harris County where mosquitoes can lay their eggs. To address increasing numbers of mosquitoes and the risk they pose to the recovery effort and public health, the U.S. Air Force Reserve’s 910th Airlift Wing flying modified C-130 cargo planes staged out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio will be conducting an aerial spray operation beginning Thursday evening, September 14 and may take more than one day. The plan is to spray approximately 600,000 acres by air, weather permitting. A spokesperson for the Harris County Department of Public Health told us that the spraying was officially scheduled to continue through 20 September 2017. The announcement continues: …The insecticide, Dibrom (EPA-approved), is routinely used for aerial spray operations to combat mosquito-borne disease and will be used during the spray operation in Harris County. Dibrom is considered safe for the environment and is applied by licensed applicators, according to the label instructions. Dibrom is a brand name for naled, the chemical highlighted in the Stranger Than Fiction Facebook video. The federal Environment Protection Agency (EPA) says of naled: When applied according to label instructions, EPA does not expect the use of naled for public health mosquito control to raise a human health concern. People are unlikely to breathe in amounts large enough or touch anything with enough insecticide on it to harm them. However, anyone who is concerned because of an existing health problem should talk to their doctor. Also, people who tend to be sensitive to chemicals in general, including household chemicals, could experience short-term effects, such as skin, eye, and nose irritation. Naled’s classification as a neurotoxin stems from its ability to cause cholinesterase depression, a harmful lowering of the levels of cholinesterase, an enzyme important to the functioning of nervous system. (In fact, that’s how naled works: it lowers cholinesterase in insects to a level that proves fatal to them.) Again, these effects — which have primarily been investigated using animal studies — are not relevant to the concentrations found during mosquito spraying. The primary research on pesticides and cholinesterase depression in humans revolves around farmworkers or other groups who are exposed to pesticides on a daily basis, and at much higher concentrations than the “ultra low-volume” mist involved in aerial mosquito spraying, especially by the time that spray reaches the ground. An Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson told us that they have taken the risks into consideration: EPA has estimated the exposure and risk to both adults and children posed by ultra-low volume aerial and ground application of naled. Because of the very small amount of active ingredient released per acre of ground, exposures were below an amount that might pose a health concern. These estimates assumed several spraying events over a period of weeks, and also assumed that a toddler would consume some soil and grass in addition to skin and inhalation exposure. Because naled is applied at ultra-low volumes, low rates and does not persist in the environment, when applied according to label instructions, EPA does not expect the use of naled for public health mosquito control to raise a human health concern. People are unlikely to breathe in amounts large enough or touch anything with enough insecticide on it to harm them. Dr Jeffrey G. Scott, a professor of entomology at Cornell University, told us: Under normal circumstances it would not be expected that a person would be able to pick up a lethal dose in a treated area. On the whole, the claims made in the “Stranger Than Fiction” video (seeking as it does to warn viewers that authorities in Houston, Texas are spraying a “deadly” neurotoxin that “causes brain damage”). It’s true that the Harris County Department of Public Health, in collaboration with the United States Air Force, did spray naled over the county in September 2017, and naled is an organophosphate pesticide which kills insects by lethally suppressing their nervous system (i.e. is a neurotoxin). However, authorities in Harris County did not warn residents to wear gas masks during spraying, and the risk of neurotoxic damage to humans is largely limited to close exposure to naled in high concentrations — not the type of exposure expected in aerial spraying, which uses naled at an “ultra-low volume” and involves significant dissipation of the chemical by the time it reaches the ground.
|
38420
|
Mattel is releasing “Public Assistance Barbie” for the holidays.
|
Mattel Releasing Public Assistance Barbie
|
false
|
9/11 Attack on America
|
An old fake news report from 2014 that a Public Assistance Barbie would be released in time for Christmas began circulating again in 2016. The report was published by fake news website Empire News on November 19, 2014, under the headline, “Mattel Releasing ‘Public Assistance Barbie’ in Time for Holidays.” It begins: In a bold move today that is sure to create controversy among fans of the company, Mattel announced its new Barbie doll; ‘Public Assistance Barbie’ will be marketed directly to inner-city youths and children of welfare recipients. ”Since 1959 Barbie dolls have been through major changes to reflect the times we live in. Today with over 40% of Americans on some sort of public assistance, we felt the time was right for ‘Public Assistance Barbie,” said Mattel spokesman Rick Reynolds. “After doing research on people receiving assistance, we have come out with what we think is a fair and sensitive portrayal of that kind of person with our new doll. Each Public Assistance Barbie will come with a new Cadillac, Puma sweats, a pack of Newports, an Obama phone, an EBT card, and a rack of Budweiser. She will also come in three styles: heavily tattooed and pierced, pregnant and smoking, and a ‘black eye’ version from when drunken Ken beat her for not paying the cable bill. Public Assistance Barbies will be on the shelves in time for your holiday purchases, and will come in special theft-deterrent boxes. EBT cards cannot be used to purchase, unfortunately.” Empire News clearly identifies itself as “for entertainment purposes only” on its “About Page,” but its stories are commonly mistaken for actual breaking news when taken out of context on social media. That’s what happened when the story was picked up in November 2016. Comments
|
4876
|
2 cases of meningococcal disease detected in Boston.
|
Two young children in Boston have been diagnosed with meningococcal disease.
|
true
|
Marty Walsh, Meningitis, Health, Boston, General News, Homelessness
|
The Boston Public Health Commission and Mayor Marty Walsh announced the two cases on Wednesday. Officials say both cases have been associated with daycare centers specializing in serving children experiencing homelessness. It is not known if the two cases are connected. The disease is highly infectious and can lead to meningitis, an infection of the brain and spinal cord. According to the commission, the disease is spread through saliva and requires close contact. Any people known to have been in close contact with the children have received antibiotics. The last day either child was at one of the centers was Friday.
|
5209
|
No questions about reproductive rights at Democratic debate.
|
The absence of issues such as women’s reproductive rights and the gender pay gap from the Democratic presidential debate is prompting criticism Friday from several candidates and other Democrats who argue the focus of the evening was misplaced.
|
true
|
South Bend, Reproductive rights, Beto ORourke, General News, Politics, Election 2020, AP Top News, Indiana, Health, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris
|
California Sen. Kamala Harris, one of three women on the debate stage, said Friday that, “yet again, women’s access to reproductive health care is under full attack,” and that the issue “should have been brought up last night — it wasn’t.” Harris was not the only candidate to note the absence in the Thursday night debate. Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke also did so in a tweet, as did South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who said that “when women’s reproductive freedom is under attack ... it’s important we all keep talking about it.” The issue of abortion has emerged as a central topic in the 2020 presidential race. Earlier this year, some Republican-controlled states passed so-called fetal heartbeat bills, which outlaw abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The new restrictions, passed as anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, have made support for abortion a key stance for Democratic candidates. While all of the Democrats seeking the presidency support abortion rights, there is debate over how far Democrats should go to combat those new laws and over what they would do if the Supreme Court did overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. “We have moved beyond the point when it’s enough for a candidate to say they are pro-choice,” said Christina Reynolds of EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to electing women at all levels of government who support abortion rights. “Women deserve to hear from presidential candidates the specific ways in which they will protect Roe v. Wade and our rights. There are real differences in both the records and plans for these candidates and it’s time we discuss it more directly.” A majority of Americans, 57%, say abortion should be legal in at least most cases, while 42% think it should be illegal in all or most cases, according to an AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll in May. Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That compares with 3 in 10 Republicans. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who abandoned her presidential bid last month, ran as a champion of women and families with a strong emphasis on abortion rights. And the majority of Democratic candidates participated in a health forum hosted by Planned Parenthood in Columbia, South Carolina, in June. Strategists like Amanda Litman, the co-founder of Run for Something and a Hillary Clinton campaign alum, said that the issue is not “siloed” and that abortion will be a “sticking point against Republicans in every single fight.” It was not just questions about reproductive rights that Democratic women noted were missing from the discussion. Valerie Jarrett, who was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama through the course of his presidency, said she was disappointed there was no focus on “working family issues,” like paid leave, equal pay and affordable child care, among others. Near the end of the debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota discussed how she was forced to leave a hospital as a new mother, 24 hours after giving birth, while her daughter remained in intensive care. She said the experience led her to fight for a law to make sure new mothers could have longer stays.
|
36505
|
The real-life Lone Ranger was a black man, a freed slave named Bass Reeves.
|
Was the Original ‘Lone Ranger’ a Black Man?
|
unproven
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
In January 2019, a meme that appeared to be a screenshot of an older post asserting that the real Lone Ranger was a black man named Bass Reeves spread on social media:Above what appeared to be an archival photograph of a black man and the television character the Lone Ranger, a screencaptured Facebook post read:Did you know the real LONE RANGER was a BLACK MAN name BASS REEVES and yes he did live among the INDIANS ,The Lone Ranger “could not be cast in that era as a black man, so he was made into a white man with a black mask, Now you know..According to the apparent original post, the television character was inspired by Bass Reeves. But the television show The Lone Ranger (which aired from 1949 to 1957) could not depict its hero as a black man, so white star Clayton Moore was given a black mask instead.The series’ stated premise included an explanation for his masked appearance:The fictional story line maintains that a patrol of six Texas Rangers is massacred, with only one member surviving. The “lone” survivor thereafter disguises himself with a black mask and travels with Tonto throughout Texas and the American West to assist those challenged by the lawless elements. A silver mine supplies The Lone Ranger with the name of his horse as well as the funds required to finance his wandering life-style and the raw material for his signature bullets. At the end of most episodes, after the Lone Ranger and Tonto leave, someone asks the sheriff or other person of authority who the masked man was. The person then responds that it was the Lone Ranger, who is then heard yelling “Hi-Yo Silver, away!” as he and Tonto ride away on their horses.History.com delved into rumors about Bass Reeves inspiring the character in February 2018, with a page: “Was the Real Lone Ranger a Black Man?” That began with a brief anecdote from Reeves’ Wild West days before explaining his background:On a riverbank in Texas, a master of disguise waited patiently with his accomplice, hoping that his target, an infamous horse thief, would show himself on the trail. After four days, the hunch paid off, when the bandit unwittingly walked towards the man who haunted the outlaws of the Old West. Springing from the bushes, the cowboy confronted his frightened mark with a warrant. As the desperado reached for his weapon as a last ditch effort, the lawman shot him down before his gun could leave his side.Though the quick-draw tale may sound like an adventure of the Lone Ranger, this was no fictional event. In fact, it was one of many feats of Bass Reeves, a legendary lawman of the Wild West—a man whose true adventures rivaled those of the outlaw-wrangling masked character. Reeves was a real-life African-American cowboy who one historian has proposed may have inspired the Lone Ranger.In 1838—nearly a century before the Lone Ranger was introduced to the public—Bass Reeves was born a slave in the Arkansas household of William S. Reeves, who relocated to Paris, Texas, in 1846. It was in Texas, during the Civil War, that William made Bass accompany his son, George Reeves, to fight for the Confederacy.History.com reported that Reeves was ordered to accompany the son of William S. Reeves (who owned the household in which Bass Reeves was born) as he fought for the Confederacy. Bass Reeves subsequently escaped to territory in Oklahoma then governed by five tribes (“Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Choctaw and Chickasaw.”) Laws of the day meant that Reeves could not be pursued as an escaped slave in that territory. In 1865, slavery was abolished, and Reeves went on to return to Arkansas to marry and have children.The article noted that Reeves “became the first black deputy U.S. marshal west of the Mississippi” when he was brought in to quell rampant unrest in the territory, and that theories about his inspiring the character of the Lone Ranger originated primarily with a 2006 biography about the life of Bass Reeves:After a decade of freedom, Bass returned to the Indian Territory when U.S. Marshal James Fagan recruited him to help rein in the criminals that plagued the land. Fagan, under the direction of federal judge Isaac C. Parker, brought in 200 deputy marshals to calm the growing chaos throughout the West. The deputy marshals were tasked with bringing in the countless thieves, murderers and fugitives who had overrun the expansive 75,000-square-mile territory. Able local shooters and trackers were sought out for the position, and Bass was one of the few African-Americans recruited.As deputy marshal, Bass is said to have arrested more than 3,000 people and killed 14 outlaws, all without sustaining a single gun wound, writes biographer Art T. Burton, who first asserted the theory that Bass had inspired the Lone Ranger in his 2006 book, Black Gun, Silver Star: The Life and Legend of Frontier Marshal Bass Reeves. […]Although there is no concrete evidence that the real legend inspired the creation of one of fiction’s most well-known cowboys, “Bass Reeves is the closest real person to resemble the fictional Lone Ranger on the American western frontier of the nineteenth century,” Burton writes in Black Gun, Silver Star.In 2006, Burton laid out a series of parallels between Reeves and the Lone Ranger, but stopped short of definitively declaring a basis for the character. When Django Unchained hit theaters in 2012, analyses of the film made reference to the book and some of that nuance was lost:The Lone Ranger, for example, is believed to have been inspired by Bass Reeves, a black lawman who used disguises, had a Native American sidekick and went through his whole career without being shot.Many items declared Reeves inspiration for both Django and the Lone Ranger. But in other tellings, Reeves inspired the character of Django, with no mention of the Lone Ranger:The wildly popular Django Unchained is the most talked about film of the last month, and aside from the controversy, it’s popular because of how badass Django is. However, nobody knew about the real Django — a man named Bass Reeves — whom became a Deputy U.S. Marshal in 1875 at the age of 38. During his 32-year career as a Deputy Marshal, Bass Reeves (pictured below) was responsible for arresting 3,000 felones [sic] and killing 14 men, without being shot once.While no comments from Quentin Tarantino have surfaced as of yet, it’s quite possible Bass Reeves was the basis for fictional character Django from Django Unchained. Bass Reeves was born into slavery in 1838 in Crawford County, Arkansas. He was eventually freed from his owner, George Reeves, in which lead him to live among local Native Americans. Whilst living among the natives, he picked up their customs and learned their languages, and learned how to scout. After living with the natives, Reeves later acquired his own land and built an eight-room house with his bare hands.Searches for “Bass Reeves” and “Lone Ranger” restricted to results published up until early 2006 returned no legitimate results prior to Burton’s book. After that, Reeves was cited as possible and then definitive inspiration for the character. An article-style biography attributed to Art Burton in 1997 does not mention the Lone Ranger in a piece about the life of Bass Reeves. Neither does an item by the same author apparently published in 1994, nor a Tulsa World article by a different author in 1992.The notion that Bass Reeves inspired the Lone Ranger appeared to stem from Burton’s 2006 book Black Gun, Silver Star: The Life and Legend of Frontier Marshal Bass Reeves. But Burton wrote about Reeves at least twice prior to the publication of the book, and did not appear to draw the same comparison. Reeves’ extraordinary life was often described as being “forgotten” by history — at the same time, the character of the Lone Ranger was conceived in 1933 for radio before making his way to television. An anecdote provided by Burton appeared numerous times on the book’s product page:Bucking the odds (“I’m sorry, we didn’t keep black people’s history,” a clerk at one of Oklahoma’s local historical societies answered a query), Art T. Burton sifts through fact and legend to discover the truth about one of the most outstanding peace officers in late nineteenth-century America—and perhaps the greatest lawman of the Wild West era.Although it was possible Bass Reeves inspired the character of the Lone Ranger, the claim stemmed largely from a book that identified Reeves as a real-life counterpart to the television icon. Reeves died of Bright’s disease in 1910, and it’s not clear how well known his story was as of 1933 (or the publication of a related book in 1915.) Burton encountered stated difficulty in chronicling Reeves’ life in the course of researching his 2006 book, making it more doubtful that the lawman’s exploits were accessible for the creation of the character somewhere between 1915 and the early 1930s.It remains possible that Bass Reeves provided inspiration for the character of the Lone Ranger, but that claim is far from definitive. Moreover, there is no evidence that the white Lone Ranger’s black mask was a nod to Reeves — by all accounts, Reeves employed disguises in the course of his exploits. Burton characterized Reeves as a “real life” Lone Ranger, but the character’s genesis may have occurred primarily in the years before Reeves’ story was well known by frontier enthusiasts.
|
9445
|
Blood Thinners May Also Protect Brains of A-Fib Patients
|
A Swedish study of people who take anticoagulants suggests that these drugs are associated with lower rates of dementia. While some limitations of the study were noted, this HealthDay story neglected to mention important details such as the costs of treatment, the magnitude of the treatment effect, and the potential for serious harms such as uncontrolled bleeding. Nor did the story acknowledge the researchers’ ties to numerous drug companies that make anticoagulants. Many of the shortcomings of this story can be traced back to the news release that apparently sparked it. When reporters don’t dig beyond the information they are provided in a news release, there’s a good chance that they’ll present an unbalanced and incomplete portrait of the research to their readers. There is an apparent association between atrial fibrillation and the risk for dementia. If an anticoagulant prescribed for atrial fibrillation could also prove to be protective against dementia, that would indeed be a medical advance. Yet despite the study in which more than 26,000 of 440,000 participants with atrial fibrillation were diagnosed with dementia, it remains unclear if the oral anticoagulants are solely responsible for the reduction in dementia rates. It’s possible, for example, that patients on oral anticoagulation therapy are different in important ways from those who are not — and that these differences (not the drug treatment) help explain the reduction in dementia rates. The story would have been wise to acknowledge this likelihood.
|
false
|
anti-clotting drug,dementia
|
No mention of costs, which is unfortunate because there can be substantial costs associated with anticoagulation, especially with the newer anticoagulants. The story reported only the relative benefits, that “people taking anticoagulants were 29 percent less likely to develop dementia than were those who were not taking the blood thinners.” We ask: “29% of what?” It would have been much more informative to provide the absolute rates of dementia in both groups. We explain why in this primer: Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk. People stop taking these drugs for a reason, and some of those reasons might have to do with the side effects or adverse effects which can also include unstoppable bleeding. The story should have mentioned this. As the article indicates, “patients start on oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention but they stop after a few years at an alarmingly high rate.” It would seem an important question to explore: why do approximately 15 percent of patients stop taking the drugs within the first year, and then 10 percent each year afterwards? This was a mixed bag. The researchers noted the drawbacks of such a cohort study, pointing to the fact that it cannot provide definitive proof linking anticoagulant use and reduced risk of dementia. They noted that a randomized placebo-controlled trial would need to be done, yet doing those studies might be considered unethical. While this is all helpful context, the story uses inappropriate language throughout the story, including in the headline and lead sentence, to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship between anticoagulants and dementia. For example: “New research suggests they help prevent dementia as well as stroke.” This statement goes beyond what an observational study like this one can tell us. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt on the rating, but note that these findings may simply be a manifestation of the “healthy user effect” rather than a true benefit of these drugs. A stronger story would have alerted readers to this possibility. There is no obvious disease mongering here. We learn that the researchers came from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm yet are not given information about any potential financial conflicts between those researchers or their institution to the makers of anticoagulants. As the study itself makes clear, the researchers have financial ties to numerous drug companies that make anticoagulants including Bayer, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We learn that “along with not taking blood thinners, the strongest predictors for dementia were age, Parkinson’s disease and alcohol abuse.” While this hints at some of the other factors that might influence dementia risk, it doesn’t really get at strategies one might consider to actively stave off risk. The story could have mentioned some of these strategies including exercise and a healthful diet. It may seem fairly obvious that these anticoagulants are widely prescribed. The fact that the study was among community-dwelling people who were already taking these treatments reinforces their availability. The story makes it sound like the anticoagulant-dementia risk connection is a brand new discovery. However, the study that’s the basis of the story notes that numerous researchers have already examined this hypothesis and come to conflicting conclusions. The story should have indicated what’s new and different about this study compared to the previous ones, if anything. Several quotes are taken directly from this European Heart Journal news release. While the story acknowledges the source of the quotes, it doesn’t seek out any outside voices or perspectives to complement the coverage. The predictable result is a relatively weak and unbalanced story.
|
10256
|
From dance to treadmills, exercise may aid Parkinson’s Disease
|
This story on the possible benefits of exercise for people with Parkinson’s disease does not provide information in a context that allows the reader to evaluate the claims made. Though the anecdotal stories are positive, they are not in a context with a framework to allow to judge how generalizable these stories are. Where are the data? Where is the evidence? Examples of benefit are presented in very general terms (walked a little faster, fewer falls) without any frame of reference for the magnitude of improvement or whether the change was statically or clinically significant. A National Institutes of Health conference was briefly mentioned. What came out of it? This article lacks focus and makes suggestions without background or context.
|
false
|
No mention of the costs associated with the type of physical therapy discussed or whether such therapy is covered by insurance or Medicare. Examples of benefit are presented in very general terms (walked a little faster, fewer falls) without any frame of reference for the magnitude of improvement or whether the change was statically or clinically significant. One expert is quoted saying, “But in general, the kind of exercise we’re talking about is certainly not going to hurt.” But suggestions for incorporating techniques such as walking backwards would seemingly come with some risk, especially in an unsupervised location. While mentioning a conference at the National Institutes of Health and other ‘evidence’ in the piece, the story does not provide sufficient detail that would allow assessment of the information. The strength of the evidence is called into question when quotes include comments like ‘still hope that we can slow down or stop’, finding ‘signals of improvement’ or even positing that ‘even more advanced patients might benefit’ without data in hand. The natural history of Parkinson’s or its variability are not presented Only one investigator is quoted. The story mentions an NIH meeting without any details that would allow a reader to learn more. Ideas about exercise modalities (dance, treadmills) are presented, but information about medications or devices used in the treatment of Parkinson’s is lacking Though presented as something new (“the notion is gaining such ground”) there is a literature about the use of exercise and physical movement in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease that dates back at least to the 1960’s. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely on a news release.
|
|
8854
|
Medicare spending triggers new funding proposal.
|
Medicare spending is increasing so quickly that the president will be required to propose new benefit cuts or higher taxes, trustees for the U.S. senior citizen health care program said on Tuesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
President George W. Bush speaks about the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit in Sun City Center, Florida May 9, 2006 Medicare spending is increasing at such a fast pace that the president will be required to propose new benefit cuts or higher taxes, trustees for the U.S. senior citizen health care program said on Tuesday. REUTERS/Jason Reed Medicare hospital insurance spending is forecast to exceed tax revenues for 2008 and all future years and the fund will be exhausted in 2019, the Medicare trustees said in their annual report. Last year’s report also predicted the fund would run out of money in 2019, but the trustees now expect the depletion to occur somewhat earlier in that year. Trustees for the Social Security retirement benefits system said their trust fund would be depleted by 2041, unchanged from a year ago, as lower economic growth projections were offset by higher assumed rates of immigration. Sounding a familiar refrain, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the “coming demographic bulge” of the soon-to-retire baby boom generation jeopardizes both programs’ ability to support older Americans. “Reform is needed and time is of the essence,” Paulson said in a statement. “The longer we delay, the larger the required adjustments will be and the more heavily the burden of those adjustments will fall on future generations.” The Medicare trustees’ report triggered a “funding warning” for the second consecutive year because the rate of projected growth by 2014 will exceed a legal limit. The White House responded to last year’s funding warning in its fiscal 2009 budget plan by proposing to reduce Medicare spending by $12.8 billion over five years, drawing sharp criticism from Democrats in Congress. The latest warning on funding would require the president to make new proposals for cuts in funding or benefits next year for the fiscal 2010 budget plan. The report said Medicare could be brought back into actuarial balance by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax or by an immediate 51 percent cut in benefits, or a combination of the two. Democrats called for efforts to stem the growth of health care costs through reforms that would lower the price of prescription drugs and improve preventive care. Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, pledged to “improve Social Security solvency first without cutting benefits or raising taxes.” He said this should include closing a $50 billion “gap” between payroll taxes legally owed and those actually paid. Social Security will start spending more than it takes in 2017, a date unchanged from the last year’s report. The trust fund’s depletion date is being maintained in the face of a slowing economy partly due to the impact of higher assumed immigration, according to the report. For 2009, the Social Security report projects 800,000 to 1.2 million legal immigrants into the United States, compared with last year’s projections of 675,000 to 1.06 million immigrants for 2009. The report contains forecasts of real gross domestic product growth of 2.3 percent for 2008 and 2.8 percent in 2009. This compares with the most recent Bush administration forecasts of 2.7 percent growth for 2008 and 3.1 percent for 2009. A Treasury official said the trustees use different forecasts than those used by the White House budget office in making its semiannual economic growth projections that form the basis of its federal budget proposal. The report said Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by raising payroll taxes by 14 percent or reducing benefits by 12 percent, or combining the two. Paulson failed to gain much traction in discussions with Congress over the past year for Social Security reforms that would have included the establishment of private investment accounts. He called for “bipartisan solutions that will generate a permanently sustainable Social Security system.”
|
4299
|
Pesticide criticized in bee deaths could also kill birds.
|
Scientists studying a widely used pesticide say even small doses of the chemical can have crippling health effects on migrating birds, and it might be contributing to declines in their overall populations.
|
true
|
Biology, Insects, Saskatchewan, General News, Maine, Health, Bees, Birds
|
The researchers with the University of Saskatchewan are set to publish their research about the insect-killer imidacloprid in the journal Science on Friday. The insecticide is among a class called neonicotinoids that has been widely studied for its health impacts on bees. The scientists studied white-crowned sparrows that consumed small doses of the pesticide and found that the birds experienced weight loss and delays in migration. Those changes can hinder the birds’ ability to reproduce and survive, and that might be contributing to songbird population declines, said Christy Morrissey, a biology professor at the university and the senior author of the paper. The paper breaks new ground in the study of pesticide effects on birds because it shows a biological link between the chemicals and their population loss, Morrissey said. More than 70 percent of North American farmland birds are showing population declines, she said. “It causatively links a pesticide to something that is really, tangibly negative to birds that is causing their population declines,” Morrissey said. “It’s clear evidence these chemicals can affect populations.” Farmers use imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids — a class of insecticides chemically related to nicotine —to control pests that can damage crops. Studies have linked neonicotinoids, and imidacloprid specifically, to decreases in survival of honey bees. The Saskatchewan study shows that the pesticide could be having a major effect in migratory song birds, said Frank Drummond, a University of Maine professor of insect ecology who has studied the impact of neonicotinoids. Drummond, who was not involved in the study, said a major question remains about whether birds are getting exposed to the pesticide during their migration. The researchers conducted their study by capturing and exposing dozens of sparrows to small doses of the pesticide during a stop on their migration in Canada. They measured the birds’ body composition and affixed a radio transmitter when setting them free. They found birds that received higher doses of the pesticide ate less food and lost body mass, which meant they stayed at the migration stopover site longer. Migration is a dangerous time for birds, and the delay could result in exposure to predators and less reproductive success, said Nicole Michel, a senior quantitative ecologist with Audubon. Michel, who was also not involved in the study, said she wouldn’t encourage a ban on neonicotinoids, because that would likely result in more use of other pesticides that could be as harmful or worse. A better outcome would be for farmers to use them more conservatively, she said. “Instead of spraying and treating all these seeds ahead of time, it would be cost efficient to only treat after outbreaks are observed,” she said. The key manufacturer of imidacloprid is agrochemical giant Bayer CropScience. David Fischer, chief scientist for pollinator safety for the company, said the study is solid on a toxicological basis. However, he said it’s not representative of the amount of exposure to the pesticide that birds will experience in the wild. “There’s no support for thinking neonicotinoids are responsible for songbird decline, which they sort of hint at in the study,” he said. ___ Follow Patrick Whittle on Twitter: @pxwhittle
|
5220
|
Takeaways from the Democratic presidential debate.
|
Democrats hoping that Wednesday night’s first presidential debate of the 2020 campaign would be clarifying probably came away disappointed. There were no major stumbles but few standout moments as 10 candidates vied for the nation’s attention.
|
true
|
AP Top News, Health care reform, General News, Immigration, Politics, Campaigns, Election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro
|
Takeaways from the prime-time event: WARREN, CASTRO LEAD THE WAY Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren dominated the debate’s opening moments, calling for systemic change to the nation’s economy and the end to the private insurance system. Warren was the highest-polling candidate on stage and NBC moderators repeatedly tried to draw her rivals into challenging her liberal policies. But they largely passed on those opportunities, even when Warren was virtually alone in her stance on overhauling the health care industry. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who has struggled for months to break through in the crowded field, asserted himself as a leader on immigration, an issue sure to be at the forefront of the general election campaign against President Donald Trump. He challenged his rivals to join him in rewriting immigration laws so the mere illegal entry into the United States would no longer be a federal crime. The question is whether Warren and Castro’s performances still stand out after night two of the Democratic debate on Thursday, when former Vice President Joe Biden and nine other candidates take the stage. ___ WHOSE ECONOMY IS IT ANYWAY? The debate kicked off with moderator Savannah Guthrie asking Warren if her many ambitious plans — free college, universal child care and health care — would hurt a booming economy. “Who is this economy really working for?” Warren replied. “It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.” It was soft toss of a question to Warren, and her response was echoed by other Democrats. “Donald Trump just sits in the White House and gloats about what’s going on, when you have so many people that are having trouble affording college and having trouble affording their premiums,” said Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate who declined to swipe at Warren’s ambitious plans. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas slammed Trump’s tax cut as part of “an economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest.” And Rep. Tim Ryan, who represents several declining industrial areas in Ohio, said, “This issue we’re talking about has been going on for 40 years.” Only former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland clearly disagreed and said many of Warren’s promises were not realistic. ___ HOW FAR ON IMMIGRATION? No issue in the first Democratic debate showcased the contrast with Trump more than immigration. But the issue also exposed significant rifts among his challengers — namely the two Texans on the stage. Castro took sharp aim at O’Rourke, who has campaigned heavily on border issues, for not proposing decriminalizing illegal migration in his immigration blueprint. Such a step would make a significant change to U.S. immigration law. “If you truly want to change the system, we have to change that section” of federal law, Castro said. O’Rourke said he wanted to keep the provision so authorities could pursue drug and human traffickers. But Castro cut him off, noting there are separate laws that could be used against those crimes, and the entire stage broke down into crosstalk and shouting. Several other contenders — including Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee — have already signed on to Castro’s approach. ___ APPEALS TO DIVERSE BASE The diversity of the modern Democratic Party was on display Wednesday night — three women, one black man and a man of Mexican heritage vying for the presidential nomination. And the candidates made sure they were speaking to the party’s base, which is becoming younger and less white. O’Rourke showed off his fluent Spanish in his opening statement. Booker countered with his Spanish during a discussion of immigration, and also noted that he’s probably the only candidate who lives in a poor, predominantly minority community. (Booker lives in Newark.) Castro spoke in Spanish during his closing statement and talked about saying “adios” to Trump. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio noted he has an African American son as he urged the party to “stop acting like the party of elites.” ___ A NEW DEMOCRATIC BOOGEYMAN? Perhaps the hardest question for Democrats to answer was how the candidates would deal with a Republican. Not Trump, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republicans have a good chance of still controlling the Senate even if Democrats win the White House in 2020, and it’s unlikely McConnell would allow any of the candidates’ ambitious proposals on government-run health care or green energy to become law. Warren promised she had a plan to deal with McConnell, though it seemed to center on rallying public opinion against him. “We have to push from the outside and lead from the inside,” she said. Booker proposed that the party’s presidential nominee campaign in longshot states like South Carolina in hopes of snaring enough seats to take over the Senate. Inslee suggested eliminating the filibuster — which the president cannot do and which would strengthen McConnell’s hand if the GOP remained in the majority.
|
18783
|
Three in four low-income workers don’t have any paid sick days available.
|
Sen. Sherrod Brown says three-quarters of low-income workers don’t have paid sick days
|
true
|
Ohio, Health Care, Income, Labor, Public Health, Workers, Sherrod Brown,
|
"Typhoid Mary was a cook. Working at that job made her single-handedly responsible for multiple outbreaks of typhoid fever, in and around New York City, about a century ago. PolitiFact Ohio couldn't help recalling that bit of history recently after reading advice for the flu season from the Centers for Disease Control, which urged sick people to stay home from work and school to avoid the spread of illness. The history was freshened by last week's news that a college cafeteria worker in Indiana had been diagnosed with typhoid fever, and it came to mind when we saw a release from Sen. Sherrod Brown saying that he is co-sponsoring the Healthy Families Act, which is being reintroduced in Congress. Also called the earned sick time initiative, the legislation would allow workers at businesses with 15 or more employees to earn paid sick days. Workers could earn up to one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a total of seven days. ""For far too many Americans, a day home from work means a day without pay,"" Brown said. ""Some 40 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. don’t have any paid sick days at all. It’s worse for low-income workers — three in four don’t have any paid sick days available."" We wondered about the numbers. Brown's staff said the source was last year's National Compensation Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its chart for paid leave benefits shows that 61 percent of all workers in the private sector have paid sick days -- meaning about 40 percent don't have them. Among the lowest-paid 25 percent of workers, the chart shows that 29 percent have paid sick days, meaning more than 70 percent don't have them. Among the lowest-paid 10 percent of workers, 18 percent have sick days, so 82 percent do not. (Three in four, the figure used by Brown, is 75 percent.) We found other figures as well:. More than three in four food service and hotel workers (78 percent) don’t have any paid sick days, according to an analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Workers without sick days are more likely to go to work with a contagious illness, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. And a 2011 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that a lack of sick leave helped spread 5 million cases of flu-like illness during the outbreak of 2009. Critics of the sick leave initiative, including the National Association of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, say paid sick days add costs to low-margin businesses, are burdensome to business and result in lost jobs. In a recent survey of businesses by the Employment Policies Institute, ""Roughly 70 percent of respondents said that Connecticut’s sick leave law was not good for business,"" the group said. PolitiFact Ohio is not rating the legislation, however -- only Brown’s statement on the numbers of workers who don’t have access to paid sick days."
|
2593
|
"London sanitation show aims to make ""poo"" hot topic."
|
Human defecation remains a taboo subject, despite the fact that 2.5 billion people lack toilets, causing a global health crisis that kills more than a million children each year.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) hopes a new exhibition opening on Thursday will make sanitation easier to discuss. The show is part of its efforts to help fight diseases causing diarrhea, which kill more children than malaria, HIV/AIDS and measles combined. “People don’t talk about poo enough, and if we don’t talk about poo, how are we going to solve the problem of diarrheal diseases?” asked Val Curtis, director of the LSHTM’s Hygiene Centre. “We want to make shit sexy - make talking about shit possible,” Curtis told AlertNet, a humanitarian news service run by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, adding that proper handwashing with soap could prevent 600,000 deaths a year from diseases like diarrhea and respiratory infections. “You’ve got to know your enemy and look your enemy in the face. Some people say it’s not acceptable for academics to go around talking about shit, but it’s not acceptable for 600,000 children to be dying unnecessarily because we don’t talk about shit,” she said. The month-long exhibition, which includes a selection of toilet designs, scientific tools for the study of faeces and a small golden poo sculpture seated on a red cushion, is timed to coincide with Global Handwashing Day on October 15 and World Toilet Day on November 19. The school expects at least 4,000 people to see the show. The poo sculpture is the model for The Golden Poo Award 2012 - the Oscar of the sanitation sector, organized by PooP Creative Ltd and the London Short Film Festival. A film titled “Men, Loos and Number Twos” won the “Number One Award”, and another short film, “Pushing4Change”, won the “Number Two Award”. They are being used in awareness-raising campaigns. “The Golden Poo awards were based around the idea that we wanted to be a little bit shocking and get people thinking about this issue, but do it in an amusing way,” Curtis said. “We gave awards to heroes of sanitation and also to films about poo.” As well as promoting the LSHTM’s wider efforts to improve hygiene, the exhibition features the composting “Tiger Worm Toilet”, which has a filter layer of worms that digest solid waste, helping break it down and allowing easy odor-free disposal. The toilet doesn’t use very much water - around two liters per flush - so it places less demand on natural water sources and power than conventional septic tank or sewage systems. The LSHTM, a university specializing in public health and tropical medicine, is also researching the human waste found in pit latrines in Africa and Vietnam to help find new ways to dispose of it. It is also looking at human behavior to figure out the best way of getting people to increase handwashing. “If you ask people if they wash their hands with soap, about 90 percent say they do, but actually if you go and measure it - as we have in 20 countries - the average rate of handwashing with soap after going to the toilet is about 17 percent,” Curtis said. The school has its roots in the Ross Institute and Hospital for Tropical Diseases, which was founded in London’s Putney Heath area in 1926. It was named after British doctor Ronald Ross who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery that the female Anopheles mosquito transmits malaria between human beings. The school is now in London’s Bloomsbury district, renowned for its literary heritage. (AlertNet is a humanitarian news website run by the Thomson Reuters Foundation)
|
31346
|
The same crying woman appears in photos taken at the scenes of massacres in Sandy Hook, Aurora, Boston, Oregon, Paris, and Manchester.
|
Shortly after the Umpqua tragedy, Soto remarked that the continued use of the photograph seen above in the media exacerbated her pain tremendously, and all four of the women initially depicted were likely deeply distressed by the appropriation of their personal mourning for the purposes of advancing a conspiracy narrative.
|
false
|
Fauxtography, amanda medek, ariana grande, carlee soto
|
On 1 October 2015, ten people (nine innocent victims plus the gunman) died in a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The incident marked the 294th mass shooting in 2015 alone and prompted yet another renewal of a national gun control debate in the U.S. Folks on both sides of that political debate would likely agree that the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was a pivotal point in a perpetual American gun control controversy. Perhaps due to the unique horrors of that event, an unusually high number of conspiracy theories grew out of it: Some gun control advocates on social media later described the tragedy as proof positive Americans weren’t interested in changing gun laws despite the exceptional pain inflicted by the incident, while some gun rights advocates asserted the events in Newtown were a government-sponsored false flag engineered to artificially justify a “gun grab.” The latter camp wasn’t much of a fringe movement — a key law enforcement figure of the Roseburg shooting, Sheriff John Hanlin, had shared Sandy Hook conspiracy material on his own Facebook wall prior to the Umpqua Community College shooting. The Sandy Hook shooting was somewhat of a watershed moment for Second Amendment “truthers,” and the conspiracies that sprang forth from it began coloring subsequent (and in some instances, prior) high-profile shootings or attacks on civilians in America. One of the common conspiracy themes that gained traction after the Newtown shooting involved “crisis actors,” individuals who had (to that point) been primarily known to populate disaster drills. As the notion of gun grabbing conspiracies became more commonplace, the term was appropriated by folks who believed the faces of those grieving at (staged) shooting scenes or subsequent vigils were in fact paid government operatives assigned to fabricate the appearance of mourning. A common iteration of the rumor involved photographs taken at crime scenes or vigils in Newtown (Connecticut), Aurora (Colorado), Boston: After the 1 October 2015 shooting in Roseburg, the meme was altered to include what was purportedly yet another appearance by the “same girl” seen previously crying in photos from Aurora, Boston, and Sandy Hook. (Presumably, the high-level false flag planners didn’t have access to social media and remained unaware their schemes had been unraveled and revealed months earlier): The same technology that enabled people to compile and spread the photo set shown above also allowed anyone interested in the rumor to quite quickly determine whether the “same girl” was indeed depicted in all four images included in the meme. The claim was bizarre partly because the individuals involved were not nameless, faceless mourners of whom no trace was found shortly after the respective tragedies. The largest of the images was also the most iconic and heartbreaking: the photograph (taken at Sandy Hook Elementary) that captured the moment during which Carlee Soto learned her sister Victoria Soto was among those killed. The image was not the only one available of Carlee Soto crying, but similar, easily discovered images didn’t fit the meme: To the right of Soto in the photo collection (which in several iterations is inaccurately labeled as being from “Boston”) is Amanda Medek. Medek’s sister Micayla Medek was among the dead in the 20 July 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting, and the image of Medek sitting on steps was one of several captured of her that day: Photographs taken during happier times definitively show that Medek (at the far right) and Soto look nothing alike (save for the moments during which each respectively learned their sisters had been murdered): Pictured to the left of Soto is Emma McDonald, who (unlike Soto and Medek) appeared to be connected to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings solely by her presence at a vigil for the victims. As such, McDonald’s link to that tragedy was more fleeting (and photographs of her were harder to come by). The young woman shown at the bottom (after the Roseburg shooting) was identified as Jessica Vazquez, seen crying and hugging aunt Leticia Alcaraz. (Alcaraz’s daughter Lucero Alcaraz was among the dead at Umpqua Community College): Following a mass shooting in San Bernardino on 2 December 2015 an iteration of the rumor held the “same girl” was again spotted amid news coverage of the event, albeit this time in a larger crowd shot: While all the young women seen in the photographs had long, brown hair (initially), that factor alone didn’t make a strong case for a massive government conspiracy encompassing law enforcement agencies at several levels in multiple states (and eventually, multiple countries). In May 2017, the conspiracy theory popped up again after 22 people were killed in a bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. The “same girl” was purportedly photographed in Manchester but unlike the earlier photos, the depicted individual was blonde. She was not identified in the Reuters image, a caption for which indicated it was taken at a crisis center in Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium: The similarities ended with hairstyles and grief-stricken expressions (and in the latter case, the depicted woman was not a brunette). Four of the six women depicted were identified by name at the time they were photographed (the fifth appeared to be a bystander, and the sixth unidentified) and none was transient to the tragedies with which they were associated or disappeared afterwards: Medek and Soto (relatives of victims in tragedies that were not exceptionally recent) went on to appear in multiple photographs and interviews about the respective incidents. In subsequent iterations in Paris and Manchester, the conspiracy broadened in scope to suggest the “same girl” was jetted around the globe to visit the scenes of attacks and shootings.
|
37887
|
The United States accounts for four percent of the world's population, and 25 percent of global COVID-19 deaths.
|
Does the United States Have 4 Percent of the World’s Population and 25 Percent of the Deaths from COVID-19?
|
true
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
On April 18 2020, Tia Barracini published a tweet claiming that the United States accounted for four percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of its deaths from novel coronavirus or COVID-19:Why does the US, with 4% of the world's population, have 25% of the deaths from Coronavirus.It's almost like someone fucked up.— 𝕋𝕚𝕒 𝔹𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕚 (@TiaBarracini) April 18, 2020That tweet had two layers — one involved specific numbers for the population of the United States and its COVID-19 mortality rate, and another was the opinion that the previous statement was due to government mismanagement of the pandemic. We are looking at the numbers.According to the United States Census, the country’s population was slightly more than 329 million as of April 24 2020, and the world population was roughly 7.6 billion:Using slightly rounded versions of those figures, we estimated the United States at 4.3 percent of the world’s total population:Google and the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) displayed tallies of the number of infections, recoveries, and deaths from COVID-19, both in and outside the United States. When we checked on April 24 2020, the statistics had been updated less than an hour prior:At the time we checked, there had been just under 194,000 deaths from COVID-19 globally:And around 51,209 in the United States:Back to the calculator. Of 194,000, 51,209 was just over 26 percent:By contrast, Italy was also hard-hit by the novel coronavirus. Just under 0.8 percent of the world’s population lives in Italy.As of April 24 2020, more than 25,000 people in Italy had died of COVID-19:That was about 13 percent of global novel coronavirus deaths, against under one percent of the world’s population:A claim that the United States had four percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its coronavirus deaths was largely true when minor rounding was introduced. But the United States wasn’t the only country to experience a large number of deaths, as Italy was just under one percent of the world’s population and had over 13 percent of total deaths.Comments
|
26276
|
“Bill Gates Explains That The COVID Vaccine Will Use Experimental Technology And Permanently Alter Your DNA”
|
Bill Gates explained in his own blog post that there were many different types of vaccines being tested to create a COVID-19 vaccine, including experimental RNA and DNA vaccines There is still no way of knowing what the COVID-19 vaccine will look like
|
false
|
Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"We’ve seen many social media posts lately that ly claim Bill Gates is responsible for, or will somehow profit from, COVID-19. Most claims are focused on the coronavirus vaccine. The Gates Foundation has been financially supporting the development of a vaccine and posting articles explaining the projected vaccine timeline. A recent Facebook post links to an article titled, ""Bill Gates Explains That The COVID Vaccine Will Use Experimental Technology And Permanently Alter Your DNA."" 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 Waking Times blog post heavily quotes Bill Gates’ blog, specifically when he explains how RNA COVID-19 vaccines could be developed and how they would create antibodies. RNA vaccines have been shown to create ""a safe and long-lasting immune response in animal models and humans"" in clinical and preclinical trials. However, licensed RNA vaccines have never been produced before. The body creates proteins by translating mRNA, the messenger molecules from DNA. By introducing a new mRNA vaccine to a few cells in the human body, those cells will produce the proteins of ""a disease-specific antigen,"" and the immune system can create an antigen-specific antibody. Basically, it creates only the parts of a pathogen that the body reacts to and creates antibodies to bond to. This way, the body can easily attack the disease when it recognizes its cells. The second half of this claim, that these vaccines would ""permanently alter your DNA"" is incorrect. An article in Frontiers on Immunology analyzed new studies that found mRNA ""cannot potentially integrate into the host genome and will be degraded naturally."" Basically, after the messenger molecules create antigens for the body to react to, they will naturally stop being used and break down. The Waking Times blog shared on Facebook asserts that a new COVID-19 RNA vaccine ""will not be tested in any significant or standard capacity"" and that readers should prepare to be ""guinea pigs in the largest global health experiment ever."" But Gates makes it very clear throughout his own blog post that scientists are not just relying on RNA or DNA experiments to create the first worldwide COVID-19 vaccine. ""As of April 9, there are 115 different COVID-19 vaccine candidates in the development pipeline,"" Gates writes. RNA and DNA vaccines are easier to produce and they are testing them right now, but ""even if an RNA vaccine continues to show promise, we still must continue pursuing the other options."" Contrary to the explosive claim that the entire world would be treated as ""guinea pigs"" for a new RNA or DNA vaccine, Gates explains how any COVID-19 vaccine will go through a rigorous, but also shortened, testing period. The New England Journal of Medicine has projected that they can shorten the usual 5-year period of vaccine testing to three short testing trials over 18 months. Gates says later in his article that it’s a priority to ""make sure we have good real-world evidence that the vaccine is completely safe to use."" RNA testing will be done on small groups before it reaches the entire world. The first round of clinical testing with an RNA vaccine for COVID-19 began on May 16th. The dosage test has only 105 subjects and is projected to take at least a year to complete. Our Ruling A blog post shared on social media reads ""Bill Gates Explains That The COVID Vaccine Will Use Experimental Technology And Permanently Alter Your DNA."" This is inaccurate. Gates never said that the first licensed COVID-19 vaccine would use experimental technology or permanently alter DNA; he said specifically that ""we don’t know yet what the COVID-19 vaccine will look like."" The most recent research also shows that RNA vaccines, which are being tested for COVID-19 right now, do degrade naturally and don’t alter DNA permanently."
|
22680
|
Rick Perry Says there have been 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade was decided.
|
Rick Perry says there have been 50 million abortions since Roe
|
true
|
Abortion, Texas, Rick Perry,
|
"Gov. Rick Perry marked the 38th anniversary of what he called ""the tragedy"" of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision by speaking to fellow abortion opponents at the Jan. 22 Texas Rally for Life outside the Capitol building. Perry said that since the 1973 decision, which established abortion as a constitutional right, ""50 million, 50 million children have lost their chances. That is a catastrophic number."" PolitiFact Texas readers asked us to check Perry's statement. But before diving in, we noted two issues with Perry's use of ""children"" -- a flash point in the political, moral and scientific national debate over abortion. One, abortion rights supporters dispute calling unborn fetuses ""children."" Second, an unknown share of the 50 million aborted pregnancies referenced by Perry would not have resulted in live children, due to the natural risk of miscarriages and stillbirths. For our inquiry, we focused on the number of U.S. abortions since Roe was decided. The Roe v. Wade ruling, issued Jan. 22, 1973, struck down a Texas law prohibiting nearly all abortions and held that the right to privacy ""is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."" It said states could not prohibit a woman from having an abortion before viability, the time at which a fetus can survive outside a woman's body. It noted that viability ""is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."" After fetal viability, the court said, states could limit abortions provided that their policies met certain requirements, including an exception to protect the life of the woman. Since then, other Supreme Court rulings have affirmed states' rights to approve further restrictions. During the early 1960s, every state except Pennsylvania allowed abortions when needed to protect a woman's life, according to a March 2003 article published by the universally respected Guttmacher Institute, which studies and advocates on issues related to reproductive health. At the time Roe was decided, 17 states allowed abortions in certain other situations such as when pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. In 1972, the year before the Roe ruling, about 587,000 legal abortions were reported to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a 2005 CDC report. And since 1973? Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier pointed us to a January 2010 report from the National Right to Life Committee, a Washington-based group that opposes abortion, that says about 52 million abortions took place from 1973 through 2009. According to the report, the group arrived at the total using figures from the Guttmacher Institute for 1973 through 2005; estimating a number for the next four years; and finally adding 3 percent to account for under-reporting. The National Right to Life publication says 3 percent is the under-reporting rate estimated by Guttmacher. Using a similar methodology, National Right to Life has since updated its numbers. The new report says that more than 53 million abortions took place from 1973 through 2010. Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, told us the institute doesn't adjust its numbers — which are estimates based on surveys of facilities where abortions are performed, including hospitals and clinics — for under-reporting. She said a 1994 Guttmacher study had found that some small facilities weren't included in the institute's survey, which indicated that the number of abortions in 1992 was actually 3 percent to 4 percent more than reported. Our attempts to reach officials at National Right to Life were unsuccessful. Next, we sought the most up-to-date abortion data from Guttmacher. Spokeswoman Rebecca Wind provided us with a 2011 report that includes annual data on abortions from 1973 through 2008. The total: 49.3 million. We also sought abortion numbers from other sources. Data from the CDC indicate that there were 37.8 million abortions from 1973 through 2006. However, according to the CDC's website, states are not required to report abortion information to the agency, so in some years, the numbers are incomplete. For example, the CDC's 2006 data do not include information on abortions in California, Louisiana or New Hampshire. Representatives of abortion rights organizations Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas told us that the Guttmacher Institute is the best source for this information. Summing up: Perry's statement indicating that there have been 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973 appears to be on target. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 49.3 million abortions in the U.S. through 2008 — 700,000 shy of 50 million. Considering that Guttmacher says there were more than 1 million abortions in both 2007 and 2008, it's reasonable to conclude that the United States has reached the 50 million mark."
|
4664
|
Eighth, final medical marijuana dispensary opening in ND.
|
The final medical marijuana dispensary is set to open this week in North Dakota. The eighth dispensary is expected to open in Dickinson on Friday.
|
true
|
Devils Lake, Medical marijuana, Bismarck, General News, Grand Forks, Marijuana, Fargo, North Dakota, Dickinson, Minot, Jamestown, Williston
|
Jason Wahl, director of the Division of Medical Marijuana, says opening the final dispensary is a milestone for the program. The state has issued more than 1,850 identification cards to qualifying patients, Wahl said. North Dakota is the first in the nation to add an electronic card option for patients, caregivers and agents of dispensaries and manufacturing facilities. Other dispensaries are located in Bismarck, Devils Lake, Fargo, Jamestown, Grand Forks, Minot and Williston. For a qualifying patient or designated caregiver to enter the display area of a dispensary, they must have their registry identification card.
|
7586
|
State to consider 6 conditions to treat with medical pot.
|
The state medical board is reviewing six additional conditions that can be treated with medical marijuana use in Ohio, including autism and chronic anxiety.
|
true
|
Ohio, Medical marijuana, Anxiety, Marijuana
|
Cannabis products are becoming available in Ohio dispensaries over the next few months following delays in rolling out the program last year. Patients need a physician’s recommendation to buy medical marijuana from such dispensaries to treat allowable conditions, which currently include AIDS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, cancer, epilepsy and several other maladies. The medical board on Wednesday reviewed petitions for adding several new conditions and settled on six, which also include general anxiety disorder, depression, insomnia, and opioid addiction. Experts will review these conditions for possible inclusion on the list of allowable treatments. A final decision comes within six months.
|
8631
|
Trump: 'Going to be a lot of death' in U.S. next week from coronavirus.
|
President Donald Trump told Americans to brace for a big spike in coronavirus fatalities in the coming days, as the country faces what he called the toughest two weeks of the pandemic.
|
true
|
Health News
|
“There’s going to be a lot of death,” Trump said at a briefing with reporters. He pushed back on criticism that the federal government has not done enough to get ventilators that many critically ill coronavirus patients need to survive to the states, saying some governors are asking for more machines than they will need. “Fears of shortages have led to inflated requests,” Trump said of submissions his administration has received to dole out equipment from the strategic national stockpile. The United States has the world’s highest number of known cases of COVID-19, the flu-like respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus. More than 306,000 people have tested positive in the United States and over 8,300 have died, according to a Reuters tally. White House medical experts have forecast that between 100,000 to 240,000 Americans could be killed in the pandemic, even if sweeping orders to stay home are followed. “We are coming up to a time that is going to be very horrendous,” Trump said at the White House. “We probably have never seen anything like these kind of numbers. Maybe during the war, during a World War One or Two or something.” In the grimmest day yet for the U.S. state hit hardest by the pandemic, coronavirus-related illnesses killed 630 people in the last 24 hours in New York state, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday. The disease has now killed 3,565 people in New York and the situation is particularly worrying on Long Island, east of New York City, where the number of cases “is like a fire spreading,” Cuomo told a news conference. Health experts calculate that New York, home both to bustling Manhattan and hilly farm country stretching to the Canadian border, might be around a week away from the worst point in the health crisis which has killed about 60,000 people worldwide. “We’re not yet at the apex, we’re getting closer ... Our reading of the projections is we’re somewhere in the seven-day range,” Cuomo said. “It’s only been 30 days since our first case,” he said. “It feels like an entire lifetime.” New York City alone accounted for more than a quarter of the U.S. coronavirus deaths tallied by Johns Hopkins University. Hospitals and morgues in the city are struggling to treat the desperately ill and bury the dead. Because of the risk of infection, many people with critically ill relatives in New York City are unable to see their loved ones in their final hours. A resident at New York-Presbyterian hospital said he and his colleagues have made several death notification phone calls every shift this week. “There’s something sort of unquantifiably painful about telling a family their loved one died without letting them see them,” he said. The emergency stockpile of medical equipment maintained by the U.S. government has nearly run out of protective garb for doctors and nurses. Cuomo announced that the Chinese government facilitated a donation of 1,000 ventilators that will arrive at JFK airport on Saturday. “This is a big deal and it’s going to make a significant difference for us,” Cuomo said. The dispatch of the ventilators was a result of a conversation on March 27 between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, a source familiar with the discussions said. Almost all Americans are under orders from state and local officials to stay home except for essential outings such as grocery shopping or seeing a doctor. Areas of the country such as Florida and Texas that had been slow to lock down have started practicing social distancing and sheltering at home. “We see what’s going on in New York now, we see that people are dying,” Rick Scott, a U.S. senator from Florida, told Fox News Channel. “People are beginning to understand that the best way that we can slow the spread and actually avoid death is by this stay-at-home standard, going out only for essential services,” Texas governor Greg Abbott told the channel. He was among the last governors to issue a statewide order telling residents to avoid leaving their home. There were still some hold-outs elsewhere, though. Louisiana pastor Tony Spell said he plans to hold three services at his 1,000-member Life Tabernacle megachurch in a suburb of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Palm Sunday this weekend, defying state orders against assembling in large groups. “We’re defying the rules because the commandment of God is to spread the Gospel,” he told Reuters. Louisiana has become a U.S. hot spot for the virus, on Saturday reporting a jump in deaths to 409.
|
2664
|
Working long hours? Watch out for your heart.
|
People who regularly work long hours may be significantly increasing their risk of developing heart disease, the world’s biggest killer, British scientists said Monday.
|
true
|
Science News
|
A trader watches the electronic board on the floor of the Philippine Stock Exchange, which closed up 3.08 percent in today's trading in Makati City, Metro Manila November 14, 2008. REUTERS/John Javellana Researchers said a long-term study showed that working more than 11 hours a day increased the risk of heart disease by 67 percent, compared with working a standard 7 to 8 hours a day. They said the findings suggest that information on working hours — used alongside other factors like blood pressure, diabetes and smoking habits — could help doctors work out a patient’s risk of heart disease. However, they also said it was not yet clear whether long working hours themselves contribute to heart disease risk, or whether they act as a “marker” of other factors that can harm heart health — like unhealthy eating habits, a lack of exercise or depression. “This study might make us think twice about the old adage ‘hard work won’t kill you’,” said Stephen Holgate, chair of the population and systems medicine board at Britain’s Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study. The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal, followed nearly 7,100 British workers for 11 years. “Working long days is associated with a remarkable increase in risk of heart disease,” said Mika Kivimaki of Britain’s University College London, who led the research. He said it may be a “wake-up call for people who overwork themselves.” “Considering that including a measurement of working hours in a (doctor’s) interview is so simple and useful, our research presents a strong case that it should become standard practice,” he said. Cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks and strokes are the world’s largest killers, claiming around 17.1 million lives a year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Billions of dollars are spent every year on medical devices and drugs to treat them. The findings of this study support previous research showing a link between working hours and heart disease. But the scientists said hard workers should not necessarily be alarmed about their heart health. “Current evidence on (heart disease) prevention emphasizes the importance of focusing on the total risk, rather than single risk factors,” Kivimaki told Reuters Health in an email. “People who work long hours should be particularly careful in following healthy diets, exercising sufficiently and keeping their blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood (sugar) within healthy limits.” The research used data from a study called Whitehall II which has followed the health and wellbeing of more than 10,000 civil service workers in Britain since 1985. For this study, men and women who worked full time and had no heart disease were selected, giving 7,095 participants. The researchers collected data on heart risk factors like age, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking and diabetes and also asked participants how many hours they worked — including work during the day and work brought home — on an average weekday. During the 11-year study, 192 participants had heart attacks. Those who worked 11 hours or more a day were 67 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those with fewer hours.
|
9173
|
Pembrolizumab shows promise in treatment of mesothelioma
|
Denmark sourced almost half its electricity consumption from wind power last year, a new record boosted by steep cost reductions and improved offshore technology.
|
false
|
mesothelioma,pembrolizumab,University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
|
Wind accounted for 47% of Denmark’s power usage in 2019, the country’s grid operator Energinet said on Thursday citing preliminary data, up from 41% in 2018 and topping the previous record of 43% in 2017. European countries are global leaders in utilising wind power but Denmark is far in front of nearest rival Ireland, which sourced 28% of its power from wind in 2018 according to data from industry group WindEurope. Across the European Union, wind accounted for 14% of consumption last year, the group says. The higher proportion of wind energy in Denmark last year was partly due to Vattenfall [VATN.UL] starting operations at the Horns Rev 3 offshore wind farm in the North Sea in August. The share of power from wind turbines at sea increased to 18% last year from 14% in 2018, Energinet said. Onshore wind accounted for 29% last year. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in October that while power generated from wind turbines at sea only accounts for 0.3% of today’s global electricity generation, capacity is set to increase 15-fold over the next two decades. Denmark aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030, with a new climate law passed late last year targeting an increase in the share of electricity sourced from renewable power to 100%. Denmark, home to wind turbine giant Vestas and the world’s largest developer of offshore wind Orsted, has favourable wind conditions and began investing heavily in wind power in the 1970s.
|
10530
|
Study Suggests Osteoporosis Drug Might Treat Loss of Bone in Jaw
|
The story summarizes two articles published in a peer review journal. One of the articles present the results of a randomized clinical trial of the use of tereparatide in the treat of osteonecrosis of the jaw related to severe periodontal or gum disease. The other is a case report of the use of teriparatide in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw in an elderly women treated with Fosamax. Osteonecrosis is thankfully relatively rare but it does occur with some frequency in cancer patients so a new treatment regimen is of interest.
|
false
|
There’s no discussion of costs. Forteo at the doses described costs about $250/week. Given the severity of the osteonecrosis described in the letter of a single case, the costs are relatively nominal since the treatments were of fairly brief duration. The benefits described in the clinical trial were not quantified or described in sufficient detail. It simply states that “greater healing” was noted in patients receiving Forteo. The exact meaning of the phrase is unclear and could leave readers with an overly optimistic impression of the value of Forteo in this group of patients. The story provides an adequate amount of detail concerning the case report, noting the patient was pain-free after treatment. It should have noted however how long the patient was followed.
|
|
8326
|
South Korea reports fewer than 50 new infections, earning WHO praise.
|
South Korea reported fewer than 50 new coronavirus cases for the first time since its peak in late February, earning the praise of the World Health Organization for combatting the spread in one of the first countries to be hard-hit by the disease.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said there were 47 new infections as of midnight on Sunday compared with 81 recorded a day earlier, taking the national tally to 10,284. The death toll rose by eight to 191, while another 135 people have recovered from the virus for a total of 6,598. South Korea has been bringing the epidemic under control, with about 100 or fewer new daily cases for the past month, but this was the first time the daily tally of new cases was less than 50 since 909 were reported on Feb. 29. In February, South Korea uncovered what was believed to be the biggest outbreak outside of China. But a programme of mass testing and contact tracing helped contain the virus, which has spread far more quickly in other countries. The head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, held a 25-minute phone call with President Moon Jae-in, praising South Korea’s leadership in containing the virus, Moon’s presidential Blue House said. Moon said in the call that South Korea was “willing to actively support other countries with prevention skills and supplies as the circumstances permit”. Moon said he recently had phone calls with about 20 global leaders. Tedros proposed that Moon help support sub-Saharan African countries with virus-related supplies including test kits, the Blue House said. Despite the encouraging evidence in South Korea, officials have urged even greater vigilance, saying a large epidemic could re-emerge at any time, with smaller outbreaks appearing in churches, hospitals and nursing homes, as well as among travellers returning from abroad. “We are taking great caution against any optimistic expectations with this one-off figure,” Vice Health Minister Kim Gang-lip told a regular briefing. Click here for an interactive graphic tracking the global spread of coronavirus On Saturday, the government extended its intensive social distancing campaign by two weeks, citing the sustained small clusters of infections. South Koreans had refrained from socialising in February when the number of cases rose exponentially but more people started going out recently as the weather became warmer and people became weary of the isolation, Kim said. The movement of people spiked about 20% over the weekend compared with the end of February, he said, citing data from the state-run statistics agency and SK Telecom, the country’s largest mobile operator. Starting on Sunday, the government toughened penalties for those who violate self-quarantine rules to up to 10 million won ($8,100) in fines or one year in prison from 3 million won ($2,400) in fines. Authorities have reported several cases of quarantine rules being broken over the past few days. The Gunpo city government south of Seoul said on Sunday it has filed a complaint with police against a couple in their 50s and their children who broke away from isolation and went out even after testing positive for the virus. A Korean student living in the United States sparked public uproar after taking a fever remedy before flying home late last month. The student was found to have contracted the virus, putting some 20 other people who took the same flight in self quarantine. “We cannot maintain social distancing forever,” Kim said. “But it is the most effective measure to help protect others and yourself.”
|
10247
|
Implanted Heart Devices Have ‘Real-World’ Benefits: Study
|
If you are a candidate for one of these devices, you would be hard pressed to take information from this story and ask your cardiologist any good questions about how you should proceed. Clinical trials examining the utility of medical devices or drugs are, by definition, artificial. The patient population selected tends not to have confounding medical or social issues and are followed in a rigid and standardized way. As a result, the real world application of a drug or medical device can often result in outcomes that are a far cry from those seen in the clinical trial. This study is important because it is one of the few circumstances where the results seen in actual usage of medical devices matches those seen in a clinical trial. Patients with heart failure have a high incidence of sudden death. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the value of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D) in heart failure patients who have not suffered an episode of near sudden death. These devices are designed to recognize irregular heart rhythms and provide a “shock” to restore them back to normal. A manufacturer of the devices obtained approval from the FDA to establish a registry for people who had one of their devices implanted. This industry sponsored registry allowed researchers to answer four basic questions: (1) whether remote monitoring of events impacts survival; (2)how well patients do if they receive a shock for an irregular heart rhythm; (3) if there are differences in survival among patients receving the different kinds of devices and (4) how survival of “real-world” patients compares with that of patients enrolled in trials. That’s what makes it so important for reporters to carefully break down the evidence for readers.
|
false
|
Devices,HealthDay
|
There is no mention of the costs of the devices, which is a shame for two reasons. First, these devices are costly, and the procedures to put them in are costly. Costs can run as high as $50,000 for the device along with hospital and physician charges. The costs of the remote monitoring program would have been a welcomed addition to the information as well. Given the national discussion on health care cost, some attention to the price of the treatments and monitoring should have been included. Secondly, we’re talking about comparing devices, and there should have been some discussion of cost effectiveness. If we are claiming that there is a significant benefit to choosing one device over another or to subscribing to a remote monitoring plan, which the story does say “is typically free with a cardiologist’s recommendation,” we should know how much each approach costs. We give the story a barely passing grade here for at least providing readers with some numbers, although we feel that ultimately the numbers provide very little clarity. What was needed were some absolute numbers to show how many patients were in each group, how many died, how many lived and how many suffered side effects, etc. Instead, we are given sentences like this, “Among those outfitted with CRT devices alone, one-year survival was pegged at 82 percent, while five-year survival came in at 48 percent, the investigators found.” In addition, the study was observational and as such, the benefits of remote monitoring seen may not be applicable to all patients. For example a selection bias (motivated patients and physicians signed on to the manufacturers registry) could explain a good deal of the results. The cautionary comments of Dr. Prystowsky provided sufficient balance to the comments of the investigator. The fact that the story could be entirely about surgically implanted devices and never acknowledge that surgery has risks or that the devices themselves have risks is odd, to say the least. The story starts out with a very confusing lead. “Implantable devices designed to control heart rhythm and efficiency while preventing sudden death among heart failure patients are as effective at ensuring patient survival in real-world situations as they are in controlled study environments, new research suggests.” But then, quickly, it raises an interesting red flag, saying, “The study authors noted that the observation is somewhat surprising, given that some of the patients not enrolled in structured studies have already experienced a cardiac event and are therefore prescribed such devices to prevent a recurrence.” We have read this sentence multiple times and still don’t know what it means. The rest of the story meanders through various numbers that appear to be differentiating between the devices, and then, suddenly, the story takes a sharp turn into a discussion of remote monitoring, claiming, “that patients whose implants were monitored remotely, on a continual basis, by a health facility network were about half as likely to die as patients who only had intermittent in-person assessments.” None of this evidence is carefully examined. Also, the study was observational and used existing datasets to determine patient outcomes. There are a number of limitations to this study design, including a lack of randomization and a lack of specific information for each patient in the dataset. The story does not provide the reader with these important provisos to the study results. The study was accompanied by a well written and thoughtful editorial that could have provided the reporter with a useful context for the story. The story does not engage in disease-mongering, but it also fails to adequately describe the target population for these devices. Another barely satisfactory score. The story does use one independent source, but it fails in another way. It does not point out that the study was funded by the device maker Boston Scientific. Also, Dr. Prystowsky notes funding support from Boston Scientific (http://www.theheart.org/article/1050051.do ), but this is not acknowledged. The story fails to provide the reader with sufficient information on the differences between the devices in the study and the rationale for one over another in patients with heart failure. The study sought to answer 4 questions, only one of which was highlighted in the story. As a result a comparison between the various devices and remote monitoring is muddled to say the least. The story says, “The finding is based on an analysis of nearly 186,000 patients outfitted with either an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), a cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT), or a defibrillator combined with a CRT device (a CRT-D).” The size of the study might make one think that these devices are widely available, but because we are talking about three different devices, some nod should have been made to how widespread they are. The story does make it clear that the remote monitoring system used is available to patients. We give this a barely satisfactory as a result. The novelty of these devices or of remote monitoring is never established. The story also could have established the relative novelty of the dataset. The manufacturers’ patient registry allowed the researchers to study the real world events in people living with ICD’s and CRT-D’s. The story does not note the rather unique circumstances allowing the research to be conducted; a manufacturer’s patient registry. Not applicable because we can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We do know, because the story acknowledged this, that the quote from the study co-author came from a news release. Why? The release, it should be noted, actually provides more and better information than the news story.
|
16211
|
We’re above 800 million Muslims radicalized, more than half the Muslims on Earth That’s not a minority. That’s now a majority.
|
Shapiro said that a majority of Muslims are radicals. To make his numbers work, he had to cherry-pick certain results from public opinion surveys. Given the choice between two possible percentages, he chose the higher one. Shapiro also relied heavily on the idea that anyone who supported sharia law is a radical. Some of the best polling work shows that Muslim beliefs are much more nuanced. Some countries where high percentages of Muslims support Sharia law show low support for suicide attacks on civilians. Large fractions of Muslims that endorse sharia law do not want it imposed on others. The meaning of Sharia law varies from sect to sect and nation to nation. Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear.
|
false
|
Islam, Terrorism, PunditFact, Ben Shapiro,
|
"The rise of the Islamic State group and its strategic use of grisly beheadings has stirred a heated debate in this country about the nature of Islam. Some critics say core Muslim beliefs invite violence. Defenders of religious tolerance say extremists represent only a tiny minority of Muslims. Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro jumped in to say the nature of Islam is irrelevant. More important, according to Shapiro, is what its followers believe, ""because that’s what they act upon."" Through this lens, Shapiro painted a disturbing picture of the religious wellspring for people who fly planes into towers and behead their prisoners. Shapiro is an editor-at-large with the conservative website Breitbart.com and cofounded a conservative media analysis group, TruthRevolt. In a video, Shapiro blended survey data and population statistics for 15 countries. A good example of his thesis about Islam is in the way he talked about Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. ""It’s got almost 205 million Muslims,"" Shapiro said. ""According to one 2009 poll, it showed almost 50 percent of Indonesians support strict Sharia law, not just in Indonesia but in a lot of countries. And 70 percent blame the United States, Israel or somebody else for 9/11. You make that calculation, it’s about 143 million people who are radicalized. You scared yet? We’re just getting started."" To get to 143 million ""radicalized"" Muslims, Shapiro took the 70 percent of Indonesia’s Muslims who blamed someone other than al-Qaida for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Shapiro then made similar extrapolations using polling data for a number of other countries, often measuring support for Sharia law -- codes of behavior in Islam. Then Shapiro summed up and applied the percentage of ""radicalized Muslims"" from the 15 nations to a number of other Muslim-majority countries and, with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, reached a shocking conclusion. ""We’re above 800 million Muslims radicalized, more than half the Muslims on Earth,"" Shapiro said. ""That’s not a minority. That’s now a majority."" Shapiro spoke with great self-assurance, but as we looked at his claim that most Muslims are radicals, we were left scratching our heads. In the first place, Shapiro consistently used the highest percentages available in the surveys to maximize the number of Muslims he could tag with the ""radical"" label. Secondly, he used a broad definition of radical. To choose one main example, there are many varieties of how people interpret Sharia law and support for it says little about a person’s specific beliefs. Other numbers tell a different story Shapiro cited the work of the Pew Research Center in some of his analysis and much of our work relies on the same source. We tried to reach Shapiro and were unsuccessful. In about half of the countries he assessed, Shapiro focused on support for Sharia law. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, ""Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings."" It is a moral code that covers marriage, crime and business. Different branches of Islam use different versions of the law. Some elements are widely accepted, such as the immorality of fraud. But for countries and sects that follow the harshest versions in which thieves have their hands cut off and unfaithful women are stoned to death, the opposition from the West, and parts of the Muslim world as well, is strong and visceral. For Shapiro, support for any form of Sharia law means one thing -- the believer is a radical. Accordingly, Shapiro looks at a place like Pakistan and says that 76 percent of Muslims want Sharia law in all Muslim countries. Pakistan has 179 million Muslims, therefore, ""that is another 135.4 million radicals."" But looking at a 2013 Pew report on Muslims, we found that the picture is more complicated. Pew reported that 84 percent of Pakistani Muslims wanted Sharia law, but of those, nearly two-thirds said it should only apply to Muslims. Run those numbers through and you get about 54 million Muslims who think all Pakistanis should be subject to Sharia law. That’s about 60 percent fewer than Shapiro said. We are not saying that Pakistan has 54 million radical Muslims. Our point is that more detailed polling data changes the results a great deal. Shapiro chose one yardstick. Other analysts could with at least as much justification choose another. The impact of which question is used becomes even clearer if we look at support for suicide bombings against civilian targets. Shapiro said actual terrorists draw ""moral, financial and religious support from those who are not terrorists themselves."" Even if you believe Shapiro, it doesn’t mean that attitudes towards terrorism are irrelevant. Pew asked Muslims if they supported suicide bombings against civilians. In Pakistan, 13 percent of Muslims said such attacks in defense of Islam could often or sometimes be justified. If that’s your definition of radicals, then Pakistan has about 23 million of them. Hardly a small number, but it’s a far cry from the 135 million Shapiro counted. The following table shows how using reasonable alternative measures of radicalism, Shapiro’s majority can become a distinct minority. You can see how Shapiro reached his totals by watching the video. Country Population (millions) Radical total (Shapiro, millions) Alternative pct. Alternative total (millions) Indonesia 205 143 Pew: 7% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 14.4 Egypt 80 55.2 Pew: 29% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 23.2 Pakistan 179 135.4 Pew: 13% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 23.3 Bangladesh 149 121.9 Pew: 26% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 38.7 Nigeria 75.7 53.7 Pew: 22% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 16.7 Iran 74.8 62.1 ICP/Charney: 47% would abolish the morality police. 35.2 Turkey 74.7 23.9 Pew: 15% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 11.2 Morocco 32.4 24.6 Pew: 9% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 2.9 Iraq 31.1 24.3 Pew: 7% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 2.2 Afghanistan 24 24 Pew: 39% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 9.4 Jordan 6.4 3.8 Pew: 15% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 1 Palestinian areas 4.3 3.83 Pew: 40% say suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. 1.7 France 4.7 1.6 No alternate used 1.6 Great Britain 2.8 2.2 Manchester Policy: 2% expressed some support for terrorism. 0.06 United States 2.6 0.5 Pew: In 2009, 8% said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified. 0.2 Total 946.5 680.03 181.76 Percent of total 72% 19% To be clear, we’re not saying there are 181 million radical Muslims. We’re simply saying by applying different but reasonable criteria to the same data, you can reach a vastly different result. Sharia ≠ radical Given that Shapiro used support for Sharia law in 7 of the 15 countries as a marker for radicalism, we should note that the experts we reached urged a more cautious approach. Pew found that when you ask Muslims about specific elements in Sharia law, support shifts. According to James Bell, director of International Survey Research at Pew, many Muslims will say they want religious judges deciding family or property disputes. But ask them about corporal punishments for criminals or the death penalty for apostates, and support drops off considerably. ""The key takeaway is that Muslims differ in what they mean by Sharia and how they want it applied,"" Bell said. Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, a political and policy advocacy group for Arab Americans, said most Muslims don’t think about every element of sharia. ""It indicates a degree of nominal faithfulness,"" Zogby said. If I say I support the law in the abstract, it doesn’t commit me to supporting various and assorted aspects."" In two countries, Shapiro focused on support for honor killings. Zogby said that as cruel as honor killings are, they are not tied to beliefs that underlie beheadings and suicide bombings. ""One has nothing to do with the other,"" Zogby said. Maria Sobolewska, a lecturer in quantitative methods and politics at the University of Manchester, England, studied polls in that country in the wake of the 2005 bus and subway bombings. Sobolewska found enormous variation in Muslim responses depending on small changes in the wording of questions. ""What we receive as a true picture of what Muslims think is mostly an artifact of what they get asked,"" Sobolewska wrote. We should note that we found no solid estimate of the number of radical Muslims worldwide. For example, a 2014 report on jihadist terrorism from the Bipartisan Policy Center did not quantify the size of the jihadist population. Our ruling Shapiro said that a majority of Muslims are radicals. To make his numbers work, he had to cherry-pick certain results from public opinion surveys. Given the choice between two possible percentages, he chose the higher one. Shapiro also relied heavily on the idea that anyone who supported sharia law is a radical. Some of the best polling work shows that Muslim beliefs are much more nuanced. Some countries where high percentages of Muslims support Sharia law show low support for suicide attacks on civilians. Large fractions of Muslims that endorse sharia law do not want it imposed on others. The meaning of Sharia law varies from sect to sect and nation to nation. Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear."
|
32393
|
Sharia law has been established in a jurisdiction in Texas.
|
"The existence of voluntary religious tribunals for conflict resolution is not the equivalent of imposing ""Sharia law."""
|
false
|
Politics, sharia law
|
On 27 January 2015, the website Breitbart published an article titled “ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED IN TEXAS; ATTORNEY CLAIMS ‘IT’S VOLUNTARY. '” While the article’s details were novel, the premise was not: A number of locations in the U.S. (Dearborn, Michigan, is frequently mentioned) have been rumored to be partially or fully subject to “Sharia law” enforcement. The claim also echoed the discredited belief in so-called “no-go zones” exist in the United States and Europe, where law enforcement agencies refuse to tread and immigrants who favor Islamic law have created a de facto parallel system of justice. The Breitbart article began by stating that “[the existence of] an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas” had been “confirmed” by the site, that the tribunal was “operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas,” and that it was “voluntary” in nature. It went on to discuss potential conflicts between the tribunal and state law in Texas, making particular note of possible social sanctions for not abiding by the decisions rendered: Breitbart Texas asked what happens when there is a conflict between Sharia law and Texas law. [Dr. Taher] El-badawi said most of the time, the laws are in agreement. When pushed further he admitted that, “we follow Sharia law.” However, he explained, “If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts.” He did not say what the social ramifications of rejecting the “judge’s” decision would be. El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings. The claim was recirculated by readers and other blogs, many of whom inferred (in part due to the insinuation the rulings were somehow binding in a way the tribunal would not disclose) the service in question superseded local, state, or federal law. One such version voiced concern over the purpose of such an organization: An Islamic Tribunal that uses Sharia as the basis for law, not the US Constitution, the Bible nor the Texas State Constitution has been set up as a non-profit organization in Dallas. The tribunal claims that, for the most part, Sharia is in agreement with the laws of Texas. Price was told by El-badawi that if the tribunal ruled in a way in which the parties disagreed, then they could go to the Texas courts, which makes you wonder why one would have this tribunal in the first place. The source article linked to the tribunal’s web site, which explained the center’s intent and scope: Conflicting problems within American Muslim society may range from personal and family matters such as marriage and divorce, as well as disputes among community members and those in positions of leadership. The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment. It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective. These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States. Through effective mediation and arbitration, decisions can be made that are stipulated in the Shari’ah and adhering to the binding, ethical and legal code that exists within this country with the final approval of the relevant courts and judges. The Islamic Tribunal seeks support and guidance from consultants and counselors to its attorneys to ensure that local, state and federal law are strictly conformed to and decisions that originate from the Tribunal are in accordance with said laws. While its stated purpose is religious in nature (and specific to Islam), the practice described is neither new nor unusual. Mediation and arbitration are common practices to circumvent the escalation of disputes to civil court, often employed by people facing a family law issue (such as a pending divorce or the details of a child custody agreement). In business arrangements, parties frequently sign agreements mandating disputes first go to arbitration before any legal action is taken. Disputes resolved through mediation or arbitration are not enforceable unless confirmed by a court, and even decisions reached by binding arbitration (which the Texas Islamic tribunal does not claim to render) can be challenged: A binding arbitration decision becomes legally enforceable when it is confirmed by a court. If a party believes that either the arbitration agreement itself is unfair (or unconscionable) or the manner in which the arbitration agreement is presented or administered is unconscionable, the arbitration decision may be challenged in court at the confirmation/vacatur hearing. A court will strike any portion of an arbitration agreement it finds unconscionable, and may even void (or vacate) the arbitration decision altogether and release the parties from the agreement. Furthermore, the Islamic Tribunal in Dallas is by no means the only faith-based mediation entity operating in the United States. One such mediation service with a Christian focus describes their service thusly on their web site: Peacemaker Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically. We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration services to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions. Our training services include seminars, conflict coaching training, mediation training, advanced mediation and arbitration training for conciliators and church leaders working within their churches, as well as training for individuals conducting more formal and complex proceedings. Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews: The dayanim who sit on cases include leading authorities on Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary commercial practices. When appropriate, the Beth Din will either include expert professionals on an arbitration panel, or consult them as expert witnesses. Cases are decided under Jewish law, through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and secular law. Prior to having a case heard by the Beth Din, litigants are required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, so that the rulings of the Beth Din are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system. So while there is an Islamic mediation center in Dallas, the tribunal neither possessed nor claimed any ability to supersede extant laws in its jurisdiction, either civil or criminal. Parties are not obligated to participate in the mediation it offers, nor does the center have any power to operate outside the law or enforce any settlements it may reach. Similar faith-based mediation centers are offered as an alternative to costly litigation, but ultimately, all citizens and residents of the United States are subject to the laws of its jurisdictions, and no such entity has the ability to override existing laws or enforce illegal contracts or agreements. Dallas’ D Magazine published an article that addressed various political responses to the media controversy over the Islamic mediation center, including the Irving City Council’s voting in favor of a bill “that would forbid such tribunals from using foreign law in their rulings (which is already illegal)”: A few facts worth noting: Most important, the tribunal is not affiliated with the Islamic Center. Imam Zia is one of four members who constitute the tribunal. Its official address is in North Dallas, but the tribunal meets about twice a month for hearings wherever they can find a suitable office (usually in Arlington). Second: despite [Mayor] Van Duyne’s claims, the city of Irving has taken no stance on the center or the tribunal (which, again, isn’t even in Irving). It did issue a statement saying that the city wants residents to obey the law and that Irving “is proud to have one of the most diverse ZIP codes in the United States.” The Houston Chronicle dubbed rumors about Sharia courts “2015 Texas Hoax of the Year,” making many of the same points about it that we did: An Islamic tribunal does operate in the Dallas area, and has done so for several years. But the imams that run the panel do not usurp state or federal law. What exists is a forum where Islamic scholars help settle business disputes and other non-criminal matters. The rulings are nonbinding and work within the guidelines of U.S. law. This is explicitly stated on the tribunal’s website: “These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States.” Similar religious mediation services exist throughout the U.S. — for Christians, Jews and other devout worshipers — as a way to avoid heading to a civil court. These panels prevent private matters from turning into expensive, public affairs. Since 1925, when Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act, U.S. law has been very open to the idea of private dispute resolution, said Lee Ann Bambach, a Georgia-based attorney who has a Ph. D in religion from Emory University. Her dissertation was titled “Faith-Based Arbitration by Muslims in an American Context.” “Those who would jump up and down about these so-called Sharia courts, which are really just alternative dispute resolution forums, will speak very highly of Christian reconciliation,” which is based on Biblical teachings, Bambach said. The Islamic tribunals can benefit Muslim women by allowing them to receive a religious divorce. A women can receive a divorce from a U.S. civil court, but if she wants to remarry in the faith, then a religious divorce is warranted. In cases where the husband does not want to grant a divorce, a Muslim woman can make a case to a tribunal, but they are not always granted. Religious courts in Catholicism and Judaism perform similar acts for observers. Still, a number of right-wing lawmakers have tried to pass either toothless or unconstitutional bills targeting the Islamic tribunals. They do so without any evidence that Sharia Law is causing an issue in their district.
|
15856
|
"On immigration, ""the president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."
|
"Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times."
|
true
|
Immigration, National, John Boehner,
|
"Republican House leaders fanned out on the Sunday shows to defend a stop-gap measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security in their ongoing fight against President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. They did not stray from talking points. TV audiences Sunday heard one specific number several times as hosts pressed the GOP lawmakers to justify the chaos over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did,"" House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ Face the Nation. Both Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise repeated the ""22 times"" talking point on NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, respectively. Even Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, one of 52 Republicans who opposed a three-week funding plan, used the figure to defend his House Freedom Caucus’ actions on CNN’s State of the Union. PolitiFact wanted to see where the number comes from and just how accurate it is. What we’re talking about The controversy stems from Obama’s Nov. 20, 2014, announcement that he would delay deportations of unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. More than 4 million people could qualify. An applicant could qualify for a work permit and avoid being deported for three years at a time if he or she can pass a background check and pay a fee. The decision is bound for higher court battles after a Texas federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the action, saying it may have violated procedural rules for using executive power. This action came on top of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012, an executive action to protect ""dreamers,"" or people brought here illegally as children and have not committed crimes. That move, too, was viewed by critics as an abuse of power, but supporters said it helped provide a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of residents. After Obama’s post-midterm elections announcement on immigration, Boehner’s office unleashed a Buzzfeed-style blog post detailing ""22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law."" What’s on Boehner’s list Our PolitiFact Texas colleagues dissected Boehner’s list for similar fact-checks of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the legal challenge of Obama’s actions when he was still attorney general. PolitiFact Texas tracked down each of the citations in Boehner’s post, comparing what they said Obama said with transcripts and news stories. In a nutshell, the majority of the examples are of Obama saying he did not have power to do more on immigration without Congress. Others, as we’ll explain in a moment, say something more nuanced or aren’t specific to immigration. We won’t go through every quote that supports Boehner’s point here, but here are a few we culled from a document created by PolitiFact Texas: In September 2012, Obama was asked if he would follow up his recent protective move for students by doing something similar for non-criminal immigrants such as the parents of U.S.-born children. Obama replied that ""as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do… we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally,"" as in parents deported. (No. 13 on Boehner’s list.) At a presidential debate in October 2012, Obama and Mitt Romney were asked: ""What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society?"" Obama said: ""I've done everything that I can on my own."" (No. 14 on Boehner’s list.) In a January 2013 Telemundo interview, Obama was asked why he couldn’t protect mothers living here without authorization from deportation as he had served law-abiding students. ""I’m not a king,"" Obama replied, akin to his response the same month to a similar query from Univision. ""You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And-- you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws-- we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize-- what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law."" (No. 16 on Boehner’s list.) So clearly there are examples of Obama saying he couldn’t do more with executive action, then later doing exactly that. That’s why PolitiFact previously rated Obama’s claim that ""my position hasn’t changed"" as False. What should not be counted But also included on Boehner’s list of 22 are quotes where Obama was either suggesting his executive powers did not have hard limits or was silent on his executive power on immigration. Here are a few problems with quotes included on Boehner’s list. In two instances during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama criticized ""signing statements"" used by President George W. Bush that interpret laws, but he did not bring up immigration. Immigration was also not part of his reply to a question at a 2010 MTV/BET event when he said, ""I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there,"" in response to a question about ""don’t ask, don’t tell."" (Nos. 1, 2 and 5.) In September 2011, with his deferred-action plan on the horizon, Obama reiterated that he cannot just change laws unilaterally in response to a question about possible administrative relief for students who don’t have legal residency. But he hinted that there might be room within his authority, saying, ""what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources."" (No. 12 on Boehner’s list.) Obama’s July 2013 Univision interview hit similar notes when he was asked if he could grant amnesty to the undocumented population. He called for a legislative solution and said ""probably not,"" adding, ""I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus."" (No. 18 on Boehner’s list.) In August 2014, Obama told reporters he may ""scour our authorities to try to make progress"" without congressional cooperation. Obama said, ""We’re going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are working within the confines of my executive power. But I promise you the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done."" (No. 22 on Boehner’s list.) Asked why Boehner continues to cite 22 examples, spokesman Michael Steel told PolitiFact ""we obviously stand by"" the count. Pressed to explain why, he said, ""Obviously, we're just going to agree to disagree about the ‘22 times’ figure, which we feel is accurate."" The bigger picture Whether the real number is 22, 15 or something less than that is more complicated by the specifics of Boehner’s claim. Boehner's claim is Obama said he couldn’t do ""what he eventually did."" Experts we talked to noted that Obama was not always so specific in the comments Boehner and his team cited. Boehner’s count factors in both instances of Obama talking about how he could not legalize or deport the entire undocumented population as well as more limited executive actions to relieve smaller populations. ""It gives me a headache,"" said Anna O. Law, a CUNY Brooklyn College political science professor, of the post, ""because they’re playing semantics."" Alex Nowrasteh, a Cato Institute immigration analyst, said he did not know what to make of the ""very political"" claim. Ultimately, much of it depends on your specific interpretation of each quote. Our ruling Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times. Clarification: This item was updated on March 2, 2015, to better explain the ruling of a federal judge in Texas."
|
7195
|
Sanders Institute gathering a pep rally for liberal ideas.
|
Supporters of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders were in Burlington on Friday as part of a three-day pep rally for many of the policy issues, such as universal health care, protecting the environment and economic and criminal justice reform, that defined the Vermont independent during his 2016 run for the presidency.
|
true
|
Vermont, Bernie Sanders, Health, Universal health care, North America, Medicare, Burlington, Nina Turner
|
In the first sessions of the day, people heard presentations on how activists could work together to push for Medicare for All, a system that would guarantee health care for everyone in the country, including a study on how it to pay the cost. “Only all that we love is on the line,” said Nina Turner, a fellow of the Sanders Institute, who expressed the fervor for universal health care felt by many at the meeting when she helped kicked off the first session. The meeting was held on the shores of Lake Champlain, an area that a half a century ago was grimy and industrial, but has — in part because of Sanders’ work as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s — been converted into a public park in a vibrant small city with stunning views of New York’s Adirondack Mountains. The event is being hosted by The Sanders Institute, a think-tank formed last year separate from the senator’s political operations that grew out of the ideas generated during his 2016 presidential campaign. The institute and the meeting have attracted a number of high-profile supporters. Hollywood actors Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, John Cusack and Cynthia Nixon joined intellectuals Cornel West and Simon Sinek. Elected officials such as Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are also expected at the meeting, which wraps up Saturday. The health care study released Friday morning that looked at Sanders’ 2017 Medicare for All Act. It estimated such a system would save an estimated 9.6 percent over current U.S. health care consumption expenditures, said University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin, one of the authors of the study. It estimates people would use an estimated 12 percent under a Medicare for All system. The savings would come from reducing administrative and pharmaceutical costs and establishing uniform Medicare rates for hospitals. Businesses would save about 8 percent of what they currently pay for employee health insurance. The system would need to raise just over $1 trillion in new government income to pay for it. Additional government revenue would come from a 3.75 percent sales tax on non-essential items and other taxes on the wealthiest people in the United States. “The biggest winners are going to be middle-class households,” Pollin said. People at the meeting did not address the prospects of the plan passing in Congress. The meeting comes as the 77-year-old Sanders is considering his political future. Sanders, who lost the 2016 Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton, is expected to decide soon whether to launch a second bid for the White House. During a speech Thursday night, Sanders told supporters they had to work harder to convince people of all races, regions and income levels that liberal policies will help them. He also said that there has been a shift in the Democratic establishment which has increasingly embraced his calls for liberal policies such as universal health care and a $15 minimum wage.
|
29721
|
More than 50 people contracted herpes from drinking bathwater sold to them by the Instagram star Belle Delphine, in July 2019.
|
Belle Delphine herself refuted the hoax on Instagram, writing “You’re a [clown] if you believed that” in response to a commenter who had repeated the “herpes” rumor.
|
false
|
Junk News
|
A bizarre story emerged from video game culture and social media in July 2019, when a widely-shared tweet claimed that dozens of people had contracted herpes from drinking bathwater they purchased from the Instagram star Belle Delphine. The tweet was posted on July 7 by the @BakeRises account, which at that time bore the name “Daily Mail US” and the logo of the Daily Mail website as its profile picture, using the caption “Over 50 People Have Reportedly Contracted Herpes After Drinking Instagram Star, Belle Delphine’s Bath Water”: Belle Delphine did appear, at least briefly, to have packaged and sold what she claimed was her own bathwater, but the “herpes” twist to the story was no more than a hoax. On July 1, Belle Delphine posted a photograph of herself to her four million Instagram followers, writing: “I am now selling my bath water for all you thirsty gamer boys. Check out my new shop where I’m selling stuff for you!! www.belledelphinestore.com”: BelleDelphineStore.com was a functioning website, and the listing for “GamerGirl Bathwater” indicated that small containers of some form of liquid were indeed on sale for $30 each, although the item was listed as “Out of stock” as of July 9. The description of the bathwater included a remarkable disclaimer: “Bottled while I’m playing in the bath. This really is bath water. Disclaimer: This water is not for drinking and should only be used for sentimental purposes.” At least two YouTubers received delivery of the “GamerGirl Bathwater,” both having posted videos about the product, although we can’t confirm that the packages they received contained bathwater (as opposed to some other kind of water). The initiative attracted the attention of social media users and garnered news articles by Newsweek and U.K. tabloid newspaper the Mirror, among others. A few days later the @BakeRises account got in on the act, tweeting out the “herpes” hoax. @BakeRises confirmed that the herpes claim was a prank in a series of tweets that clarified the “Daily Mail US” handle was no more than impersonation, and that reveled in the prospect of forcing Belle Delphine to refute the rumor and causing unnecessary worry to someone who bought the bathwater. Between July 7 and July 9, @BakeRises intermittently tracked how their hoax tweet had caused the number of their followers to explode, while another tweet explicitly stated that “It seems the best way to grow on Twitter is to impersonate a company [the Daily Mail] and say things about a celebrity [Belle Delphine] that legally can be considered libel and I could potentially be sued for”: It seems the best way to grow on twitter is to impersonate a company and say things about a celebrity that legally can be considered libel and I could potentially be sued for. — Bake ❼ (@BakeRises) July 8, 2019
|
11140
|
The Case for Universal Cholesterol Screening in Kids
|
The lead sentence of this story contains a factual error about the results of a study that looked at the percentage of children with elevated cholesterol who are likely to be missed by common screening guidelines. It also states that the “U.S. government” recommends screening children with a family history of heart disease or elevated cholesterol without making clear that this recommendation comes from the National Cholesterol Education Program, but that other national health institutions, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, do not recommend cholesterol screening for children. As with the HealthDay story on this study that we also reviewed, the news article concentrates on debate between experts about the most efficient form of cholesterol screening of children. All of the experts quoted take the position that identifying elevated cholesterol in children leads to better health outcomes. The Reuters story we reviewed was the only one of the three to scrutinize the fundamental question about the effectiveness of treating children who have elevated cholesterol, but not actual heart disease. This story focuses on process (identifying all children with elevated cholesterol) not outcomes (reducing heart disease.)
|
false
|
The story includes one comment that national screening would be expensive, but it does not provide a dollar figure. It also does not mention the potential cost of treatments. Cost is clearly relevant to the story. The researchers blame the lack of health care insurance for the high proportion of parents and grandparents of these children who have never had a cholesterol test. The story does not address the issue of how families would pay for ongoing treatment. This story not only fails to question the assumption that treating children with elevated cholesterol can prevent heart disease, it allows a researcher to claim that screening children for cholesterol would help reduce the risk of diabetes. There is no reference to any evidence that cholesterol screening is a better predictor of diabetes risk than either other screening tests, obesity or other factors linked to diabetes. The statement also implies that identifying diabetes risk before symptoms appear is better than either recommending lifestyle changes to reduce diabetes risk for all children (regardless of cholesterol test results) or treating diabetes once symptoms appear. The story mentions neither the potential harms of statin drug treatment that have been reported in studies of adults nor the fact that the safety of these drugs has not been studied in children. The story reports that the results are based on cholesterol screening of more than 20,000 school children in West Virginia. However, the story notes that “West Virginia has one of the highest rates of death from heart disease,” without then addressing the question of whether the results of a study in this one state can be applied to the nation as a whole. It also fails to make clear to readers that this study looked only at the identification of elevated cholesterol in children, and does not provide any evidence that treating these children with cholesterol-lowering drugs would benefit their health. The lead of the story focuses on the number of children with elevated cholesterol who might be missed based on current national guidelines and does not jump to the conclusion that these children would necessarily benefit from treatment. The story also reports that less than two percent of the children tested had cholesterol levels high enough that doctors might consider drug treatment. Oddly, the lead sentence says current guidelines “may miss nearly 10% of those who have high levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol,” but the researchers put the figure at closer to a third. It may be that the reporter confused the proportion of children overall who had elevated cholesterol (about 10%) with the proportion of children with elevated cholesterol who would not have been tested under current guidelines (about a third.) The journal Pediatrics stated that the study authors did not have any relevant financial interests. The story does include comments from an independent expert; however, the independent expert addresses only questions about the efficiency of screening, not the health benefits or harms of identifying children with elevated cholesterol. The story includes comments from an independent expert suggesting alternatives to universal cholesterol testing to identify children who may have elevated cholesterol levels. For children who are found to have high cholesterol, the story says doctors may advise lifestyle changes or drug treatment. However, the story fails to mention the lack of evidence that identifying elevated cholesterol in children is more effective at preventing the development of heart disease or other health problems than helping all children to maintain a healthy lifestyle and then waiting until adulthood to test cholesterol levels. The availability of cholesterol screening is not at issue. The novelty of cholesterol screening and treatment is not at issue here. The story does not appear to be based on a news release.
|
|
37902
|
Seven women died despite being treated at Glen Eagles (or Gleneagles) Hospital after inhaling perfume samples they received in the mail.
|
Did ‘Glen Eagles Hospital’ Send a Warning About Poisonous Perfume Arriving in Homes by Mail?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks, Warnings
|
A hoary old online hoax gained new visibility by invoking an actual agency and a medical facility to continue spreading its falsehoods.Circulating either as a graphic or as copypasta, the message presented itself as a warning about a threat by mail:URGENT news from Glen Eagles Hospital URGENT!!! !Seven women have died after inhaling a free perfume sample that was mailed to them. The product was poisonous. If you receive free samples in the mail such as lotions, perfumes, diapers etc. throw them away.Some iterations of the message add, ““The government is afraid that this might be a terrorist act. They will not announce it in the news because they do not want to create panic or give the terrorists new ideas. Send this Fwd: to all your friends and family members.”And at least one version, which we spotted online as recently as August 2020, was “signed” by Diane J. Ford, who is listed as being from both the “Office of the Chief of Police” and the Office of Risk Management.The meme is false for several reasons. While there is an actual Gleneagles Hospital in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, officials there refuted the claim that it had taken on such an outbreak. According to a statement:We understand the panic and mystification that this email has caused and the public’s need to seek verification and consolation from a reliable medical institution such as ours.Thus, we would like to highlight that we have never admitted or treated such patients and have never been aware of such incidences. We would also like to categorically state in addition, we declare that no one was ever at any time commissioned or authorised by the Hospital to deliver and circulate such warnings.The hospital put out a separate statement via Facebook in 2016, when the claim began circulating again on a separate platform, WhatsApp.“We would really appreciate it if you could also inform anyone whom you know to have received or been affected by this false news, that it is a hoax after all,” the statement read.There is a municipal Office of Risk Management in Washington D.C., but it deals with workplace safety issues and not mysterious perfume shipments. A person identified in connection with the claim told TruthOrFiction in 2013 that they did not generate the false message.The hoax has been traced to around 2001, when it originated as the story of a woman who was poisoned after inhaling a perfume sample shortly after the attacks on the U.S. on September 11th of that year, and it has been regurgitated in various iterations since.Update August 11, 2020 2:19 p.m.: This article has been revamped and updated. You can review the original here. — AGComments
|
2004
|
Study shows Europe's alcohol-linked cancer burden.
|
Almost 10 percent of all cancers in men and 3.0 percent in women in western Europe are caused by people drinking too much alcohol, scientists said on Friday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
People wearing traditional Bavarian clothes toast with beer during the opening day of the 177th Oktoberfest in Munich September 18, 2010. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger German researchers analyzed data from France, Italy, Spain, Britain, The Netherlands, Greece, Germany and Denmark and found 50,400 out of a total of 79,100 cases of certain types of cancers — in including bowel and throat tumors — in 2008 were caused by people drinking more than recommended limits. “Many cancer cases could have been avoided if alcohol consumption was limited to two alcoholic drinks per day in men and one alcoholic drink per day in women, ... the recommendations of many health organizations,” said Madlen Schutze of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, who led the study. “And even more cancer cases would be prevented if people reduced their alcohol intake to below recommended guidelines or stopped drinking alcohol at all.” A standard drink contains about 12 grams of alcohol and is equivalent to one 125 milliliter (ml) glass of wine or a half pint of beer. “Many people just don’t know that drinking alcohol can increase their cancer risk,” said Sara Hiom, director of health information at the charity Cancer Research UK. She noted that in Britain, mouth cancer has become much more common in the last 10 years, and “one reason for this could be because of higher levels of drinking, as this study reflects.” According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, there is a causal link between alcohol consumption and liver cancer, breast cancer colon or bowel cancer, and cancers of the upper digestive tract such as mouth, throat and oesophageal cancers. The researchers, whose work was published in the British Medical Journal, used data from research known as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC) study in which 363,988 men and women, mostly aged between 35 and 70 when they joined the study, were followed for cancer from the mid-1990s. They calculated that in 2008, alcohol consumption by men was responsible for about 57,600 cases of cancer of the types known to be linked to drinking. More than half of the cases, or 33,000, were due to having more than two drinks a day. Alcohol intake by women in the eight countries caused about 21,500 cases of upper digestive tract, liver, colorectum, and breast cancer, of which more than 80 percent, or 17,400, were due to their having more than one standard drink a day. Manuela Bergmann, who worked with Schutze on the study, said the findings provided solid support for recommended drinking limits and said she hoped more people would stick to them. “It underlines that at the very least, it would be good to stay within the limits,” she said in a telephone interview. “Many people believe it’s only a small group who drink more than the upper limits, but it’s becoming more of a problem because alcohol is cheap and available, so people drink more.” Estimates from the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund published in February said a third of all common cancers in the United States, China and Britain could be prevented each year if people had healthier diets, drank less alcohol and exercised more.
|
679
|
U.S. vaping-related deaths rise to 12, illnesses climb to 805.
|
U.S. health officials on Thursday reported 805 confirmed and probable cases and 12 deaths so far from a mysterious respiratory illness tied to vaping, with the outbreak showing no signs of losing steam.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 530 cases and seven deaths due to severe lung illnesses. U.S. public health officials have been investigating these illnesses, but have not linked it to any specific e-cigarette product. As of Sept. 24, the confirmed deaths were reported in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, and Oregon, the CDC said. The House of Representatives began public hearings about the illness this week while Massachusetts imposed a four-month ban on sales of all vaping products, including those used for tobacco and marijuana, which is legal in the state. Investigators have, however, pointed to vaping oils containing marijuana ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or vitamin E acetate, a substance used in some THC products, as a possible cause of these illnesses. The increased scrutiny also prompted leading e-cigarette maker Juul Labs to suspend all broadcast, print and digital product advertising in the United States and bring in a longtime Altria Group Inc executive as its CEO. Altria owns a 35% stake in Juul. Public health officials have advised consumers to quit vaping and urged those who continue using the devices to avoid buying such products on the street, using marijuana-derived oil with the products or modifying a store-bought vape product.
|
9478
|
New ALS drug Radicava comes with new questions as well
|
This ABC story undertakes a worthy goal — throwing a dose of reality on a new drug for ALS, Radicava, that’s being billed as the first to be approved in 22 years. This story attempts to ground the glowing headlines by right away focusing on the drug’s high cost, intensiveness of administering, and importantly, to remind readers that this is not a cure. But, the story didn’t explain that this drug was only shown to work in a very specific small subset of ALS patients. The description of this subset of patients is not given, suggesting to readers that this drug could work for any ALS patient, which is misleading. Update: This review prompted us to explore this issue further in a blog post, “Facts about the new ALS drug Radicava that you’re unlikely to see in news stories.” Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurologic disease in which motor neurons die and result in people losing the ability to speak, eat, move, and breathe. Some 5,000 people are diagnosed each year in the U.S. and average survival is three years. Clearly there’s a need for better treatments — if not a cure, a way to slow down the progression with more oomph that we currently have. The only other FDA-approved drug for ALS is riluzole, which slows progression and can increase survival by 2-3 months. This new drug comes with many limitations, and patients deserve to know all of them.
|
mixture
|
ALS
|
We applaud the story for tackling the costs of not just treatment but of the nursing care that would be required. From the article: “the cost is around $1,000 per infusion – and treatment, which involves multiple infusions, may total about $146,000 per year” — and that’s just for the drug, not the in-office visit to get the hour-long infusion, for as many as 14 days in a row. And: “This is just for the drug; you also need a nurse and infusion equipment,” McCluskey said. “We don’t know who is going to cover it or what criteria will be used to decide who gets it.” From the article: “Researchers found that those getting edaravone had a 33 percent reduction in their rate of decline in physical function.” This sure sounds good, as does the independent expert’s characterization: “Thirty percent is pretty robust.” Still to get a Satisfactory rating here, we’d want to know how many of the patients in the treatment group saw that benefit. All of them, or some of them? Also, the “33%” difference represents differences in the change of a scale used to measure ALS severity (example), and it is unclear if this difference means something clinically important for ALS patients, such as walking, swallowing or difficulty breathing. The story also should have pointed out that this study wasn’t just a general group of ALS patients. It was limited to a subset of patients–which we address in the evidence quality criterion in this review. Harms were not discussed. They include bruising, gait problems, headaches, skin rashes, respiratory failure, among others. The story should have made it very clear that this study was limited to patients who had a specific type of ALS disease process. In a commentary that accompanied the study, we learn that “less than 7% of patients with ALS would be eligible for enrollment.” The commentary also pointed out that this was a short study “was short, comprising 24 weeks in total, preceded by a 12-week observation period. Most trial guidelines of the European Medicines Agency propose a duration of at least 12–18 months.” No disease-mongering here. The article provides factual information on how many Americans are diagnosed with ALS each year and that typical survival times are two to five years. These were welcome details. However, if the drug does work, it is only useful in a subset of ALS patients. An independent expert helps put the findings in context and gives voice to some necessary cautions. However, the story doesn’t explain that this approval was based on studies funded by the drug’s manufacturer, which is a detail readers need to know. Even a brief mention of how ALS patients are currently treated would help put the promise and pitfalls of the new drug in better context. The article discusses availability issues — particularly the difficulty of getting to a health care provider day after day for patients with mobility problems. Readers are told that the drug maker is working to facilitate access. The article makes clear that the drug is newly approved and the first new drug for ALS in over two decades. The article is not based on a news release.
|
34676
|
Asparagus has miraculous cancer-fighting properties.
|
No evidence supports the popular rumor that asparagus has miraculous cancer-fighting properties.
|
unproven
|
Medical, asparagus, cancer
|
An item about the supposedly miraculous cancer-fighting properties of asparagus has been bruited about the Internet since October 2006: Asparagus/Cancer Several years ago, I had a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer. He gave me a photocopied copy of an article, entitled, ‘Asparagus for cancer’ printed in Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me: ‘I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health for over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer. Since then, I have worked with him on his project. We have accumulated a number of favourable case histories. Here are a few examples: Case No. 1, A man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a schedule of strenuous exercise. Case No. 2, A successful businessman 68 years old who suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years. After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he went on asparagus. Within 3 months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal. Case No. 3, a man who had lung cancer. On March 5th 1971, he was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable. The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the asparagus therapy and immediately started taking it. By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is back at his regular business routine. Case No. 4, A woman who was troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She finally developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by asking specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after starting on asparagus, her skin specialist said that her skin looked fine and no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease, which started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus. I was not surprised at this result, as ‘The elements of Materia Medica’, edited in 1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of asparagus in dissolving stones. We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy. For the treatment, asparagus should be cooked before using, and therefore canned asparagus is just as good as fresh. I have corresponded with the two leading canners of asparagus, Green Giant and Stokely, and I am satisfied that these brands contain no pesticides or preservatives. PROCEDURE: 1) Place the cooked asparagus in a blender and liquefy to make a puree, and store in the refrigerator. 2) Give the patient 4 full tablespoons twice daily, morning and evening. Patients usually show some improvement in from 2-4 weeks. It can be diluted with water and used as a cold or hot drink. This suggested dosage is based on present experience, but certainly larger amounts can do no harm and may be needed in some cases. As a biochemist I am convinced of the old saying that ‘what cures can prevent’. Based on this theory, my wife and I have been using asparagus puree as a beverage with our meals. We take 2 tablespoons diluted in water to suit our taste with breakfast and with dinner. I take mine hot and my wife prefers hers cold. For years we have made it a practice to have blood surveys taken as part of our regular checkups. The last blood survey, taken by a medical doctor who specializes in the nutritional approach to health, showed substantial improvements in all categories over the last one, and we can attribute these improvements to nothing but the asparagus drink… As a biochemist, I have made an extensive study of all aspects of cancer, and all of the proposed cures. As a result, I am convinced that asparagus fits in better with the latest theories about cancer. Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer and in acting as a general body tonic. In any event, regardless of theory,asparagus used as we suggest, is a harmless substance. The FDA cannot prevent you from using it and it may do you much good.. It has been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body’s most potent anticarcinogens and antioxidants. While this piece claims to draw its information from a piece titled “Asparagus for Cancer” printed in Cancer News Journal in December 1979, we’ve as yet been unable to locate a copy of that article or find information about either the e-mail’s unnamed biochemist narrator or the article’s purported authority, Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. (It isn’t clear what the “D.D.S.” stands for — that abbreviation is typically the short form for Doctor of Dental Surgery or Doctor of Dental Science, degrees one would not think would position their holders to perform groundbreaking work in the field of oncology.) It should go without saying that until far more is known about the 1979 “Asparagus for Cancer” article, that its purported miraculous tales of serious bouts of cancer overcome by asparagus therapy cannot be confirmed and thus should not be regarded as anything other than lore. However, that article’s provenance aside, asparagus might indeed have certain anti-cancer properties. In addition to this vegetable’s many other nutritional benefits (only 25 calories per serving, high in folic acid, plus a good source of vitamins A, B6 and C, calcium, iron, thiamin, potassium and fiber), it is high in the micronutrient glutathione, an antioxidant. Glutathione is said to defend the body against viruses, certain types of cancer, and boosts immune cells. Antioxidants have long been touted as one of the keys to preventing cancer. However, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) says of that conviction: Considerable laboratory evidence from chemical, cell culture, and animal studies indicates that antioxidants may slow or possibly prevent the development of cancer. However, information from recent clinical trials is less clear. In recent years, large-scale, randomized clinical trials reached inconsistent conclusions. In other words, antioxidants may or may not be the potent cancer-fighters they’re widely believed to be — the medical jury is still out on that subject. In fact, a 2018 study suggested that not eating asparagus might reduce the spread of cancer: A study of lab mice found lowering levels of asparagine “dramatically” reduced the spread of triple-negative breast cancer. The researchers, who published their work in the journal Nature, used a number of methods to reduce asparagine levels in the mice, including changes to their diets. Cancer spread more when the mice were given asparagine-rich foods, which include dairy, beef, poultry, eggs, nuts, seeds and whole grains, among others. Fruits and vegetables contain low levels of asparagine. As for the notion that asparagus (or any other food) can actually help cure cancer, however, the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center noted: According to our experts, a poor diet and obesity associated with a poor diet is a risk factor for the development of cancer. However, there is no evidence that certain foods alter the environment of an existing cancer, at the cellular level, and cause it to either die or grow.
|
3950
|
Flu blamed for death of another child in Washington state.
|
A Pierce County child under the age of five died from flu-related complications according to the Tacoma Pierce Health Department, and doctors say it’s the same strain of virus that led to the death of a child in King County last week.
|
true
|
Health, Washington, General News, Tacoma, Flu
|
KIRO-TV reports the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department noted the child who died there also suffered from underlying health conditions. “Sadly, flu strains currently in circulation this season have hit the young very hard,” said Nigel Turner, division director for the Communicable Disease Control Division. Adrian Pierce told KIRO-7 her grandson Santana Patterson, 12, was diagnosed with influenza at an urgent care clinic, because his doctor was booked up with appointments for flu symptoms. “They said you have the flu, but they caught this flu early,” Patterson said. “I’m going to be OK, because they gave me some medicine and I’m going to be better.” Doctors in Pierce County say a B-strain of the flu virus was the cause of death for the child there, and they say it’s the same strain which also lead to the death of a King County child last week. It was the first child flu-related death there in ten years. “This is the second pediatric influenza death, and we are seeing a lot of influenza in children, which is unusual this time of year and reflects the strain of influenza that we’re seeing in the community this season,” said Turner. Doctors say getting the flu shot should protect you against the new flu strain. They say the vaccine widens the circle of protection for those around you.
|
12539
|
"Americas PAC Says Tammy Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about ""overmedicated veterans,"" she made ""deadly mistakes"" and ""three veterans died"" at the Tomah VA hospital."
|
"Americas PAC says Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about ""overmedicated veterans,"" she made ""deadly mistakes"" and ""three veterans died"" at the Tomah VA hospital. Baldwin has acknowledged mistakes in the handling of an inspection report and a whistle blower’s emails about veterans being over prescribed opioid painkillers at Tomah. But none of those tie Baldwin to the deaths. One death had nothing to do with overmedication. One was an overdose, but it occurred in Milwaukee years after the veteran stopped being treated in Tomah and before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin. And the third death, though an overdose at the Tomah VA, also occurred before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin (and only one day after she received the inspection report)."
|
false
|
Drugs, Health Care, Public Health, Veterans, Wisconsin, Americas PAC,
|
"When seeking re-election in 2018, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin could be vulnerable to criticism of how she responded to an opioid painkiller scandal at the Tomah VA Medical Center in western Wisconsin. But an attack ad from Americas PAC that began airing April 27, 2017 claims Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about ""overmedicated veterans"" at Tomah and made ""deadly mistakes"" that left three veterans dead. The first-term Wisconsin Democrat has said her office made mistakes in handling a key inspection report about the Tomah VA and emails from a whistleblower. But that’s different than making mistakes that were deadly to three veterans. One death occurred years after the veteran ended his treatment at the Tomah VA and another had nothing to do with overmedication. As for the third veteran, Jason Simcakoski, Baldwin had requested investigations into the Tomah prescription practices before Simcakoski overdosed at the facility. And although Baldwin was slow to respond to emails from a whistleblower, those emails weren’t received until after Simakoski’s death. The ad Americas PAC is an Iowa-based super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. It is largely funded by Republican Richard Uihlein, co-founder of Uline, a Wisconsin shipping and packaging supplies distributor. Another Uihlein-supported super PAC, also eyeing 2018, previously attacked Baldwin with a claim we rated Mostly about funding U.S. military troops. As for the Americas PAC attack, we’re presenting the entire script of its radio ad to show how sound bites, spliced with narration, connect Baldwin to the the deaths. Newscast audio: New developments tonight in a Wisconsin VA hospital investigation. Senator Tammy Baldwin -- Newscast audio: -- and investigating claims of a cover-up involving one Senate Democrat. Narrator: A whistleblower went to Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin for help protecting disabled veterans. Newscast audio: Senator Tammy Baldwin learned of the allegations that the patients were being overmedicated. Narrator: And Tammy Baldwin was slow to take action. Talk show audio: -- critical of Senator Baldwin of having a delayed reaction to the March report. Narrator: When disabled veterans were counting on her, Tammy Baldwin blinked. Interviewer audio: Did your office drop the ball? Baldwin audio clip: Mistakes were made. Narrator: Deadly mistakes. Three disabled veterans died. Newscast audio: -- after the deaths of three patients at a VA hospital. Narrator: When facing security challenges from Russia, China and ISIS, will Tammy Baldwin make another mistake? Now let's look at the three deaths. Two of the deaths The Tomah VA and how politicians responded to problems there have been in the news since January 2015, when the California-based Center for Investigative Reporting exposed the overprescription of opioid drugs by the facility. The day after the Baldwin attack ad began airing, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that two Wisconsin radio stations had pulled the ad after lawyers for Baldwin’s campaign complained it was . Tom Donelson of Americas PAC told the Journal Sentinel and us that the committee stands by the ad. But two of the three deaths clearly don’t support the attack on Baldwin: Jacob Ward had been heavily medicated at the Tomah VA and later became a drug addict. But his parents said his care at Tomah ended in 2007 and they transferred him to the Milwaukee VA in 2008 and that they didn’t blame the Tomah VA for his death. Ward, who was 27, overdosed on heroin and cocaine in a Milwaukee apartment on Sept. 4, 2013. That was six years after he stopped going to Tomah and a year before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin. Thomas Patrick Baer, 74, died Jan. 14, 2015 at a hospital in La Crosse, Wis., two days after he suffered two strokes at the Tomah VA while waiting for treatment there. His death was not connected to overmedication. That leaves Simcakoski, who suffered a fatal drug overdose in the psychiatric ward of the Tomah VA. He had been prescribed 15 drugs, including muscle relaxants, tranquilizers, antipsychotic medicines and an opioid painkiller. Let’s look at a timeline of his case and how it relates to Baldwin, based primarily on Gannett Wisconsin Media news reports. Jason Simcakoski Between April and June of 2014, Baldwin wrote letters to the Tomah VA director, a VA official in Washington and the VA inspector general in Washington. She asked each of them to investigate allegations that ""a large percentage of veterans"" at the Tomah VA were being treated for abuse of opioids and other drugs that had originally been prescribed by the facility -- and that continued to be prescribed to them. The allegations were made by a constituent who wanted to remain anonymous, according to the letters. That means Baldwin had taken those steps months before the Simcakoski’s death, which occurred on Aug. 30, 2014. Moreover, Ryan Honl, the whistleblower alluded to in the radio ad, didn’t make a complaint to Baldwin’s office until nearly a month later. Baldwin nevertheless has been criticized because she took no action between Aug. 29, 2014 -- the day before Simcakoski’s death, when her office received an inspection report documenting the overprescribing of opioids at Tomah -- and January 2015, when the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed the circumstances of his death and Baldwin called for an investigation. In between, Honl had repeatedly emailed Baldwin’s office asking that Baldwin call for an investigation and make the inspection report public. Baldwin later said she was disciplining her chief of staff and two other aides for failing to take appropriate action on complaints about Tomah. And she said her office made mistakes in handling the inspection report and the whistleblower’s pleas. Still, Baldwin didn’t receive the inspection report until the day before Simcakoski’s death and the whistleblower didn’t begin contacting her until after Simcakoski’s death. Our rating Americas PAC says Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about ""overmedicated veterans,"" she made ""deadly mistakes"" and ""three veterans died"" at the Tomah VA hospital. Baldwin has acknowledged mistakes in the handling of an inspection report and a whistle blower’s emails about veterans being over prescribed opioid painkillers at Tomah. But none of those tie Baldwin to the deaths. One death had nothing to do with overmedication. One was an overdose, but it occurred in Milwaukee years after the veteran stopped being treated in Tomah and before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin. And the third death, though an overdose at the Tomah VA, also occurred before the whistleblower contacted Baldwin (and only one day after she received the inspection report). Related fact check: The attack on Baldwin is along the lines of one made against Democrat Russ Feingold, who ran unsuccessfully against Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2016. A super PAC claimed that when Feingold was in the Senate, he received a memo in 2009 that ""outlined veteran harm"" at the Tomah VA ""and nothing was done."" Our rating was , as there was no evidence Feingold received the memo."
|
26359
|
"There was no real scientific basis for believing that"" social distancing would be necessary, ""since it had never been studied."
|
Experts in public health and epidemiology said Ingraham’s claim is wrong. There’s plenty of science behind social distancing. Two influential 2007 studies looked at the 1918 influenza pandemic and found that places with layered and sustained social distancing policies were generally better off. The coronavirus is believed to spread mainly among people in close contact.
|
false
|
Public Health, Pundits, Science, PunditFact, Coronavirus, Laura Ingraham,
|
"Fox News host Laura Ingraham ly claimed on her TV show that there’s ""no real scientific basis"" behind social distancing, the practice of keeping distance from others to reduce the spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19. ""Although intuitively I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that, since it had never been studied,"" Ingraham said. Americans have widely followed social distancing directives to ""flatten the curve"" of new coronavirus cases and prevent hospitals from being stretched beyond capacity. In the absence of widespread testing, most Americans have supported such mitigation efforts. But scattered protests have also captured attention and led pundits like Ingraham and fellow Fox News host Tucker Carlson to call for an end to more statewide shutdowns as U.S. deaths due to the coronavirus top 70,000. Members of the White House coronavirus task force have encouraged social distancing. President Donald Trump credited nationwide closures with saving ""millions of lives"" as recently as May 3 in a town hall. But while it’s difficult to assess the exact impact of social distancing policies so far, experts told us Ingraham’s claim is wrong. There’s plenty of science behind social distancing. ""It’s one of the few tools that we know works in the case of an unknown, novel virus such as this,"" said Thomas Novotny, an epidemiologist at San Diego State University. Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. With the coronavirus still running its course, studies on the impact of mitigation efforts are only just emerging. But past respiratory disease outbreaks have been informative, experts said. On her show, Ingraham cited a recent study on the effects of lockdowns in western Europe and a clip of Stanford University biologist Michael Levitt calling European lockdowns a ""mistake."" She also highlighted a recent CBS News interview in which Scott Gottlieb, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said mitigation ""didn’t work as well as we expected."" Gottlieb has himself encouraged social distancing, however. And the study of European countries, which hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, doesn’t say social distancing is futile, but rather that social distancing measures ""have approximately the same effects"" as full lockdowns. ""My work does not question the efficiency of social distancing,"" said Thomas Meunier, the researcher behind the study. Charles Branas, chair of the epidemiology department at Columbia University, said social distancing ""is a fundamental way to interrupt the transmission of disease in populations."" ""To say that there was no scientific basis for believing that is like saying there is no scientific basis for epidemiology,"" he said. The concept of limiting person-to-person contact dates back centuries. But non-pharmaceutical interventions, as the practices we associate with social distancing are known, became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush in 2007, according to the New York Times. The shift came after researchers looked back at government responses to the 1918 influenza, which killed about 675,000 Americans. Elaine Nsoesie, assistant professor of global health at Boston University, said that pandemic saw many social distancing measures put in place, including bans on gatherings and school closures. It found cities suffered less when they implemented social distancing swiftly, comprehensively and for a sustained period of time. A second study, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on 17 U.S. cities. It found those with early, layered interventions had flatter epidemic curves and peak death rates about 50% lower than cities that didn’t take similar steps. Those findings became the basis for the policies adopted by the Bush administration and later modified under President Barack Obama. Studies of the 1918 pandemic ""indicated that early implementation of multiple social distancing interventions was associated with a lower death rate at the peak of the epidemic,"" Nsoesie said. David Hamer, professor of global health and medicine at Boston University, told us Ingraham’s claim is incorrect: ""Non-pharmaceutical interventions have been shown to help reduce the overall number of cases and virus-related mortality."" That’s because shrinking gatherings ""should lead to less exposure to potentially infected individuals and thus reduce the potential for transmission,"" Hamer said. Other evaluations of social distancing, handwashing, mask-wearing and related interventions have been compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, especially as they relate to influenza pandemics. (See page 23 of this 2017 CDC document, for example.) Now more than ever, it’s important to sort fact from fiction. Please donate to support our mission. What we know about COVID-19 also suggests that social distancing works, experts said. Hamer cited the Imperial College of London's projection that the U.S. could see up to 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths if it did nothing to slow the spread, as well as a not-yet-peer-reviewed study from Swiss researchers that estimated the impact of various interventions on new cases. The Swiss researchers said non-pharmaceutical interventions contributed to ""a strong overall reduction"" in new cases, with venue closures, border closures, work-from-home policies and limits on large gatherings having the highest impact. The coronavirus spreads mainly among people in close contact, through respiratory droplets launched into the air when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks, according to the CDC. ""Those droplets, as they’re falling out of the air, someone else may inhale them or get them into their mouth or their eyes,"" said Johns Hopkins University’s Lauren Sauer on a university podcast. ""And that’s why you have to be less than 6 feet away to really be at risk."" Ingraham said ""there was no real scientific basis for believing that"" social distancing would be necessary, ""since it had never been studied."" Experts we spoke to cited a number of studies — including two influential analyses of the 1918 influenza — that show social distancing can help slow the spread of new infectious diseases."
|
17898
|
"Tom Graves Says President Barack Obama ""has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own (health care) law."
|
"Graves said Obama ""himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law."" Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However, he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved. Graves cited these changes as evidence that the law is fatally flawed but he glossed over the differences among them. Some of the changes were significant and some were technical or tangential to the health care law itself. The basic number is right but there are lot of details of details missing from Graves' assertion."
|
mixture
|
National, Health Care, Tom Graves,
|
"The Republican effort to defund Obamacare threatens a government shutdown at the end of the month. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., is one lawmaker who believes the dangers of the health care law justify extreme measures. Over the summer, Graves called the Affordable Care Act ""destructive"" and a ""job killer."" ""We need to make every effort to ensure Obamacare is never implemented,"" he said. Graves said President Barack Obama’s actions highlight the law’s terminal flaws. ""Something very important has happened since the president did win the election,"" Graves said on ABC’s This Week. ""He himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law. So if it's so good for America, then why he is delaying it for his friends in big business?"" We wondered if in fact, Obama has made that many changes in the law. Graves’ office pointed us to a letter from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan think tank for Congress. The Congressional Research Service review listed 19 times the Affordable Care Act changed since it was passed in 2010. The report counted 14 public laws and five administrative actions that made a variety of modifications to the law. For the record, we note that a dozen of those adjustments took place before the 2012 election, and not after as Graves said. The timing seems less important than the substance of what was done. Changes to the Affordable Care Act Some items on the list qualify as significant in the eyes of the health policy experts we contacted. One of the country’s leading authorities on health care law, Timothy Jost at the Washington and Lee School of Law, pointed to three: A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses The administration acted on its own to delay the employer mandate, explaining that the systems were not in place to implement it. The other two changes came through votes in Congress. ""Congress couldn’t find a way to make the CLASS Act actuarially sound,"" Jost said, ""so they repealed it and put the money elsewhere."" As for the business reporting rule, ""businesses said this was a huge burden and Congress responded,"" Jost said. ""There was strong bipartisan support, and you could find the votes to make those sorts of changes."" In addition to those three, a program to create consumer health insurance cooperatives was retained but lost $2.2 billion in funding. Most of the items on the Congressional Research Service list, however, are less dramatic. Several clarified that certain government health insurance programs would count as coverage under the individual mandate. This included Tricare, which covers the military, and insurance through Veterans Affairs. Other adjustments extended tax breaks, such as a tax credit for families that adopt a child. There were changes in the Medicaid federal matching formula (to keep money flowing to Louisiana after Katrina), and a tweak to the calculation of income that determines the level of premium subsidies in the insurance exchanges. Such changes are common in Congress, according to our experts. ""Legislators aren't perfect,"" said Jost. ""They don't get everything right the first time. That’s the nature of the legislative process."" It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, Obama signed off on those changes as part of larger pieces of legislation. We’ve been here before Graves’ comments suggest that so many changes to the health care law means it's fundamentally flawed. Actually, major pieces of legislation rarely remain the same as the day the president signs them into law. The Medicare prescription drug benefit, passed under President George W. Bush, was changed several times after its initial passage. Both that law and the recent health care law lay a government program on top of a complex private market system, said Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University. ""Patches on a patchwork mean making a coherent quilt very difficult,"" Marmor said. Even though the country had about two years to get ready for the Medicare drug program, about the same as with Obamacare, some pieces were not in place when the program launched, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. ""States were worried that bunches of people would show up on Jan. 1, 2005, and not be able to get their prescription drugs,"" Hoadley said. ""So some of them started picking up the tab."" Later, Hoadley said, the Bush administration pulled money from another fund to reimburse the states. The law required insurance plans to set up systems to keep an eye on people who took many different medications. The goal was to make sure the drugs were compatible. The purpose was sensible but as of 2005, the technology wasn’t ready. ""The decision was made that while that requirement was still there, there would be no enforcement until they had time to get things up and running,"" Hoadley said. ""It took several years of saying ‘Lets not focus on this; it’s not the most important thing’."" Our ruling Graves said Obama ""himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law."" Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However, he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved. Graves cited these changes as evidence that the law is fatally flawed but he glossed over the differences among them. Some of the changes were significant and some were technical or tangential to the health care law itself. The basic number is right but there are lot of details of details missing from Graves' assertion."
|
15576
|
"EMILY's List Says Jeb Bush ""once held $1 million in family planning grants hostage until the programs receiving the money agreed not to discuss birth control at all."
|
"Emily’s List said, ""Jeb once held $1 million in family planning grants hostage until the programs receiving the money agreed not to discuss birth control at all."" There are a handful of news stories that say Bush in 2001 asked the Legislature to set aside $1 million for chastity programs out of the state’s almost $5.8 million for family planning. That's a bit different from threatening existing programs with a gag order. More importantly, there's no evidence Bush's proposal went into effect. The health department said no requirements for abstinence programs were passed by lawmakers."
|
false
|
Education, Women, Florida, EMILY's List,
|
"A Democratic political action committee ripped Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, saying his positions as Florida’s governor preview what he’d be like as commander in chief -- particularly when it comes to women’s issues. Stephanie Schriock, president of the group Emily’s List, said in an essay on Medium that Bush spent his two terms curbing women’s reproductive and health rights. (Emily’s List helps Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights.) Schriock ticked off several actions that ran counter to the group’s stance, including Bush’s support of abstinence-only sex education. ""And let’s not forget that Jeb once held $1 million in family planning grants hostage until the programs receiving the money agreed not to discuss birth control at all,"" she wrote. We wondered what Schriock meant about Bush holding grant money hostage, so we took a closer look at the books. Not talking about it We found only a few media mentions of a situation resembling a hostage crisis, and they were the same ones Emily’s List sent to us as proof. The primary source was a March 2001 story in the Tampa Bay Times that focused on a budget request from Bush for lawmakers to consider during the legislative session. The story detailed how Bush wanted $1 million of the state Department of Health’s $5.7 million family planning allocation to create education grants for chastity counseling. This would have mirrored some federally funded programs in the state that told teens to wait until marriage to have sex, without discussing birth control methods. Those programs, many of which were privately run by religious groups, operated under names like Best Friends, Sex Can Wait and Everyone's Not Doing It. The request would have marked the first time the state would have funded an abstinence-based counseling program. The idea was criticized by sex education advocates and legislators who said teaching abstinence didn’t work. They also said diverting $1 million would keep many poor women from getting HIV tests, pap smears, birth control counseling and other services at clinics and county health departments. But except for a couple of mentions in other articles about the proposal, the March 2001 Times article was the only place we found that the request was fully examined. Even Emily’s List couldn’t tell us what happened to Bush’s proposal. They did tell us their aim was to point out Bush had made clear he preferred abstinence-only counseling, and was willing to put conditions on funding to achieve that goal. That doesn’t strike us as Bush literally preventing that money from being used for regular family planning services, however. Though the Times story says the request was supported by then-health secretary Bob Brooks, it was still just a request. Florida governors routinely submit a proposed budget each year before the session, but the Legislature has the final say on how money is spent. It appears in 2001 lawmakers didn’t follow Bush’s wishes. The state Department of Health shared appropriations for family planning services going back to 2000 and found nothing specifying funds had to go to abstinence education exclusively. ""It does not appear that there was any proviso language that directed $1 million to be spent on chastity programs from the family planning category,"" spokeswoman Mara Burger told us. The 2001 appropriation for family planning was almost $5.8 million, a figure that has since fallen to $4.2 million today. Florida continues to specify abstinence should be taught as a part of sex ed classes, although school districts are given plenty of leeway. The state is still one of the biggest recipients of federal money for chastity programs. Even anti-Obamacare Republicans in the Legislature agreed in 2012 to take millions set aside for abstinence education in the Affordable Care Act, even while rejecting other aid tied to the law. Our ruling Emily’s List said, ""Jeb once held $1 million in family planning grants hostage until the programs receiving the money agreed not to discuss birth control at all."" There are a handful of news stories that say Bush in 2001 asked the Legislature to set aside $1 million for chastity programs out of the state’s almost $5.8 million for family planning. That's a bit different from threatening existing programs with a gag order. More importantly, there's no evidence Bush's proposal went into effect. The health department said no requirements for abstinence programs were passed by lawmakers."
|
36259
|
The night Jeffrey Epstein died, cameras malfunctioned inexplicably in parts of Metropolitical Correctional Center (MCC).
|
Did Cameras Malfunction in Prison the Night Jeffrey Epstein Died?
|
unproven
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
"On August 10 2019, news broke that jailed financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in a Metropolitan Correctional Center jail cell, immediately prompting a flood of conspiracy theories:Among those rumors was a claim that cameras mysteriously malfunctioned at MCC that night, and thus no footage exists of Epstein’s actions:BREAKING: Alleged ""camera malfunction"" last night at MCC where Jeffrey Epstein was locked up.#EpsteinFiles— Michael Coudrey (@MichaelCoudrey) August 10, 2019One early and prominent iteration of this claim came from far-right conspiracy theorist Michael Coudrey (also known as Mike Tokes, an associate of fellow conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has been banned from Twitter) a tweet that did not include a news article or any reference to a source — Coudrey simply made that statement. Discourse in the ensuing thread made no reference to cameras being switched off or malfunctioning that night or morning.In Google News, one of the top automatic queries was “Epstein camera off” as of August 12 2019. But that search only returned results repeating the rumor. On August 11 2019, the New York Post tabloid reported:There’s no surveillance video of the incident in which Jeffrey Epstein apparently hanged himself in a federal lockup in Lower Manhattan, law enforcement officials told The Post on [August 11 2019].Although there are cameras in the 9 South wing where the convicted pedophile was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, they are trained on the areas outside the cells and not inside, according to sources familiar with the setup there.The Post relied on anonymous sources, and was clearly influenced by the rumors that spread the day before the article appeared. As is often the case with unsourced rumors or claims that originate on social media sites, a game of telephone style series of linkings occurred with no real delving into the substance of the rumors themselves.An undated New York Magazine Intelligencer liveblog repeated the claim, citing the Post as a source:There is apparently no video footage of what happenedThe New York Post reported on [August 11 2019] that no surveillance video exists of Epstein’s death. According to the Post’s sources, there are indeed video cameras in the section of the MCC where Epstein was housed on Friday night, but none target the inside or outside of the cells there.No other sources were cited. TMZ also referenced unnamed people about the cameras; those anonymous sources claimed there were no cameras in that area of the facility. However, TMZ’s “sources” were “familiar with the facility,” but weren’t described as having information on Epstein’s death itself:Jeffrey Epstein’s death may never be conclusively determined, because we’re told standard practice in the area where he was detained is that cameras do not point inside cells.Sources familiar with the correctional facility in question tell TMZ, there are cameras in the Special Housing Unit — the SHU — but SOP is that cameras do not point into the cells. We’re told cameras capture, among other things, the doors to each cell to determine if anyone walks in or out, but they don’t point inside.One source familiar with the facility says the drill is for guards to pass by each cell in intervals ranging from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the circumstances.Epstein’s death has presumably already been “conclusively determined,” given that his death was widely reported as having taken place. Other news articles indicated cameras were “prevalent in the facility,” but might not point inside cells. (By all accounts, Epstein was in an atypical housing unit. )On August 10 2019, before the rumor was as widespread, NBC News spoke to prison industry experts. At the time, they discussed the likelihood that a prisoner like Epstein would be under video surveillance:Bob Hood, a former federal Bureau of Prisons chief of internal affairs and former warden at the ADX Florence “supermax” prison in Colorado, said he also was perplexed by the decision to remove the suicide safeguards.“Under the circumstances, I would have a staff member sitting there or have a camera on him 24/7 while he was in my custody, purely to cover my butt,” Hood said. “I know that sounds tacky, but this is not your average inmate.”In an August 10 2019 post about the rumor, Heavy.com noted that “Coudrey did not provide proof to his tweet or any sources to verify why he wrote about the camera malfunction on Twitter,” adding:He posted later on Facebook that reporters should be demanding the release of the camera footage. He wrote: “Reporters should be demanding the release of the camera footage. How this individual committed ‘suicide’ while on suicide watch and being monitored in prison is outrageous. Extremely convienent for the rich and powerful he was connected with though.” [sic]A separate section of that article described Coudrey’s background:Coudrey is listed on Twitter as being an entrepreneur, CEO of YukoSocial, and the co-founder of NewRightUS. YukoSocial is a company that helps people optimize their social media presence, according to the website. The site says: “Yuko Social is a team of millennial social media experts here to help with all your social media needs. Our team of specialists work to drive traffic, increase engagement and develop your brands online presence.” [sic] Coudrey’s Facebook page explains YukoSocial a little more, explaining that it’s a political social media firm that specializes in “information warfare” and has a client list that includes U.S. Representatives, political figures, and candidate hopefuls. They are based in LA.Claims that cameras “malfunctioned” at MCC on the night of Epstein’s death appeared to originate solely with one individual on Twitter making baseless claims, with no stated source. When the rumor got legs, tabloids referencing each other or nameless sources with questionable links to Epstein’s death reported the rumor — however, in true disinformation form, each of those claims took on different characterizations. In some, cameras malfunctioned or cameras were off. In others, the area was purportedly unmonitored. In any case, we found no credible reporting verifying that cameras had either malfunctioned or simply did not record the on the night that Epstein died."
|
30488
|
A 19-year-old college student in Kenya purposefully infected 324 men with human immunodeficiency virus in an act of revenge.
|
The claim that a woman in Kenya infected 324 men with human immunodeficiency virus over the span of a few months and that she plans on infecting hundreds more by the end of the year is based entirely on a years-old anonymous Facebook post filled with inaccurate statements, fearmongering rhetoric, and unsubstantiated claims.
|
false
|
Junk News, aids, fake news, HIV
|
During the 1980s and 1990s, at the height of the HIV and AIDS crises, rumors ran wild about people deliberately spreading the virus to their clueless sexual partners. Although the stigma over HIV has somewhat subsided over the ensuing decades, the rumors about “AIDS Mary” are still alive and well. A modern version of this urban legend first appeared online in 2014, after the Kenya Daily Post published an article appearing to report that a 19-year-old college student in Kenya had purposefully infected 324 men with human immunodeficiency virus, and that she planned on infecting thousands by the end of the year: SHOCKER!!!! A University female student confesses to have infected more than 324 men in Nakuru with HIV…. She targets 2000 before the year ends!!!!!!! Problems in the Original Story The article was entirely based on a Facebook post that was allegedly posted to a page called “Kenya Scandals, Hidden Controversial Files Exposed.” This Facebook page no longer exists, and we were unable to find this post anywhere in any Internet archives. However, the anonymous message driving this story has been preserved by a number of questionable web sites: I’m 19 and a 2nd year student here at Kabarak University. I joined this college a virgin though I have had boyfriends before,my parents are strict so having sex was never on my mind. Septmber 22nd, 2013, is a day I will never forget,we went clubbing in town and got drunk with some senior students then went back hostels for party around 2am I remember waking up naked to a guy called Javan with my private part painful and I realised he had sex with me when I was drunk. I only asked if he used a condom and he said yes. However, when taking bathIi noticed sperms down there,i wanted to commit suicide,i feared getting pregnant and HIV, I took drug and hoped i was HIV free. In November, I tested HIV positive,I felt like cutting off my neck. I confronted theguy and he insisted he was clean that I got it from somewhere. I was so depressed and took alcohol to die. I even bought poison,the pain was just unbearable. How was I gonna face the world? I let my parents down. I gave up on the world and just wanted to end my life. Something came up in my mind that I should revenge. I hated men and I didn’t want to be near anymore. My future had been ruined, somehow someone had to pay. After a private therapy sessions, I gained strength not even my parents,friends knew of my conditions even up to now. I accepted my fate and promised to make all men I come across suffer. i know I am attractive and both married and unmarried men chase me left, right and center, luckily, my body has remained good and if anything my curves got better something you men like. I buried the good girl in me and became the bad girl. My goal was to infect as many as possible. So far, since December up to now, I have infected 324 men and I make sure to note down there list which I secretly keep. I plan to release it when I wiil be on my death bed. I know I have nothing left to do on earth but to wait for my death but before i do, men will get it. My target is over 2000 by the end of the year, pregnancy is out of question because I am on contraceptives. So I just do raw which most men here love. They don’t even question becauase my looks and body work greatly for me. Out of the 324 I have infected so far, about 156 are students here at the college, the remaining are married men outside, lecturers,lawyers,some celebs and 3 politicians. Not a day passes without me having sex, mostly four people per day. This is an unverified story from an anonymous author that was posted to a Facebook page seemingly dedicated to scandals and rumors. The story itself is also rather preposterous. For one, how does this woman know how many people she infected? After all, having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV-positive does not automatically mean that the disease will spread: A heterosexual person infected with HIV will transmit the virus to their partner once in every 900 times the couple has unprotected sex, according to a new study conducted in Africa. However, the exact number of sexual acts that are needed to transmit the virus can vary tremendously depending on the amount of the virus in the infected person’s blood, said study researcher James Hughes, of the University of Washington in Seattle. Unless this anonymous woman accompanied her victims to the hospital after every sexual encounter for testing after a set period of time, there’s no way she would know how many people she had given HIV. The web site “Make Kenya Better” took a closer look at some of the more specific claims in the story. Daniel Kibet, who was reportedly in his final year at Kabarak University when this rumor started to circulate, said that the school’s strict rules on gender segregation, the relatively small student population, and the fact that this woman was claiming she had more than three sexual partners per day for three months made this story completely implausible: In her story there are some gaps and misinformation that gave us an impression she was lying about everything. […] In Kabarak main campus, men are banned from ladies hostels and if any man is found loitering around the ladies hostels then he or she would be suspended from school. So the part where she said that they went back to the hostels and had an after party after partying in Nakuru town is All FALSE. […] December has 31 days, January has 31 days and February has 28 days. If you add up the days you will end up with 90 days exactly. And the lady said she has infected 324 men from December. Let’s do the math. If you divide you will get 3.6 that is 3 different dudes per day. You will ask yourself is she a prostitute or what? How can a university student who has classes and assignments have time to f**k 3 dudes in one day. Problems With Subsequent Postings There are several other factors that point to this being a fearmongering rumor, as opposed to a genuine story about sexual revenge. For one thing, as this rumor was passed from disreputable web site to spurious blog, the accompanying photograph seemed to change. Many of these outlets claimed that images were culled from this woman’s Facebook profile. This is suspicious, however, as the woman’s identity was supposedly never revealed. Furthermore, we’ve seen photographs of least five different women used to spread the hoax: Theses images were taken from dating profiles, porn web sites, and social media posts (such as this one, which is decidedly not safe for work). However, we couldn’t connect any of these images to a 19-year-old student in Kenya. Another clue that this rumor is based more on fear than facts is that it receives minor updates with each passing year. In addition to changing the photograph, these sites have also altered the number of men reportedly infected with HIV by this woman, as well as her goal date for completing her revenge. For example, the disreputable blog Now8News rehashed this story, but claimed in their title that the woman had now infected 586 men (not 324) and that she planned on infecting more than 2000 by the end of 2018, not 2014. Interestingly, the body of that article still said that this took place in 2017, which must have been a holdover from the previous year’s piece: Social networks have been buzzing over the past couple of days with the story of a female university student who, over a period of five months, infected 586 men with HIV in “revenge.” The student, whose name has been withheld, claims to have infected married men, lecturers, fellow students and celebrities. According to the report, her aim was to infect 2,000 men with the virus. Her vengeance was met with horror and much criticism over social media. Her new goal is to infect at least 2,000 men stating, “I know I have nothing left to do on earth but wait for my death.” Surprisingly, she keeps a list of how many men she has slept with so far, and rewarded with HIV. According to her, she already infected 586 men and wanted to finish 2017 with the 2,000 mark. To Sum Up
|
36296
|
Menthol shaving cream or shaving foam is beneficial for sunburned skin.
|
Is Menthol Shaving Cream (or Foam) a Remedy for Sunburned Skin?
|
false
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
A June 2018 Facebook post recommending menthol shaving cream (or shaving foam, as it is called in the UK) to alleviate the pain of sunburns has accrued more than 230,000 shares. A repost by another person with the same photographs was also shared thousands of times:The original post has since been edited based on the large reader response, but the second one was more to the point:Sunburn remedy:menthol foam shaving cream for 30 min, don’t rub it in, just let it sit on your skin.Reapply if necessary.You’re welcome 🙂The original poster claimed that her mother-in-law had received the advice in the post from a doctor four decades before. Although the images could be construed as an immediate effect, the description said that three days had passed between the first and third photographs:First, buy you some Menthol foam shaving cream. It has to be the foam and it has to have menthol in it. We found Gillette shaving cream on Amazon since we had problems finding menthol foam in stores. We ended up buying 6 cans of it, but it works out because we live in Texas and sunburns happen a lot. (Plus, we have given a couple cans to friends. )Next, apply the shaving cream on the burn. It may seem like it’s a strange shaving ritual, but trust me! Don’t rub it in, just let it sit on your skin. It will start bringing all that heat out (you’ll be able to feel it). You may feel like you are itchy too, but that’s a good thing! Itching means healing.Then, after about 30 minutes, the shaving cream will seem like it has dissolved in spots. It will seem like it’s not as moist and a little dried out. You will feel as if you’re becoming a little cold, at least on the sunburned part of your body. THAT IS A GOOD SIGN!Next, rinse it off in a lukewarm or cool shower or bath. It’s just to get the residue off.Finally, if you still need it, do it again the next day. Usually after that second treatment, the sunburn disappears.The pictures show my treatment. The final picture was taken the third day after my sunburn. I slept great after the first treatment and when my shoulders still felt hot from the burn the next day, I had another coating of shaving cream on just my shoulders. I have not had any peeling either. I use this on my kids too!A number of sun safety protocols have been updated in the past forty years. For example, doctors started recommending the use of sunblock for outdoor activities; although sunburns were once considered simply a side effect of summer activities, they are not recommended:Excessive sun exposure, even without sunburn, increases your risk of skin cancer, such as melanoma. It can damage the DNA of skin cells. Sunburns in childhood and adolescence may increase your risk of developing melanoma later in life.Those recommendations are no longer confined to summer, either. The American Academy of Dermatologists advises that sunblock be used for all outdoor activities year round, to minimize sun damage and cancer risk:Every day if you will be outside. The sun emits harmful UV rays year-round. Even on cloudy days, up to 80 percent of the sun’s harmful UV rays can penetrate your skin.Snow, sand, and water increase the need for sunscreen because they reflect the sun’s rays.That said, sunburns still happen, of course. The original post said that between the first and third photographs of a sunburn and partly-healed skin, three days had passed. Three days is roughly the amount of time it takes for a mild sunburn to completely heal, and is also just before skin peeling sets in:Sunburn is a sign that the body is trying to repair damaged skin, and this can take time. How long it lasts will depend on how severe the sunburn is:Pain is often at its worst 6–48 hours after burning.If the skin is going to peel, it will usually start to happen 3–8 days after sun exposure.Sunburn improvement is expected after three days, whether or not menthol shaving cream is applied to affected skin. Menthol’s cooling effect is likely part of the draw, and a soothing effect might seem beneficial to those suffering with a painful sunburn.However, the National Poison Control Center says of topical application of menthol that it can actually exacerbate the problem:Menthol can cause eye and skin irritation. When used on the skin, menthol is typically diluted into a “carrier oil”, lotion, or other vehicle. If a high-percentage menthol product is applied to the skin, irritation and even chemical burns have been reported. There are a few reports of people being very sensitive to menthol and having severe skin reactions to even small amounts.On the website of skincare expert Paula Begoun, a page about sensitized skin (such as from a sunburn) cautions against the use of ingredients like menthol:When problem ingredients (see the list below) aggravate skin’s surface, a chain reaction can occur that makes oily skin worse, possibly triggering more breakouts. […]Dry skin is just as susceptible to the effects of sensitizing ingredients as any other skin type. The difference is that instead of skin becoming oilier, it becomes drier, visibly flaky, and can look dehydrated and dull. We’re certain that’s not what anyone wants from their skincare products!In a separate page on individual ingredients, Begoun says of menthol:Derived from peppermint, menthol can have the same sensitizing effect as peppermint on skin. Despite its documented ability to sensitize skin, menthol is included in a surprisingly large number of products. Unfortunately, the cooling, refreshing sensation menthol causes is direct evidence that your skin is being sensitized, not soothed.In specific response to the viral menthol shaving cream sunburn post, UK-based doctor Sonal Shah advised first avoiding sunburns, and then avoiding the advice in the post:“The reason some people find that shaving foam can help sunburn is because it contains menthol and when menthol touches the skin it provides a cooling effect,” explains Dr Shah.“However it is not a remedy that I would recommend, mainly because it could put you at risk of infection.”Instead, if you do get burnt Dr Shah recommends following these simple steps:The advice about menthol shaving cream and sunburn is not well considered for a few reasons. One is that experts recommend avoiding getting a sunburn at all, if possible. When sunburn is inevitable, the resulting sensitized skin is susceptible to infection, and menthol can exacerbate that risk. Although menthol may feel soothing, it can also intensify the sensation of the burn and it offers no known benefit. Sunburned skin should improve in three days whether or not menthol shaving cream is applied to it, and applying it can worsen discomfort and potentially lead to infection.
|
16177
|
"No one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless."
|
"Seiler said that ""no one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless. Seiler is correct that Abbott wasn’t taken into custody -- the activist was not handcuffed or taken to jail but was instead given a notice to appear in court. But his carefully worded claim glosses over the fact that Abbott was indeed arrested on more than one occasion for allegedly feeding the homeless in violation of city ordinances, something that leaves Abbott at least theoretically in peril of being sentenced to jail. Seiler’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
|
true
|
City Government, Crime, Florida, Jack Seiler,
|
"The city of Fort Lauderdale’s latest attempt to regulate outdoor homeless feedings made international news when police nabbed ""Chef Arnold"" -- a 90-year-old caught in the act of such a public feeding. ""One of the police officers said, 'Drop that plate right now,' as if I were carrying a weapon,"" Arnold Abbott said, recalling his early November arrest for the Associated Press. Multiple news reports -- and Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report -- recounted the tale of Abbott’s arrest, which reignited a long-running debate about how the city should handle the homeless population downtown and at the beach. On Nov. 5, Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler issued a statement in which he said he wanted to ""set the record straight"" about the city’s services for homeless. He said that the media had misrepresented the facts. ""Contrary to reports,"" Seiler wrote, ""the City of Fort Lauderdale is not banning groups from feeding the homeless."" Seiler said outdoor feeding is legal, but added that a new city law regulates the activity. Then Seiler addressed the situation regarding Abbott: ""At two recent outdoor food distributions, citations were rightly issued for non-compliance with the process enacted to ensure public health and safety. Contrary to what was reported in the media, no one was taken into custody. ..."" As the public-relations crisis escalated, Seiler gave multiple interviews to the media. On CNN Nov. 11, Seiler said Abbott ""was not arrested and taken into custody."" At PolitiFact Florida we agree with Seiler’s goal of setting the record straight. Was Abbott taken into custody? Fort Lauderdale’s laws about the homeless Abbott’s battle with the city has brought notoriety to Seiler, a former state representative who has been mentioned as a future statewide candidate for the Democrats. Seiler faces re-election to a third term in March. So far, no one has filed to run against him. Abbott, who founded an interfaith volunteer organization Love Thy Neighbor to help the homeless, has been battling city leaders for more than a decade. In 1999, the city tried to ban him from holding picnics for the homeless at the beach, offering him an alternative site miles away from downtown. But Abbott prevailed in court when a judge ruled that the city had violated his religious rights and that the city’s new location was too remote. Abbott resumed his feedings and resumed them in visible locations in Stranahan Park in downtown and along the beach. The battle has continued in recent years, with the commission passing a series of laws that attempted to regulate the homeless population, including a ban on soliciting for money at intersections and tougher laws against defecating in public. City officials, including Seiler, have argued that while the homeless should have access to services, including meals, they have heard complaints from some businesses and residents about the homeless population in downtown. Advocates have decried city officials for cracking down on the homeless with a series of laws. At an Oct. 21 meeting, the commission approved the ordinance about outdoor food distribution over the objection of protesters. The ordinance, approved by the Commission 4-1, codified a list of rules for outdoor food distribution, including that sites must be 500 feet away from residential areas, have bathrooms or portable toilets, equipment for hand washing and consent of the owner. The law allows indoor feedings at houses of worship. ""You have to balance the interests of everybody in the community,"" Seiler told PolitiFact Florida. ""What we always try to do is make sure everybody gets to enjoy our parks. Every single thing we have done with the ordinance is a balance."" But while the law itself doesn’t technically ban outdoor feedings, it raises the bar for groups such as Abbott’s in a way that makes it almost impossible to clear. (Abbott argues that the requirement that he get a port-a-potty should be moot since a public restroom is nearby and he says volunteers wash their hands before feedings and use gloves.) At the time of Seiler’s statement, Abbott had three run-ins with law enforcement related to the outdoor feedings: on Oct. 6, Nov. 2 and Nov. 5, police reports show. (The October arrest predated the new ordinance but the city already had a separate law banning social services in the parks.) On the first two occasions, Abbott was given a warning but then continued with the feedings. The third time, Abbott agreed to end the food distribution that day, police reports say. In none of the three instances was he handcuffed or taken to jail. Instead, he was given notices to appear in court. (In one police report, it states that Abbott shook the police officer’s hand before he left.) At least one other person helping with the feedings was also arrested in a similar manner. A city spokesman told PolitiFact Florida that the case stemming from the Nov. 2 arrest has been filed in court. The city has generally avoided referring to Abbott’s case as an ""arrest,"" but his attorney John David said that just because it’s not a ""custodial arrest"" doesn’t mean it’s not an arrest. For minor crimes, police use this type of arrest and give defendants notices to appear as long as the person has a connection to the area and is likely to show up in court. Nonetheless, ""it's an arrest, no doubt about that,"" David said. ""He is charged with a criminal offense."" Fort Lauderdale police Capt. Rick Maglione told PolitiFact Florida that ""It is similar to a misdemeanor arrest, but we do not have to take the person physically into custody and they can just show up in court and let a judge decide the case."" We interviewed a few criminal defense lawyers in South Florida not involved in the case and they agreed that the police did indeed arrest Abbott. ""With all due respect to the mayor, it is an arrest,"" said Brian Tannebaum, a Miami criminal defense lawyer. ""The fact that someone is not taken into custody does not make it something other than an arrest. Misdemeanor cases are handled with promises to appear all the time. The officer has discretion to take someone into custody, but even if they don't it is still considered an arrest."" City spokesman Chaz Adams told PolitiFact that although a notice to appear is technically an arrest, ""the mayor has been consistent in saying that Mr. Abbott was not ""arrested and taken into custody."" Abbott faces up to a $500 fine and 60 days in jail for each offense. However, lawyers say it’s unlikely that a judge will throw him behind bars. ""I can’t imagine anyone putting Arnold in jail,"" said Broward public defender Howard Finkelstein. His office is not handling the case, but he has praised Abbott. Abbott’s lawyer filed a motion in Broward court on Nov. 12 that asked a judge to enforce the injunction from the earlier case that allowed Abbott to continue the feedings. The city offered Abbott two alternative sites -- at the city’s aquatic complex near the beach, and at Church by the Sea, located near the beach -- but he rejected both. ""I plan to continue my feedings at the same site I have used for the past 23 years,"" Abbott told PolitiFact Florida in an email. Seiler says it’s not his call what penalty Abbott faces. ""We have to enforce the laws, we have to be consistent,"" Seiler told PolitiFact Florida. ""What the courts do with Mr. Abbott -- that’s up to the courts."" Seiler has defended his city’s reputation for serving the homeless, which includes working with nonprofits to provide services and allowing the county-run Homeless Assistance center to expand. The city’s police department also has a homeless outreach unit. Fort Lauderdale’s law about feeding the homeless is part of a growing national trend. Since 2007, 71 cities have attempted or enacted some type of rules related to food-sharing activities, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. ""The best solution to the food-sharing issue is to have indoor meal programs available to the homeless three times a day, seven days a week,"" said Michael Stoops, director of community organizing National Coalition for the Homeless. ""If these locations were located conveniently in Downtown Fort Lauderdale, a good number of the homeless would opt to eat inside vs. outside. However, food-sharing with the homeless in public spaces would still be needed."" Our ruling Seiler said that ""no one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless. Seiler is correct that Abbott wasn’t taken into custody -- the activist was not handcuffed or taken to jail but was instead given a notice to appear in court. But his carefully worded claim glosses over the fact that Abbott was indeed arrested on more than one occasion for allegedly feeding the homeless in violation of city ordinances, something that leaves Abbott at least theoretically in peril of being sentenced to jail. Seiler’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so"
|
31112
|
"Researchers at the Russian Institute for Medical Science discovered a new vaccine that may ""prevent"" or ""cure"" homosexuality in humans."
|
So, no, these nonexistent Russian scientists did not discover a “vaccine” or “cure” for homosexuality (which is neither a disease nor a medical condition in the first place).
|
false
|
Junk News, fake news, homosexuality, world news daily report
|
On 6 August 2017, the fake news web site Loyalys posted an article in which it was reported that Russian scientists have discovered a “cure to [sic] homosexuality”: Novosibirsk | Dr. Dimitri Yusrokov Slamini of the Russian Institute for Medical Science in Novosibirsk and his team of researchers have discovered what they claim to be a new vaccine which could prevent early symptoms and even cure humans from homosexuality, if treated at a young age. Russian scientists developed the so-called «antidote» based on a 1959 scientific research published under the title “Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig” by Charles H. Phoenix, an american researcher. The study concluded that “INAH [part of the hypothalamus] is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate”. Among the discoveries we made while looking into this story was that Loyalys.com was less than two weeks old when the article was published (the domain name was registered on 25 July 2017 by the Albanian owner of another fake news site, OnlineNativeNews.com), yet the text itself dates back to May 2014, when it first appeared, verbatim, on the web site World News Daily Report (WNDR), a tireless purveyor of “satirical” content since 2013. As to the question of the article’s authenticity, then, we refer you to WNDR’s own disclaimer, which reads: World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle. Getting down to specifics, there is no Russian Institute for Medical Science in Novosibirsk, Siberia (although the Russian Academy of Sciences is located there), nor were we able to find evidence of the existence of the two Russian scientists named as participants in the research, Dr. Dimitri Yusrokov Slamini and Dr. Yuri Krutchev.
|
32315
|
"The CDC has proposed a new rule enabling the agency to ""apprehend and detain anyone, anywhere, at any time, without Due Process or any right of appeal"" and ""administer forced vaccinations."
|
An alarmist rumor misleadingly claimed the CDC was planning to apprehend and detain Americans to administer forced vaccinations.
|
false
|
Politics Conspiracy Theories, cdc, department of health and human services, dhhs
|
On 1 September 2016 the web site Red Flag News published an article reporting that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) proposed a 15 August 2016 rule newly granting the agency the power to apprehend, detain, and vaccinate by force any American citizen. The article’s composition suggested that the CDC had simply sought the power — without limitation — to arbitrarily apprehend, detain, and vaccinate Americans for no apparent reason: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has proposed a “rule” giving them the power to apprehend and detain anyone, anywhere, at any time, without Due Process or any right of appeal, and to hold that person in quarantine for as long as the CDC wants — and no one can refuse them! Editor’s Opinion: This is the kind of tyranny that the Second Amendment is designed to protect Americans from. Based on CDC’s 8/15/16 publication of ‘Rules for the Control of Communicable Diseases’, the CDC is giving itself the power to forcibly apprehend healthy people en masse, and detain them indefinitely with no process of appeal. “and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.” Of course and as would be expected from a totalitarian unconstitutional power grab, “When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer.” Moreover, the CDC also would like the public’s input on the fact their power is not limited to just individual persons but rather they could apprehend entire cities in mass if they so desired: “the proposed practice to issue Federal orders before a medical examination has taken place. “ CDC sneaks in its unlimited and unchecked authority. They’ve couched this authority by describing how they “generally” expect it to work in a temporary manner, but they’ve also clearly stated it is open ended and there is no discussion of due process in the A&D phase (again CDC wants your comments on this fact). IF an order of isolation, quarantine, or conditional release is issued, the CDC gives those so ordered one chance in the first 72 hours to ask CDC to change their minds, after which unlimited detention is again on the table. The CDC can stop, detain, and jail you anywhere. FORCED VACCINATION “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.” Even though the CDC believes it can force all the above procedures on individuals and groups, it also uses “voluntary agreements” for the sole purpose of making forced actions easier to perform. Anyone breaking these “voluntary agreements”, even if they didn’t agree to them, is subject to criminal prosecution. The article referenced by name a 15 August 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) document published to the Federal Register pertaining to updated rule changes proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). That document was prefaced with an section explaining that changes to quarantine regulations were being proposed due to recent outbreaks of communicable diseases (such as Ebola, MERS, and measles) around the world: Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is amending its domestic (interstate) and foreign quarantine regulations to best protect the public health of the United States. These amendments are being proposed to aid public health responses to outbreaks of communicable diseases such as the largest recorded outbreak of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) in history, the recent outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, and repeated outbreaks and responses to measles in the United States, as well as the ongoing threat of other new or re-emerging communicable diseases. The provisions contained herein provide additional clarity to various safeguards to prevent the importation and spread of communicable diseases affecting human health into the United States and interstate. In a section explaining the rationale behind the NPRM, the DHHS specifically stated that it included due process provisions to ensure that individual civil liberties would be well-balanced against proposed measures to protect public health: [T]his NPRM contains due process provisions (requirements relating to administrative records, quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, and agreements; authorization for payment for medical care and treatment; and an explanation of applicable criminal penalties) which are intended to inform the U.S. public of what steps HHS/CDC might take to protect public health during an outbreak while safeguarding the rights of the individual. Although these processes have been implemented through internal standard operating procedures, these procedures have not been codified, explicitly set forth in regulation, and made publicly available until today. These provisions are needed to provide transparency and assure the traveling public and any individual potentially placed under a Federal public health order that HHS/CDC will protect their individual liberties. The provisions in this NPRM describe the regulatory activities that HHS/CDC may undertake to reduce and mitigate the risk of outbreaks of Ebola, MERS, measles, and other communicable diseases in the United States. Greater transparency and public understanding of its processes, authorities, and procedures, will allow HHS/CDC to respond more effectively to these public health emergencies. The article held that the CDC proposes granting itself the power to “apprehend and detain anyone, anywhere, at any time, without Due Process or any right of appeal, and to hold that person in quarantine for as long as the CDC wants.” However, 42 U.S. Code § 264, originally codified in 1944 and updated several times throughout the years, already grants the federal government authority to take necessary measures (including the apprehension of individuals) in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases: The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary. Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. The same rumor focused heavily on “forced vaccines” supposedly to be imposed upon any American abritrarily plucked off the street as part of a mandatory “agreement” with such persons. However, the NPRM defined those agreements in the context of a severe outbreak of communicable disease, as a measure upon which conditional release from quarantine or isolation might be predicated. No portion of the NPRM described vaccinating isolated or quarantined individuals without their consent (although it allowed for restricting the movement of such individuals during a public health emergency): This proposed provision allows HHS/CDC to enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as HHS/CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual agrees to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s agreement shall not be considered as a prerequisite to the exercise of the CDC’s authority under this part. HHS/CDC believes that the availability of agreements is an important tool to obtain an individual’s compliance with public health measures and as a means of building trust with the individual. An agreement, for instance, may be used in circumstances where an individual agrees to comply with the instructions of public health staff, such as to not engage in travel, limit social contacts, or remain in home quarantine. An agreement will typically include a statement indicating the individual chooses to enter into the agreement on a voluntary basis, without duress or coercion, and with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances of his/her individual case. Individuals who decline to enter into such agreements will not face criminal or other penalties for not entering into such agreements. It should be noted that in the U.S., forced quarantine or isolation is considered an extreme measure and is typically undertaken by individual states, not by federal agencies such as the CDC. (The latter only provides guidelines that states may use in deciding when quarantines are called for.) In fact, the recent NPRM was prompted (in part) by a nurse who filed a lawsuit against New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and then-Commissioner of Health Mary O’Dowd for detaining her as part of a mandatory quarantine for anyone returning from specified West African countries who had treated patients with Ebola, and who successfully challenged attempts by the state of Maine to quarantine her: Kaci Hickox, the Doctors Without Borders nurse whom New Jersey forced into quarantine after she treated Ebola patients in West Africa, [has] sued Gov. Chris Christie for allegedly imprisoning her against her will. Christie had “no medical epidemiological or legal grounds to hold me,” Hickox said. Hickox treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone before she returned to the United States on Oct. 24, 2014. She was held in a quarantine tent in New Jersey for a little more than three days before she was released to Maine, her home at the time — which also sought to quarantine her. But Hickox defied Maine’s government, winning a court order that she could come and go as she pleased as long as she submitted to monitoring for infection by the deadly virus.
|
13824
|
"Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton ""wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."
|
"Trump said, ""My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."" The addition of the word essentially doesn’t change the accuracy of this claim. We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership. Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation."
|
false
|
National, Guns, Donald Trump,
|
"In officially accepting the GOP presidential nomination, Donald Trump tried to finesse one of his favorite but attacks on the campaign trail: ""My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,"" Trump said July 21 in Cleveland. It’s nice that Trump added the word ""essentially,"" but the charge is still not without faults. When we last looked at the claim, we found no evidence that Clinton has ever said she wants to repeal or abolish the Second Amendment. She has called for stronger regulations, but continuously affirms her support for the right to bear arms. However, gun rights advocates argue that it’s reasonable to infer from a few comments that she wants to roll back the Second Amendment as it’s currently interpreted. Straight shooting on the campaign trail In both her 2008 and 2016 White House bids, Clinton has called for more gun control all the while saying she ""believes in the Second Amendment."" Here are a few examples of comments she’s made: • January 2008, Democratic presidential debate: ""I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."" • August 2015, in response to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia: ""We are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths."" • January 2016, on Twitter: ""Nobody's attacking the Second Amendment. We can protect Americans' rights — and also protect families from gun violence. #GOPdebate"" • June 2016, on ABC’s This Week: ""I believe we can have common-sense gun-safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."" (More on this later.) Setting aside the bulk of Clinton’s comments on protecting the Second Amendment (examples here, here, here, here, here and here), we’ll now go over three points that some gun rights advocates and experts say gives Trump’s charge some credence. Smoking guns? Clinton riled the gun lobby with two eyebrow-raising comments last fall and one from this spring. Clinton said in October 2015 a national gun buyback program like Australia’s compulsory program was ""worth looking into."" After a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic weapons and enacted a mandatory buyback of the newly prohibited guns. That program is ""incompatible with private ownership of guns,"" Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told us in May. (The National Rifle Association shares this view.) The full context of Clinton’s response, however, suggests she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program, as she also evoked voluntary buybacks as potential models for a U.S. program. Second, Clinton said in a leaked recording of a private fundraiser that she thinks the Supreme Court ""is wrong on the Second Amendment,"" referring to its landmark ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the individual’s right to bear arms. Experts who support gun rights told us undoing Heller basically ends the Second Amendment as currently interpreted. They pointed out that former Justice Department officials under President Bill Clinton and his appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in Heller that gun regulations do not violate the Second Amendment because it primarily pertains to a well-regulated militia, not the individual right to bear arms. Clinton, in her June interview on This Week, added fuel to the fire when she appeared to talk about the individual right as a hypothetical. ""Do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?"" host George Stephanopoulos asked. ""If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation,"" she responded. ""And what people have done with (the Heller) decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms."" The NRA and voices on the right seized upon these comments as proof that Clinton doesn’t really believe in the individual right to bear arms. But that ignores what she said immediately after: ""So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right — I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else."" UCLA Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, meanwhile, said that the accuracy of Trump’s charge depends on Clinton’s grounds for rejecting Heller. (According to news reports from the 2008 election, she supported Washington’s handgun ban.) ""If she thought the reasoning was wrong, but the result right, then she would fit in with a number of strong pro-gun advocates,"" he said. ""If, however, she thought there should be no protection for gun rights, then Trump's claim comes closer to the truth."" The Clinton campaign previously told us Clinton ""believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe."" This suggests Clinton disagrees with the court declaring the district’s ban on handguns unconstitutional, not necessarily the individual right itself — a position that’s more or less in line with the George W. Bush administration’s position on Heller of recognizing the right but allowing reasonable curtailment. Our ruling Trump said, ""My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."" The addition of the word essentially doesn’t change the accuracy of this claim. We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership. Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation.
|
11824
|
"Wisconsin's Lincoln Hills youth prison has a ""66 percent recidivism rate,"" while ""states like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent."
|
"Hintz says Wisconsin's Lincoln Hills youth prison has a ""66 percent recidivism rate,"" while ""states like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent."" He is essentially correct on Wisconsin. The latest figures show that 63 percent of Lincoln Hills offenders are returned to either a juvenile correctional facility or an adult prison, or were placed on probation for a new offense, within three years of being released. But the comparison to Missouri misses on several counts. Missouri reports a three-year youth recidivism rate of 30 percent, not 8 percent -- and even that is misleading. While Lincoln Hills incarcerates only serious male offenders, Missouri’s youth correctional system includes males and females who commit offenses ranging from serious crimes to truancy. So, Hintz is comparing two significantly different populations. Hintz’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
false
|
Children, Criminal Justice, Crime, States, Wisconsin, Gordon Hintz,
|
"For two years, Wisconsin’s youth prison for males has been under an FBI-led criminal investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse, child neglect, sexual assault, intimidation of witnesses and victims, strangulation and tampering with public records. Should the facility, Lincoln Hills School, be shut down? That question was posed to Wisconsin Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz in an interview on Nov. 21, 2017, the day after the Oshkosh Democrat toured Lincoln Hills. Responding to Wisconsin Eye TV host Steven Walters, Hintz said an alternative would have to be developed first. Then he made a statement that seemed to indict the facility, saying: We have a 66 percent recidivism rate for the kids there, in the three years after they get out. States like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent."" So, 66 percent of Lincoln Hills inmates commit new offenses within three years of being released? And that’s eight times higher than in states such as Missouri, which has been held up as a potential model for Wisconsin? We’ll see that, as national experts have stated, comparing states on juvenile recidivism is not easily done. The trouble at Lincoln Hills Lincoln Hills generally holds inmates as young as 13 and as old as 25, with most inmates in their mid-to late-teens; some adults are being held for crimes they committed as juveniles. Incarcerating an inmate there costs more than $100,000 a year. Groups such as Youth Justice Milwaukee, which is calling for Wisconsin’s youth prisons to be closed, argue that conditions at Lincoln Hills can lead to higher recidivism -- inmates committing new offenses after they’re released. Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele has gone even further than Hintz, saying 75 percent of Lincoln Hills inmates fall back into criminal activity. Meanwhile, Missouri -- when facing problems similar to those at Lincoln Hills, such as fights between inmates, long stints in solitary confinement and injuries inflicted by guards -- replaced large institutions with small facilities, closer to young offenders' homes. But the contrast in recidivism between the two states is not how Hintz portrays it. Hintz’s partially accurate evidence To back Hintz’s claim, his office cited a January 2017 report by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. It says that according to the latest available data, Lincoln Hills has a three-year recidivism rate of 63 percent. That is, 278 juveniles were released from Lincoln Hills in 2011 and 63 percent returned to either a juvenile correctional facility or an adult prison, or were placed on probation for a new offense, by 2014. So, Hintz’s claim of a 66 percent recidivism rate at Lincoln Hills is high by only three percentage points. Missouri’s definition of recidivism is roughly similar to Wisconsin’s, but has four parts. It includes youths who are sent back to the juvenile system, are sent to adult prison, are put on probation, or are put into a 120-day program. But the latest State of Missouri figures show Missouri’s three-year recidivism rate, for 2013 to 2016, is 30 percent. That’s far less than Lincoln Hills’ 63 percent. But it’s also much higher than the 8 percent Hintz claimed. That lower rate applies only to the first part of Missouri’s recidivism definition -- youths who commit new offenses and are sent back to the youth system. Apples and oranges There are also other problems with comparing Lincoln Hills to Missouri: Lincoln Hills Missouri Latest three-year recidivism rate is 2011-2014 Latest recidivism rate is 2013-2016 Only male inmates Male and female offenders Inmates have committed serious, violent crimes — including homicide and robbery — or have had repeated run-ins with the law and didn’t turn their behavior around after being sent to group homes. Youths have committed a wide variety of offenses, from serious felonies to truancy and curfew violations. Those create a major apples-to-oranges problem for Hintz’s statement, particularly the fact Missouri’s count includes many less serious offenders than Lincoln Hills. Our rating Hintz says Wisconsin's Lincoln Hills youth prison has a ""66 percent recidivism rate,"" while ""states like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent."" He is essentially correct on Wisconsin. The latest figures show that 63 percent of Lincoln Hills offenders are returned to either a juvenile correctional facility or an adult prison, or were placed on probation for a new offense, within three years of being released. But the comparison to Missouri misses on several counts. Missouri reports a three-year youth recidivism rate of 30 percent, not 8 percent -- and even that is misleading. While Lincoln Hills incarcerates only serious male offenders, Missouri’s youth correctional system includes males and females who commit offenses ranging from serious crimes to truancy. So, Hintz is comparing two significantly different populations. Hintz’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
39724
|
This is a YouTube video that is circulating the Internet allegedly by a 15 year old girl called Amanda Todd. She tells how someone on the Internet coaxed her into flashing her chest in a webcam session and how the events that followed led to depression, addiction and her suicide.
|
Amanda Todd's YouTube Video on Struggling, Bullying, Suicide and Self Harm
|
true
|
Computers, Crime / Police, Miscellaneous
|
The YouTube video is real according to an October 12, 2012 news article by ABC News Nightline. The article said, “Amanda Todd, 15, posted the video called ‘My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm’ on Sept. 7 and was found dead in her home town of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, just over a month later.” The article also said that Todd had been coaxed by a stranger on the internet to flash her chest via webcam. After about a year of prompting by the stranger she eventually gave in and the events that followed escalated into a teen’s nightmare. A photo of the session was posted on the Internet and someone contact her though Facebook threatening her that if she did not “put on a show” that the photo would be released. The article went on to say, “Over Christmas break, Todd said police came to her house at 4 a.m. to tell her that the photo had been sent to everyone. ‘I then got really sick and got anxiety, major depression and panic disorders,’ she wrote. ‘I then moved and got into drugs and alcohol. '” The cyber-bullies followed her move to a new school in another city and eventually the attacks not only came from the Internet but also from her new classmates who prompted her to find another school. The article said that in the early evening of October 10th law enforcement were called to a home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, “to investigate the sudden death of the tormented teenager.” Investigators found no evidence of foul play but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have yet to rule her death a suicide. updated 10/15/12 Comments
|
25644
|
“In some of these other states, some of their deaths can be attributable to the fact that they were having a hard time getting an ICU bed or a ventilator to a patient.”
|
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper said some COVID-19 patients have died because they couldn't access a ventilator or bed in an Intensive Care Unit. Studies have shown that mortality rates rise when hospitals are overwhelmed, and some news articles suggest that has happened during the pandemic. However, the American Hospital Association and other experts say they're not aware of specific cases where the lack of a ventilator or ICU bed directly contributed to someone's death.
|
false
|
North Carolina, Coronavirus, Roy Cooper,
|
"North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper says one of his goals is to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. While that may be a noble cause, Republicans are questioning a claim he made during a recent briefing. ""In some of these other states, some of their deaths can be attributable to the fact that they were having a hard time getting an ICU bed or a ventilator to a patient,"" Cooper said during a press conference on Aug. 13. Is it true that some people have died because they had trouble accessing a ventilator, or a bed in the intensive care unit? It’s true that more patients die at hospitals that are overwhelmed, as studies demonstrated even before the onset of the current pandemic. The Cooper administration also cited news articles where doctors said they worried about having enough resources to provide optimum levels of care. But there’s little documentation of COVID-19 patients dying specifically because they couldn’t access a ventilator or ICU bed. At the onset of the pandemic, medical experts worried that there wouldn’t be enough ventilators to save patients who had severe symptoms of COVID-19. The virus primarily affects the lungs and ventilators are designed to help patients breathe. The availability of ventilators became a political issue, with some governors saying the Trump administration didn’t provide their states with enough of the machines. PolitiFact investigated the issue of ventilator access, finding in late April that it hadn’t become the nationwide problem health experts and medical professionals feared. Officials from 30 states told PolitiFact that they weren’t aware of any cases where their hospitals couldn’t provide ventilators to COVID-19 patients. At the time, a spokesman for the American Hospital Association said the organization wasn’t aware of any patient dying because they couldn’t access a ventilator. Presented with Cooper’s quote from August, the AHA spokesman said nothing has changed. ""To the best of our knowledge, a ventilator has been available for every patient that needed one. So nothing has changed since we said the same thing in April,"" AHA spokesman Colin Milligan said. PolitiFact North Carolina reached out to other experts quoted in the April fact check. Eric Toner is a senior scholar of internal and emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. He previously said he ""would not be surprised if we find out later that some tragic triage choices had to be made."" We contacted Toner again and asked if he’s aware of anyone who died because they couldn’t access a ventilator. ""I do not,"" he said. ""There are hushed rumors but nothing that I can cite or that anyone will openly admit to."" Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, was also quoted in PolitiFact’s April article. He told us that any evidence of such deaths are likely to be anecdotal, and not necessarily something that’s documented. ""If your ICU is full, you’re going to try to make the best of it. You’re likely going to try to treat them in a step-down unit,"" Wynia said. ""You’re not going to find anyone who says we openly discussed this with the family and says ‘I’m sorry, we’re out of beds and ventilators.’"" Low resources can affect a patient’s level of care, he added. ""It’s something that no one wants to say, and for good reason. The reality is when a healthcare system is completely overrun, it’s not able to deliver services at its normal quality."" When contacted by PolitiFact, the Cooper administration provided links to news stories where hospital officials worried about resources running out. They also provided links to studies that tied resource shortages to mortality rates. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that COVID-19 patients had higher survival rates at bigger hospitals, which tend to have more resources than small hospitals. Dr. David Leaf, who works in Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, explained the findings to WBUR in Boston: ""Patients who were admitted to hospitals with fewer than 50 ICU beds— so, smaller hospitals — had a more than threefold higher risk of death than patients admitted to larger hospitals."" A study of patient outcomes in Wuhan, China, found that the availability of intensive care unit (ICU) rooms had a significant impact on how long a patient lived, according to Contagion: Infectious Diseases Today. A July story in the Harvard Business Review used data from Germany and Italy to emphasize the need to relocate patients when ICU’s reach full capacity. Despite what the studies say, we struggled to find news stories about specific people who died waiting for an ICU bed or a ventilator. A March New York Times story reported that some have died inside the emergency room while waiting for a bed. Doctors told the Times that some patients were found dead in their rooms while doctors were busy helping others. A Buzzfeed article from April quoted several doctors who attributed deaths to a lack of resources. ""There’s a list about six [types of] patients that do not get put on a vent. ‘It makes no sense, they’re going to die soon anyway, so let them die’ — like that’s the crazy thought process,"" one doctor said. In July, Newsweek reported that a 70-year-old woman died less than a week after allegedly being turned away from two Florida hospitals. Also in July, CBS reported on a judge in Starr County, Texas, who said on Facebook that a lack of resources left a local hospital with the responsibility of choosing to help and ""who is sent home to die."" Cooper said ""in some of these other states, some of their deaths can be attributable to the fact that they were having a hard time getting an ICU bed or a ventilator to a patient."" Cooper was trying to make a point that it’s important to protect hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. That’s a valid concern, given studies show mortality rates can rise when hospitals are overwhelmed. Some news articles have also alluded to these problems. However, Cooper goes too far in saying some deaths have been attributed to a lack of ICU and ventilator access. The American Hospital Association, along with experts who have tracked resource availability during the pandemic, say they’re unaware of any specific cases where someone died specifically because they couldn’t access a ventilator or ICU bed. Cooper didn't cite, and PolitiFact couldn't find, enough evidence to support the claim. Cooper’s statement contains an element of truth, but doesn’t account for critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
18268
|
A hidden provision in Obamacare taxes sporting goods as medical devices.
|
Chain email claims the health care law contains a hidden tax on sporting goods
|
false
|
Ohio, Health Care, Taxes, Chain email,
|
"PolitiFact started checking claims about the three-year-old Affordable Care Act, the health care law often called Obamacare, before the legislation became law. The checked statements have rated from True to ! on the Truth-O-Meter, but falsehoods have often drowned out the truths.Though some of the law's provisions have gone into effect, and many of its biggest features kick in next year, polls show the public still has a hard time understanding what's in it. We've looked repeatedly at the most persistent claims, and have seen many of them evolve. We at PolitiFact Ohio thought we had a new claim this month, when a reader forwarded a chain email we hadn't seen before. We looked into it, saw it dealt with a subject familiar to us, and found that it has been examined by our friends at the nonpolitical Snopes.com and several other rumor-checking sites. The email is built on a sales receipt from Cabela's, the Nebraska-based outdoor merchandise chain whose locations include Ohio. The receipt, like one posted by Snopes.com, shows a charge for a ""medical excise tax."" The chain email claims that Cabela's has ""refused to hide"" the charge, which is ""supposed to be hidden from the consumer."" It goes on to say that the medical excise tax is ""hidden in Obamacare,"" and that it applies to certain medical devices starting Jan. 1, 2013. Quoting an IRS publication on excise taxes, the email asks: ""What do I find under 'medical devices' under 'manufacturers taxes'?"" In answer, it lists: ""Sport fishing equipment; fishing rods and fishing poles; electric outboard motors; fishing tackle boxes; bows, quivers, broadheads and points; arrow shafts; coal; taxable tires; gas guzzler automobiles, and vaccines."" Let's take the parts of the claim separately. First, it is true that there is a 2.3 percent tax on the first sale of certain medical devices in the Affordable Care Act, but it is not hidden. We've done at least six fact-checks about it, starting in October 2009, and it has been cited in numerous print and broadcast ads by opponents of the health care law, including a spot for presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The tax is one of the provisions in the law that offset the added costs of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The tax does not apply to eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, bandages or other medical devices ""generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use,"" the law states. The tax does not apply to devices made for export. It does apply to imported devices as well as those made domestically. The Internal Revenue Service has posted information about what constitutes a taxable medical device. None of the items listed in the chain email are included. Those items are listed by the IRS as being subject to excise taxes that predate the health care act and have nothing to do with it. Contrary to the emailer's claim, the items are not listed under ""medical devices"" by the IRS. So why the charge on the receipt from Cabela's? The company earlier gave an explanation to its hometown Scottsbluff Star-Herald newspaper. And it confirmed to us that it was reported accurately. A Cabela's spokesman blamed a companywide ""glitch"" in its sales register system. The problem added a 2.3 percent ""medical excise tax"" to all purchases at its stores on Jan. 1. The error was caught the same day, the spokesman said, and the charges would be refunded. Vendors typically use new sales software at the start of a year to handle changes in tax laws, Snopes.com noted. Even though the cost of taxes are typically passed along to consumers, however, the medical device excise tax applies only to manufacturers and importers, not to consumers. Like many chain emails, the one about Cabela’s mixes fact with falsehood. The fact is the existence of the medical device excise tax, effective on Jan. 1, as part of the Affordable Care Act. But there the accuracy ends. The tax is not hidden. It does not apply to consumer products. The emailer’s ""proof"" of the claim that it does is actually, at best, an erroneous interpretation of an IRS posting on other excise taxes. Finally, Cabela’s told the Star-Herald that its charge was the erroneous result of a software ""glitch,"" and the money would be refunded. The email is not accurate, and its preposterous claim that fishing tackle, tires and gas-guzzling cars are classified as ""medical devices"" puts it in another category: !"
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.