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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10629
|
Restoring testosterone rather than replacing it helps safeguard a man's fertility
|
What does it mean when a news release states that an approach “helps safeguard a man’s fertility?” The Limitations section of the study, which the news release describes, gives a very good look at what isn’t known and what perhaps can’t be said at this stage of research. But the news release uses definitive, positive terms such as “could change the way men are treated for low testosterone.” Any time you see “could,” feel free to substitute “may not.” It could go either way as more evidence is gathered. Many men must be confused about all of the advertising claims about treatments for low testosterone in recent years. Journal news releases can do a lot of good in helping to educate men in depth and with details. Or they can simply add to the cacophony. It’s important to put a news release geared for the public into clear and honest context. This release didn’t do that. The study participants were young (average ages 45 to 49), obese men with low testosterone and secondary hypogonadism. This means that the testes were functional, but the men had problems with pituitary function. There are many causes for secondary hypogonadism, but the release and even the study failed to provide this detail. We also don’t know the indications for raising testosterone in these men. Were the volunteers having symptoms or medical problems related to hypogonadism? Again, this lack of clarity on several fronts precludes the extension of the research findings to the population at large.
|
false
|
Journal news release
|
The news release doesn’t give the cost of either of the drugs that are compared in the study. The release simply states that “enclomiphene citrate restored blood testosterone levels to normal after 16 weeks.” But in a news release for which the headline states testosterone “helps safeguard a man’s fertility,” we look for something more. And even the limitations discussion of the journal article in question discusses what isn’t revealed in the news release. Excerpts: “Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was not addressed in the present study” “The true impact of a medication on male fertility is difficult to assess without actual pregnancy or live birth data,” admitting that semen analysis is “far from being a true proxy for fertility.” “Finally, the duration of the study is relatively short-term compared with the length of therapy seen in clinical practice.” The release doesn’t tell us about the fertility rates in subjects receiving the new drug, nor to what degree the “marked reductions” in sperm counts in the testosterone group affected fertility. The news release did not include any mention of adverse events from the trial in question. We always look for an explicit discussion of potential harms. Excerpts from the journal manuscript: “There were 53 (21%) men in the studies who had adverse events considered by the investigators to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the study drug. None of these were severe and none were serious…. Other than a road traffic death, the only death was in the ZA-304 study. This was a 59-year-old Caucasian with secondary hypogonadism who was treated in a ‘blinded’ fashion with 12.5 mg enclomiphene citrate for 34 days before an ischaemic stroke….His high number of risk factors and limited exposure made it highly unlikely that the study medication was the cause of his death in the opinion of the investigator.” Regarding the researchers’ statement that none of the adverse events were severe or serious, we always think that’s in the eye of the beholder — the patients, who, of course, are not heard from. But what we’re reviewing is the news release, which is silent on potential harms. Our reviewers noted that the FDA has issued a safety alert to add information to labeling about a possible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking testosterone. If enclomiphene raises testosterone levels it’s hard to accept the investigator (with a possible financial conflict) dismissing the possibility that the drug caused the stroke. Even though we’ve already given an unsatisfactory score in the “Benefits” criterion above for what the news release chose not to discuss, we think it deserves another unsatisfactory score in this criterion because it didn’t discuss any of the limitations of this work, thereby giving an incomplete look at the quality of the evidence. How transferable are the findings from the small group of overweight men with hypogonadism who were studied to the broader population of men now treated for low testosterone? These are among the evidentiary questions that come to mind. We must also raise the question whether there’s a clinical indication based on the evidence provided for younger men with secondary hypogonadism to raise their testosterone levels. This is a tough call. It’s difficult to assign either a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory grade to this criterion because the news release actually provides no meaningful discussion of the underlying condition that may lead a man to seek treatment. In such cases, we usually assign a Not Applicable score. Two of the three researchers, co-authors of the journal manuscript, are consultants to Repros Therapeutics. This is disclosed in the journal manuscript but not mentioned in the news release. Enclomiphene is in their product pipeline. The very basis of the news release — and the study upon which it is based — is a comparison of alternatives. The news release did not explicitly describe the availability of Enclomiphene citrate. The study indicated that clomiphene, closely related to the study drug, is used “off label” for hypogonadal men. It has not been approved by the FDA for use in men. The news release doesn’t provide any information about other alternatives to testosterone replacement therapy. Is there other research in this field? Are other drugs being investigated in a manner similar to these studies about Enclomiphene? We’d never know based on this news release. Given the on-going disease mongering surrounding “low T” perpetrated by pharmaceutical companies, one obvious alternative is no treatment. There was no overtly sensational language used in this news release.
|
29267
|
"Undocumented immigrants in the United States receive a job, a driver's license, food stamps, health care, housing, education, a ""tax-free business for seven years,"" and ""child benefits."
|
"What's true: Undocumented immigrants are entitled to public education in most parts of the United States. What's false: Undocumented immigrants are not entitled to most of the government benefits afforded to United States citizens, particularly when it comes to health care and housing. Far from getting a ""tax free business,"" undocumented immigrants pay taxes, mostly without benefitting from the programs they help fund."
|
false
|
Racial Rumors, daca, immigration, undocumented immigrants
|
A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation. A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it’s illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn’t authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) Of course, that doesn’t stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. A driver’s license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver’s license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes. “A place to live” Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters. It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage. Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey. Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes. Child benefits It’s not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by “child benefits,” but let’s take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit. Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program. Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships. A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of “tax holiday.”
|
39082
|
A widely circulated message encourages recipients to sign an online petition in support of “The Breast Cancer Protection Act” in the U.S. Congress. It would require insurance companies to cover a minimum of a 48 hour hospital stay for women who have undergone mastectomies. You are linked to Lifeline television for the petition.
|
Petition in Support of The Breast Cancer Protection Act
|
true
|
Government, Health / Medical, Medical, Pleas
|
According to Lifetime TV, this is true. A petition was circulated by Lifetime in 1996, but the Breast Cancer Protection Act never came to vote. The measure has been reintroduced b y U.S. representative Rosa DeLauro. Their goal is to prevent women from having to leaving the hospital after a mastectomy before they are ready. Updated 8/2/01 For more information: Click here for the Lifetime TV page Comments
|
38436
|
Benefits of the power of a supplement called “Inteligen” to increase intelligence have been trumpeted by the likes of CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Stephen Hawking.
|
Claims About Brain-Boosting Inteligen Pill Supplement
|
unproven
|
Health / Medical
|
There’s no scientific proof that Inteligen actually increases intelligence, focus or memory recall — so you should be leery of any promises that it makes. The issue with products like Inteligen is that they’re considered “supplements” under the law, so the FDA does not subject them to oversight. That means the maker of Inteligen doesn’t have to back up its spectacular claims that the supplement can “enhance focus, boosts intelligence and increase your productivity.” Inteligen’s website describes the product as a blend of “nutrients, amino acids and vitamin B6” that boosts brain function. Those ingredients and claims are so vague that they’re impossible to fact-check. And rumors that Stephen Hawking backed Inteligen in an interview with Anderson Cooper have been used to lend credibility to the supplement — but they’re not true. The same tactic has been used to make it (falsely) appear that Cooper and Hawking have endorsed a number of brain-boost supplements, and Inteligen is just the most recent. One article, for example, reports that Hawking talked about the benefits of a different brain-boosting supplement, BrainPlus IQ, during an interview with Cooper. In later versions, “BrainPlus IQ” will simply be repalced with “Inteligen”: In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Stephen Hawking said that his ability to predict the future doesn’t exist, but his brain is sharper than ever, more clear and focused, and he credits a large part to using BrainPlus IQ. Hawking went on to add “The brain is like a muscle, you have to work it out and use supplements just like body builders use, but for your brain, and that’s exactly what I’ve been doing to enhance my mental capabilities”. The interview never took place, and we couldn’t find any record of Hawking actually endorsing any brain-boosting supplements. The medical director of the Byrd Alzheimer’s Institute at the University of South Florida said supplements like Inteligen and BrainPlus IQ “give people false hope,” The Tampa Bay Times reports: Many doctors say the supplements lack scientific evidence to prove they work, and as nutritional supplements, they are not regulated by the federal government as are medications. The ads tout clinical trials, but these are at best small, short-term tests published in journals that are not well-known or respected — hardly comparable with accepted medical standards. Some brain supplements do contain ingredients that have been studied extensively and are used widely for memory disorders. The moss extract huperzine A, found in Procera AVH (a different brain-boosting supplement), has similar properties to the Alzheimer’s drug Aricept, and is the most common treatment for Alzheimer’s in China, Smith said. But with vague labeling and little regulation, there’s no way to know how much of these ingredients are in any supplement, or how high their quality is. In the end, there’s no scientific proof that any of these supplements work. Talk to your doctor before trying them, or avoid them all together. Comments
|
9264
|
Experts say inexpensive drug could slow heart disease for type 1 diabetic patients
|
This news release from Newcastle University reports on a small pilot study testing whether type 1 diabetes patients who add the drug metformin to their daily regimen reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease. Based on a reduction in markers indicating blood vessel damage, and an increase in markers indicating blood vessel repair, the researchers conclude the risk is lowered, but the study wasn’t designed in a way that would show an actual risk reduction. Thus, claims such as this one by the study researchers — “this study has shown metformin has additional benefit beyond improving diabetes control when given to patients with relatively well controlled Type 1 diabetes” — represent an overreach, because the study wasn’t capable of showing a benefit on any outcome that would actually matter to a patient. Additionally, the release offers no numerical data on changes in levels of the measured markers — only general statements. Nor does it mention the cost of the drug, which is nominal, but which could garner a large sales market. Lastly, it offers a patient testimonial by way of anecdotal information which may or may not be representative of the experiences of others. Type I diabetes is a serious lifelong disease that places patients in a constant state of risk, depending on their blood sugar levels. People with the disease are more prone to cardiovascular disease so any treatment that might lower that risk, slowing that degradation, should benefit the 400,000 people in the United Kingdom who have this disease, as well as similar patient populations around the world. Because of that, people deserve quantitative information about how treatments affect patient outcomes improvements in treating the disease, and this release, sadly, offers little. Because the study reports on disease oriented outcome but doesn’t measure any patient oriented outcomes, it should be followed by a large randomized clinical trial conducted over a very long period of time.
|
false
|
metforim,Newcastle University,Type 1 diabetes treatment
|
The release makes no mention of costs at all, although the unit cost of the drug is both quite low and readily available. Diabetic patients already spend a substantive amount for their medications over their lives and knowing that the addition of this other drug would not be an undue financial burden would be a welcome piece of information. Since the study was done in the UK, one might have expected some comment on the effect of the use of this drug in a large number of type I diabetics on the health care system. The release makes clear that cardiovascular disease is a major risk for patients with diabetes and the study was intended to show whether the additional drug, metformin, could lower that risk. The release states that the study showed a decrease in markers indicating damaged blood vessels and an increase in markers showing blood vessel repair, among other findings. But the release falls short by not providing any numerical data suggesting the degree of improvement in these markers, and therefore denies readers the ability to make their own determination as to the importance of this research. The release makes no mention of any side effects or harms to participants from the use of metformin, although a host of minor-to-moderate side effects may be routinely seen with this drug. The research paper itself limits discussion of side effects to “any major or severe episodes of hypoglycemia,” which it defines as instances of low blood sugar “requiring intervention of another person to resolve the event,” or any episode of hypoglycemia “resulting in a loss of consciousness.” Although none were reported, both instances seem substantively more serious than minor side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects, for example, are commonly reported by patients taking metformin. And there are some relatively commonly found metabolic adverse effects of metformin (metabolic acidosis) that could have been looked for to determine if there is an increased incidence in this ‘vulnerable’ group. While the research paper goes into substantial detail in providing numerical data on the levels of markers measured in this study, the news release offers none of that. It does state that this was a pilot study comparing a small number of patients split between the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes and those receiving additional doses of metformin. It also states that findings from these patients were compared to those from a group of healthy volunteers. But again, the findings reported in the release are general statements that offer readers no way to gauge change. Perhaps more importantly, the release never directly cautions that the outcomes studied are surrogate markers of risk, and that the study wasn’t capable of showing an actual reduction in the number of cardiovascular events — something which may or may not be demonstrated in additional studies. Lastly, there is a feature of the study that raised some questions. There was a “run-in” period (often used by drug sponsors to select or exclude patients based on their potential response to the drug) that was not clearly or comprehensively described. There is no description of what was measured here and what the criteria were for “passing” the run-in period. The release does not appear to commit disease mongering. The release mentions that the study was funded by the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation and the Diabetes Research Fund in Gateshead. Neither the news release or published study address potential conflicts of interest. The funding foundation lists only its board of directors and no background information on the group is readily available. There are no mentions in the release of possible alternatives to metformin as a means to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes patients. It would be of interest to patients to know if intensive dietary and exercise counseling had been studied and what the results were. Since metformin is readily available and currently used in treating type 2 diabetes, the release gets a satisfactory rating in this category. Since cardiovascular disease is a major risk for diabetic patients, research indicating that an existing (presumably inexpensive) drug may lower that risk clearly qualifies as significant enough to warrant a release, in spite of the fact that this was only a small, limited pilot study. This release does not appear to offer any unjustifiable language per se. However, the release seems to point only towards this being totally beneficial without any statement about the likelihood that this “basic science” study would translate to clinically important patient centered outcomes. And there are statements that are clearly overreaching. For example, “We have established the drug increases patients own vascular stem cells, which will help delay or slowdown heart disease.” It’s not at all clear that increasing vascular stem cells will delay or slow down heart disease. We’d need another much larger larger study to show that. Finally, use of anecdotal statements from a trial participant offers little of value for readers. We don’t know if his was the best experience among all the participants, or the worst, or somewhere in between.
|
5624
|
Cantwell, Hutchison meet in second Washington Senate debate.
|
Candidates in Washington’s U.S. senate race clashed Saturday over policies on the environment, trade and tariffs, immigration and health care.
|
true
|
Global trade, Spokane, Maria Cantwell, Washington, Environment, Environmental policy, Tacoma, Donald Trump
|
Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Susan Hutchison held their second debate in Spokane and touched on many of the themes they struck in their first debate Oct. 8 in Tacoma, the KING 5 television station reported. Cantwell said she supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses and reliance on fossil fuels, such as investing in renewable energy. She criticized President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, which aims to combat climate change, the TV station reported. The Trump administration “is not working together with those nations that could help us,” she said. Hutchison said balancing environmental policy with economic needs is crucial, KING 5 reported. “We don’t want to make those who are forced to make decisions.they’re not ready to make as they’re needing a growth in energy,” she said. Cantwell called for more funding on the local law enforcement level to stop the movement of illicit drugs like opioids, KING 5 reported. She also advocated for working with clinics to re-evaluate how pain management is administered. “We’re trying to get away from this very addictive drug,” Cantwell said. Hutchison said fighting the opioid crisis begins with tougher law enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. “There’s no question that drugs are flooding across the southern border,” she said. Hutchison said she did not support the concept of sanctuary cities, saying it hurt immigration reform. “Anytime a municipality takes the law into their own hands and disregards what the law is for the nation, we put ourselves on a slippery slope,” she said. Cantwell did not come out in support of sanctuary cities, but she said she supports local governments who don’t want to be penalized federal dollars while immigration reform is being worked out, KING 5 reported. Cantwell, a former tech executive who previously severed one term the U.S. House and six years as a state representative in the Washington Legislature, beat Republican Sen. Slade Gorton in that 2000 race by just 2,229 votes. Her win margin increased significantly in her next two elections, and she garnered more than 60 percent of the vote in her 2012 re-election bid. Hutchison spent two decades as a Seattle TV news anchor before leading the state Republican party for five years.
|
31297
|
Facebook revised its position on to female toplessness or nipple exposure in imagery as of May 2017.
|
As Mark [Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO] mentioned in his community letter, “each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible,” so we are always open to finding ways to allow more content. With that being said, in general, our policy does not allow female nipples on the platform except in certain circumstances and that that has not changed.
|
false
|
Technology, facebook, nipples, nudity
|
In late May 2017, rumors appeared that a long-standing ban on female toplessness (particularly showing women’s nipples) had been lifted or revised: However, the posts generally did not provide links to any information supporting the claim. In 2014, Facebook changed its policy on photographs showing breastfeeding, instructing its moderators to stop flagging photographs of nursing mothers as obscene. As the Independent reported at the time: Now, the social media giant has ordered its moderators to consider the context of a photo or image, meaning non-sexual photos including female nipples, such as nursing mothers or women with mastectomies, will be allowed on the website. Facebook’s Community Standards as of 5 June 2017 maintained: We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple, but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures. Restrictions on the display of both nudity and sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless the content is posted for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes. Explicit images of sexual intercourse are prohibited. Descriptions of sexual acts that go into vivid detail may also be removed. A Facebook representative told us by e-mail that those standards had not changed:
|
8605
|
Masks should be prioritized for health workers to avoid shortage against coronavirus: WHO.
|
The World Health Organization (WHO) voiced concern on Monday that the wearing of medical masks by the general public could exacerbate the shortage for health workers on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
true
|
Health News
|
It said lockdowns in many places are proving effective in dampening spread of the coronavirus but any lifting of restrictions requires a calibrated, step-wise approach based on data. European nations including hardest-hit Italy and Spain have started looking ahead to easing their lockdowns as fatality rates have fallen, while Austria said on Monday it would start reopening shops from next week, although it widened a requirement to wear face masks. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Gheybresus, noting that several countries were considering new recommendations on masks, said: “First and foremost medical masks must be prioritised for health workers on the front lines of the response. “We are concerned that the mass use of medical masks by the general population could exacerbate the shortage of these specialised masks for the people who need them most,” he told a virtual news conference. “Masks alone cannot stop the pandemic, countries must continue to find, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact.” Tedros also announced that Lady Gaga would direct a televised live concert “One World: Together at Home” with top entertainers including Elton John and Paul McCartney later this month to support health workers. “It has been an honour to help with this huge broadcast event that will take place on April 18 where we need to tell the stories of and celebrate the frontline community, health care workers and their acts of kindness,” Lady Gaga told reporters. In the past week, $35 million had been raised for WHO’s solidarity fund, the American pop star added. Dr. Mike Ryan, WHO’s top emergencies expert, said governments would have to look at specific parameters, including hospital bed occupancy, the doubling rate of infections and the proportion of positive results compared to all tested samples, to determine whether they can start lifting easing measures. “So (we need) a step-wise approach of unlocking somewhat and then waiting to see. I think you need to say we’ll stop doing this element of the shutdown and then we’ll wait and we’ll look at the data. And if that works, we’ll go to the next stage.” He said it was very important to help fragile countries in the developing world to avoid a lockdown situation. Tedros, a former Ethiopian foreign minister, said Africa should do its utmost to prevent coronavirus transmissions. But he condemned what he said were suggestions by some scientists that the “testing ground” for experimental vaccines should be Africa. Normal protocols will be followed, he said. “We will be announcing as soon as possible, hopefully during this week, a big initiative to accelerate the research, development and production of vaccines and also design mechanisms for equitable distribution,” Tedros said.
|
2848
|
China's Nu Skin probe drags down Herbalife, USANA too.
|
China’s regulators launched probes into skincare products maker Nu Skin Enterprises Inc after local media questioned the U.S. company’s business practices, dragging down shares of several retailers that use similar distribution models.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Nu Skin shares shed a third of their market value by Thursday afternoon. Shares of nutritional supplements maker Herbalife Ltd fell 10 percent, while those of USANA Health Sciences were down 12 percent. Earlier Thursday, the Xinhua news agency said the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) ordered local authorities to investigate a report in Communist Party mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, alleging Nu Skin had been exaggerating its influence and creditworthiness in brochures and organizing “brainwashing” gatherings. Short sellers and other critics have accused companies such as Herbalife, USANA and Nu Skin of running illegal pyramid-type schemes, questioning their distribution model where distributors make money not only from their own sales, but also from those by people they recruit to become distributors themselves. In 2012, short seller Andrew Left’s Citron Research said Nu Skin’s direct-selling business in China was actually “pyramid-selling” and was illegal under Chinese law. He accused USANA of the same practices in 2013. The most publicized attack against a nutritional products maker and distributor came from activist investor Bill Ackman, who accused Herbalife in December 2012 of running a pyramid scheme and took a $1 billion short position in the company. Short sellers make money when the stock price of a company drops. They sell borrowed shares in the hope of buying them back at a lower price and return them to the lender, and gain from the difference in price. Xinhua, China’s state news agency, quoted on Thursday an SAIC spokesman as saying the administration would take legal steps against any violations if the probes showed the media reports were factual. “We are aware that Chinese regulators have now initiated investigations to review issues raised by recent news reports,” Nu Skin said in a statement later in the day. Herbalife and USANA could not be immediately reached for comment. Nu Skin said it started its own review of its China operations. The company said the investigation could hurt China revenues, but added that it was too early to say if its previous forecast would be affected. The company’s sales in Greater China more than tripled to $464.6 million in its quarter ended September 30. The region accounted for about half of total sales. Nu Skin said earlier in the day that the People’s Daily article published on Wednesday contained “inaccuracies and exaggerations that are not representative of Nu Skin’s business in China.” The company said it did not believe “that the article was the result of any particular government inquiry.” State media took many foreign firms to task last year over pricing, poor quality and shoddy customer service, including Starbucks Corp, Apple Inc, Samsung Electronics, the KFC restaurants of Yum Brands Inc and British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline PLC.
|
37524
|
A group of chief executive officers resigned their positions suspiciously close to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
Did a Phalanx of Corporate Chief Executive Officers Step Down Ahead of COVID-19?
|
false
|
Fact Checks, Viral Content
|
In March 2020, as conspiracy theorists rushed to find “meaning” to the COVID-19 pandemic, one graphic circulating online listed departures from several high-profile companies which suggested that the executives left their positions in advance of the disease spreading:But looking at the actual circumstances of the companies mentioned in the graphic, the results range from a misinterpretation of what “resignations” mean in the corporate world to outright false attempts to connect them to the disease.In October, Dallas experienced a tornado that barreled through the city destroying many homes in its wake. Thankfully no one was killed, but the tornado hit my home, making it unlivable. This has definitely impacted my family. And I have had some recent health hiccups. I have been pretty public about the fact that after my mom and aunt died of ovarian cancer 15 years ago, I tested positive for the BRCA1 gene and at the time, opted for a preventative double mastectomy due to high risk of breast cancer. And 10 years later, just last Friday, I had to have another surgery due to an FDA recall of the implants, because they have been linked to cancer. It’s been a lot to handle. And while I expect to have a clean bill of health, short term I need to take care of myself and so will take some time off this year to do just that.It should also be noted that Match Group does not own Hinge. The chief executive officer behind Hinge Group, the company behind that dating app, is still company founder Justin McLeod.
|
31506
|
A convicted pedophile rapist was caught using a clown costume to hide in a child's room.
|
This fake news story mirrors an urban legend about serial killers disguising themselves as various inanimate objects. While this legend reappears from time to time, it’s safe to say that homicidal maniacs and pedophiles have not commonly taken to donning clown costumes and passing themselves off as items of home decor.
|
false
|
Junk News, now8news
|
On 2 December 2015, the web site Now8News published a story reporting that a convicted pedophile was caught using a clown costume to hide in a child’s room in Oregon: If you are afraid of clowns we warn you — DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER — This true story out of Oregon is what nightmares are made of. A 48-year-old Oregon two-time convicted pedophile is now behind bars after he was caught molesting a six-year-old little girl while she was left at home in the care of a babysitter. According to police transcripts, the baby sitter tells a chilling story of how the attacker was discovered: “The Jones’ had me scheduled to babysit Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evening so they could go out of town for their anniversary,” recalls the babysitter Chastity Cromwell in her report to the police. “On Thursday evening when I put the little girl to bed she said she was afraid to be alone. She told me the clown in the chair scared her. I told her to roll over and ignore it and just go to sleep. When I left the room she was screaming for about 30 minutes and when I checked on her she was hiding under the covers.” There was no truth to this report, however. Now8News is a clickbait fake news web site that publishes fabricated stories in order to drive traffic to the site and generate advertising revenues. Now8News has previously published hoax stories about McDonald’s using fetuses to make McNuggets, a haunted house massacre, and a homeless couple living in the attic of a Walmart. The aforementioned stories have two things in common: Not only are they all works of fiction, but they include real mugshots from unrelated crimes. The mugshot included in the Now8News story about a rapist’s employing a clown costume to hide in a child’s bedroom actually shows Marvin Walker Jr., who was arrested in January 2015 after an attempted carjacking.
|
35439
|
U.S. President Donald Trump said that increased COVID-19 testing makes the U.S. look bad by increasing coronavirus case numbers.
|
And during an interview with ABC News in May 2020, Trump again suggested that increased testing was in some way a negative because it increased the number of coronavirus cases reported by the U.S. relative to other countries:
|
true
|
Politics Quotes, COVID-19
|
One of the hallmarks of U.S. President Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic crisis in the spring of 2020 was his repeatedly comparing the U.S. to other countries in areas such as COVID-19 testing, issuing (not necessarily accurate) declarations such as boasting that the U.S. had done “more testing than the entire world together” and asserting that, “We’ve done more tests in eight days than South Korea has done in eight weeks. And our tests are better.” In mid-May, Trump abruptly walked out of a press conference when pressed by a reporter to explain why he viewed the subject of COVID-19 testing as a “global competition” and placed so much emphasis on the amount of coronavirus tests that have been conducted in the United States compared to other countries. Needless to say, the reporter did not get a direct answer to the question from the president. But a quote meme circulated in May 2020 presented Trump as saying that undertaking more coronavirus testing made the U.S. “look bad” by revealing more infections — even though revealing infections is one of the primary purposes of the testing. According to the meme, Trump lamented that, “More testing only reveals more infections and therefore increases the numbers. In a way, by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad”: The meme is essentially correct in its gist, although the first sentence in the statement it attributes to Trump appears to be The New York Times‘ elaboration of what he meant rather than a literal reproduction of his words: [Trump said] that more testing only reveals more infections and therefore increases the numbers. “In a way, by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad,” he said. Trump has expressed a fixation with coronavirus case numbers on multiple occasions. For example, in March 2020, while a Grand Princess cruise ship remained in limbo off the coast of San Francisco after some of its passengers and crew tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, Trump indicated his aversion to allowing it to dock and disembark passengers due to the effect that would have on “the numbers.” NPR reported: [Trump] said that he would prefer to have all [the passengers] stay on board, because the arrival of more infected people on U.S. soil would raise the country’s case total. “I’d rather have the people stay,” Trump said, while also noting that he left the final decision in the hands of his administration’s coronavirus task force. “I would rather — because I like the numbers being where they are — I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault,” Trump said.
|
21939
|
Workers who pick produce in Georgia’s fields can make $12 to $18 an hour.
|
Some farm workers do earn high wages, but not all do
|
mixture
|
Georgia, Immigration, Gary Black,
|
"Recent talk about a shortage of workers in Georgia’s fields left your PolitiFact team wondering whether we should consider a career in cucumbers. The work may be hard, but if you believe Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black, the industry pays solid wages. ""Understand that these are $12, $13, $14, $16, $18 an hour jobs,"" Black told 90.1 WABE-FM’s Denis O'Hayer in an interview. ""Talked to a gentleman yesterday, they had a crew of people, they were going to make $130 a day picking cucumbers. That’s 130 buckets of cucumbers, $1 per bucket."" Up to $18 an hour? That’s more lucrative than flipping burgers or greeting customers at Walmart. Suddenly, picking cucumbers seemed like a viable Plan B. If Black is right, farm labor could be a neat answer to Georgia’s joblessness problems. Unemployment remains high at 9.9 percent. GA DOL Farmers complain their immigrant labor force is leaving the state to avoid racial and ethnic profiling, harassment, or deportation they think will result from House Bill 87, Georgia’s Arizona-style immigration crackdown. HB 87 requires that certain employers check their new workers’ immigration status and gives law enforcement officers more leeway to check a suspect’s immigration status. Gov. Nathan Deal signed the bill May 13, but it’s being challenged in federal court. Farmers report they’ve already lost thousands of dollars because they can’t find enough laborers. Black and others told us that field worker wages are often based on production. The more you harvest, the more money you get. ""They range from minimum wage to as high as $18,"" Black told PolitiFact Georgia. He cited instances where farmers told him solid workers could make even more. But can job seekers reasonably expect to make $12 to $18 an hour? First, a note about harvesting jobs. A lot of them are temporary, and hours vary depending on Mother Nature. Laborers may have to work for 12 hours or more to pick a crop before it rots. Reporters for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed workers and farmers who said pickers earned about $100 a day. One worker said she expected to work about 12 hours for that amount. The most recent Georgia Department of Labor data date from the summer of 2010. The state tallied wage and employee numbers from farms with 10 or more employees who are covered by regular unemployment insurance. Such employers are required to report their numbers to the state. For 13 weeks during July, August and September, 10,600 or so workers in Georgia were involved in ""crop production,"" or worked in farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses and nurseries that grow crops or plants. This group can include supervisors. They made an average of $367 per week, the data show. Pay varied depending on the crop. For instance, some 3,100 vegetable and melon workers made an average of $311 a week; about 1,000 blueberry and other non-strawberry crop workers made about $268; soybean crop workers (there were only 17) made about $666. The state Department of Labor did not determine an average hourly wage, so we did our own rough calculation. Although field workers often work 12-hour days, we based our figures on a 40-hour workweek to be conservative. We found that crop workers make about $9.18 an hour. Vegetable and melon workers were near $7.78. Blueberry workers made about $6.70 an hour. The soybean rate is $16.65, but that is for workers operating complex farm machinery, a relatively small number of workers. These numbers were lower than Black’s figures, so we turned to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s farm labor data for additional verification. They calculate regional wage rates for ""field workers,"" or employees who plant, tend or harvest crops. We looked at spring and summer wages for the Southeast, which includes Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. Field workers made $8.86 per hour during the week of April 11 through 17, 2010. They made $9.12 an hour July 11 through 17, 2010. The federal figures were also lower than Black’s, so we consulted another source: former field worker Andrea Hinojosa, who opposes the immigration crackdown. She is director of Southeast Georgia Communities Project Inc., which provides health, education and other services to farm laborers. The onion pickers Hinojosa serves generally make 38 cents for each bucket, she said. Fast, experienced workers can make $9.50 or $10 an hour. It may be possible to make $12 an hour picking onions, Hinojosa said, but it’s rare. $18 an hour is far-fetched. ""I’ve got to tell you, I’ve never seen, never heard of someone making $18 an hour,"" Hinojosa said. In sum, it is possible to make $12 to $18 an hour, as Black said, but those amounts are far higher than a typical wage. Information from state and federal agencies, the director of a farmworker aid group, and AJC reporters shows wages are closer to $10 an hour or less. Black’s statement is accurate on its face. Some farm workers ""can"" earn $12 to $18 an hour. Most, however, do not. His statement leaves out key details and takes things out of context. This is our definition of ."
|
33866
|
Bill Clinton has quietly done away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.
|
The August 2019 in-custody death by suicide of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein triggered a new round of attempts to connect the Clintons with a murder plot conspiracy.
|
false
|
Politics, bill clinton, hillary clinton
|
Multiple versions of lengthy lists of deaths associated with Bill Clinton have been circulating online for about twenty years now (including the latest iteration, titled “The List of Clinton Associates Who Allegedly Died Mysteriously. Check It Out”). According to those lists, close to fifty colleagues, advisors, and citizens who were about to testify against the Clintons died in suspect circumstances, with the unstated implication being that Bill Clinton or his henchmen were behind each untimely demise. We shouldn’t have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap, but we will anyway. In a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive couldn’t boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man had been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity? Don’t be swayed by the number of names listed on screeds like this. Any public figure is bound to have a much wider circle of acquaintance than an ordinary citizen would. Moreover, the acquaintanceship is often one-sided: though many of the people enumerated on this list might properly claim to have “known” Clinton, he wouldn’t know or remember having met a great number of them. “Body count” lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly “suspicious” deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version: Multiple versions of this “body count” list have been circulating online for two decades now. New victim names are routinely added and old ones taken off, forming an endless variety of permutations. At this point, there is no one “official” list. But where did all this craziness start? In a 1994 letter to congressional leaders, former Rep. William Dannemeyer listed 24 people with some connection to Clinton who had died “under other than natural circumstances” and called for hearings on the matter. Dannemeyer’s list of “suspicious deaths” was largely taken from one compiled by Linda Thompson, an Indianapolis lawyer who in 1993 quit her year-old general practice to run her American Justice Federation, a for-profit group that promotes pro-gun causes and various conspiracy theories through a shortwave radio program, a computer bulletin board, and sales of its newsletter and videos. Her list, called “The Clinton Body Count: Coincidence or the Kiss of Death?” then contained the names of 34 people she believed had died suspiciously and who had ties to the Clinton family. Thompson admitted she had “no direct evidence” of Clinton’s killing anyone. Indeed, she said the deaths were probably caused by “people trying to control the President” but refused to say who they were. Thompson said her allegations of murder “seem groundless only because the mainstream media haven’t done enough digging.” Ah, but they had. If not before she put her list together, at least afterwards. Anyone who continues to state the mainstream media has given these claims short shrift is being disingenuous. Since 1994, various respected news outlets have been confronted with versions of the “Clinton Body Count” list, run their own investigations of a few of the claims, and found nothing to substantiate what they looked into. Those investigations would culminate in yet another story about an oddball conspiracy rumor. But conspiracy theories don’t die that easily. These “body count” lists and the many specious claims contained therein continue to circulate in cyberspace and beyond: yesterday’s newspaper articles are forgotten with the next day’s delivery, but e-mail lives forever. A 2007 version of the “Clinton Body Count” list was headed with this entry: James McDougal — Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation. James McDougal, a key witness for Whitewater prosecutors when the investigation centered on an Arkansas land deal in which the president and McDougal were involved, had a pre-existing heart condition and died of a heart attack on 8 March 1998 while in solitary confinement at the Federal Medical Center prison in Fort Worth. The ailing McDougal had been placed in solitary as punishment for failing to provide a urine sample for a drug test. On the day before his death and while still in his regular cell (where he had access to his heart medications), he had complained of dizziness, and while being processed for isolation he threw up. However, once in isolation, he did not ask for his medicines and appeared to guards “alert, well-oriented and absent any visible signs of distress” right up until his death. An investigation into the circumstances of his demise did not find evidence of foul play. (The McDougal entry was not part of the “Clinton Body Count” list as it circulated in 1998.) 1. Mary Mohane — former White House intern gunned down in a coffee shop. Nothing was taken. It was suspected that she was about to testify about sexual harassment at the White House. Former White House intern Mary Caitrin Mahoney, 25, manager of a Georgetown Starbucks, was killed along with two co-workers (Emory Allen Evans, 25, and Aaron David Goodrich, 18) on 6 July 1997 during a robbery of the shop. In March 1999, Carl Derek Havord Cooper (29) of Washington was arrested and charged with these murders. Yes, it is unusual that three employees were killed in the course of a robbery during which nothing was taken. According to Cooper’s 26 April 2000 guilty plea (he received life with no hope of parole), he went to the Starbucks to rob the place, figuring the receipts from the July 4 weekend would make for a fat take. He came in after closing, waved a .38, and ordered all three Starbucks employees into the back room. Once there, Mahoney made a run for it after Cooper fired a warning shot into the ceiling. She was ordered back to the room, but then went for the gun. Cooper shot her, then afterwards shot the other two employees. He left empty-handed, afraid the shots had attracted police attention. As regrettable as these three deaths were, this was nothing but a case of a robbery gone wrong. And, right away, we have come to the first big lie of the “Clinton Body Count” list: Any unexplained death can automatically be attributed to President Clinton by inventing a connection between him and the victim. Mary Mahoney did once work as an intern at the White House, but so have hundreds of other people who are all still alive. There is no credible reason why, of all the interns who have served in the Clinton White House, Mahoney alone would be the target of a Clinton-directed killing. (Contrary to public perception, very few interns work in the West Wing of the White House or have any contact with the President. The closest most interns get to the chief executive is a single brief handshake or group photo.) The putative reason offered for Mahoney’s slaying, that she was about to testify about sexual harrassment in the White House, was a lie. This absurd justification apparently sprang from a hint dropped by Mike Isikoff of Newsweek just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke that a “former White House staffer” with the initial “M” was about to talk about her affair with Clinton. We all know now, of course, that the “staffer” referred to was Monica Lewinsky, not Mary Mahoney. The conspiracy buffs maintained that White House hit men rushed out, willy-nilly, and gunned down the first female ex-intern they could find whose name began with “M.” 2. Vincent Foster — former White House Counsel, found dead of a gunshot wound to the head and ruled a suicide. He had significant knowledge of the Clintons’ financial affairs and was a business partner with Hillary. If the Clintons are guilty of the crimes they are accused of by Larry, Vincent Foster would have detailed knowledge of those crimes. This laundry list of deaths always refers to someone taking his life as “ruled a suicide,” thus implying another conclusion of equal likelihood was capriciously dismissed by someone who had the power to do so. From here on, read “ruled a suicide” as “an investigation was carried out and arrived at this ruling as the only reasonable conclusion.” White House deputy counsel Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression. A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death. (Note that this letter was not, as is often claimed, a “suicide note”; it was Foster’s outline for a letter of resignation.) Foster cited negative Wall Street Journal editorials about him, as well as the much-criticized role of the counsel’s office in the controversial firing of seven White House travel office workers. On 10 October 1997, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr released his report on the investigation into Foster’s death, the third such investigation (after ones conducted by the coroner and Starr’s predecessor, Robert B. Fiske) of the matter. The 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he’d been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved. If Foster had been murdered or if unanswered questions about his death remained, Starr would have been the last person to want to conclude the investigation prematurely. Or are we to believe Kenneth Starr is part of the cover-up, too? And if we buy into this conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of furtively carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn’t own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), then expected the nation would believe his death was a suicide? 3. C. Victor Raiser, II – former National Finance Co-Chairman of Clinton for President, and Montgomery Raiser, his son. Both died in a suspicious private plane crash in Alaska. No cause determined. Raiser was considered to be a major player on the Clinton team. All plane crashes are “suspicious,” because airplanes are supposed to stay in the air, and when they don’t it’s because something went terribly wrong. Pilot error and mechanical failure are by far the most common causes underlying any crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates every downed plane in the U.S., and though they might not always pin down the exact cause of a crash, they’re generally pretty good about ruling out the use of explosives or mechanical tampering. If the NTSB doesn’t find evidence of tampering or explosives, then that’s not what downed the plane, and we’re left with pilot error and mechanical failure as our choices. Raiser, his son, and three others died in a plane crash in Alaska on 30 July 1992 during a fishing trip. The pilot and another passenger survived and were hospitalized with severe burns. While the “body count” list claims “no cause determined,” the NTSB reported otherwise: pilot error in a small plane flying in mountainous terrain during low visibility conditions led to the crash. 4. Paul Tully — DNC Political Director, was found dead in a Little Rock hotel room. No cause was ever determined and no autopsy was allowed. Tully was a key member of the damage control squad and came up with some of the Clinton strategies. Paul Tully died on 24 September 1992. Problem is, there wasn’t anything the least bit unusual about his death, so whoever cooked up this list had to lie and claim that “no cause was ever determined” and “no autopsy was allowed.” However, an autopsy was performed, and Tully’s cause of death was determined: a massive heart attack. (Not a surprising demise, given that Tully was extremely overweight, a heavy drinker, and a chain smoker.) According to Steve Nawojczyk, the Pulaski County coroner, “An autopsy by the Arkansas medical examiner’s office discovered advanced coronary artery disease.” He added that investigators found no evidence of external trauma to the body. Note again that the conspiracy buffs offer no putative reason for Tully’s “killing” and would have us believe that Clinton ordered his chief strategist rubbed out while the most important election of his career was a little over a month away. 5. Ed Willey — Clinton fund raiser. Found in the woods in Virginia with a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey was a former Virginia state senator and a lawyer; his wife Kathleen was active in Democratic state politics, worked as a volunteer (including some fund-raising efforts) on behalf of the Clinton campaign in Virginia in 1992, and later served as a volunteer in the White House Social Office. Ed Willey’s death was as clear cut a case of suicide as one is likely to find: he was a desperate, unstable man who (along with his wife) spent money lavishly, stole $275,000 of a client’s money, and was about half a million dollars in debt to the IRS. He took his own life on 29 November 1993, leaving behind a suicide note found by his wife reading: “Saying I’m sorry doesn’t begin to explain. I hope one day you will forgive me.” At the same time as Willey was killing himself, his wife was allegedly being groped by Bill Clinton. She said she’d gone to the Chief Executive looking for a job to help her family out of its financial crisis and found herself fending off his advances. Clinton admitted to the meeting but denied her version of what took place. Kathleen Willey testified in Paula Jones’ sexual harrassment suit against Clinton, but she never claimed that Clinton had her husband killed. 6. Hershell Friday — Clinton fund-raiser. His plane exploded. Herschel Friday, an Arkansas lawyer who had been on the Clinton presidential campaign finance committee, died in a airplane accident on 1 March 1994. His plane did not “explode”; this accident was another case of pilot error that occurred when the 73-year-old Friday, at the plane’s controls, crashed it during an attempted landing on a poorly-lighted private airfield at dusk on a dark and drizzly day. 7. Jerry Parks — former security team member for Governor Clinton. Prior to his death he had compiled an extensive file on Clinton’s activities. His family had reported being followed and his home broken into just before being gunned down at a deserted intersection. On 26 September 1993, Luther (Jerry) Parks was hit with ten bullets from a 9-mm semiautomatic handgun as he left a Mexican restaurant at the edge of Little Rock. His murder remains unsolved. Parks’ security company guarded Clinton’s campaign headquarters in 1992. Parks’ son, Gary, asserted in Circle of Power and The Clinton Chronicles (both video products of Linda Thompson’s American Justice Federation) that his father collected a secret file of Clinton’s indiscretions, and that his father was using the file to try to blackmail the Clinton campaign. (He also claimed that Vince Foster knew of the file’s existence.) Despite these allegations, the younger Parks never produced the mysterious file, and Clyde Steelman, a homicide sergeant with the Little Rock police force, dismissed Gary Parks’ theories of his father’s death as “unsubstantiated, nothing to grasp.” A far more likely suspect in the murder was Jerry Parks’ former partner, with whom Parks had quarreled bitterly. 8. John Wilson — former Washington D.C. council member. Had ties to Whitewater. Died of a very suspicious hanging suicide. John Wilson was the chairman of the District of Columbia Council, and his suicide was far from “very suspicious”: Wilson had a long history of depression, was wrestling with marital problems, and had tried to kill himself on at least four other occasions. He finally succeeded on 19 May 1993. Upon his death, Wilson’s wife said, “[His] depression was an inherited problem; that he was able to contribute so much over the years in the face of his disability was a miracle.” Police said that he did not leave a note and that there were no signs of foul play. Wilson had absolutely nothing in common with Clinton other than that they worked in the same city (i.e., Washington, D.C.). The claim that Wilson had anything to do with the Whitewater real estate controversy is laughable. 9. Kathy Ferguson — former wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, the co-defendant with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Found dead in her living room of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Interestingly, her packed suitcases seemed to indicate she was about to go somewhere. Kathy Ferguson killed herself with a gunshot to the right temple on 11 May 1994 at the home of her boyfriend, Bill Shelton. Their relationship had fallen on hard times, with each accusing the other of having been unfaithful. Ferguson left behind a suicide note that read: “I can’t stay here any longer. Things will never be the same for us. I can’t take that.” Close by was another note from Shelton questioning her relationship with another man, which Ferguson’s daughter said her mother had been upset over. We found no mention of packed suitcases in any of the reports about Ferguson’s death, but even if there were, it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising. Is it so unusual that a woman might be thinking of moving out of the house of a boyfriend who had quarreled with her and challenged her fidelity? 10. Bill Shelton — Arkansas state trooper and fiance of Kathy Ferguson. Allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself at her grave. Shelton killed himself over Kathy Ferguson’s grave on 12 June 1994, leaving a suicide note that was found beside his body. Just a month earlier he had quarreled with his girlfriend, accused her of cheating on him, and driven her to suicide. There was nothing mysterious about his death or his reasons for taking his life. And if the idea that the ex-wife of an Arkansas state trooper constitutes a Clinton “connection” weren’t absurd enough, we’re now offered the boyfriend of an ex-wife of an Arkansas state trooper. 11. Gandy Baugh — attorney for Dan Lasater in a financial misconduct case. Supposedly jumped out the window of a tall building to commit suicide. News accounts stated that Gandy Baugh died “at home” on 8 January 1994 without specifying the causes. “Died at home” is a euphemism often employed in news articles and obituaries to avoid a direct mention of suicide, but we haven’t found any definitive information about how Baugh died. 12. Dr. Donald Rogers — dentist. Killed in a suspicious plane crash on his way to an interview with reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard to reveal information about Clinton. On 3 March 1994, the Cessna plane carrying a pilot, dentist, Donald Rogers, and two other passengers crashed. The pilot had earlier radioed in that he was experiencing electrical trouble and then lost radio contact. The NTSB’s investigation of the crash found nothing “mysterious” about it: the plane’s left generator had severely overheated and shut down, leaving the plane without electrical systems; the plane went down far off its planned route, and the pilot was good and lost at the time of the crash. No amount of digging has disclosed why a dentist would have such revelatory information about the President of the United States that a plane crash had to be arranged to bump him off. 13. Stanley Huggins — lawyer investigating Madison Guaranty. Suicide. His extensive report has never been released. How anyone can confuse dying of pneumonia with suicide is beyond us. Huggins died on 23 June 1994, and according Dr. Richard Callery, Delaware’s top medical examiner, viral myocarditis and bronchial pneumonia killed Huggins. Lt. Joel Ivory of the University of Delaware police said his exhaustive investigation of Huggins’s death turned up “no sign at all of foul play.” 14. Florence Martin — Accountant for the CIA and had information on the Barry Seal case. Three gunshot wounds to the head. On 23 October 1994, 69-year-old Florence Martin of Mabelle, Texas (40 miles from Wichita Falls), was murdered in her home by three gunshots to the head through a pillow. She wasn’t an accountant for the CIA, though: She worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store in nearby Seymour and had lived in that area for decades. In 2012, Jack Wesley Melton was charged with Martin’s murder. DNA found at the scene was matched to him, leading to his arrest. 15. Suzane Coleman — reportedly had an affair with Clinton. Was seven months pregnant at the time she was found dead of a gun shot wound to the back of the head, ruled suicide. At the time of Susan Coleman’s suicide, Bill Clinton was her law professor. In 1992 an overzealous supporter of George Bush hired investigators to probe this girl’s 1977 suicide, and they found no evidence that she and Clinton had an affair. It was an old rumor and a baseless one, and even a determined attempt at muckraking turned up nothing to substantiate it. 16. Paula Grober — Clinton’s interpreter for the deaf. Traveled with Clinton from 1978 until her death in 1992 in a one-car accident. There were no witnesses. The accident that killed Paula Gober took place during the afternoon of 7 December 1992. Her car overturned at a curve in the highway, throwing her 33 feet from the vehicle. No one witnessed the accident. And again, no one has provided any explanation for what secrets about Clinton an interpreter might possess that would merit her murder. 17. Paul Wilcher — attorney investigating corruption. He had investigated federal elections, drug and gun smuggling through Mena, the Waco incident, and had just delivered a lengthy report to Janet Reno. He died in his home of unknown causes. Wilcher’s partially decomposed body was found seated on the toilet in his Washington, D.C., home on 22 June 1993, and his death was attributed to natural causes. According to the Washington Times, Wilcher “was investigating the theory of an ‘October Surprise’ conspiracy during the 1980 federal election campaign. He had been interviewing an inmate who claimed to have piloted George Bush to Paris so he could secretly seek to delay the release of 52 American hostages in Iran.” President Clinton, just a year into his first term, would hardly be likely to give up a key political advantage by bumping off someone who was supposedly about to dig up some major dirt on the opposition party 18. Jon Parnell Walker — RTC investigator who mysteriously fell to his death from an apartment balcony. We have turned up no information about this man, not a report of his death nor of his being an Resolution Trust Corporation investigator. Various versions of this list state that his death took place on 15 August 1993 at the Lincoln Towers in Arlington, Virginia, but we’ve found no documentation of that. 19. Ron Brown — former DNS Chairman, Commerce Secretary. Reported to have died in a plane crash, but new evidence reveals he may have been shot in the head. He was being investigated by a special investigator and was about to be indicted with 54 others. He spoke publicly of his willingness to “make a deal” with the prosecutors to save himself a few days before the fatal trip. He was not supposed to be on the flight but was asked to go at the last minute. (This count does not include the other business leaders and other passengers who died on this government-sponsored trade mission.) What “new evidence”? Ron Brown and 34 others were killed in a plane crash in Croatia on 3 April 1996. The plane slammed into a mountain while on landing approach. There were no survivors. Much has been made of an x-ray of Brown’s skull showing what supposedly looks like a round entry wound. Closer examination of Brown’s skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound. Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses? (If so, how did the shooters get off the plane?) Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like Weekend at Bernie’s) and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head? Or did Croatian commandos fortuitously appear on the scene to scale a mountain and pump a bullet into the head of an already-dead plane crash victim? An exhaustive Air Force investigation of the crash found that pilot error was to blame: The aircrew made errors while planning and executing the mishap flight, which, when combined, were a cause of the mishap. During mission planning, the crew’s review of the Dubrovnik approach failed to determine that it required two automatic direction finders, or ADFs, and that it could not be flown with the single ADF onboard their aircraft. Additionally, the crew improperly flight planned their route which added 15 minutes to their flight time. The pilots rushed their approach and did not properly configure the aircraft for landing prior to commencing the final segment of the approach. They crossed the final approach fix flying at 80 knots above final approach speed, and without clearance from the tower. As a result of the rushed approach, the late configuration, and a radio call from a pilot on the ground, the crew was distracted from adequately monitoring the final approach. The pilots flew a course 9 degrees left of the correct course. They also failed to identify the missed approach point and to execute a timely missed approach. 20. Barbara Wise — Commerce Department secretary. Worked with Ron Brown and John Huang and had extensive knowledge of their activities. Found dead in her locked office the day after Thanksgiving. It was ruled a suicide. Interestingly, she was found partially clothed, bruised, and in a pool of blood. There was no pool of blood, and Barbara Wise’s death was never ruled a suicide by anyone. She was discovered in her Commerce Department office on 29 November 1996 after having last been seen alive on 27 November 1996, the day before Thanksgiving. A thorough investigation uncovered no evidence of foul play or suicide. Wise had a history of frequent and severe health problems, including liver ailments, and her death was attributed to natural causes. 21. Charles Meissner — Assistant Secretary of Commerce. John Huang was given a special security clearance by Meissner. Shortly thereafter, he died in the crash of a small plane. Charles Meissner died in the same plane crash that took the life of Ron Brown, the one in Croatia on 3 April 1996. Fourteen Commerce Department staffers died in that crash, Meissner and Brown among them. We’re now entering an long segment of the list wherein a number of deaths are tied to those of Don Henry and Kevin Ives, who were supposedly linked to Bill Clinton. All of this linkage is one big canard: Henry and Ives had nothing to do with Clinton; they were two young men who foolishly ripped off drugs from a dealer and were beaten to death in revenge. With no link between Clinton and Henry or Ives, the following eight entries collapse like a house of cards. 22 & 23. Kevin Ives and Don Henry — seventeen-year-old boys who apparently saw something related to drugs in Mena by accident late at night. Officially ruled an accidental death on the train tracks, but evidence shows they died before being placed on the tracks — one of a crushed skull and the other of a knife wound in the back. Henry and Ives were run over by a train on 23 Aug 1987. Dr. Fahmy Malak, Arkansas’ former state medical examiner, ruled the deaths accidental, saying the teens fell asleep on the tracks after smoking marijuana. A 1988 Saline County grand jury determined the boys were murdered and their bodies afterwards laid on the tracks, but no other conclusions were reached and no indictments were returned. A number of Malak’s determinations had been challenged and overturned during his career. He certainly wasn’t always a conscientious medical examiner, and his Ives and Henry rulings were only two of many such he botched. Getting back to the real meat of who killed the boys, we find nothing that ties Ives and Henry to Clinton. Though various of these lists will claim the boys accidentally stumbled onto a “protected” drug drop and were killed for it, there’s no reason to believe even that. In a 25 May 1990 hearing before U.S. Magistrate Henry Jones Jr., Katherine Brightop said her ex-boyfriend Paul William Criswell told her that he and three other men were involved in the teenagers’ deaths. Brightop said Criswell told her the boys tried to steal cocaine from Callaway’s home and they were caught and beaten to death before their bodies were placed on the tracks. 24. Keith Koney — had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Died in a motorcycle accident with reports of a high-speed car chased involved. 19-year-old Keith Coney died on 17 May 1988 when the motorcycle he was driving struck the back of a tractor-trailer. He was riding a motorcycle he’d stolen the day before. There were no reports of a high-speed car chase involved in his fatal traffic accident. 25. Keith McKaskle — had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Stabbed to death. In August 1989, Ronald Shane Smith was sentenced to ten years for the 10 November 1988 murder of Keith McKaskle. McKaskle had earlier expressed fears for his life, linking them to his knowing something about “the railroad track thing”. Smith may have been paid to kill McKaskle, as a prison inmate said he had been approached and offered $4,000 to kill McKaskle himself. 26. Gregory Collins — had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Gunshot wound to the head. Greg Collins (25) of Bryant, Arkansas, was found shot in woods near Rosston on 2 December 1989. If he truly knew something about drug-related murders, that’s reason enough for him to have been killed without any connection to Bill Clinton. 27. Jeff Rhodes — had information on the Ives and Henry and McKaskle deaths. Tortured, mutilated, shot, body burned in a dumpster. In July 1989 Frank Pilcher was arrested for the April 1989 murder of Jeffrey Rhodes. Rhodes had earlier told his father he feared for his life because he’d witnessed a narcotics transaction. Rhodes was last seen alive on April 3. His body was discovered in a dumpster on April 19. He’d been shot twice in the head and his body was badly burned. The body was likely burned in an effort to destroy forensic evidence that would led investigators to the murderer. 28. James Milam — had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was decapitated. The coroner ruled death due to natural causes. This is my favorite entry. Remember that Arkansas medical examiner, the one I said wasn’t always the most conscientious investigator on God’s green earth? Yep, we’re about to see him again. Fahmy Malak listed James Milam’s cause of death as a perforated ulcer, adding that Milam’s small dog afterwards ate the dead man’s head, accounting for Milam’s headless condition. Milam’s daughter-in-law insisted Milam was murdered. She claimed Malak showed her photographs of the headless corpse, and the neck was cut clean. The Milam family has not attempted to legally challenge the ruling because of the expense, so we’ll never know which way the cat jumps, ulcer or murder. Whatever killed him, Milam died three months before the Ives and Henry murders. What are we supposed to believe here, that Clinton conspirators knocked off someone who “had information on the Ives and Henry deaths” three months before Ives and Henry actually died? Wow, talk about a preemptive strike! 29. Jordan Kettleson — had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Found shot in the front seat of his pick up truck. 21-year-old Jordan Ketelsen died on 25 June 1990. 30. Dr. Stanley Heard — Chair, National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee. He personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather, and brother. His personal small plane developed problems so he rented another. Fire broke out in flight and he crashed. Stanley Heard and Stephen Dickson died on 10 September 1993, when their Piper Turbo Lance II caught fire shortly after takeoff from Dulles airport and crashed. They’d attended a briefing that morning on the Clinton administration’s health care plan. Dickson’s plane had developed mechanical problems on the way to Washington the week before, so Dickson and Heard rented the Cherokee in St. Louis to make the trip. They rented a badly maintained plane, and it cost them their lives. Here is what the NTSB had to say about this crash. I’ve found nothing on the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory that Heard supposedly chaired. 31. Steve Dickson — attorney for Heard. Died in same plane crash. Dickson attended the same briefing Heard did. We do not know if he was there as Heard’s lawyer or for independent reasons. 32. John Hillier — video journalist and investigator. He helped to produce the documentaries “Circle of Power,” and “The Clinton Chronicles.” He mysteriously died in a dentist’s chair for no apparent reason. Again, we could find no record of this man’s death or of his work. There have been a few dental chair deaths, but we turned up nothing on this one. 33. Maj. Gen. William Robertson 34. Col. William Densberger 35. Col. Robert Kelly 36. Spec. Gary Rhodes 37. Steve Willis 38. Robert Williams 39. Conway LeBleu 40. Todd McKeehan 41. Sgt. Brian Haney 42. Sgt. Tim Sabel 43. Maj.William Barkley 44. Capt. Scott Reynolds * all former Clinton bodyguards who are dead. Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeehan, and Conway LeBleu were Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents killed during the Waco confrontation on 28 February 1993. Brian Haney, Timothy Sabel, William Barkley, and Scott Reynolds died in a helicopter crash on 19 May 1993. These four were members of Marine Helicopter Squadron One, the unit responsible for transporting the President. They died when the Blackhawk helicopter they had taken out for a maintenance-evaluation flight crashed. There was no evidence of sabotage. Clinton had set foot in the aircraft on only one occasion, two months earlier, when he traveled from the White House to the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Jarrett Robertson, William Densberger, Robert Kelly, and Gary Rhodes all died on 23 February 1993 when their Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter crashed on landing in Weisbaden, Germany. A jury later found that the pilots were not at fault, but that the helicopter “entered into an uncontrollable right turn caused by a design defect.” 45. Gary Johnson — former attorney for Larry Nichols, severely beaten and left for dead. Again, we could find nothing on this incident or even this man’s life. 46. Dennis Patrick — had millions of dollars laundered through his account at Lasater & Co. without his knowledge. There have been several attempts on his life, all unsuccessful. It’s hard to know what to say about this one. Though we found credible reference to Patrick’s life having been in danger a few times, we were unable to trace back to news reports on the original incidents. Without seeing them, we’re not confident in stating an opinion on whether or not those attempts took place. Patrick was a client of Lasater, albeit a reluctant one. He was asked to open an account there, he refused, one was opened for him anyway, and he was handed “profits” from one transaction for his part in allowing whatever was going on to take place. Again, someone who got involved with drug dealers ended up in trouble. In this case, an otherwise upstanding man took money he knew to be dirty to keep quiet about what his account was being used for. If was subsequently chased by drug dealers who didn’t want the details of the transactions to come to light, was that all that surprising? 47. L.J. Davis — reporter. While investigating the Clinton scandals he was attacked in his hotel room and his notes were taken. He survived. Davis said he had awakened in his hotel room with a big bump on his head. He soon admitted having drunk at least four martinis that night. No pages were missing from his notebook, and he had no idea how he ended up on the floor. “I certainly wasn’t about to conclude that somebody cracked me on the head,” Davis said at the time. 48. Larry Nichols — former marketing director of ADFA. Responsible for bringing forth more evidence and witnesses on Clinton corruption than any other source. Very public about his claims against Clinton. He has suffered six beatings, arrest on trumped up charges, and a near arrest. In 1988 Larry Nichols, then a marketing director for the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, was fired from his job for making hundreds of calls to the Nicaraguan contras from his office. In 1990 he filed a lawsuit against Clinton claiming the then-Governor of Arkansas and others made him the scapegoat in a misappropriation-of-funds charge that cost him his job. In that suit he also tossed in claims of extramarital affairs, naming five women Clinton was supposed to have chased across the sheets. Nichols withdrew his lawsuit in 1992 and issued a round of apologies to everyone involved. He admitted what he’d said had been an attempt to destroy the Governor by innuendo. Nichols has since changed his tune yet again, and has returned to making allegations against Clinton, always being careful to stop just short of asserting Clinton is involved in various murders and other crimes Nichols points to as “suspicious.” Since his dismissal from the AFDA, Nichols has made a career of peddling anti-Clinton books and tapes to the lunatic fringe. Take anything claimed about or by this man with a huge grain of salt. Now, ask yourself: how many people with whom you were acquainted have died mysteriously or violently in the past 10 years. The bottom line on this piece of e-lore? It’s a badly worked laundry list dressed up to appear significant. The promised damning connections to the Chief Executive are missing, with innuendo misinformation offered up in their place. Nothing ties Clinton to any of these deaths, something this list (and others of its ilk) conveniently glosses over. What evidence is offered that would compel a rational person to believe there was Clinton involvement in any of these deaths? Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that’s about all one can make of this list. Indeed, that’s far more than can be made of a number of the entries, specifically, that of Ives and Henry and all those supposedly tied to theirs. Though it’s clear from digging through numerous newspaper articles there was a thriving and dangerous drug culture in Little Rock, how or why this should be connected to Bill Clinton is left unanswered. Regrettably, Little Rock is akin to numerous other large cities: it has its share of drug dealers, murders, and violence. It also has one very famous citizen. And that’s about as much of a connection as anyone can make. Whereas a typical private citizen has a much smaller circle of acquaintance, those in public office come into contact with a great many people over the course of their careers. It is therefore not unusual to find at least a few accidental deaths, homicides, and suicides among any politician’s list of contacts. (For example, a “body count” list exists for George Bush.) A number of suicides are enumerated in this list. Suicide is far from an unusual mode of demise. It claims 32,000 lives in the U.S. every year, and it’s the 9th leading cause of death. It is indeed a rare person who does not know someone who died by his own hand. Deaths by airplane crash account for a number of entries on the list. Again, this is not all that surprising. Every year many small planes crash in the United States, and some of those crashes result in fatalities. As mentioned above, the National Transportation Safety Board investigates every one of them, to determine both the cause of the accident as well as to gather data that will help prevent future tragedies. The agency does a thorough job of looking into the circumstances surrounding each downed plane. To describe any of the plane crash deaths on this list as “suspicious” is to suggest the NTSB was part of a coverup. There have been a couple of unsolved murders (Jerry Parks, Kevin Ives, and Don Henry), but there have also been deaths by natural causes that have been tossed into the mix willy-nilly simply to boost the body count. (As we said earlier, how can anyone claim a death by pneumonia was a suicide?) All the best lies make sure to mix a bit of truth in with them, and the few genuinely unsolved murders work to cloak the many less credible claims in an aura of plausibility. Don’t be overly bemused by them — study each entry on its own merits. One final question to ask yourself before falling for any Clinton Body Count list: If the Chief Executive was having people bumped off left, right, and center, why aren’t Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp on this list? At the time of Mary Mahoney’s death — a death this list hints was ordered by Clinton — neither Tripp nor Lewinsky were the high-profile household names they now are; they were complete unknowns. It would be another six months before information about them would explode into the news. If the President were in the habit of having those dangerous to his presidency put in the ground, why didn’t he order these deaths?
|
10231
|
Studies: Surgery No Better for Sciatica
|
"This story reports on the publication of results from a large trial in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluating surgery compared to non-operative care for the treatment of sciatica. This trial represented the first randomized trial of surgery for herniated disc in the US since 1983 and significantly improved our knowledge of the benefits of surgery. There are several key points from this study that are important for people with herniated disc to understand: 1. Regardless of the treatment selected, surgical or non-operative care, most people in the study got better after two years. 2. Patient preferences for treatment choices, the bothersomeness of symptoms, and whether they can afford to take some extra time to get better, should underlie the treatment decision. This means that patients need to be a part of the decision process and should not simply look to their doctor for the answer. 3. In the study, there were no negative consequences from waiting to have surgery. There were no cases of permanent nerve damage from waiting and the high rate of crossing from one treatment group to another suggests that patients can change their mind after making an initial treatment decision without worrying that they'll never get better. This means that patients shouldn't feel pressured to make a fast decision. 4. All patients need a lot more help making the decision that is right for them. Every patient in the study watched a video that provided the key facts a patient needs to make a good decision and help them weigh what matters most to them. This story does an excellent job of describing the recent results, including the strengths and limitations of the available evidence. By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of sciatica and herniated disc, the story does not engage in disease mongering. It is important to distinguish patients with sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc who were evaluated in this study from patients with low back pain without sciatica. One cannot generalize the results of treatment for sciatica to low back pain alone.The story describes how non-operative care can be just as effective as surgery and mentions specific non-operative options such as physical therapy and painkillers. The story adequately describes the details of the design of the current studies and points out the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs (""Many patients didn't stay in their assigned group: Almost half those assigned to noninvasive treatment ultimately had surgery, and more than one-third of those assigned to surgery ended up choosing less invasive treatment instead.""). The story provides quantification of benefits from the observational arm of the study only. The story should have provided the same numbers from the randomized arm, however the story adequately addresses the overall findings and their importance. The story also mentions that four percent of patients required another operation and that no one developed cauda equina syndrome (Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the nerve roots are compressed and paralyzed, cutting off sensation and movement. Nerve roots that control the function of the bladder and bowel are especially vulnerable to damage.) Because the story quotes three experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Finally, the story does mention the cost of surgery (around $6,000), however the story should have provided costs of non-operative care by way of comparison."
|
true
|
"The story mentions the cost of surgery. The story should have provided estimates of costs of non-operative care for comparison. The story provides quantification of benefits from the observational arm of the study only. The story should have provided the same numbers from the randomized arm. However, the story adequately addresses the overall findings and their importance. The story mentions that four percent of patients required another operation and that no one developed cauda equina syndrome. Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the nerve roots are compressed and paralyzed, cutting off sensation and movement. Nerve roots that control the function of the bladder and bowel are especially vulnerable to damage. The story adequately describes the details of the design of the current studies and points out the controversy over the large numbers of cross-overs (""Many patients didn't stay in their assigned group: Almost half those assigned to noninvasive treatment ultimately had surgery, and more than one-third of those assigned to surgery ended up choosing less invasive treatment instead."") By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of sciatica and herniated disc, the story does not engage in disease mongering. It is important to distinguish patients with sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc who were evaluated in this study from patients with low back pain without sciatica. One cannot generalize the results of treatment for sciatica to low back pain alone. The story quotes three experts, the principal investigator of the study and two other experts who were not directly involved in the study who wrote editorials in the same issue of JAMA. The story describes how non-operative care can be just as effective as surgery. The story also mentions specific options like physical therapy and painkillers. The story clearly states that surgery is common for sciatica. The story clearly states that surgery is not a novel idea for sciatica. Because the story quotes three experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
|
|
9115
|
Concurrent chemotherapy, proton therapy improves survival in patients with advanced lung cancer
|
lung cancer illustration We applaud the careful wording in this release and all the caveats provided. At the same time, because cancer effects such an emotional response in audiences, including journalists, there is an even higher standard one must meet to provide the appropriate notes of caution. One way to have done this here would have been to flag in the lead sentence — if not the headline — that this is a very small study showing a survival benefit that is less than a year. And at what cost? We don’t know. And with what type of quality of life? We don’t know that either. Lung cancer is strongly associated with cigarette smoking and remains the most common cause of death due to cancer in the United States. This study reports 5-year treatment outcomes of stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer at a single cancer center. Stage 3 generally means that it is not localized and amenable to surgery, but falls short of widely metastatic (stage 4). All patients in this study (n=64) were treated with chemotherapy and a specific form of radiation therapy (proton beam). There was no concurrent comparison group and results were compared to historical trends. The release reports that this therapy “prolonged survival” over up to 5 years of follow-up. Compared to historical trends the 29 percent 5-year overall survival (and 26.5 month median overall survival) is quite good. As the lead author comments in the release, the main limitation of the study is how these outcomes compare to current therapy since the study was begun in 2006. Major changes in therapy have taken place. The release comments on new forms of radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, but doesn’t mention new targeted therapies for lung cancer that depend upon genetic analyses. Thus, without a concurrent control group, the reader can’t really be sure how these results would compare to other treatments in similar institutions. Even if these outcomes are superior to what was available at that time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that proton beam therapy will offer the same benefit when added to currently available therapies.
|
true
|
lung cancer,M. D. Anderson Cancer Center,proton therapy
|
We’re not talking about a few pills a day here. We are talking about ongoing expensive treatment for five years. The costs needed to be explained as well as whether those costs are typically covered by insurance, especially in the kind of political climate we are in now, where health care coverage is the subject of hot debate. It is important for studies such as this to begin addressing the cost of care. The release spells out the different measurements in both relative and absolute terms about the benefits of the therapy, but it is full of so much medical jargon that journalists and others would have a hard time following. The clearest statement is that they found “an overall survival (OS) of 26.5 months. In contrast, the historical OS rate with standard of care concurrent chemotherapy and traditional radiation was 16 months at the time when the study was designed.” Contrast that with, “In sum, 39 patients experienced a relapse, with distant sites representing 62 percent of all recurrences.” What is a distant site? Were these people living on islands? What they mean is that in 62 percent of the cases where cancer came back, it was where the cancer had spread to other parts of the body. But it’s unclear what this means in relation to the overall purpose of the study. The primary outcome reported is overall survival: 29 percent were alive at 5 years, meaning 71 percent had died. As discussed elsewhere, the key issue is, compared to what? The release says: “Among the acute and late toxic effects diagnosed in patients were: esophagitis, pneumonitis and cardiac arrhythmia. Of note, said Chang, no patients developed the most severe, or grade five, toxicities, as seen in patients who receive standard of care.” So we give the release credit for talking about harms. Some numbers to show how many of the 64 people enrolled had side effects would have been helpful. We like how the release provided good explanations of the study’s limitations. The release says, for example: “Chang noted his study is not without limitations. Of greatest significance: the study was designed more than a decade ago. While the study’s survival, recurrence rates and toxic effects are still favorable when compared to rates associated with the most advanced traditional photon radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), technology to diagnose and stage the disease, as well all treatment modalities have significantly improved.” At the same time, this is also a lead-in for MD Anderson to advertise therapies that have little evidence behind them. The release goes on to say, “For example, MD Anderson proton therapy patients with advanced lung cancer now can receive IMPT. The technique uses an intricate network of magnets to aim a narrow proton beam at a tumor and “paint” the radiation dose onto it layer by layer. Healthy tissue surrounding the tumor is spared, and side effects are even more reduced than earlier proton delivery, said Chang.” OK, but that was not part of the study. So, in effect, the release is saying that there was a marginal benefit shown in a very small study but, hey, come try this new therapy instead! This is also key info: “The study opened at MD Anderson in 2006; in this research, Chang and his colleague report on the study’s five-year results. For the prospective Phase II trial, 64 patients with inoperable, Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. The study’s primary endpoint was OS.” It explains that this was a single site study, in a small number of individuals with a particular type and stage of lung cancer, with overall survival as the primary outcome. But it could have been more clear that there was no direct comparison group and the study was not experimental (randomized design). There is no disease mongering in the release. Despite the favorable reporting of outcomes, most patients were dead at 5 years. There is no mention of funding or conflicts of interest in this release. The release states that results were compared to historical controls, but then goes on to detail all of the limitations with this comparison. The release does mention intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at the end and states the historical control was chemotherapy with conventional radiation. The alternatives could have been presented in a more straight-forward way. How widespread the treatment options are is not clear. The release does clearly state that this was done at a single site. However, it would have been relatively easy to state that there are only a small number of facilities that can deliver proton beam therapy. The novelty of the findings are summarized in this sentence: “The findings are the final results of the single institution, Phase II study and represent the longest follow-up to date of stage 3 lung cancer patients who have received proton therapy.” The release focuses on long-term efficacy and safety. This is what is supposedly novel. The treatment itself isn’t. Again, this could have been made clearer, but it can be discerned on a careful read. There is no unjustifiable language in the release. However, the headline could have been improved. It states, “Concurrent chemotherapy, proton therapy improves survival in patients with advanced lung cancer.” The first line of the release then clarifies this, “For patients with advanced, inoperable stage 3 lung cancer, concurrent chemotherapy and the specialized radiation treatment, proton therapy, offers improved survival compared to historical data for standard of care.”
|
18537
|
Harvard Study Finds States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths.
|
Facebook post ignores caveats in citing Harvard study on gun laws
|
mixture
|
Rhode Island, Criminal Justice, Crime, Public Safety, Guns, Facebook posts,
|
"Does having more gun laws in a state result in fewer gun deaths? You would think so if you've seen the recent Facebook posting, created by a group called Anti-Republican Crusaders and shared more than 1,700 times on that and another Facebook page. The posting has the Joe Friday character from TV's ""Dragnet"" saying, ""Just the facts, ma'am,"" followed by this headline: ""Harvard Study Finds States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths."" There's also a color-coded U.S. map showing the states with the most laws and fewest deaths. We wondered if the Harvard study did, in fact, prove that point. The Facebook posts send readers to a study published online by JAMA Internal Medicine (not the Journal of the American Medical Association, a separate medical journal, as the post reports). The team led by Eric Fleegler of Harvard and Boston Children's Hospital created a ""legislative strength score"" to gauge which states had more gun laws. Then they compared that to the state-by-state firearms death rate. The more gun laws a state had, the lower the rate. That may sound conclusive, but there's a huge caveat. As the researchers concluded: ""Our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships."" There could be many other factors, such as the rate of gun ownership or a state’s culture of gun ownership.. Curious Facebook readers might have uncovered this if they followed a link to an interview with Fleegler conducted by Robin Young on the March 13, 2013, edition of ""Here & Now,"" the news program produced by WBUR in Boston. Young zeroed in on the same problem, asking if the relevant factor could be a state's gun culture. Fleegler acknowledged the point. ""[It] may be true that there are states [where people] don't own a lot of guns, they're OK with passing legislation [and] they have lower rates of firearm deaths,"" he said. Dr. Garen Wintemute of the University of California-Davis School of Medicine, was even blunter in a commentary that JAMA Internal Medicine released at the same time. When the Fleegler team took into account the amount of gun ownership, ""the association between firearm laws and firearm fatalities essentially disappeared,"" he wrote. Another key shortcoming of the study: The scorecard used to assess how many laws a state has ""does not account for variations between states in the specifics of their laws and includes no measure of whether or how effectively the states enforce them."" Wintemute noted that while gun laws were almost certainly enacted to reduce criminal violence, their real impact was a reduction in suicide, which ""accounted for 94 percent of the observed decrease in firearm-related mortality."" Fleegler, in his ""Here & Now"" interview, noted that suicide was a key factor because when people think of killing themselves, the presence of a gun means they will succeed 85 percent of the time compared to close to 2 percent when they don't have a firearm available. In the end, when the Facebook posting says ""Harvard Study Finds States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths,"" it is correctly summarizing one finding of the study. But it leaves out important details and context that argue against the idea that reducing gun deaths is simply a matter of blindly passing more gun laws in each state. For that reason, (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)"
|
26604
|
"Slices of lemon in a cup of hot water can save your life. The hot lemon can kill the proliferation of"" the novel coronavirus."
|
There is no scientific evidence that lemon can treat or prevent the coronavirus. Health officials have debunked the claim. The video comes from a man who promotes alternative health information on YouTube. To prevent coronavirus infection, health officials advise people to wash their hands, avoid touching their face and disinfect surfaces in their home.
|
false
|
Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Chain message,
|
"A video being passed around on Facebook Messenger claims that curing the novel coronavirus is as easy as drinking hot lemon juice. The video, which a reader sent us on March 23, shows a series of stock images and videos with text underneath. A man with a British accent narrates. ""Use as much natural vitamin C as possible to strengthen the immune system,"" he says during the nearly 2-minute video. ""Slices of lemon in a cup of hot water can save your life. The hot lemon can kill the proliferation of this virus in our bodies!"" The narrator identifies himself as ""Jiao Shenme Minzi from China, a researcher at the Faculty of Medical Science, Zanjan University."" He goes on to say that ""warm lemons can have the same beneficial effects as medicines"" and their juice ""destroys the virus and cures the flu."" As evidence, the narrator credits a ""Professor Chen Horin, CEO of the Beijing Military Hospital."" (Screenshot from Facebook Messenger) We’ve fact-checked several chain messages about the coronavirus, as well as bogus cures, on apps like iMessage, Snapchat and WhatsApp. So we looked into this one, too. There is no evidence that drinking hot lemon juice kills COVID-19. Health officials have debunked the hoax, and a similar version has been shared in India and Italy. There are a couple of things wrong with the video right off the bat. First, the narrator claims to be based in China. But Zanjan University is in Iran. We found no evidence that the university has anyone on its medical faculty named Jiao Shenme Minzi, at least not as of September 2017, when its webpage says it was last updated. In fact, ""Jiao Shenme Minzi"" is one letter off from ""jiao shenme mingzi,"" a popular phonetic pronunciation of a phrase used in Chinese when asking someone for their name. Second, there is no evidence that vitamin C is effective against COVID-19. We rated a similar claim in February. Third, we could find no trace of a researcher named Chen Horin. The name has been used for similar hoaxes in the past. The Messenger video comes from Marian Gorban, the owner of MrHealthyChannel, an alternative health channel on YouTube with more than 21,000 subscribers. One of his most popular videos claims you can lose weight quickly by drinking ginger syrup. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself Gorban, whose Facebook profile says he lives in Romania, also claims to be an expert in search engine optimization. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven’t heard back. On its website, the World Health Organization says that, while it recommends eating plenty of fruits and vegetables to stay healthy, there is no scientific evidence that lemon treats or prevents COVID-19 infection. To prevent coronavirus infection, officials advise people to regularly wash their hands, avoid touching their face, disinfect surfaces in their homes daily and avoid people who are sick. As of now, there is no specific treatment for COVID-19. But according to the Mayo Clinic, patients can alleviate symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath and fever — with cough medicine, pain and fever relievers, rest, and fluids. The chain message is inaccurate. If you receive a chain message that you want us to fact-check, send a screenshot to [email protected]."
|
8890
|
Stryker Launches Partial Knee Resurfacing Systems.
|
Stryker Corp (SYK.N) said on Tuesday it has launched a partial knee resurfacing system in the United States.
|
true
|
Science News
|
The system preserves the most amount of natural bone, making it a less invasive way to treat diseased joints. Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, one of the top makers of reconstructive implants, said its system, called Triathlon PKR, is beneficial because it allows surgeons to provide personalized solutions by only shaving off diseased parts of the knee rather than replacing larger parts of it, or the entire knee joint. Partial knee resurfacing requires less operating time than total keep replacements and there is a shorter recovery period, with some patients leaving the hospital in less than 24 hours, Stryker said. Because less bone is removed, there is often less trauma to soft tissue during surgery, which may leave the patient with a more natural feeling knee than with a total knee replacement, the company added.
|
3115
|
Buttigieg discloses ex-clients as fundraising swing begins.
|
Facing intense pressure to answer questions about his work in the private sector, Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday disclosed a roster of former consulting clients that include a major health insurance provider, a nationwide electronics retailer, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
|
true
|
South Bend, New York, Politics, Pete Buttigieg, Election 2020, Business, AP Top News, Health insurance providers, General News, Indiana, Manhattan
|
He also opened a big-dollar fundraiser for the first time to the media, a change of heart he later admitted “took a little getting used to” but was “the right thing to do.” Buttigieg’s campaign released the details while the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, attended an evening fundraiser on Park Avenue in Manhattan. It was the first event on a five-day fundraising swing that features 10 meetings with big donors, and the first time he allowed the media to cover fundraising events that had previously been kept secret. Speaking on MSNBC later Tuesday night, Buttigieg said that the decision to open his fundraisers — which he had previously resisted — took some “getting used to because traditionally campaigns haven’t generally done this.” Former Vice President Joe Biden has opened his fundraisers to the press, while neither Sens. Elizabeth Warren nor Bernie Sanders holds big-dollar fundraisers. Buttigieg added: “I think it makes sense. We’re talking a lot about transparency in this campaign. We’ve got a president who’s moved in the exact wrong direction in terms of transparency.” Walking into his Tuesday night fundraiser, Buttigieg told The Associated Press he’s “seeking to live out the values of transparency that we talk about, and given that we have a White House that has so moved radically in the opposite direction.” His work history, never before revealed, features a detailed list of the clients he worked for when he was an associate at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. between 2007 and 2010, his first job after graduating from Oxford. In a press release announcing the disclosure, Buttigieg downplayed his role in the firm, saying he had released details of his work there “even though it was my first job out of school where I had little decision making authority.” On MSNBC, Buttigieg downplayed the McKinsey work, saying that there’s “nothing particularly sizzling about the clients I released.” His campaign said Buttigieg’s work included trips to Iraq and Afghanistan during a three-month project in 2009 for the U.S. Department of Defense. That project, he said, was focused on “increasing employment and entrepreneurship.” He also worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, where the campaign said he “looked at overhead expenditures such as rent, utilities, and company travel.” That work, his first assignment at McKinsey, did not involve policies, premiums or benefits, according to his campaign. Still, Buttigieg argued on MSNBC that his time working on the Blue Cross project gave him a “sense of what that world is like” and helped influence his “Medicare for All Who Want It” healthcare plan, which would offer Americans a government-run health care option while preserving private insurance. His time at Blue Cross Blue Shield, Buttigieg said, is “one of the reasons why I believe that with a public alternative, we can deliver something that will out-compete all the private plans out there. I’m just not willing to assume that on behalf of individuals before they have the choice to put it to the test.” Helen Stojic, a spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, said in a statement to the AP that “for a brief time” the candidate was “part of a larger McKinsey team we engaged back in 2007 to consult with our company during a corporate-wide reorganization.” “He was not involved as a leader on that team, but rather as part of the larger consultant group,” Stojic said. Blue Cross announced it would cut up to 1,000 jobs in January 2009, and it’s not immediately clear whether that happened as part of the same reorganization they refer to in the statement. When asked on MSNBC if his work with McKinsey contributed to those layoffs, Buttigieg said, “I doubt it,” and pivoted to attacking his opponents — Sanders and Warren, though he didn’t reference them by name — who would eliminate private insurance outright, thereby costing health insurance industry jobs. Speaking to donors at the fundraiser, Buttigieg delivered much of his standard stump, making the case for his candidacy. He demurred when a questioner asked if President Donald Trump’s attacks on Biden and his son were hurting him. Buttigieg said voters “have kind of decided what they think about that already” and said he doesn’t hear much about it on the trail in Iowa. Buttigieg did, however, acknowledge his biggest challenge remains building “a broad coalition,” referencing his efforts to reach out to black voters. Polling has shown they are still broadly unfamiliar with the mayor. He also dismissed Trump’s reelection campaign as asking voters to “tolerate the chaos, tolerate the division, tolerate the bad example for your children, and in return for that I will give you job growth almost as good as you had in the Obama years.” He argued that Democrats should now “own the issue of fiscal responsibility” in the face of a Republican president who has had the deficit balloon on his watch. Protesters outside his Tuesday fundraiser on Manhattan’s Upper East Side seemed more bothered by Buttigieg’s association with wealthy donors than his work history. Progressive activist Alice Nascimento led chants of “Wall Street Pete” from the sidewalk outside the event. “He’s hanging out with millionaires!” she charged. “He’s not for working people.” While he is still unknown by many voters nationally, Buttigieg has emerged as one of his party’s most successful fundraisers this year — collecting more than $50 million so far in 2019 — in part by tapping the resources of big donors. That’s set him apart from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who have rejected traditional fundraising techniques in favor of small dollar donations. Buttigieg resisted opening his fundraisers to public scrutiny for much of the year, but that position became untenable as his campaign moved into the top tier of the Democratic primary. Former Vice President Joe Biden is the only other current Democratic candidate who regularly opens his fundraisers to a pool of reporters. Warren only does fundraisers for the Democratic Party and says she’ll only do those if they are open to the media. Sanders holds what his campaign calls “grassroots” fundraisers that are meant to prioritize even small donors and have generally been open to the press or livestreamed. Buttigieg was under significant pressure to release details about his work for the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm. The company said Monday that it would allow Buttigieg to identify the clients he served more than a decade ago. Buttigieg told The Atlantic on Tuesday he was moved off the assignment at Blue Cross after three months in 2007, long before the nonprofit slashed hundreds of jobs. The campaign said he also worked for the Canadian supermarket chain Loblaw’s in Toronto on pricing; worked for the retail chain Best Buy on a project about energy-efficient products; and researched energy efficiency for several utilities, government agencies and nonprofits. His final project was one to look for new revenue for the U.S. Postal Service in 2010, he said. One of the donors who attended Tuesday’s fundraiser, Henry Lowenstein, shrugged off questions about Buttigieg’s work history. “There’s not a candidate that doesn’t have baggage,” he said. “This is the smartest guy who has a grasp of every issue, but unlike Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have a plan for every issue. He’s the real deal.” ___ Smith reported from Providence, R.I. Associated Press writer Alexandra Jaffe contributed to this report from Washington.
|
4109
|
Nonprofit concerned about HIV spread among drug addicts.
|
A Boston nonprofit is voicing concern about the continued spread of HIV among residents struggling with opioid addiction.
|
true
|
Health, Boston, Infectious diseases, Massachusetts
|
The Whittier Street Health Center said Tuesday its outreach team identified two new cases of HIV in the notorious illegal drug market around Boston Medical Center in the city’s South End. Dr. Cyril Ubiem, director of infectious disease at the center, says he’s concerned the spread of HIV among Boston’s homeless and addicted population is getting worse, rather than better. The state Department of Public Health says it’s reviewing the center’s reported cases. In January, the agency urged Boston health providers to boost efforts to test patients for HIV after six people were newly diagnosed with the virus, which can lead to AIDS. Massachusetts reported 105 new HIV cases in 2017, up from 30 in 2014.
|
14324
|
"Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders ""wants higher standards for toy guns than real guns."
|
"Clinton said Sanders ""wants higher standards for toy guns than real guns."" Clinton points to the fact that Sanders voted in favor of a 2005 law granting the gun industry certain immunity from lawsuits. In her camp are scholars who believe the law made the gun industry less susceptible to liability than other industries, including the toy gun industry. But other scholars think the law made the gun industry’s liability about the same as that of a toy gun manufacturer. And because real guns carry so much more risk for injury than toy guns, it’s hard to compare them effectively. This is a complex legal question, on which reasonable minds can disagree. Given this disagreement, and the fact that it’s impossible to know how Sanders would vote if a similar legislation concerning the toy industry were to arise."
|
mixture
|
National, Legal Issues, Voting Record, Guns, Hillary Clinton,
|
"Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is putting gun manufacturers ahead of the Sandy Hook victims, says opponent Hillary Clinton. Twenty school-age children were killed in the 2012 shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Now, some family members of the victims are attempting to sue gun manufacturer Remington, which produced shooter Adam Lanza’s weapon, as well as the wholesaler and a local retailer. But it’s questionable whether this lawsuit will be able to proceed, given a 2005 law that put restrictions on the gun industry’s liability for crimes committed using their products. As Clinton often points out, she voted against this law, while Sanders voted for it. ""I voted against it,"" Clinton said on CNN April 6. ""President Obama voted against it. Because clearly it was an effort to bypass legal accountability. And so here we have this remarkable situation where you cannot question the liability or the behavior of gunmakers and sellers. I thought Sen. Chris Murphy from Connecticut really summed it up. He said Sen. Sanders wants higher standards for toy guns than real guns."" The claim that Sanders wants higher standards for toy guns than real guns caught our attention. We wondered if Sanders’ support for this law indicates that he thinks toy manufacturers should be more open to lawsuits than gun manufacturers. We talked to a number of experts on gun law and products liability, and they disagreed over whether Clinton is standing on solid ground. A liability gap? The law at issue is the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused, meaning if a gun dealer legally sells a person a gun, and then the buyer uses the gun to commit a crime, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime. The law arose after victims, cities and states started to bring lawsuits against gunmakers that pursued new legal paths, such as one that argued manufacturers Glock Inc. and China North Industries had oversaturated the market, producing so many guns that it was inevitable some would fall into criminal hands. Most judges dismissed these kinds of lawsuits, but a minority allowed them to proceed. There are several situations that are not protected from lawsuits under the law. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective. Opponents argue that the law stops some victims from having their day in court because the liability immunity is so broad and ambiguous, while the exceptions are narrow. Supporters, though, say the law protects gun dealers and manufacturers from frivolous and expensive legal proceedings. We’ve written before that Congress has passed laws giving some other industries varying levels of immunity. A couple experts told us Clinton’s statement is unsound because the law sought to impose equivalent, rather than fewer, standards for gun makers that are already established for manufacturers of other products. As it stands, the victim of a crime committed with a toy — say, if a person seriously injured another person by shooting them with bb gun pellets — generally cannot sue the toy manufacturer, just as they can’t sue Toyota or Budweiser if they’re struck by a drunk person driving a Prius. The 2005 law ""basically put gun manufacturers in the same position that other product manufacturers are in,"" said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. ""They’re responsible for defectively manufactured and designed products but not for failing to prevent criminal misuse of their products."" Additionally, toy guns and real guns pose fundamentally different risks because real guns are much more likely to be used in a crime than a toy gun, said Timothy Lytton, a Georgia State University law professor who edited a book on suing gun industry. So before the law, the gun industry was subject to a wider range of liability that just doesn’t apply to a toy. As such, it’s hard to imagine a realistic incident with a toy gun that would cause someone to bring a suit against the toy company, yet they would not be able to sue a gun manufacturer for an equivalent situation involving a real gun. A hypothetical situation might be if a city experienced an epidemic of deaths or injuries that resulted from a prevalence of realistic-looking toy guns; think of the recent story of Tamir Rice, a Cleveland child carrying a toy gun who a police officer shot and killed, said Alexandra Lahav, a professor of civil procedure at the University of Connecticut School of Law. In that case, a city might want to bring a suit against the toy gun manufacturer or seller for creating a public nuisance. But under the 2005 law, a city cannot sue a gun company if there is an epidemic of people being injured or killed by their guns. Lahav added, though, that she thinks the idea someone would bring a suit like this against a toy company is highly unlikely. In theory, there might be a liability gap between toy guns and real guns, but that wouldn't necessarily play out in reality, she said. Toy and real gun manufactures can be sued for product defects that cause injury when the product is used as intended. But if an injury is caused by a product defect coupled with a criminal misuse of the product, a toy gun manufacturer could be held liable, but a real gun manufacturer could not under the 2005 law, said Adam Winkler, also a UCLA law professor and an expert in the Second Amendment. That limits the gun industry’s incentives to make their products as safe as possible. The fact that a party cannot even attempt to bring these kinds of lawsuits against real gun manufacturers sets them apart from other industries, including toys, said Mark Geistfeld, a law professor at New York University and an expert in products liability. Such lawsuits against the gun industry might be destined to fail, but the 2005 law doesn’t even allow for the arguments to be tested. ""You’ve granted an immunity to the gun industry that you haven’t granted to any other industry,"" Geistfeld said of Sanders, noting that this supports the gist of Clinton’s point: that Sanders holds guns to a lower standard. Lytton noted, though, that he would not presume to know whether Sanders would grant similar immunity to the toy industry if the opportunity arose. ""It’s not fair to basically enter into hyperbole that somehow he treated firearms differently he would come down harder on toy guns,"" Lytton said. Consumer safety votes We also wanted to note another piece of evidence the Clinton campaign sent us to show that Sanders supports higher standards for toy guns. They pointed to Sanders’ congressional votes in favor of the 1993 Child Safety Protection Act and the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, both of which became law. These bills dealt with things like putting warning labels on toys with choking hazards, increasing civil penalties on companies that produce defective products, and limiting lead in toys. Experts told us that these votes do not have any impact on Clinton’s argument one way or another because they are about product safety regulations, which are a totally different ballgame than tort law and product liability. Though he thinks Clinton’s claim is on point because of the points discussed earlier, Geistfeld called these votes a red herring. ""You don’t have to love that (2005) law to see that it’s a very different thing,"" said Lahav of the University of Connecticut. ""I would have never thought to compare these things."" Our ruling Clinton said Sanders ""wants higher standards for toy guns than real guns."" Clinton points to the fact that Sanders voted in favor of a 2005 law granting the gun industry certain immunity from lawsuits. In her camp are scholars who believe the law made the gun industry less susceptible to liability than other industries, including the toy gun industry. But other scholars think the law made the gun industry’s liability about the same as that of a toy gun manufacturer. And because real guns carry so much more risk for injury than toy guns, it’s hard to compare them effectively. This is a complex legal question, on which reasonable minds can disagree. Given this disagreement, and the fact that it’s impossible to know how Sanders would vote if a similar legislation concerning the toy industry were to arise."
|
10504
|
Beta Carotene Pills May Not Save Vision
|
"Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a signficant problem in the elderly. It is a slow, progressive disease that can ultimately lead to blindness over time. Unfortunately, there are few options available for prevention or treatment and this story discusses new evidence showing no benefit in terms of prevent AMD from one option, beta carotene supplements. This story manages to provide the reader with adequate information on the problem of treating AMD and the strength of the available evidence to support the use of supplements. The story adequately describes the strength of the current study and points out some of the limitations. The story also mentions that there is some evidence that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer in smokers, an important harm. The story adequately quantifies the benefit of supplements by providing the actual number of cases of AMD observed in the supplement group compared to the ""dummy pill"" group. The story does mention that there is no cure for AMD (the ""dry"" form) and that supplements are really the only option currently available. However, the story misses the main point of the scientific paper, which was that beta carotene supplementation does not appear to prevent AMD in people at usual risk for the disease. In contrast, there is evidence that antioxidant supplements (those tested contain beta carotene as a component) can be used to slow progression of AMD in those who have it. Overall, a good job, and in less than 500 words (496)."
|
true
|
"The story does not describe the cost of the supplements. The story does provide the actual number of cases of AMD observed in the supplement group compared to the ""dummy pill"" group. The story does mention that there is some evidence that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer in smokers. The story adequately describes the strength of the current study and points out some of the limitations. The story avoids disease mongering by not exaggerating the seriousness or prevalence of AMD. However, the story should have made the distinction between the different types of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The supplements in question are only used in people with the ""dry"" form of the condition, not the ""wet"" form. By not making this distinction, the story implies that the supplements can be used in everyone with the disease. The story does quote one independent expert and notes the funding sources for the investigators. The story does mention that there is no cure for AMD (the ""dry"" form) and that supplements are really the only option currently available. However, the story misses the main point of the scientific paper, which was that beta carotene supplementation does not appear to PREVENT AMD in people at usual risk for the disease. In contrast, there is evidence that antioxidant supplements (those tested contain beta carotene as a component) can be used to slow progression of AMD in those who have it. The story mentions that the supplements are available over the counter. The story clearly states that using beta-carotene for eye conditions is not a new idea. Because the story quotes an independent expert, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
|
|
4427
|
EPA to scale back use of animals to test chemical toxicity.
|
The Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mammals to test the toxicity of chemicals, a move backed by animal rights groups but criticized as irresponsible by a leading environmental organization.
|
true
|
Animals, General News, Politics, Environment, Animal testing, Animal rights, Donald Trump
|
A directive signed Tuesday by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said that “scientific advancements exist today” that permit the agency to better predict potential hazards to humans while reducing or avoiding animal testing. Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, has overseen President Donald Trump’s campaign to rollback Obama-era environmental regulations. His testing directive was welcomed by the chemical industry and came with the added twist of winning support from animal rights activists, who aren’t typically viewed as being aligned with the Trump administration. The plan approved by Wheeler said EPA will cut back on its requests for and spending on mammal studies by 30% by 2025 and eliminate all requests and funding for animal testing by 2035. He’s directing EPA’s leadership team to form a working group of agency experts to come up with a plan within six months “to ensure that the agency’s regulatory, compliance and enforcement activities, including chemical and pesticide approvals and agency research, remain fully protective of human health and the environment.” Among the options to animal testing that Wheeler mentioned are computer modeling and in vitro methods, which involves tests using human cells and tissues. “This is the science that is being realized right now and will be the science of the future that will truly protect public health and the environment,” said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane Society’s Legislative Fund. But the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that it’s a mistake to scale back animal testing, which can help scientists discover life-saving treatments and identify chemicals harmful to people and the environment. The alternative methods mentioned by Wheeler can be useful but may not be sufficient, according to the organization. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for the organization, said EPA is phasing out the tools that lay the groundwork for protecting the public from dangers like formaldehyde and chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on crops, animals and buildings. The EPA’s plan is a “gift” to the chemical industry that will result in a “rigged system that gives the green light to harmful chemicals,” she said. “Our concern is not with the alternative tests themselves,” Sass said. “Our concern is with how EPA is interpreting the data from them. If the tests themselves are not indicating a toxic effect, then EPA is presuming there is no toxic effect.” Prof. Aaron Bowman, head of Purdue University’s School of Health Sciences, said the overall goal of Wheeler’s plan is commendable. But added he’s worried about the “absoluteness” of setting such a specific timeline for eliminating animal testing. “The new testing methods may not capture fully all of human physiology,” Bowman said. “So animal models help us avoid missing something unexpected and dangerous.” Wheeler sidestepped a question about whether the chemical industry had pushed for EPA to cut back on tests that use animals, which can take longer and cost more than alternative methods. “I’ve not been lobbied by a single chemical company on this,” Wheeler said, adding he wasn’t aware if any chemical companies had talked to EPA staff about the initiative. “This is a longstanding issue of interest to me, personally, and that’s what brought this about.” The American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group whose members include Dupont and ExxonMobil Chemical Company, said in a statement that Congress had directed the EPA in 2016 to promote new alternative test methods. New test methods “have the potential to save hundreds of animals while providing more accurate information on chemical hazards, exposures and risks,” the group said. Alluding to the plan’s 16-year time frame, Wheeler presumed Trump will be re-elected, saying he intends to be EPA administrator for the next five years. So the success of the initiative will fall to the EPA’s career staff, he said. Wheeler says the EPA also is steering $4.25 million to five universities to further research alternatives to animal testing. The schools are: Johns Hopkins University, Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt’s Medical Center, Oregon State University and the University of California-Riverside. Justin Goodman, vice president of advocacy and public policy at the White Coat Waste Project, said animal testing is a bad investment for taxpayers yet has become entrenched in the culture of federal agencies. He called the initiative outlined by Wheeler a “big win for taxpayers, animals and obviously the environment.” Amy Clippinger, director of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals’ regulatory testing department, said the organization intends to collaborate with federal regulatory agencies and companies to assist in the transition to alternative test methods. “For decades, there has been a misguided reliance on cruel and scientifically flawed animal tests, and the EPA’s decision marks the beginning of the end of them,” Clippinger said. The EPA said the number of new pesticides submitted to the agency each year varies, and it estimated the number of vertebrates used annually in toxicology studies ranges from 20,000 to more than 100,000. The testing is conducted on a variety of species, including rats, mice and rabbits. The agency said testing waivers have led to savings of thousands of animals and millions of dollars over the last two years.
|
10021
|
Stem cells offer hope for diabetics
|
"The story describes the use of adult stem cells to help control type 1 diabetes. The story provides absolute benefits (with some cautionary statements that these are preliminary) found in this small trial in 15 patients. However, the story gives no information about what type of study these results are based on (randomized trial or other), and while it does point out some of the study limitations, like study size and length of follow-up, it isn't entirely clear what this should mean to viewers. The story also does not mention any harms of the new treatment, and given that it is described as ""gentle chemotherapy,"" it's hard to believe there would be no side effects or harms. And with the short follow-up, it isn't clear what long-term harms this may have."
|
true
|
"The story doesn't mention costs of this new treatment. The story does quantify benefits, e.g. 13 out of 15 patients were able to stop taking insulin. And even though these results look promising at first glance, the story provides cautionary statements that these are just preliminary results. The story does not mention any harms of the new treatment whatsover, including no mention of how serious these harms were or how frequently they occurred. The story does not state what the evidence is for the findings, e.g. a randomized trial or something else. The story does discuss some limitations, such as the small number of people in the study and the relatively short follow-up length. But if a network is going to report on a trial in only 15 patients, it should provide a better sense of the quality of the evidence. The story points out the estimated number of people with this type of diabetes (type 1) and contrasts that with how many people have type 2 (significantly more), giving viewers a sense that this treatment may not help the majority of people with diabetes. The story quotes two experts – one of whom was apparently not involved in the study. The current standard therapy for type 1 diabetics is briefly discussed, e.g. daily insulin injections. The story tells readers that the new treatment is still experimental and this treatment appears to have been used for the first time in a recent research study. One physician is quoted saying the idea ""is not ready for prime time"" so viewers should know they can not turn to their local doctor to have this treatment. The story mentions this is the first time this treatment (adult stem cells) has been used to control type 1 diabetes (although the story states adult stem cells have been used to treat leukemia). Since the story quoted two expert sources – and one of them was apparently not involved in the research – it is safe to assume the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release."
|
|
8200
|
More African countries confirm first coronavirus cases as Jack Ma pledges aid.
|
More African nations confirmed their first cases of the coronavirus and shut borders amid fears of the disease’s impact on fragile health systems, as Chinese billionaire and Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma pledged to donate over 1 million testing kits to the continent.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Thirty African countries - more than half the continent - are now treating nearly 400 patients with coronavirus, after Tanzania, Liberia, Benin and Somalia said they registered their first cases. Africa had until recently been spared the rapid spread of COVID-19, which has infected at least 180,000 people worldwide and caused over 7,000 deaths. But health experts are concerned the continent’s often dilapidated health infrastructure will struggle to cope as cases mount. “We cannot ignore the potential risk to Africa and assume this continent of 1.3 billion people will blissfully escape the crisis. The world cannot afford the unthinkable consequences of a COV-19 pandemic in Africa,” Ma’s foundation said in a statement. The foundation will send 1.1 million testing kits, 6 million masks and 60,000 protective suits and face shields to Ethiopia for distribution to Africa’s 54 nations, it said. Earlier on Monday, the World Bank said it had committed $60 million to Kenya to help the East African nation battle the outbreak. Some countries on the continent, such as conflict-hit Somalia, depend on donors to support basic public health facilities. Somalian Health Minister Fawziya Abikar Nur said the ministry had quarantined and tested four Somalis who came from China last week, and one had tested positive for the respiratory disease. International flights to Somalia were suspended for two weeks, the aviation minister said. In West Africa, the small and impoverished nation of Liberia announced its first case. Liberia was devastated by a 2014 Ebola epidemic that killed 4,000 people, and its healthcare system has remained underfunded despite promises of investment. Benin, considered a relatively stable democracy in the turbulent West African region, also announced its first case. The Health Ministry said the Beninois national was being held in an isolation ward in the capital after returning from Belgium and Burkina Faso on March 11. The Health Ministry in the East African nation of Tanzania also confirmed its first case, a Tanzanian woman who had traveled to Denmark, Sweden and Belgium. She had her temperature taken at the airport but had no fever and was allowed to pass, but later felt unwell at her hotel, the ministry said. Also on Monday, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Senegal and Cameroon all reported more cases and South African Finance Minister Tito Mboweni said his nation, which has 62 cases so far, may need to raid other government departments for funds to fight the disease. He did not provide any figures. Many African nations, including some without reported cases, have ordered tougher control measures, including bans on public gatherings, halting flights and closing schools and universities. In northern Africa, Tunisia said it would suspend international flights and close its land border in an effort to contain the spread of the virus. Botswana, in southern Africa, said on Monday it would bar entry to travelers from 18 high-risk countries, including China, Britain, the United States, Iran, France and Italy. In West Africa, Senegal said it would suspend flights to and from France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Portugal, as well as Tunisia and Algeria, for a period of 30 days. Ivory Coast said it would bar entry to travelers from countries with over 100 cases, although Ivorian citizens and residents would be allowed to return if they went into quarantine for 14 days. It also closed schools, nightclubs and cinemas and banned gatherings of over 50 people, according to a national security council statement. Ethiopia, Africa’s second-largest nation, joined the growing list of countries that closed schools for two weeks, suspended all large gatherings and canceled all sports events, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s office said. Government buses will give people free rides to curb overcrowding in the public transport system, a statement said. In Central Africa, Congo Republic said it would suspend all flights from high-risk countries from Thursday. Neighboring Gabon reduced the number of flights from abroad to one a week per airline and ordered restaurants to close, barring takeout and delivery. Nigeria’s Health Ministry said the country, Africa’s most populous, had strengthened contact tracing, stockpiled reagents used in test kits and increased testing capacity. Also on Monday, Kenyan police raided a clinic alleged to be selling fake coronavirus testing kits. Police detained staff and locked the facility, witnesses told Reuters journalists at the scene, after it had been advertising testing kits online.
|
34344
|
Taking one or more rides on the Big Thunder Mountain roller coaster at Walt Disney World can help dislodge kidney stones.
|
We reached out to Wartinger for further comment but had not heard back by publication time.
|
unproven
|
Medical, disney parks, disney world, kidney stones
|
Ask anyone who has experienced a urinary blockage due to kidney stones and they will tell you there is nothing fun or remotely pleasant about the experience. Caused when salt and mineral residues form small “stones” inside the kidneys that move and become stuck in the ureter (the passageway via which urine passes from the kidneys to the bladder), a kidney stone blockage often results in severe pain, bleeding, nausea, and vomiting. Sometimes, especially when the stones are small, they eventually pass through the ureter and are excreted without medical intervention. Larger stones usually require treatment, which may involve one or more of the following: medication to relax the walls of the ureter; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) to break up the stones into smaller pieces so they can pass in the urine; ureteroscopy, a minimally invasive surgery in which a small tube is inserted into the urinary tract to break up the stones and remove them; or a surgical procedure to excise the stones if they are very large. Or, according to urologist and professor emeritus in the Department of Osteopathic Surgical Specialties at Michigan State University Dr. David Wartinger, DO, you could consider the lower-cost alternative of taking a ride on the Big Thunder Mountain roller coaster at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida and letting the force of gravity do the work. Wartinger made a media splash in September 2016 by publishing a study in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Osteopathic Association stating that experiments he performed using a lifelike silicone model of the human urinary tract confirmed that “roller coaster facilitation of calyceal renal calculi passage” (i.e., taking a roller coaster ride to facilitate the passage of kidney stones) may be a feasible alternative to standard medical treatment in some cases. Predictably, the news also made the social media rounds in the simplified form of an image macro: Wartinger explained how the research came to pass in an interview with the Michigan State University publication MSU Today: “Basically, I had patients telling me that after riding a particular roller coaster at Walt Disney World, they were able to pass their kidney stone,” Wartinger said. “I even had one patient say he passed three different stones after riding multiple times.” This resulted in Wartinger going out and testing the theory. Using a validated, synthetic 3D model of a hollow kidney complete with three kidney stones no larger than 4 millimeters inserted into the replica, he took the model in a backpack on Big Thunder Mountain at the theme park 20 times. His initial results verified patient reports. “In the pilot study, sitting in the last car of the roller coaster showed about a 64 percent passage rate, while sitting in the first few cars only had a 16 percent success rate,” Wartinger said. The anecdotal reports Wartinger said he heard from patients resembled ones noted by a Taiwanese urologist in a February 2009 article in Taiwan Today News: Chu Lang-hsuan, a doctor in the Department of Urology of Taichung Hospital, said on Thursday that after accompanying a group of Rotary students bungee jumping over winter vacation, a chaperone suddenly had severe pain in the back and stomach about 10 minutes after the activity. Upon his return to Taichung, he went for a medical examination, where blood studies and X-rays gave a preliminary indication that a kidney stone had lodged in the urethra. The stone was about 0.6 cm in size, and was broken up using extracorporeal shock waves, after which the man was able to pass it. The doctor suspects that the stone moved from the kidney into the ureter during the free fall activity. Chu says that when he started asking around, he discovered that another 30-something man had come into the hospital three years ago on four occasions for the same sort of complaint. Each time, shortly prior to the onset of the pain, he had been riding a roller coaster with his children. After going to the hospital, the man was told each time that a kidney stone had lodged in a ureter. Could it be that activities involving free fall can be helpful in passing kidney stones? One of the more interesting findings Wartinger reported was that out of the three Disney World roller coasters he and his co-researcher tried, only one of the rides achieved the desired result: “In all, we used 174 kidney stones of varying shapes, sizes and weights to see if each model worked on the same ride and on two other roller coasters,” Wartinger said. “Big Thunder Mountain was the only one that worked. We tried Space Mountain and Aerosmith’s Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster and both failed.” Wartinger went on to explain that these other rides are too fast and too violent with a G-force that pins the stone into the kidney and doesn’t allow it to pass. “The ideal coaster is rough and quick with some twists and turns, but no upside down or inverted movements,” he said. In interviews, Wartinger went further than simply reporting the results of his study, to the point of actually proposing a roller coaster ride as an alternative non-medical remedy for kidney stones: If you have a kidney stone, but are otherwise healthy and meet the requirements of the ride, patients should try it. It’s definitely a lower-cost alternative to health care. We hasten to point out that Dr. Wartinger did not recommend foregoing diagnosis or treatment by a medical professional in favor of taking a roller coaster ride. Note, too, that the research was conducted not using actual human subjects, but rather a urinary tract simulator made of silicone (though the kidney stones used were real). Despite the doctor’s enthusiasm, therefore, in the absence of any follow-up research confirming his results, the study cannot be considered conclusive; it does not suffice to prove that a roller coaster ride is an effective means of dislodging kidney stones. All we have, to date, is preliminary evidence suggesting that a ride on Disney World’s Big Thunder Mountain roller coaster may help some patients spontaneously pass kidney stones (and only “very small stones” at that, according to a urologist familiar with the study consulted by the New York Times in 2016). Wartinger indicated as much himself in comments quoted in Slate shortly after the study was published. “This is the validation model for getting the attention to do the human trial,” he said. No human trials have yet taken place.
|
38530
|
Police in New Mexico arrested an undocumented Islamic refugee who had plans to a gas pipeline located in the area.
|
Islamic Refugee Arrested With Gas Pipeline Plans in New Mexico
|
false
|
9/11 Attack on America
|
Local police have said reports of an undocumented Islamic refugee being arrested with gas pipeline plans are false. The story appeared at Judicial Watch on June 15, days after a terrorist attack left 50 dead at an Orlando nightclub, and under the headline, “’Islamic Refugee’ With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border Country.” The story begins: Police in a U.S. town bordering Mexico have apprehended an undocumented, Middle Eastern woman in possession of the region’s gas pipeline plans, law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch. Authorities describe the woman as an “Islamic refugee” pulled over during a traffic stop by a deputy sheriff in Luna County, New Mexico which shares a 54-mile border with Mexico. County authorities alerted the U.S. Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) has been deployed to the area to investigate, sources with firsthand knowledge of the probe confirm. The gas pipeline plans in the woman’s possession include the Deming region, law enforcement sources say. Deming is a Luna County city situated about 35 miles north of the Mexican border and 60 miles west of Las Cruces. It has a population of about 15,000. Last year one local publication listed Deming No. 1 on a list of the “ten worst places” to live in New Mexico due to high unemployment , poverty, crime and a horrible public education system. The entire region is a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), according to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center due to the large amounts of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and marijuana smuggled through the state by Mexican traffickers. Specifically, the renowned Juárez and Sinaloa cartels operate in the area, the feds affirm in a report. Given the heightened sense of panic and frustration caused by the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the story quickly went viral. However, local, state and federal authorities near the border in New Mexico have said that the report is completely false. KRQE News 13 reports that the FBI, U.S. Border Patrol and Luna County Sheriff’s Department all independently shot down the claims: Luna County Sheriff John Mooradian said officials from the U.S. Border Patrol called him Wednesday, asking if a deputy of his had made the arrest, as the article claimed. Mooradian checked with his patrol supervisor and confirmed none of his deputies made such a stop, let alone an arrest. Mooradian said he’d likely be fielding calls from concerned people in Luna County who live near the 54-mile border with Mexico. “Before putting out such an article that could put people in such an uproar, maybe they should confirm their stories,” Mooradian said. “…it’s really unfortunate to our citizens that they have to endure that kind of fear.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Doug Mosier, who works out of the agency’s El Paso office, told KRQE News 13 on Wednesday evening that the agency had “no information that would corroborate these allegations.” Frank Fisher, a spokesman for the FBI in Albuquerque said on Thursday that agents look into all such reports, but that the Judicial Watch article “does not appear to be substantiated.” Mooradian said he’d received several inquiries from other agencies, including the office of New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez. Press aides for Martinez did not return requests for comment from KRQE News 13. Judicial Watch has been behind previous false reports about terrorist plots and training camps, so this one should have raised questions right off the bat. The site also falsely reported that an ISIS training came had been found in Mexico (click here for our coverage) and that Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines for human papilloma virus (HBV) have caused deaths (click here for our coverage). This latest report appears to be another example of a story that was completely fabricated to cause panic and fear. Comments
|
9942
|
Odd Treadmill May Help Stroke Survivors
|
The reporter has dealt well with a tough story: early observations about the neurology and mechanics of walking which have produced insights but no imminent clinical applications. The story conveys findings on basic neurological science in clear, accessible language. It indicates potential impact on practice and patients without overpromising. The reporter also shows some enterprise by reporting out the story in fuller feature form, rather than just conveying findings from the two recent published studies. The studies are used as a point of departure, not focus. The report would have been improved with additonal context and balance: A description of current practice in training people who have had strokes or brain damage to walk Comments from a mainstream practitioner about the potential clinical value of the research Acknowledgment of any potential harms of the treatment
|
true
|
Because the treatment is still early in its development and its ultimate use in rehab unclear, there is no need to report its cost. Since the story describes experiments that have produced new insights into the neurology of walking, there is no comparative data on similar treatments available. The story implicitly raises the question of whether long-term training on the treadmill could not only result in benefits, but in harm as well. It would have been useful to hear the researchers’ thoughts on this. The article is about new insights into the neurology of walking. It provides sufficient description of the experiments that produced these insights. While the published articles in Brain and Nature Neuroscience have more specifics on test methods and populations, including them would not add significant value to the story. The article would benefit from more emphasis on the fact that this has not been evaluated adequately as a clinical treatment. Stroke and neurological injuries are very serious conditions, and the reporter does nothing to exaggerate their severity. The story does not exaggerate the potential value of the findings. The reporter interviews the key researcher, a scientist at the Baylor Institute of Rehabilitation doing similar work, and a mother whose brain-damaged child showed temporary improvement. But it would have been very useful to hear from a mainstream stroke or brain-injury rehab specialist about how these findings might (or not) be applied. Background about current post stroke and brain injury treatment and rehab practices would have been useful. The reader has the impression that this research could lead to revolutionary treatments, but it’s not clear how they would differ from current practice. The reporter makes very clear that the treadmill protocol is still experimental. But the story would benefit from an estimate of the earliest date clinical applications could become available. Readers with loved ones who have had a stroke or brain damage would benefit from that reality check. The treatment is novel, and the reporter describes it as such. The AP article bears little resemblance to the Kennedy-Krieger Institute press release on the research.
|
|
7417
|
WH blocking Fauci testimony to House panel, spokesman says.
|
A spokesman for a key House panel said Friday that the White House has blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying next week at a hearing on the coronavirus outbreak.
|
true
|
Appropriations, Health, Anthony Fauci, General News, Politics, Infectious diseases, Virus Outbreak
|
House Appropriations Committee spokesman Evan Hollander said the panel sought Fauci — the highly respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — as a witness for a subcommittee hearing on the government’s response to the pandemic, but was denied. Hollander said the panel was informed by an administration official that Fauci’s testimony was blocked by the White House. The White House said Fauci is busy dealing with the pandemic and will appear before Congress later. In fact, Fauci is set to appear the week after next at a Senate hearing, a spokesperson for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee said. The Senate is held by Trump’s Republican allies while the House is controlled by Democrats. “While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere. “We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time.” Fauci is the top scientist on President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force and is no stranger to testifying before Congress. He has sometimes contradicted Trump’s optimistic misstatements about the virus and how much it is under control after claiming more than 64,000 lives in the U.S. Fauci has warned against relaxing social distancing rules that have helped slow the spread of the virus but caused a major hit to the economy. That has earned him criticism from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, and Trump himself has retweeted a supporter who called for Fauci’s firing.
|
11156
|
A Ray of Hope for Patients With Malignant Brain Tumors
|
An image from the Cleveland Clinic website promoting the NeuroBlate deviceAs the musical King of Siam might have said, this article is a “puzzlement.” Written more in the style of an opinion piece, and by a neurosurgeon at the Cleveland Clinic whose website states that it was the “first” to test the technology promoted in the text, the story describes a computer-assisted brain tumor ablation platform that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administrative five years ago and was designed to offer life-extending options for those with difficult-to-treat or inoperable malignant brain cancers. The article does a pretty good job of setting out the limited and sometimes terrible therapeutic options such patients face, but the tone overall is promotional and there is no discussion of the costs or harms associated with the device. There is also no “news” context for the article, or answer to the question, “why is this information news now?” No recent clinical trial data are cited, and it appears that the last published clinical trial was in 2013, a phase I study of 10 patients, which saw modest life extension for some patients, along with serious side effects in most, including brain swelling. Without citing specific supportive data, the article states that “hundreds of patients” have undergone successful treatment with the NeuroBlate System. (Interestingly, there is an ongoing retrospective registry sponsored by the company to determine outcomes with no results as yet.) Overall, the information in the piece is accurate with respect to the challenges neurosurgeons and their patients face, but it’s a mystery why U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) chose to “cover” the topic at this point in time; why a neurosurgeon was chosen to present it as a piece of journalism; and why no other sources were cited that might have updated the information and made it newsworthy. As the article itself notes, primary malignant brain tumors — and brain tumors that occur because cancer in other organs have spread there — pose serious therapeutic challenges because healthy brain tissue can be damaged along with cancer during radiation, surgical or chemical treatments. In recent years, numerous computer-assisted, navigational, and tissue-sparing technologies have extended and refined the use of lasers and robotic probes. With them, neurosurgeons can prevent or minimize damage to healthy brain tissue by precisely guiding therapies that burn, cut, or kill off malignant tissue. The article explains the need for such technologies, but then mystifyingly focuses on just one such assistive platform called NeuroBlate, a self-described “minimally invasive robotic laser thermotherapy.” Collectively, such technologies do arguably offer a “ray of hope” as the title says, but readers would have been better served by a wider discussion of these technologies and their status and accessibility. And it might have been helpful to note what others, including a European technology assessment agency, had to say about the approach used by Neuroblate, which is called magnetic resonance thermometry (MRT)-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT): “At present, the effectiveness of MRT-guided LITT is unknown. Consequently, the small body of evidence cannot be used to make an informed decision regarding the use of MRT-guided LITT. Therefore, it is recommended that MRT-guided LITT be monitored for 24 months, at which time the results of three larger case series will be available.”
|
false
|
Cancer,Conflict of interest,Devices,U.S. News & World Report
|
As with a variety of other medical technologies on or coming to the market these days, costs — along with clinical evidence of their value — are always part of the decision-making calculus used by medical centers to purchase and offer them. An additional factor in such decisions is marketing, and how much, if any, of a competitive edge the availability of each new technology will give a provider. So certainly some information about the costs of NeuroBlate to medical centers, insurers and patients is called for in this article. The article notes in the next to the last paragraph that NeuroBlate “doesn’t yet qualify as a standard treatment for brain tumors,” but goes on to say that results are “promising” and the system “might be a ray of hope” in patients’ “gray sky.” But it offers no supporting data, either quantitatively or qualitatively. While the article sets out the risks of any kind of operation or treatment on the brain, it does not reveal the particular harms of the NeuroBlate system, even those few reported in the Phase I clinical trial. This is not a slam dunk benign instrument. Seriously informing readers about these potentially life-saving or life-extending new technologies would include information about their harms and limitations. The article reflects the scant evidence available, but it could have offered information from the published data (limited though it may be) or from interviews with neurosurgeons to add this dimension. There is virtually no original reporting here. The article does not overstate the problem, but in fact from the first paragraph lays out relevant statistics. Even in opinion pieces, independent sources are considered essential to credibility and news value, and here there are none cited. The conflict of interest issue in this article is more ambiguous. The byline clearly states that the writer of the article is a neurosurgeon at Cleveland Clinic. And although he is more than entitled to offer his expert views in print, it’s still a “puzzlement” as to why USN&WR would give him this quasi-journalistic platform and not disclose that his home institution had at least an academic stake in the use of the technology the article is “covering.” This was a tough call. The article does describe in some detail alternative therapies and technologies, mostly to highlight their serious limitations. So we’ll award a Satisfactory on that basis. The story does not, however, compare NeuroBlate’s outcomes head to head with other treatments, in part because so little published clinical data are available for comparison. Still, the piece would have been better if it had tried at least to state the difficulty in gathering data. The article mentions that NeuroBlate is FDA-approved, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s widely available. Surely the company has data on how many of its systems have been sold, but there is not a word here about where and how widely the system is available. We’ll give the story a pass here. The story notes that NeuroBlate has been on the market for some five years, so there is no excessive claim to novelty. The story could have noted that a competing system (Visualase) is also marketed by Medtronic. Although we could find no recent press release that could have been the basis for this article, we suspect that the author is relying heavily on company information about NeuroBlate and his own experience and/or familiarity with the technology. No other sources are cited. But in the end, since we can’t tell either way whether the story meets this criterion, we’ll rate it Not Applicable.
|
5249
|
Maine directs much of emergency opioid money to treatment.
|
Maine has directed most of the first wave of federal emergency money to target the opioid crisis on treatment, according to an Associated Press analysis, similar to other states that have not expanded Medicaid.
|
true
|
Addiction treatment, Health, Paul LePage, Medicaid, Maine
|
States are taking very different approaches to spending their initial allotments under the 21st Century Cures Act grant program, according to data the AP obtained through a federal Freedom of Information Act request. Seven states that expanded Medicaid under President Obama’s health overhaul directed less to treatment than non-expansion states, partly because the insurance program already covers addiction treatment. Maine lawmakers passed Medicaid expansion five times, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage vetoed each effort. Maine voters voted to expand Medicaid last fall, but the governor has blocked it over his fiscal concerns. Maine was awarded $1.4 million, and spent about $585,000, on treatment and prevention from May 2017 through April 2018. Maine spent no funds on recovery or administration. The emergency money from Congress was part of a two-year, nearly $1 billion grant program. It was distributed according to a formula favoring states with more overdose deaths and treatment needs. Maine ranked fourth among states for how much it allocated of its overall grant to treatment services: 81.9 percent. Meanwhile, the state ranked eighth for opioid overdoses, with 301 deaths in 2016. Malory Shaughnessy, executive director of the Alliance for Addiction and Mental Health Services in Maine, said it was “misguided” for Maine to have refused to expand Medicaid and in doing so, decline federal matching dollars for expanded drug treatment services. “These dollars could have been used for recovery efforts and ancillary services in recovery that folks are looking at across the country,” she said. For example, Maine could have spent money to provide housing and transportation help for individuals in recovery, said Shaughnessy, whose group represents community behavioral health organizations across the state. Maine plans to spend $1.2 million on opioid treatment services provided by seven Maine providers, according to the AP’s figures. The state also plans to direct about $238,000 on prevention efforts led by the University of New England and Rinck Advertising and $26,000 on recovery services provided by Healthy Acadia, which has offices in Ellsworth and Machias. Emily Spencer, spokeswoman for Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, said Maine directed Cures Act funding toward medication-assisted treatment in areas of the state with the greatest need. She noted that treatment efforts tend to cost more than recovery services, which she says Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s administration is expanding through peer-led centers, recovery coaches and “navigator services.” “The state also utilized these funds to implement programs for individuals in need of a higher level of care, offering daily in-person doses of buprenorphine targeting agency waitlists and the homeless,” she stated. “Additionally, Maine used the available funds for recovery coaching services, as well as prevention-focused activities such as social media campaigns and community-based strategies.” Thirty-three states have expanded Medicaid, receiving enhanced federal funding to cover poor adults. Historically, Medicaid has covered a large share of all addiction treatment in the U.S., more than all private insurance combined. Medicaid covers 4 out of 10 adults under age 65 with opioid addiction. Last fall, nearly six out of ten Mainers voted to expand Medicaid, but the referendum lacked a funding mechanism for the state’s share. A legal and political battle over implementation has ensured. The governor vetoed a funding bill using budgetary surplus and tobacco settlement dollars, and suggests the next governor instead raise taxes on hospitals. Meanwhile, his administration has issued at least 3,500 denial letters to Mainers seeking Medicaid coverage under expansion, which was estimated to help 70,000 to 80,000 Mainers. Expansion states spent $1,581 per patient for treatment, the AP found. States that did not expand Medicaid spent $2,645 per patient on opioid addiction treatment on average, while Maine spent $721 on average per each of 604 patients.
|
11394
|
Zap or Chill? Targeting Fat Without Surgery
|
This story does a solid job describing two newish treatments purported to dissolve targeted fat–the Zeltiq cooling system and the Zerona laser. The story manages to deliver the most important facts while maintaining some tongue-in-cheek distance. This is, after all, a purely cosmetic procedure for people bothered more about how their bodies look than their unhealthy lifestyles or disease risks. This cocked-eyebrow approach serves readers well. Having said that, the story fails in one important way: It should have discussed potential harms. Technologies that claim to have such profound effects on lipid tissues cleary have potential risks, but the story doesn’t explore them. The question for consumers is not merely whether the techniques work–it’s whether they work and without significant risks [aside from wasting money]. The story leaves that important matter unexplored. It would also have been useful for the story to positively state that there are no known health benefits associated with either technique. It’s easy to imagine people who are overweight showing interest in these techniques in the hope they might benefit their blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease risk and so on. They would likely be sorely disappointed. The idea of losing visible fat quickly is sufficiently compelling that consumers spend many millions of dollars on treatments ranging from surgical removal of fat to topical creams. With two new technologies with plausible scientific validity entering the spot-fat marketplace, the New York Times provides a useful service by explaining what is known and not known about them.
|
true
|
"The story states the price for the Zerona device: $1,700 to $3,800 for six sessions. The price of Zeltiq is also reported but is not as clear: We learn only that one doctor charges ""$700 per spot""–but not how many treatments are provided or needed, what constitues as ""spot,"" and so on. The story duly reports that unpublished research showed Zeltiq resulted in 22 percent body fat loss in targeted areas. It reports that published, funded research showed patients lost an average of 3.5 inches after six sessions of Zerona laser work. Given the thin body of research, this is adequate reporting of benefits. The story fails to point out the potential harms of these devices. The devices claim to be based on scientific principles involving the cellular destruction of lipids and their elimination from the body. This is serious metabolic stuff, presumably with serious potential risks. The story fails to acknowledge this. The story does a solid job describing the amount and type of evidence supporting the devices’ efficacy–it’s mainly anecdotes, doctors’ casually reported cases, and some preliminary research. The story is usefully framed with the following statement: ""It is too early, however, for consumers to know how effectively either device works."" About Zerona, we learn that an article showing some benefit has been published in a journal called Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. An independent source later calls the validity of those findings into question. We also learn that the FDA has not approved marketing the device for its claimed benefits of fat-zapping. About Zeltiq, we learn that data has been submitted to the FDA for approval. We also learn that promising data was reported at a medical meeting. The story does not medicalize the fat-melting treatments; it makes clear they are elective and cosmetic. No claims are made for medical benefits of the treatments or the risks of love-handles or muffin-tops. Still, a positive statement that there are no known health benefits would have been useful. The reporter interviewed ten sources–two patients [one with good results, one with poor], one federal spokesperson, and seven doctors. Six of those doctors are not objective due to financial interest in the devices’ efficacy. But one is fully independent. With a story like this, which features new technologies, it’s hard to find sources who know the devices well enough to understand them but have no interest in them. The reporter did a good job with sourcing under these circumstances. The article could have devoted more space to comparing these procedures to the process, benefits, and risks of liposuction. It could have distinguished between the two new treatments and the existing heat treatments and topical creams also sold by some of the same dermatologists, chiropractors, plastic surgeons and web infomercials that support Zeltic and Zerona. It does get points, however, for mentioning two new ultrasound products about to enter the market. The story explains that Zerona is available nationwide through medical spas, chiropractors, dermatologists and plastic surgeons. Zeltiq, the story says, is available at over five dozen clinics identified on a website. The story correctly suggests these two new technologies lie somewhere between the invasive, surgical liposuction and highly questionable infomercial products. It also says they’ll shortly be joined in the market by competitors that use ultrasound technologies. The story does not draw from a news release."
|
|
9247
|
First human clinical trial for nicotinamide riboside
|
This news release describes a 12-person safety trial of a nicotinamide riboside (NR), a dietary supplement that has been found to boost a coenzyme called nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), which declines in humans as they age. The news release deserves credit for pointing out researchers’ financial conflicts. It also states that there have been no clinical trials to determine whether NR produces any actual health benefits. But that caveat comes after a misleading headline and first paragraph that assert the substance increases levels of a cell metabolite “linked to multiple health benefits” without mentioning these benefits have only been shown to occur in mice. Also, it doesn’t seem fair to characterize this as “new research” as the news release states, since the manufacturer announced these safety findings last year. [Editor’s note: This review originally noted under the Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest criterion that the release didn’t note funders. That was incorrect and we have revised the commentary in that section.] NR is being is aggressively marketed under the name Niagen for a variety of health issues including weight loss and age-related conditions, despite a dearth of evidence that it benefits human health. Its manufacturer, ChromaDex, recently announced a deal to expand sales in major retail chains and make it available in consumables such as protein shakes and nutrition bars. It’s also sponsoring research on whether NR can treat two rare disorders, Cockayne syndrome and ataxia telangiectasia, which would open a door to the prescription market. HealthNewsReview.org’s review of a Boston Globe story last year pointed out the need for news stories to cut through the hype over this unproven product. Similarly, a news release that wrongly suggests NR offers health benefits — even if it contains caveats further down — could lead more people to buy it.
|
false
|
dietary supplement,nicotinamide riboside,University of Iowa Health Care
|
The news release does not discuss costs. A 30-day supply, consisting of 60 125-mg tablets, is available on Amazon for $45.99, or $1.53 per day. There is just one manufacturer — ChromaDex — licensing the patented product to various companies, which package and sell it under their own labels. As a result, there is no real price competition. Since there are no proven benefits to humans for NR, there are no benefits to quantify, but that didn’t stop the release from strongly suggesting benefits. A reader could assume from reading the release that claims of efficacy in humans were being made. For example: “Vitamin safely boosts levels of important cell metabolite linked to multiple health benefits” “Because the levels of supplementation in mice that produce beneficial effects are achievable in people, it appears than health benefits of NR will be translatable to humans safely.” This was a short-term Phase 1 safety trial, which is meant to determine whether a drug is safe by testing it on a small number of people. Phase 2 and 3 trials test a drug’s efficacy as a treatment among larger groups of people. No potential harms are addressed. The news release said there were “no serious side effects with any of the doses,” though there were four cases of potential flushing we address under quality of evidence. But it should have pointed out that no safety data exists on long-term use. Nor is there data on the impact of taking this supplement along with other medications or in greater amounts than the tested doses. Also, the people in this study were all healthy, so it’s unclear what impact this substance might have on people with health conditions. That’s an important point since the researchers plan to study NR’s effects on elevated cholesterol, obesity and diabetes as well as people at risk for chemotherapeutic peripheral neuropathy. Also, just because something occurs naturally in the human body doesn’t mean it’s safe. The news release makes it clear that this is a safety trial involving just 12 healthy people but does not give the length of time for which they were observed — 36 days. That’s important because many people take dietary supplements for months or years. The news release also doesn’t mention that further research is needed to assess whether NR is associated with episodes of flushing, in which dilated blood vessels create a sensation of warmth. In this study, four patients reported flushing or feeling hot. The news release does not engage in outright disease mongering. However, its statement that a natural loss of NAD+ over time “may play a role in age-related health decline” implies that aging is a condition that needs to be treated. The news release lists the funders and states that the manufacturer, ChromaDex, supplied NR for use in the trial and that lead researcher, Charles Brenner, is a consultant for ChromaDex and co-counder and chief scientific advisor of ProHealthspan, which sells NR supplements under the trade name Tru NIAGEN. The release does not state that Brenner has other conflicts including owning stock in ChromaDex, or that four of the other nine researchers have financial conflicts. The news release states that researchers found NR is “superior” to two other NAD+-boosting vitamins, niacin and nicotinamide, in the total amount of NAD+ produced and stimulation of sirtuin enzymes, which influence a cellular processes such as energy efficiency, inflammation, stress resistance, and mitochondrial biogenesis. However, it’s impossible to say at this point whether any of these biochemical effects translate into health benefits. The news release does not mention any proven methods for boosting metabolism and maintaining health into old age, such as keeping active and maintaining a good diet. The news release states that the supplements are commercially available. The news release calls this “new research.” However, last year NR maker ChromaDex issued a news release stating that “initial results” of the trial of NR in humans showed it is safe and increases the NAD+ coenzyme. So apparently this isn’t entirely news. It seems that the real news is that the study results were published in the journal Nature Communications. The release overall has a measured tone and avoids exaggeration and sensationalism, except for some troublesome phrases that have already been addressed under the Benefits criterion. In particular, the headline states that NR “safely boosts levels of important cell metabolite linked to multiple health benefits.” The lead echoes that NR “increases levels of a cell metabolite that is critical for cellular energy production and protection against stress and DNA damage.” Those statements imply benefits that are not proven to exist.
|
7735
|
French army to help in effort to stop swine fever at Belgian border.
|
The French army will provide logistical support to hunters tasked with culling wild boar in a border zone next to Belgium, as France tries to prevent an outbreak of a virulent swine disease, its agriculture minister said on Friday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
France has been on alert for African swine fever since the virus was confirmed in September among wild boar in neighboring Belgium. The disease, harmless for humans, is often deadly for pigs, and outbreaks in eastern Europe and China have disrupted the pork industry there. After the virus was found this month in wild boar in Belgium only about 1 km (less than a mile) from France, the French government announced plans to cull all wild boar in a high-risk zone by the border and put up tens of kilometers (miles) of fencing in a wider area to avert an outbreak of African swine fever. “To cull rapidly wild boar in the ‘white zone’ and halt African swine fever, general mobilization of hunters with the logistical support of the army,” Agriculture Minister Didier Guillaume said on his Twitter feed. The minister told France 2 television earlier that there were between 500 and 600 wild boar to be culled in the designated white zone and it would take two to three weeks. Army personnel would assist by laying traps or rounding up boar for hunters to shoot, a ministry spokesman said, adding that soldiers would not be firing. The boar-free zone spans 78 square km and will be enclosed by a 1.5 meter-high fence under construction on the French side, as well as fencing erected by Belgian authorities at the border, the French agriculture ministry has said. France plans to put up in total around 100 km (60 miles) of fencing around border areas in the northeast at a cost of several million euros, according to the ministry. African swine fever can be carried by wild boars but experts also stress that human factors such as transport, clothing and food waste can play a role in spreading the disease. No vaccination or treatment exist for the highly contagious virus. Last year’s outbreak among wild boar in Belgium marked a sudden westward spread of the virus in Europe, raising the risk it would reach large pork-production countries like Germany, France and Spain. Belgium has faced restrictions from importing countries on its pig meat exports, although African swine fever has yet to be detected on a pig farm.
|
7230
|
Governor says there’s less of him to hate: He lost 50 pounds.
|
Gov. Paul LePage says he had weight loss surgery and jokes now “there’s 50 less pounds of me to hate.”
|
true
|
Weight loss surgery, Paul LePage, Chris Christie, Health, Portland, Maine
|
The fiery Republican revealed the bariatric surgery on Wednesday on Portland-based WLOB-FM. He said he underwent the procedure on Sept. 29 and returned to work the next day. LePage, 68, was spurred to action after his doctor told him he needed to lose weight to avoid diabetes. He said he now weighs about 200 pounds and hopes to stay there. LePage is not the only governor to undergo weight loss surgery. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had lap-band surgery in February 2013. Christie, also a Republican, told NBC News in 2015 that it was “the best thing” he’s ever done for himself. New guidelines released in 2016 say weight loss surgery should become a more routine treatment option for diabetes, even for some patients who are mildly obese. Such operations can cost $20,000 to $25,000. Insurance coverage has become more common over the past decade but remains spotty. It’s unclear whether LePage’s surgery was covered by insurance or if he paid out of pocket. There was no immediate comment from LePage’s office. LePage said one advantage of the weight loss is he’ll look dapper in a tuxedo if he and his wife attend one of the balls during the inauguration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump.
|
41207
|
In 2013, US children got 46 vaccines and the autism rate was 1 in 88.
|
US children were recommended to get around 13 vaccines, which involved about 53 doses, in 2013. In 2012, 1 in 69 were estimated to have autism disorders and in 2014, it was 1 in 59 (we found no figures for 2013).
|
mixture
|
online
|
In 2008, US children got 36 vaccines and the autism rate was 1 in 150. US children were recommended to get around 13 vaccines, which involved about 39 doses, in 2008. It was estimated that about 1 in 88 children has autism disorders. In 2013, US children got 46 vaccines and the autism rate was 1 in 88. US children were recommended to get around 13 vaccines, which involved about 53 doses, in 2013. In 2012, 1 in 69 were estimated to have autism disorders and in 2014, it was 1 in 59 (we found no figures for 2013). Increasing numbers of vaccines are associated with increasing rates of autism. Dozens of scientific studies have shown there is no link between autism or autism spectrum disorders and vaccines. Claim 1 of 4
|
41808
|
There is some concern that the rise in autism is the result of the preservatives that are in our vaccines.
|
At a town hall event on Dec. 11, Rep.-elect Mark Green of Tennessee inaccurately claimed that vaccine preservatives might cause autism. He also repeated an unsubstantiated claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “fraudulently managed” data that showed a link between vaccinations and autism.
|
false
|
autism, CDC, vaccines,
|
At a town hall event on Dec. 11, Rep.-elect Mark Green of Tennessee inaccurately claimed that vaccine preservatives might cause autism. He also repeated an unsubstantiated claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “fraudulently managed” data that showed a link between vaccinations and autism.Both of these statements are bogus:According to the Tennessean, which first reported the story, Green’s vaccine claims came in response to a question from a woman asking about possible cuts in Medicaid funding. She said she was the parent of a young adult with autism.Here is more of Green’s reply.Green, Dec. 11: Let me say this about autism. I have committed to people in my community, up in Montgomery County, to stand on the CDC’s desk and get the real data on vaccines. Because there is some concern that the rise in autism is the result of the preservatives that are in our vaccines. So, as a physician, I can make that argument and I can look at it academically and make the argument against CDC, if they really want to engage me on it. But it appears some of that data has been — it appears some of that data has been, honestly, maybe fraudulently managed. So we’ve got to go up there and stand against that and make sure we get that fixed, that issue addressed.Green is a former Army special operations flight surgeon and a 1999 graduate of Wright State University’s Boonshoft School of Medicine in Dayton, Ohio. Green, who is a Republican, previously served as a state senator and was elected this fall to represent Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District.When asked to provide evidence for either claim, Green’s representatives provided a statement that reads, “Recent comments I made at a town hall regarding vaccines has [sic] been misconstrued. I want to reiterate my wife and I vaccinated our children, and we believe, and advise others they should have their children vaccinated.” No one, however, replied to our follow-up inquiry asking how Green felt his comments had been misconstrued.Green’s suggestion that vaccine preservatives could be behind the “rise in autism” is not backed by science. As the CDC says on its website, “there is no link between vaccines and autism,” and “vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.” And in fact, as we have written before, it is not necessarily clear that there has been a rise in autism. There certainly have been more reported cases in recent years, but during that time the definition expanded and awareness increased.The vaccine preservative that has gained the most attention for a purported link to autism is a mercury-containing chemical called thimerosal, which is added to multidose vaccine vials to cut down on contamination. Although the phrase “mercury-containing” might sound scary, thimerosal has a stellar safety record. Not only is the amount of mercury in a vaccine extremely small, but it’s also a type known as ethylmercury. This type of mercury is different from methylmercury, which is the form that accumulates in fish and is toxic to people. Ethylmercury is broken down in the body much more quickly, so it poses less of a risk.The thimerosal in vaccines is only thought to be dangerous if a person has an allergy to the chemical, and that’s rare. The side effects are minor: a little bit of redness and swelling at a vaccine injection site. Numerous studies specifically have looked at thimerosal and autism. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, which is now known as the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies, reviewed the evidence and rejected a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. A 2006 study of nearly 28,000 children in Canada found pervasive developmental disorders were actually more common in the kids who received thimerosal-free vaccines — and concluded that the amount of thimerosal exposure was “unrelated” to the increasing reports of such disorders.The CDC also published nine investigations between 2003 and 2012 that failed to find a connection between thimerosal and autism. Two of these studies observed that autism rates continued to increase in countries such as Denmark and Sweden even when thimerosal was decreased or removed from vaccines.Indeed, despite a lack of serious safety concerns, the United States decided to begin removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines in 1999, and today all vaccines for children ages 6 and younger are available without thimerosal. This, however, was not done because of concerns about autism. As the CDC explains, “This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution.” And consistent with the data in other countries, reported autism rates in America have continued to rise despite thimerosal removal.Thimerosal, notably, never appeared in measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR vaccines, which were the first vaccines postulated to cause autism. A suggested link between MMR vaccines and autism was made in a now-retracted 1998 Lancet paper that reported results on 12 children. Years later, it became clear that none of the cases had been described accurately and unnecessary medical procedures had been performed on the kids, among other problems. The lead author, UK gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, later lost his medical licence because of dishonesty and unethical behavior, much of it related to his work on the Lancet paper.As for other vaccine preservatives, the CDC also states on its website that “no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD,” referring to autism spectrum disorder.Green also claimed that some of the agency’s data had been “maybe fraudulently managed.” At the town hall meeting, and in response to our inquiry, Green did not explain why he thought this was the case. But in a statement to the Tennessean, Green said he was referencing certain instances that had been brought up in Congress, such as when Florida Rep. Bill Posey argued in 2015 that the CDC had not reported a vaccine-autism connection in one of its studies.The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004, was a case-control study of kids living in the Atlanta area. The objective was to look at how old children were when they received their first MMR vaccine, and whether there was a difference between kids with and without autism. If vaccines were contributing to autism, then one might expect to see more autism cases in kids who received the vaccine earlier.To make comparisons, the study identified 624 children with autism and then matched each “case” child with several “control” children who did not have autism, but were otherwise similar — they were the same gender, approximate age and in many instances went to the same school. The researchers then analyzed the vaccination records for all the children to find out whether there were associations between a vaccination time point and autism. If any associations were found, they would simply be associations, not proof of causality.The children were about the same age when they received their first MMR shot, regardless of whether they had autism. Most children — around 70 percent — got their first vaccines before 18 months, in line with recommendations to do so between 12 and 15 months. The researchers did not find associations between the vaccine and autism at either 18 or 24 months, which is when atypical development usually becomes apparent. There was a small association between the MMR vaccine and autism at 36 months, but this was not statistically significant when researchers looked at a subset of the kids and were able to control for other factors. The researchers suspected the association at 36 months was the result of children with autism entering preschool education programs, which start around the age of 3 and require proof of immunization to enroll.In total, the data were not consistent with the idea that vaccines were causing autism.On the House floor, Rep. Posey shared a story about a CDC scientist, William Thompson, who was a co-author on the 2004 paper. Posey said Thompson had “worked with a whistleblower attorney” to provide his office with documents related to the study. Posey also read from a statement Thompson made in September 2014, which said that he and his co-workers deliberately did not report a statistically significant “race effect” for vaccines and autism for the entire set of children, and that he felt they “intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.” In the statement, Thompson also said the authors “scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study” and later discarded hard copy documents in a “huge garbage can,” but because he thought it might have been illegal, he had saved hard copies and associated computer files.Anti-vaccination groups, citing Thompson’s criticism of the CDC paper, accused the agency of suppressing information linking vaccines to autism — specifically data they claimed indicated that African American males were at increased risk for autism when receiving the MMR vaccine before 36 months.None of these claims, however, stands up to scrutiny. There were legitimate scientific reasons not to evaluate race in the entire group of kids, and as we’ll explain, there was still a breakdown by race in the CDC paper. And contrary to what was implied, none of the important study data were destroyed.The data are still available by request from the CDC. Thompson said as much in his full September 2014 statement, which Posey released to journalists. After explaining the dumping of hard copy documents, Thompson added, “All the associated MMR-Autism Study computer files have been retained on the Immunization Safety Office computer servers since the inception of the study and they continue to reside there today.”A person affiliated with an anti-vaccination group even published a reanalysis of the data in 2014, noting that he obtained the data directly from the CDC. The reanalysis has been retracted, but it’s proof that nothing untoward happened to the data in this study.As for the Pediatrics study, it reports associations by race for the subset of children with available birth certificate information (see table 5). A little over half of each group of kids — those with and without autism — had birth certificates. The only positive association is for African Americans at the 36 month time point, but it is not statistically significant.The study does not give a breakdown by race for the entire group of kids. But there’s a perfectly good reason for this.As the CDC explains in a 2015 statement, birth certificate information allows researchers to control for possible autism risk factors, such as birth weight and the mother’s age and education. “This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence [the] CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample,” the statement reads.Controlling for these other factors, or confounders, means scientists are more likely to arrive at a valid result — and not be led astray by a connection that happens to be there by coincidence.Sean Hennessy, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in a phone interview that the CDC’s explanation is a “compelling argument.” He acknowledged that we can’t know whether the reasoning provided is the real reason, but scientifically, “their rationale for presenting the race subgroup analysis in the birth certificate cohort does make sense.”The CDC did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story. Thompson, who still works for the CDC, but not for the immunization program, said he was not allowed to speak about the topic, but that he stood by his previous statements.In the full statement shared with Posey, Thompson alleged that he and his co-authors did not follow the original study protocol, which he claimed included a plan to assess race in the full sample, and that the group decided later not to report those findings. But the final analysis plan that Thompson shared with Posey does not say the authors planned to report results by race in the full sample. In fact, it says nothing at all about reporting results by race. The plan only mentions using race as a possible confounder to adjust the results in the entire sample (see page 8). A confounder in this case is a characteristic that influences both vaccination and autism, thereby distorting the results as to whether there’s a link between vaccination and autism. Using race as a confounder, Hennessy said, is not the same as reporting results by race, which would mean doing an analysis to see if there is an association between MMR vaccination and autism in certain races. Because the protocol does not stipulate doing any such analyses, any reporting by race in the study is a bonus.As we alluded to earlier, a year before Rep. Posey shared Thompson’s story on the House floor, chemical engineer and Simpson University biology professor Brian Hooker published a supposed reanalysis of the CDC data in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration. Hooker claimed to have identified a 3.36-fold increased risk of autism among African American boys who received the MMR vaccine prior to the age of 3. But Hooker, who was not trained as an epidemiologist, made grave errors in his analysis, including doing cohort comparisons even though the data were from a case-control study — a no-no in epidemiology.Just a few months following publication, the article was retracted due to “undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process” and because “post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis.” Hooker has a son with autism, and at the time of publication, had a pending court case claiming that his son was harmed by vaccines. The paper was also funded by Focus Autism, an anti-vaccine group now known as Focus for Health, where Hooker served on the board. (Hooker published another reanalysis of the CDC data this year in a publication that is not indexed on PubMed, which is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Library of Medicine. )Notably, Hooker had been in contact with Thompson for nearly a year prior to his paper’s publication in Translational Neurodegeneration. But with the release of that paper, Hooker produced a video with Andrew Wakefield that compared the CDC’s actions on the Pediatrics paper to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. The video featured audio recordings of Thompson that Hooker made without Thompson’s permission. In an Aug. 27, 2014, press release, Thompson said he was not “given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.”There is no credible indication that the CDC mishandled its data, and even if concerns about this one paper were valid, it wouldn’t change the preponderance of other evidence disputing a connection between vaccines and autism. As the agency reminded the public in its 2015 statement, “Additional studies and a more recent rigorous review by the Institute of Medicine have found that MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism.”
|
9511
|
Roche's Pricey New Breast-Cancer Combo Barely Beats Old Drug
|
The latest result on Roche’s new combo therapy for breast cancer occurs as a disappointment to investors, though it is one that’s unsurprising to medical researchers. This Bloomberg article receives high marks for reporting the cost, harms and perhaps negligible benefit of the new treatment which combines a newer drug (Perjeta) with an older drug (Herceptin). The story is balanced with its inclusion of the more optimistic side of the news. Roche plans to track the new therapy for years to come to determine if the currently observed small improvement will accentuate over time. This is a notable endeavor since the long-term effect and safety of a cancer treatment is nearly as important as its immediate potency. For more of our analysis on how the news media covered the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting where this drug combo and other new research was showcased, see: High drug costs (and stock values) take center stage at final day of ASCO Small studies get big headlines at ASCO 2017 6 things to keep in mind if you read cancer-related news in the next few days The article suggests that though Herceptin has been a potent treatment for women with aggressive HER2-positive breast cancer for decades, apparently one in four women will eventually relapse. Thus, new therapies that reduce the risk of relapsing are desirable.
|
true
|
Bloomberg,breast cancer,Herceptin,Perjeta
|
We are told the new combo treatment will double the monthly costs of just Herceptin from $6,100 to $12,200. Though the benefit of the combo treatment is more pronounced for high-risk patients than low-risk patients, the article correctly points out that the 1 percentage point of improvement in the proportion of women who had no recurrence of their cancer within three years is hardly earth-shattering. The article writes that patients treated with the combination therapy suffered from severe diarrhea at a much higher rate than the conventional treatment. It also briefly mentions that Perjeta’s effect on the heart was not thoroughly analyzed in the trial suggesting there may be further side effects beside diarrhea. The article describes the randomized controlled trial in a straightforward fashion. The clinical endpoint of interest appears to be relapse-free status at three years. The article reports two sets of results — one for the overall patient population: 94.1 percent of the patients on the new combo hadn’t developed invasive breast cancer, compared with 93.2 percent of the Herceptin-only patients. and another for more high-risk patients whose cancer had spread to lymph nodes: 92 percent of those who got Perjeta were free of invasive disease at the three-year mark, compared with 90.2 percent of those who received only Herceptin. There is no evidence of disease mongering. It appears several sources are interviewed and the article includes comments from an NEJM editorial on the research. These experts offer helpful insight into the results of the study. As this is a study comparing a new treatment (Herceptin plus Perjeta) versus a current gold-standard treatment (Herceptin alone), the article easily satisfies this criterion. It’s clear from the story that Herceptin is an old drug, but it’s not clearly stated that the new drug is available. Perjeta was approved by the FDA in 2012 to treat metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The article suggests the novelty of the study is testing a new combination therapy for breast-cancer patients. The story does not rely solely on a news release.
|
17590
|
Whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense.
|
"There are a lot of talking points about medical marijuana being passed around in Florida, but one immutable fact underlies the pro- and anti-marijuana lobbies: The federal government considers cannabis an illegal drug by law. Whether that’s the way it should be depends on your point of view. Proponents point to current federal administrative guidelines that deprioritize marijuana prosecution, saying that state preferences equal de facto law. The state attorney general says that even if the U.S. Attorney General’s Office says it’s not focusing on medical marijuana laws, that doesn’t change the Controlled Substances Act. Only Congress could do that. Even with the caveats implied by the U.S. government’s recent guidance, Bondi’s office declared ""whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense."" Whether you’re a supporter of states’ rights or not, she’s correct."
|
true
|
Criminal Justice, Drugs, Health Care, States, Florida, Marijuana, Pam Bondi,
|
"Almost half the nation has reefer madness these days, with 20 states having passed laws allowing medical marijuana, or outright decriminalizing it. But the office of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi suggests making it crystal clear to voters that even if a proposed constitutional amendment legalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes makes it to the November ballot and passes, users will still be breaking the law -- United States law, that is. ""The summary suggests that medical marijuana is permissible under federal law,"" Bondi’s office said in an initial brief filed Oct. 24, challenging the proposal in Florida Supreme Court. ""In reality, whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense."" With so many states allowing marijuana -- medical or otherwise -- to be consumed by the public, this claim seems to often be overlooked, so we figured it was time to clear the air. Use and abuse Whether the proposed amendment even makes it is dependent on advocates collecting 700,000 confirmed signatures by Feb. 1. Even if the petition is approved, the Florida Supreme Court has until April 1, 2014, to rule on the attorney general’s challenge. If voters pass the law, it would allow registered patients with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, hepatitis C, ALS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or other conditions approved by a doctor to obtain marijuana for medicinal purposes. Bondi’s brief also says the law would ""would make Florida one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states, allowing use for limitless ‘other conditions’ specified by any physician,"" a claim we rated Mostly . All marijuana legislation is written to apply only to state laws. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which is defined as having a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Proponents of decriminalizing marijuana disagree with that definition. Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the pro-legislation Marijuana Policy Project, said there are obvious, widely used medical applications (such as pain relief and appetite stimulation). He said no other drug, from Lipitor to Oxycodone, must specify its exact use like medical marijuana laws do. But even with that in mind, no matter how many states pass marijuana laws, even advocates like Riffle freely admit that the use, possession, manufacturing and distribution of the drug remains a federal no-no. The Controlled Substances Act imposes strict penalties on marijuana users, growers and sellers. A first misdemeanor offense for possession in any amount can result in a $1,000 fine and a year in prison, climbing for subsequent offenses to as much as $5,000 and three years. Selling cannabis is considered a felony. Punishments range from a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison to as much as $10 million and up to life for selling 1,000 kilograms or more. Penalties double if the sale is to a minor or within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or public housing. Cultivating cannabis plants carries similar penalties, contingent on the volume. Feds let states take the lead Even with federal law on the books prohibiting marijuana, there are reasons users and distributors aren’t constantly being busted by the Drug Enforcement Agency. There is a continuing debate over state rights versus federal control, and decriminalizing marijuana is a flashpoint. ""Just because federal law bans something doesn’t mean states have to,"" George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said. Whether the U.S. government can enforce policy that contradicts state law is another matter. The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales vs. Raich established the federal government has the right to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate homegrown marijuana, even when it’s for approved medicinal use. DEA officials destroyed Oakland, Calif., resident Angel Raich’s homegrown marijuana plants in 2002, despite the fact Raich’s possession was legal under California’s Proposition 215 medical marijuana law, which was passed in 1996. Raich sued the federal government and lost, but California’s law was not affected. The ruling showed that the federal government cannot force states to criminalize something (marijuana, in this case), but can enforce its own laws. Since then, several states have still shrugged at federal guidelines, passing their own medical marijuana laws. Colorado and Washington state last year decriminalized cannabis use outright. This has led to a recent softening of the federal government’s stance on the drug. On Aug. 29, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum to federal attorneys that apparently relaxed Washington’s attitudes about marijuana. The memo included new guidelines focusing on cartels or other criminal organizations -- for example, distribution to minors, cultivating plants on public land, committing violence to distribute the drug or using state-regulated operations as a cover for illicit activities. Otherwise, the Justice Department is content to allow state and local agencies ""to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws."" Indeed, raids of growing operations are infrequent, and prosecution of individuals in those states is nearly unheard of. That’s not to say these guidelines can’t or won’t change, Somin said. When Attorney General Eric Holder or President Barack Obama leave office or if they change their minds, the priorities of the Justice Department may shift again. Federal prosecutors could ignore the guidelines and root out medical marijuana users anyway. United for Care, the group pushing for the Florida initiative, said the lack of enforcement is an integral part of what makes medical marijuana laws possible, and is at the heart of the proposed amendment. ""Our aim is not to set up a marijuana business,"" campaign manager Ben Pollara said. ""We want safe access to medical marijuana."" Bondi’s office, meanwhile, doesn’t see it that way. ""Currently it is illegal,"" communications director Jennifer Meale said. ""Whether there are other considerations doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal."" Our ruling There are a lot of talking points about medical marijuana being passed around in Florida, but one immutable fact underlies the pro- and anti-marijuana lobbies: The federal government considers cannabis an illegal drug by law. Whether that’s the way it should be depends on your point of view. Proponents point to current federal administrative guidelines that deprioritize marijuana prosecution, saying that state preferences equal de facto law. The state attorney general says that even if the U.S. Attorney General’s Office says it’s not focusing on medical marijuana laws, that doesn’t change the Controlled Substances Act. Only Congress could do that. Even with the caveats implied by the U.S. government’s recent guidance, Bondi’s office declared ""whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense."" Whether you’re a supporter of states’ rights or not, she’s correct."
|
33072
|
A Denver man murdered a woman whose behavior was inspired by the #WasteHisTime hashtag on Twitter.
|
Prior to the #WasteHisTime2016 murder yarn, NotAllowedTo published claims that Meek Mill was the son of Martin Luther King, Jr., that Americans petitioned to replace the Stars and Stripes with a rainbow gay pride flag, and that a Colorado McDonald’s added a weed-smoking section.
|
false
|
Junk News, #wastehistime, #wastehistime2016, black twitter
|
In early January 2016, the hashtag #WasteHisTime or #WasteHisTime2016 unified a tongue-in-cheek conversation (primarily on Black Twitter) about creative ways to mislead men with whom users weren’t interested pursuing romantically; on 9 January 2016, the web site NotAllowedTo published an article titled “Man Kills His Date After She, Inspired By Twitter ‘#WasteHisTime2016’ Trend, Wasted His Time.” It held: DENVER – Fabian Suarez, age 23, has been reportedly arrested after killing a 22 year old woman for allegedly “wasting his time on purpose”, which she apparently gained inspiration from by a popular Twitter trend: #WasteHisTime2016 … Suarez reportedly stabbed Lina Johnson to death Thursday night on the 5200 Block of N Monroe St. after she allegedly “wasted his time” According to authorities, Lina, who was an avid twitter user, was influenced by the “#WasteHisTime2016” trend. Investigators say Lina asked Fabian to take her on a date, as she reportedly knew that Fabian liked her. Lina then allowed Fabian to pay for dinner, take her shopping at Victoria’s Secret, to only then have him drop her off at her new boyfriends house. After arriving outside Lina’s boyfriends house, Fabian reportedly asked “this is where you live?”, at which point Lina replied with “No, this is my new boyfriends house. these panties you bought me are for him to see”. The nature of the #WasteHisTime2016 tweets were clearly humorous and didn’t involve actual devious plans to lead men on; typical tweets from the Twitter fad were obviously satirical: Tell him you’re excited to have his last name and then marry his brother #wastehistime2016 — ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ (@blvckfame) January 12, 2016 If he ask u to send him nudes, send him loading sign pictures #WasteHisTime2016 pic.twitter.com/ZxnBz9QLde — Waste His Time (@WHTtweets) January 9, 2016 If you really want to #wastehistime2016 Get a tub of protein powder & replace it with nestle chocolate milk powder — daniel or danyal (@sirdanyal) January 9, 2016 #wastehistime2016 when he tells u to send him nudes send him pictures of lipstick repeatedly pic.twitter.com/2wRbl1KG4N — taylor (@taylorhardee16) January 7, 2016 Wait until ur wedding day & then send him a snap from the airport saying “I catch flights not feelings” #WasteHisTime2016 — ProblemChild (@AlikaArtist) January 7, 2016 NotAllowedTo does not print factual stories. Its disclaimer states that all articles on the web site are for “entertainment purposes only”: NotAllowedTo.com is intended for entertainment purposes only. Our website and social media content uses the most notorious urban and satirical entertainment news with the most shocking headlines and articles.
|
7787
|
WHO confirms case of yellow fever in Netherlands, says risk low.
|
A case of yellow fever, an acute and contagious mosquito-borne viral disease, has been reported in a man in the Netherlands who recently traveled to Gambia and Senegal, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The risk of further spread of the disease in the Netherlands is very low, the WHO said, in part because the virus is carried by types of mosquito rarely seen in northern Europe. There have been no other reports of confirmed yellow fever cases from Senegal, Gambia or the Netherlands at this time, it added, but international health authorities have alerted officials in the two West African countries, since transmission and further cases there are more likely. Yellow fever virus has the potential to spread rapidly and cause a serious public health impact in areas where people are not immunized. The WHO advises travelers to countries where the disease is common to get vaccinated at least 10 days beforehand. The man in the Dutch case was not vaccinated. After returning to the Netherlands on Nov. 17 he felt ill and was hospitalized on Nov. 19 with symptoms of acute liver failure. He was still in hospital as of Dec. 10. “This case ... illustrates the importance of maintaining awareness of the need for yellow fever vaccination, especially in areas with favorable environments for yellow fever transmission, such as Gambia and Senegal,” the WHO said.
|
28271
|
In 2018 or 2019, an Alabama court ordered a rape survivor named Jessica Stallings to allow her rapist to visit the children who were born to them.
|
"What's true: As of June 2019, Lenion Richard Barnett has court-ordered rights to temporary, limited, supervised visitation of two boys described in a divorce settlement as being ""born to"" Barnett. His ex-wife, Jessica Stallings, conceived the eldest boy when she was below the age of consent, meaning a statutory rape was perpetrated against her in that instance. What's false: Despite two formal investigations of rape and incest allegations against Barnett, one of which led to the empanelment of a grand jury, Barnett has never been convicted, or even indicted, on charges of rape or incest. What's undetermined: We have not found evidence that Barnett is the biological father of Stallings' eldest son, despite searching court records, as well as requesting such evidence from Stallings' attorney and Alabama's Ninth Judicial Circuit district attorney."
|
mixture
|
Politics
|
In June 2019, news outlets throughout the United States, and beyond, reported on the case of Jessica Stallings, a 32-year-old Alabama woman who claimed she was suffering the consequences of the state’s failure to legally prevent rapists from visiting or having custody over the children of their victims. On 12 June, for example, the Monroe, La., television channel KNOE posted an article with the headline “Alabama Court Forces Rape Survivor to Allow Rapist to Have Visitation With Children,” which reported that: “A 32-year-old woman in Birmingham, Alabama says the state’s laws have forced her to face the man she says raped her again and again.” As part of an 11 June interview with Stallings, who in that instance was identified only by her first name, the Birmingham, Ala., television channel WIAT reported that: “… [Stallings] was impregnated four times. At 14, she miscarried. At 16, she had a baby boy. At 18, she had her third child. He later died due to a disease common in cases of incest. At 19, Jessica had her youngest son. She says her family threatened her to ensure she stayed home and the nature of her children’s conception remained secret … “Her accused rapist has been taking her to court, and winning, for visitation rights of her sons. The man that raped Jessica currently has visitation rights to her two children. The judge told Jessica for each visit she denied her rapist, she’d have to spend 48 hours in the county jail.” A day earlier, on 10 June, the London Independent published a report with the headline “Rape Survivor Fighting Rapist for Custody of Child in Alabama.” That report was actually a re-publication of a 9 June article by the Washington Post, in which Stallings allowed her full name to be used. The Post reported that: “…[Stallings] said she was 12 when her mother’s half brother began climbing into her bed at night. Before she turned 18, she had endured four pregnancies. The first ended in miscarriage, and one son died of a disease more likely to occur in cases of incest. Then her family forced her to marry her uncle, she said. Stallings later fled, and a court deemed the marriage illegal because of a ‘familial relationship.’ “She built a stable home in Fort Payne, Ala., for her sons, now 15 and 12. But in the winter of 2017, she discovered that she was not yet free of the man she calls ‘Uncle Lenny.’ Despite DNA tests that proved incest, he maintained parental rights to the boys and fought Stallings for visitation. A judge ruled he was entitled to see them for three days during Christmastime. “Her uncle — Lenion Richard Barnett Jr., 39 — could not be reached for comment, and his attorneys declined to speak about his case with Stallings. ‘It’s sickening,’ Stallings said. ‘I’ve spent my entire life scared to death of my rapist, and now, I’m fighting him for custody of my children. '” These accounts of Stallings’ plight prompted widespread reaction on social media, as well as multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about the full facts surrounding the case. The news articles that surrounded Stallings’ public statements in June 2019 contained a significant degree of accuracy. Stallings and Barnett were indeed engaged in a child-custody and visitation dispute, as of June 2019, and documentary evidence exists that demonstrates one of the children in question was born as a result of a statutory rape perpetrated against Stallings. However, in several instances those news reports failed to provide readers with important contextual information, or to fully reflect the nuance and complexity involved in what is a difficult, long-running legal saga involving very serious allegations of rape, assault, family breakdown, mental illness and drug abuse. 2002-2009: Births, marriage, divorce (The following explication of the facts was taken from multiple Alabama court records, which Snopes obtained. Where there is a dispute or uncertainty over a claim or allegation, we note that. Snopes usually does not name survivors of rape and sexual assault, but we are naming Stallings in this article because she herself has decided to speak publicly). The visitation and custody dispute between Stallings and Barnett relates to two boys, aged 12 and 15 as of June 2019. Stallings gave birth to the younger boy in August 2006 and the older boy in July 2003. Stallings herself was born in April 1987, meaning she was 16 years old at the time her older son was born. Stallings turned 16 less than three months before giving birth to the boy, so by biological necessity she was 15 years old at the time of his conception. In Alabama, the age of consent is 16, as it was in 2002. These facts demonstrate that Stallings was, on at least one occasion, the subject of a statutory rape. She has alleged that Barnett raped her repeatedly throughout her teenage years. We asked Barnett’s attorney whether he denied these allegations, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. According to a later court filing by Stallings, Barnett was not listed as the father of either boy on their birth certificates. (We asked Stallings’ current attorney if we could view a copy of the birth certificates, but the attorney declined). In January 2008, Stallings and Barnett were married at the Jackson County Courthouse in Scottsboro, Ala. At the time, Stallings was 20 and Barnett was 27. By August, Stallings sued for divorce. In a court filing, her attorney at the time wrote that Stallings and Barnett had “become incompatible in their tastes, natures, views, likes and dislikes and their outlooks have become widely separated and divergent” to the extent that “it is impossible for them to live together as husband and wife.” In filing for divorce, Stallings did not state (as she later would) that she was coerced or pressured into marrying Barnett in the first place, nor did she make any allegation of rape against Barnett in any court filing associated with the divorce. (In March 2009, while the divorce was being processed, DeKalb County District Court records show that Stallings did apply for and obtain a restraining order against Barnett, claiming that he had sent her threatening text messages, had threatened to physically attack her and her boyfriend, had physically assaulted her in the past, and had threatened to kill her if she did not sign over custody of the children). Their divorce was finalized in November 2009. Under the terms of the divorce settlement, to which both Stallings and Barnett agreed, the two boys were described as “born to the parties” — that is, their children together. Barnett was given primary custody of the boys, while Stallings was given visitation rights on every second weekend, for a week around Christmas, a week during Spring Break and a week during June. Stallings and Barnett also divided up their custody of the boys on holidays such as Thanksgiving and on various birthdays. None of the June 2019 news articles about this case mentioned the fact that when Stallings and Barnett were divorced in 2009, Barnett — rather than Stallings — was given primary custody of the boys. Neither did the articles mention that, in filing for divorce, Stallings provided several grounds, but she never cited Barnett’s alleged repeated rape as one of them. These facts certainly do not mean Stallings’ 2019 allegations are not true, but they are relevant pieces of background information that would have provided readers with additional context and better reflected the complicated, long-running nature of Stallings’ and Barnett’s court battles. 2010-2017: Barnett’s criminal activities, Stallings gains custody According to court records, Barnett was arrested and indicted on several criminal charges between 2010 and 2012, in both Alabama and Tennessee, including theft, assault and reckless endangerment. In one August 2010 incident, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office said Barnett had attacked a corrections officer and attempted to take the officer’s weapon, while he was being transported to a mental-health hospital in Tennessee, before he fled into nearby woods. In 2014, Barnett was found not guilty “by reason of mental disease and defect” of two car thefts in Alabama, after he was diagnosed with depression and schizophrenia. His attorney in the theft case said Barnett had told her he had been hospitalized at three other psychiatric facilities in Alabama. Barnett’s criminal activities and mental-health difficulties brought about a major development in the decade-long legal dispute between Stallings and Barnett, when Stallings petitioned the juvenile court in DeKalb County, seeking to change the custody arrangement in place between the two. The juvenile court records are sealed, but we have a reliable overview of what transpired after 2012, based on a summary published by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in April 2018: “In April 2012, [Stallings] filed in the DeKalb Juvenile Court (‘the juvenile court’) an emergency motion for custody of the children; she also filed two form complaints, which initiated a separate action for each child, seeking to have the children declared dependent and in which she alleged that [Barnett] had been arrested in Tennessee, had recently been committed to and released from a mental-health-care facility, had a history of mental-health issues and drug use, and, at a recent visitation, had ‘attempted to fight’ the mother.” So based on Barnett’s arrests, incarceration, and hospitalization, Stallings sought in 2012 to have the juvenile court declare the children dependent — a step commonly taken by juvenile courts when a legal guardian or parent, for various potential reasons, can no longer take care of a child — and also asked the court to give her custody of the children. She succeeded in taking over primary custody of the two boys, with Barnett retaining certain visitation rights, essentially reversing the arrangement that had been in place since the 2009 divorce settlement. The boys appear to have lived primarily with their mother since 2012, but further legal wrangling began in 2015, when Barnett petitioned the juvenile court to vacate the custody arrangement it had ordered three years earlier. This particular dispute was rather technical in nature, centering on whether the juvenile court had properly disposed of the request for a dependency declaration, before resolving the custody dispute. Both parties argued their cases before the juvenile court until 2017, when the matter was elevated to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. In April 2018, that court sided with Barnett’s argument and voided the juvenile court’s 2012 order. 2017-2019: A new custody battle In 2017, two separate but parallel proceedings began. On the one hand, Stallings reported to the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office an allegation that Barnett had repeatedly raped her. The Sheriff’s Office and the office of Alabama’s Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (which covers DeKalb County) launched an investigation into those allegations. Bob Johnston, chief deputy district attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, told Snopes that, “There was no new information that would justify an additional presentation to the grand jury.” Stallings had made similar allegations of rape and incest against Barnett in 2015, allegations that she told the Washington Post she had made “soon after the custody fight began.” Those claims led to an earlier formal investigation and the empanelment of a grand jury. That grand jury decided not to indict Barnett in December 2015. On the other hand, Stallings took significant new steps, in civil court, to counteract Barnett’s efforts to change the custody arrangement in place since 2012, when DeKalb County Juvenile Court gave Stallings primary custody of the two boys. In January 2018, she petitioned the DeKalb County Circuit Court to annul her marriage to Barnett (declare it “void ab initio,” or invalid from the outset), and thereby to also void the 2009 divorce decree. Stallings argued that the 2008 marriage had been incestuous, because Barnett is her mother’s half-brother and therefore her own uncle “by half-blood,” which falls under Alabama’s legal definition of incest. The DeKalb County Circuit Court agreed to temporarily pause enforcement of the divorce decree, but as of June 2019 it had not given a final or permanent judgement on the validity of the marriage (and therefore the divorce settlement). This was in contrast to claims in various news reports that the court had “deemed the marriage illegal.” When the Court of Civil Appeals gave its ruling in April 2018, Stallings escalated her efforts to obtain custody of the boys. Because the appeals court vacated the juvenile court’s 2012 ruling (which gave Stallings primary custody), the only legitimate custody order in place would be the one contained in the 2009 divorce settlement, which gave Barnett primary custody. So while the court was considering Stallings’ motion to declare the marriage (and divorce settlement) void, she filed another motion in April 2018, this time asking the court for pendente lite custody — that is, for her to be given temporary custody of the children while the court decided on her underlying request to declare the marriage and divorce decree void. At the end of May 2018, Circuit Judge Shaunathan Bell ordered that, until a further hearing in September, the children would remain placed with Stallings, with Barnett allowed four hours of supervised visitation per week, at a Fort Payne facility operated by the DeKalb County Children’s Advocacy Center. In November 2018, Stallings and Barnett (through their respective attorneys) appeared to have come to a new unwritten arrangement in which Stallings retained primary custody of the boys, but Barnett was allowed a measure of unsupervised visitation rights. (No record of that agreement exists in the case docket, but Bell referenced it in a June 2019 ruling). On 30 May 2019, Barnett was arrested in Fort Payne, Ala., on suspicion of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. As a result, Stallings filed a new motion, asking Bell to set aside the unwritten November agreement that allowed Barnett unsupervised visitation of the children, claiming that her 12-year-old son had been in Barnett’s car with him when Barnett was arrested. We repeatedly asked Fort Payne Police Department for details of Barnett’s arrest, making several requests for a copy of the incident report. Unfortunately, we did not receive a substantive response in time for publication, meaning we cannot verify the boy’s having been present with Barnett at the time of the arrest. On 18 June 2019, Bell ordered Stallings and Barnett to return to the arrangement he had previously set down, meaning the boys would continue to be placed with Stallings for the foreseeable future, but Barnett would again be allowed four hours of supervised visitation per week. Bell scheduled what he called a final hearing on the underlying question of the validity of the 2008 marriage and 2009 divorce settlement, to take place on 12 August. The core claim made in multiple news reports in June 2019, and the claim submitted to Snopes for verification, was that a judge in Alabama had ordered a rape survivor (in this claim, Jessica Stallings) to allow the man who raped her (in this claim, Lenion Richard Barnett) to have visitation rights over her children. There is no doubt that DeKalb County Circuit Judge Shaunathan Bell has ordered that Barnett must temporarily be given limited rights to supervised visits with the two boys at the center of this case. (What the June 2019 news reports failed to mention was that Bell’s order did not come out of the blue, but rather after a decade of intensive and difficult legal wrangling between Stallings and Barnett, beginning with a 2009 divorce settlement that actually gave Barnett primary custody of the boys). It’s also true that Stallings’ eldest son was conceived when she was under the age of consent, meaning that she can be accurately described as a survivor of statutory rape. Furthermore, Barnett has repeatedly claimed visitation rights over that boy, based on a 2009 divorce settlement that described the children as being “born to” Barnett and Stallings. Clearly, this could lead a reasonable person to conclude that Barnett has, by implication, admitted to perpetrating a statutory rape against Stallings. However, a man’s claim or admission to being the legal father of a particular child, in the context of a custody dispute and divorce settlement, does not constitute physical evidence that he is the biological father of that child. DNA testing could establish Barnett’s biological paternity of Stallings’ eldest son, but it’s not clear whether such DNA test results exist, or what they show, despite widely repeated claims in the June 2019 news coverage that DNA tests had “proven incest.” We asked Stallings’ attorney to provide any documentation, including DNA test results, which demonstrate that Barnett is the biological father of the two boys in question. The attorney declined to do so. We later asked the same attorney whether she or Stallings had possession of any such DNA test results. Stallings’ attorney told us that DNA testing had formed part of the criminal investigation into her client’s allegations against Barnett, but that she herself was “not privy” to that investigation. We asked the the Ninth Judicial Circuit District Attorney Office whether, as part of the investigations into Barnett, a DNA sample had been taken from him, whether testing had been done to check if he was the biological father of the children in question, and what the results of those tests were. Chief Deputy District Attorney Johnston told us, “It would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the evidence/lack of evidence …” In May 2018, Stallings’ attorney argued in a court filing that: “… DNA testing can establish the blood relationship between [Stallings] and [Barnett] as well as whether or not [Barnett] is the biological father of the children. It is the understanding and belief that there has been DNA seized as part of the criminal investigation.” As of 24 June 2019, no DNA test results demonstrating that Barnett is the biological father of Stallings’ eldest son had been submitted to the court as part of the ongoing custody dispute between the two, and neither Stallings’ attorney nor the District Attorney’s Office could provide Snopes such test results. Until and unless such results become available, we cannot verify the claim that Barnett perpetrated a statutory rape against Stallings, because we cannot verify whether Barnett is the biological father of Stallings’ eldest son. This might seem an odd conclusion, given that Barnett himself has repeatedly claimed custody over both boys, based on a 2009 divorce settlement that described the children as being “born to” Barnett and Stallings. However, the specific claim of statutory rape is contingent upon Barnett’s biological paternity of the eldest boy, and so far we have found no physical evidence of that. More broadly, Stallings has claimed that Barnett repeatedly raped her over the course of her teenage years. However, despite two formal investigations of those rape and incest allegations, one of which led to a grand jury being empanelled, Barnett has never been convicted, or even indicted, on charges of rape or incest.
|
5948
|
Rhode Island gets $1.5M to fight diabetes, heart disease.
|
Rhode Island is getting a $1.5 million federal grant to help fight heart disease and diabetes.
|
true
|
Rhode Island, Heart disease, Health, Jack Reed, Diabetes
|
Democratic U.S. Sen. Jack Reed said in a statement Thursday the funding for the Rhode Island Department of Health from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be used to bolster existing efforts to prevent the diseases by residents’ efforts to lead healthier lives. That includes preventing and better managing high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes through diet and exercise. The state Health Department estimates that 79,300 Rhode Island adults know they have diabetes and another 24,800 residents don’t know they have it. Additionally, 311,200 Rhode Islanders are at risk for developing diabetes due to their weight, physical activity, and age profiles.
|
34778
|
Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis has donated millions of dollars to the ACLU and liberal political causes.
|
Has Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis donated millions of dollars to the ACLU and liberal political causes?
|
mixture
|
Business, aclu, donations, progressive
|
In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion: Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2010] This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They’re the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He’s your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels “guilty” for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what’s left of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It’s disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He’s banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it’s time we expose this clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance Peter Lewis donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU’s endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked “to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties.” According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go “to the ACLU’s drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.”) Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a “truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies,” and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) However, the “heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance” reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance’s CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity’s single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test — even if that “injury” resulted from being punched by a student.The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board’s now defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs — and who have never been suspected of using drugs — have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
|
10477
|
Two Parkinson’s Drugs Shown To Increase Heart-Valve Risk
|
There is conflicting evidence on whether the drugs pergolide and cabergoline significantly increase the risk of heart valve disease among Parkinson’s patients. Most previous studies (but not all) report an increased risk. The pathological features of the valve disease are disturbingly similar to those observed in the late 90s among women who took the “fen-phen” diet drugs, and the Parkinson’s drugs and diet drugs share similar mechanisms of action. But earlier studies in Parkinson’s patients have a variety of design limitations that make it difficult to determine the true significance of the heart valve problem. The news story in the Wall Street Journal accurately states that two new studies in the New England Journal of Medicine show the drugs are associated with a four- to seven-fold increased risk of valve disease. It correctly states that 23% to 29% of Parkinson’s patients in the Italian study had heart valve disease—a disconcertingly high rate. But when it states that “19% of patients” taking these drugs developed heart valve disease in the large United Kingdom cohort, it vastly overstates that study’s results. Considering the billions of dollars in product liability lawsuits generated by the fen-phen disaster, this is a matter of considerable financial as well as medical importance. According to the researchers who analyzed the UK cohort, a total of 2159 patients took pergolide and cabergoline. Among these 2159, 12 developed heart valve disease. On average, the researchers reported (after controlling for the amount of time each patient took the drugs), if 10,000 Parkinson’s patients took pergolide for one year, 30 would develop valve disease; and if 10,000 patients took cabergoline for one year, 33 would develop valve disease. This amounts to a heart valve disease rate of about 0.3% per year for each of the two drugs in the UK cohort (far lower than suggested by the Wall Street Journal story), compared to 23% to 29% in the Italian cohort. The fact that this is four- to seven-times more cases than develops with other Parkinson’s drugs (the relative risk) is likely meaningful—but the inexplicable variance in absolute risk (0.3% per year in one study versus 23% to 29% in the other) suggests that there is still conflicting evidence—and substantial uncertainty–about the true scope of this problem. Despite these caveats, the weight of evidence points to a problem worthy of coverage in the national media. Fortunately for Parkinson’s patients, there are alternative medicines that do not appear to cause heart valve disease.
|
false
|
The news story provides no information on the costs of using these drugs or alternative medicines. The news article does not quantify the potential benefits of treatment with these two Parkinson’s drugs, instead describing them only in general terms. A little more information – a risk/benefit tally – might help readers weigh their advantages and disadvantages. By greatly overstating the proportion of patients at risk of heart valve disease in the large UK cohort study, the news article fails to provide balanced information about the frequency and seriousness of harms. (See “Disease mongering” above.) Nevertheless, the two research studies taken together reaffirm the strongly held suspicion that these drugs have the potential for causing valvular disorders. When a news article reports that a medical treatment appears to cause devastating harm to at least one in five patients, it naturally raises fears—and critical questions: Are there other potential explanations for the disturbing findings? Is there something about the quality of the evidence that makes it especially compelling? Is there something about the quality of the evidence that should make us think twice? Considering the seriousness of the charges—that two Parkinson’s drugs “sharply increase the risk of heart-valve disease”–the news article’s discussion of the scientific evidence is inadequate. As carefully conducted as the studies in the New England Journal of Medicine are, neither is capable of examining and adjusting for all of the factors that might account for an increased incidence of valve disease. Indeed, the absolute risk of developing valve disease was inexplicably very different from one study to the other– about 0.3% per year per drug in the UK cohort, compared to 23% to 29% in the Italian cohort. (See “Disease mongering” above.) Also, because the news article gets an important fact wrong and vastly overstates the risk of valve disease in the UK study (saying it is 19%), it fails to point out this discrepancy. As a result, the questions, “Which rate should we believe—and why?” aren’t asked, much less answered. There is likely no simple answer, and maybe no complex answers either. But that is all the more reason to explain the strength of the evidence to readers. The news article misinterprets key data in the study about Parkinson’s patients in the United Kingdom, thus highly inflating the occurrence of heart valve problems in patients taking the two Parkinson’s drugs. In the UK cohort, 31 of 11,417 Parkinson’s patients taking a variety of drugs developed heart valve disease. Of these 31 patients, 6 (19%) had taken the drug pergolide (brand name Permex), and another 6 (19%) had taken the drug cabergoline (Dostinex). However, the news story wrongly writes, “In one study in the United Kingdom, 19% of patients taking pergolide or cabergoline suffered heart-valve damage…” If that were the case, there would have been hundreds more cases than actually reported. According to the published study, 931 patients took pergolide and 1228 received cabergoline. The researchers concluded that if 10,000 patients took pergolide for one year, 30 would develop valve disease; if 10,000 took cabergoline for one year, 33 would develop valve disease. This amounts to a valve disease rate of about 0.3% per year per drug—far fewer than was suggested by the news story. The article accurately notes that valve disease was five to seven times more likely to occur among the UK patients taking one of these two drugs, and similarly risky in the smaller, second study from Italy. The article enlists a variety of sources to balance its commentary on the drugs implicated in the new research, and includes sufficient information for readers to assess the sources’ potential conflicts of interest. The news story summarizes the main alternative to the two drugs associated with heart valve disease. (“The main treatment is a medicine called levodopa, which the body converts to dopamine…”) However, it neglects to mention whether levodopa also has side effects that readers might want to evaluate. More importantly, it fails to point out that other medicines in this drug class (e.g. lisuride, pramipexole, ropinorole) are available which are not associated with heart valve disease, information readers might find useful and reassuring. The Wall Street Journal article provides accurate information about the availability and stormy history of two Parkinson’s drugs that may increase the risk heart valve disease. Physicians have treated Parkinson’s patients with the drugs pergolide and cabergoline for a long time. The news article accurately represents their controversial history, though it neglects to note that other medicines in this drug class are avaliable that do not appear to cause heart valve disease. No obvious use of text from the press release.
|
|
29134
|
The ingredients of two popular plant-based burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat burgers, are indistinguishable from dog food.
|
What's true: Impossible and Beyond Meat Burgers share some ingredients with at least one brand of vegan, grain-free dog food selected for the comparison. What's false: The purported similarity between the three ingredient lists is overstated.
|
false
|
Food
|
In late June, 2019, University of California-Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner tweeted the ingredient list of three food items, two of which were popular plant-based burgers and one of which was “premium dog food”: Trivia quiz: following are the ingredients of three food/feed items. Two of them are fake burgers (namely @ImpossibleFoods burger and @BeyondMeat burger, respectively) and the third is premium dog food. Can you pick the latter? pic.twitter.com/uqzWIkxpQ7 — Frank Mitloehner (@GHGGuru) June 27, 2019 The point, Mitloehner later tweeted, was that the two most notable plant-based imitation burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat Burgers, were “indistinguishable from dog food.” From a factual standpoint, the three images accurately depict ingredient lists for (from left to right) a Beyond Meat Burger, “Walk About Dog Food” brand “Super Premium” grain-free vegan dog food, and an Impossible Burger. Let’s get into the weeds: 10 of the ingredients (taking some chemical liberties and ignoring entirely the relative amounts of each) of the 20 listed for the Impossible Burger can also be found among the 28 in the vegan, grain-free dog food: Impossible Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Food Starch Modified Pea Starch Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E) Vitamin E Supplement Niacin Niacin Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6) Pyridoxine Hydrochloride Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) Riboflavin Supplement Salt Salt Sunflower Oil Sunflower Oil Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1) Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1) Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 Supplement Zinc Gluconate Zinc Proteinate Most of the shared ingredients are vitamins and minerals. Using the current ingredient list (which differs slightly from the one used in the viral tweet), two of the 18 Beyond Meat burger ingredients also appear among the 28 in the vegan grain-free dog food: Beyond Meat Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Pea Protein Isolate Pea Protein Salt Salt In the case of the Beyond Meat burger comparison, both use peas as their source for protein. Indistinguishability is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but significant differences do exist between the burger-ingredient lists and the dog-food lists. A broader question, though, is what scientific point does such a comparison serve? One could make a similar argument that the ingredients in high-quality, organic beef dog food are “nearly indistinguishable” from canned beef chili served in the supermarket, but such a comparison wouldn’t be all that illustrative. Indeed, like the Beyond Meat burger and the vegan dog food, the chili and the beef dog food both use the same protein source. We asked Mitloehner, who studies chemical emissions from animal agricultural practices and who has served as an expert witness defending the agricultural industry in the U.S. Congress, what scientific point he was illustrating with his tweet. Via email, he told us his concerns were with how the plant-based burgers were marketed: These plant-based alternatives are often marketed as burgers made from plants. In reality, they fully qualify for the NOVA definition of “ultra-processed foods,” of which many (or most) nutrition scientists, dietitians and clinicians warn us constantly. The claim of them being more healthy and/or wholesome than real meat is not supported by facts. These patties are as ultra-processed and consist of almost identical ingredients as dog kibbles. If you compare the three, you might have had a hard time identifying the dog food yourself, right? Asked about his interest in the topic, Mitloehner told us it stemmed from “the many media requests I receive about plant-based products including several [media appearences] alongside [Impossible Foods founder] Pat Brown and [Beyond Meat founder] Ethan Brown and the many factually incorrect claims they make about animal agriculture, which often otherwise go unchallenged in the media.” The original conceit behind these plant-based burgers was one of sustainability: being able to produce something that tastes like meat using a process that could scale up and still be sustainable. As an example, this is why the Impossible Burger uses GMO yeast to produce a protein — heme — that could theoretically be produced by widespread soy cultivation. The amount of soy required to produce heme would not be sustainable in the long-run. (Beyond Meat does not use GMO products and does not include the protein heme, which is touted as the key to Impossible Burger’s taste.) These burgers are indeed often marketed as a healthy alternative to meat, and that assertion is a bit muddier. Pound for pound, meatless burgers have comparable amounts of protein, and Impossible Burgers have the same (or more) vitamins, and minerals added, according to Harvard Medical School’s Health Blog: The protein content of these newer plant-based burgers has been created to compete with beef and poultry gram for gram. Both the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have comparable amounts, the former deriving protein mainly from soy and the later from peas and mung beans. Impossible Burger also adds vitamins and minerals found in animal proteins — like vitamin B12 and zinc — in amounts equal to (and in some cases, greater than) both red meat and poultry. On the negative side, these plant-based burgers also contain comparable, if not elevated, amounts of saturated fat, which can contribute to heart disease. Additionally, Mitloehner’s point about the level of processing in plant-based burgers is a valid one — many of the ingredients are heavily processed and appear to meet international standards for ultra-processed food — generally considered to come with a host of nutritional deficiencies. In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being “indistinguishable,”.
|
9231
|
Probiotics improve cognition in Alzheimer's patients
|
This news release describes the results of a randomized controlled trial that examined the effects of milk supplemented with probiotic bacteria on cognitive function and metabolic status (the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within the body) in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Fifty-two men and women, aged 60-95 years, consumed either milk (the control group) or milk with a mixture of probiotics (the probiotic group) for 12 weeks. Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and metabolic endpoints were measured through blood samples. The news release presented an accurate description of the study design, provided conservative explanations of the improvements seen in the intervention group, and emphasized the need for more research. However, it did not discuss several important aspects — namely, the cost and availability of the probiotic milk, potential harms of probiotic supplements in certain populations, and alternative therapies for treatment of Alzheimer’s symptoms. Interpretation of the results was also inaccurate, leaving this news release with quite a bit of room for improvement. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type of dementia, a general term used to describe various diseases and conditions that damage brain cells. Despite decades of research and improvements in quality of life for people living with this condition, ultimately Alzheimer’s is fatal and currently there is no cure. Therefore, potential dietary interventions to improve cognitive function are of interest. Drug development studies are underway to identify new treatments to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s, but because new drugs take years to produce — and because drugs that seem promising in early-stage studies may not work as hoped in large-scale trials — complementary and alternative therapies are an attractive option for Alzheimer’s patients. This study is the first clinical trial to evaluate the effects of probiotic supplementation on cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and researchers cautiously suggested that their findings may point toward a mechanism by which probiotics affect Alzheimer’s and possibly other neurological disorders. Although this study yielded promising results, the news release neglected to highlight the fact that the probiotic milk used as the study intervention is not available to the general population and did not provide any reference to assess the clinical relevance of the improvement in cognitive symptoms.
|
false
|
Alzheimer's disease,Fronteirs,Probiotics
|
The cost of the intervention isn’t mentioned, and there’s no assessment of how the cost might compare with other medications prescribed to treat the cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. It should also be noted that this intervention, if it were available to purchase, would likely be a long-term, continual investment. Probiotic bacteria are known to be transient “passers through” in the gastrointestinal tract, so a person would need to continue to purchase and consume the beverage for as long as they hoped to see results. Probiotics also tend to be relatively expensive, with the capsules now on the market typically costing about 50 cents to $1 per pill. The news release states that over the 12-week intervention period, “the average score on the MMSE questionnaire significantly increased (from 8.7 to 10.6, out of a maximum of 30) in the group receiving probiotics, but not in the control group (from 8.5 to 8.0).” While the exact numeric values are correct, and the release is to be applauded for attempting to quantify the results (even going so far as to include the range of the scale being used — very helpful), the word “significantly” is incorrectly applied in this statement. The MMSE scores at the end of the study are being compared between groups — not within the same group. A correct comparison might read, “When comparing the change in MMSE scores over the 12-week study, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups- – the intervention resulted in an improvement in MMSE score in the probiotic group compared to the control group.” The researchers phrased it right in the original publication, but the news release misinterpreted the finding. Ideally, the release (as well as the published study) would have discussed what the improvement in MMSE scores means to an individual with Alzheimer’s. Authors stated that “all patients remained significantly cognitively impaired” — so what effect would a two-point increase in MMSE have on a person’s daily life? It would be beneficial for readers to understand the clinical and personal significance of these improvements. Although probiotics are considered to be safe for people who are generally healthy, they have been linked to severe side effects in people with underlying medical problems. According to the National Institutes of Health, the populations most vulnerable to adverse effects from probiotics include the critically ill, infants, and people with weakened immune systems, which often includes elderly men and women. Since this study was conducted in individuals aged 60-95 years with an underlying health condition, safety should have been addressed in the news release. And yet, no explanation of risks or potential harms was provided. Evaluation of all treatments, including benign appearing supplements, should include an assessment of harm. Although it obliquely references the small size and short duration of the study, the news release didn’t really call attention to study limitations, which also include a reliance on only one set of criteria for assessment of cognitive function and the fact that bacterial loads in stool samples before and after probiotic supplementation were not compared. This important comparison could help in determining how well the probiotic bacteria were “taking hold” in the gut rather than just passing through. Without this information, it’s not possible to know if the probiotics influenced the relative composition of the gut microbiome or the functions of its inhabitants. The news release essentially does the opposite of disease mongering. It does not describe what Alzheimer’s disease is or who may be at risk. While this information would be helpful for readers, it is also prudent that they did not overreach on who may be affected by the disease. The news release states that the research was supported by a grant from the Deputy of Research of Kashan University of Medical Sciences, and that the probiotic supplements were produced and provided by Tak Gen Zist Pharmaceutical Company in Tehran, Iran. The authors declared no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Although there is no cure for Alzheimer’s, several drug and non-drug options are available to treat symptoms of the disease, including medications for memory loss and treatments for behavioral and sleep changes associated with this condition. None of these are addressed in the news release. The news release provided a thorough description of the probiotic milk intervention, but did not mention the fact that it was manufactured (in Iran) specifically for this study and is not available for purchase. A brief discussion of what it would take to get such a product on the market — in addition to its cost — would be beneficial. This release highlights the novelty of the intervention, stating that this was the first time that human research has shown that probiotic bacteria can improve cognitive function. However, the release took a cautious approach to interpretation of the results, highlighting that the study was an early clinical trial and that researchers plan to examine the information in more detail in future studies. The release also included a comment from an independent researcher who is working in the same area of gut microbiome and brain function. In line with its interpretation of the study’s novelty, the news release does not engage in sensational language nor does it overstep the conclusions drawn from the journal article. The release highlighted that, “Future research, on more patients and over longer time-scales, is necessary to test if the beneficial effects of probiotics become stronger after longer treatment.” Quotes were included from the researchers that showcased their optimistic yet conservative viewpoints on what the results may indicate and how they move forward to additional research on this topic. However, a comment on the general usefulness of probiotics may have been a bit biased toward the supplement. The statement, “Probiotics are known to give partial protection against certain infectious diarrheas, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, eczema, allergies…”, etc., portrays probiotics as a recognized beneficial treatment or prevention strategy for these conditions, when that is certainly not the case. Much of the probiotic research done on individuals with these conditions has shown mixed results – and even then, has only shown benefit in specific populations. This is not strong enough evidence to describe them as known to be beneficial.
|
30885
|
Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.
|
Because almost none of the papers cited actually support the argument that global warming is a myth, we rank Delingpole’s loosely researched claim that 400 papers published in 2017 prove such to be false.
|
false
|
Science
|
On 24 October 2017, Breitbart.com’s James Delingpole published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing. Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations. The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves. Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies). We emailed Delingpole to ask how long it took him to research his piece, given that less than 24 hours elapsed between the original NTZ post and his Breitbart piece. Rather than write back, Delingpole published our query on Breitbart, along with the following response (which read in part): As little time as I possibly could. Speaking of his unyielding faith in Kenneth Richard, the author of the New Tricks Zone post, Delingpole said: Obviously, if it turns out that Kenneth Richard has misrepresented these papers, then yes, I can be criticized for having lazily helped promulgate a lie. Richard misrepresents and misinterprets these papers in many instances. For example, NTZ misrepresented a graph from a 2017 paper that intentionally removed the long term global warming trend so researchers could investigate other trends in the record — a fact that went unmentioned in his post. NTZ reported on the graph (below) as if it were evidence that global temperatures were flat, despite the fact that the post had intentionally and explicitly removed that signal: Without the removal of the longer term warming trend, that above figure would have looked like this, as presented by the study’s author in a figure plotted for Climate Feedback: NTZ employs three main strategies: straw man arguments that falsely change the evidence for global warming into something that is easier to refute; the inclusion of papers wholly irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and the inclusion of papers (or conference abstracts) that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process. Straw Man Arguments A majority of the papers that allegedly prove that “global warming is a myth” rest primarily on false representations of what climatologists actually expect to see in the climate system. NTZ is peddling three main false representations: Straw Man One: The concept of anthropogenic global warming requires there be no other drivers of climate whatsoever. The categories that fall under this classic straw man argument are the studies highlighting the role of the sun in the climate system (“It’s the sun stupid”), studies that demonstrate natural oscillations in the climate system (“Climate influenced by natural oscillation”), and studies that show that volcanoes or tectonics have in some way affected the climate in the past (“Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate”). To be clear, climate science has never required there to be no influence on the climate from the sun, from volcanoes, or from short term oscillations such as El Niño; in fact, much of climatology involves teasing apart these relationships. However, most of the studies NTZ highlights attempt to use such investigations as evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the independent Berkeley Earth research group, which was initially (but is no longer) skeptical of global warming, and was originally funded by the Koch brothers, told us: Climate scientists study things like volcanoes, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth’s orbit, multidecadal natural variability in the Atlantic and Pacific, and other factors that impact climate change. They find that natural factors alone would have resulted in a modest cooling over the past 50 years or so, compared to the dramatic warming that we’ve experienced. Ernesto Tejedor Vargas, whose study “Temperature Variability in the Iberian Range Since 1602 Inferred from Tree-ring Records” was featured in both the June Breitbart article and in the current iteration, told Climate Feedback in June that he “would like the author of the No Tricks Zone post to remove my name from the blog since it is not reflecting our research conclusion”. His request went unheeded, and his work reappears in Breitbart’s October post: The article […] is not a climate-change-denying paper. It is a paleoclimate paper showing, first, a new maximum temperature reconstruction for the last 400 years (including the current warming) and second, a new standardization method in dendrochronology to remove the non-climatic trend. The image in the post does not by any means reflect the message of the paper. Does the existence of anthropogenic global warming require the pre-industrialized Iberian Peninsula to be unresponsive to volcanic and solar influences? Only if you are aggressively uninterested in trying to understand the science. Straw Man Two: The concept of anthropogenic global warming requires every location on earth to respond to climatic variables in the same way. A number of studies cited by both Breitbart and NTZ use records from a specific, narrow geographic location to suggest that the world as a whole is not warming. No reasonable climate scientist, however, would argue that this is the case, as Hausfather told us: In fact, we expect different parts of the world to warm at different rates (e.g. land warming faster than oceans), and things like precipitation changes have distinct regional patterns. Similarly, not every year will be warmer than the last. Short-term variability driven by El Nino and La Nina cycles can have a big impact on individual year’s temperatures, though it averages out over longer time periods. Jessica Conroy, whose paper investigating fluctuations in Monsoon precipitation on the Southern Tibetan Plateau was presented by Breitbart, also told us: I do not agree with Breitbart’s assessment of my work. My paper does not discuss 20th century anthropogenic warming trends, but decadal to centennial variability in the monsoon precipitation of the southern Tibetan Plateau. Such variability has the ability to amplify or attenuate anthropogenic trends in precipitation, and leads to greater uncertainty in projections of future precipitation change. It is certainly not evidence to use to claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not changing the climate The study of past and present regional short term climatic variability is an active field within climatology. The finding that precipitation fluctuates in complicated and not fully understood ways that are both independent of, and related to, global warming is by no means proof that the world is not warming due to increased greenhouse emissions. Straw Man Three: The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is entirely model-based Many of the studies included in the NTZ suite of papers include critiques of or refinements to climate models. These studies generally highlight the fact that disagreements and flaws exist in the computer programs used to model an entire heterogeneous global system. NTZ and Breitbart present these studies in a way meant to imply that the reality of global warming is dependent on those models, which is wholly false, as Hausfather said: Our understanding of the reality of global warming really doesn’t depend on climate models. Basic physics going back to the mid-1800s tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will warm the Earth. While modern science has added lots of nuance like carbon cycle feedbacks, ice sheet dynamics, and other complexities of the Earth’s climate, the basics are pretty much unchanged. A great example of this tactic uses a paper by Erica Rosenblum and Ian Eisenman that investigates problems computer models have in accurately predicting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover. While the paper may be an indictment of a particular aspect of a particular model, it is in no way an indictment of the reality of global warming. Rosenblum told us that the sentences excerpted by Delingpole and NTZ actually came from basic introductory material that “our field already agreed on before we published this paper”: Our paper certainly does not say that “global warming is a myth”. It does not say that “‘global warming’ — as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions — is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.” Our main results showed that the models appear to be too conservative and simulate Arctic sea ice that is not sensitive enough to changes in global temperatures. Refinements to climate models are not evidence of controversy among those who study climate science; instead, they are the heart of how these models are improved over time. Papers Irrelevant to the Claim of Global Warming Being a ‘Myth’ These studies, as Delingpole’s prose suggests, may make “greenies'” heads “explode like watermelons struck by hollow-point bullets”, but they critique solutions to global warming and are not concerned with the factual existence of a changing climate in any way. This grouping includes a paper that attempts to calculate the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the use and production of electric cars in China: In this study, the life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of vehicle production are compared between battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in China’s context. The results reveal that […] greenhouse gas emissions of a battery electric vehicle production […] are about 50% higher than those of an internal combustion engine vehicle […] This substantial change can be mainly attributed to the production of traction batteries, the essential components for battery electric vehicles. Moreover, the larger weight and different weight distribution of materials used in battery electric vehicles also contribute to the larger environmental impact. This situation can be improved through the development of new traction battery production techniques, vehicle recycling and a low-carbon energy structure. Whether or not you agree with these researchers’ assessment of the environmental impact of traction batteries, it has no bearing on the broader and completely separate issue of whether anthropogenic CO2 affects the global climate system. Papers That Went Through Little or No Peer Review Despite being billed as “scientific studies”, many of the “papers” presented by NTZ and Breitbart are either unpublished, not peer-reviewed, or published in predatory journals that likely experienced no review whatsoever. This includes the most inflammatory papers mentioned, which attempt to discard established principles such as CO2‘s importance as a greenhouse gas or make absurd claims like linking 100 percent of climate change to tectonic activity. One such paper (“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming: 2016 Update”) was authored by a Heritage Foundation researcher and “skeptic” in the journal Environment Pollution and Climate Change, which is owned by a company that the Federal Trade Commission is currently suing for deceptive practices related to their claims of peer review. This paper, which was submitted three days before it was accepted, was almost certainly not thoroughly peer-reviewed. Another odd inclusion for both Breitbart and NTZ is a commentary article (“Environmental Reporting in a Post Truth World”) published in an obscure media journal, Asia Pacific Media Educator. It is not a scientific study and it cites (among other things) a Daily Mail tabloid story that alleged that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data, and that was deemed so inaccurate by a press watchdog group that the Daily Mail was forced to publish a lengthy retraction. Responding to our questions about his paper’s inclusion in the story in an expansive e-mail touching on a diverse range of topics (including Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and the mainstream media), the author of the piece conceded: My article is commentary, not a scientific study, it does not merit being counted [in the NTZ list of studies]. One paper whose neutrality and “published” status can easily and legitimately be called into question is a paper published by European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), an organization whose stated purpose is to reject what they call “climate policy.” That paper, which was published on EIKE’s website (and nowhere else), claims that “our results clearly demonstrate CO2 is a very weak green house gas and cannot be brought into connection with the anthropogenic climate change” — challenging more than a hundred years of established science. Breitbart’s reasoning for blindly regurgitating this shoddy research without any due diligence or pretext of editorial restraint was that “life is too short,” and that the boring task of actually reading the scientific papers had already been done for Delingpole by the NTZ blog: Richard [author of the NTZ post] — bless his cotton socks — had taken upon himself the achingly tedious task of wading through these 400 science papers, assessing their skeptical position on “climate change”, and then highlighting the key passages that supported his argument.
|
37404
|
"The presidential campaign for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) hosted a ""Bern the Witch"" event in 2016, complete with an illustration of Hillary Clinton being burned at the stake.."
|
2016 ‘Bern the Witch’ Sanders Campaign Event
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
"On January 14 2020, Twitter user @TrinityMustache claimed that the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign hosted a “Bern the Witch” event attacking then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:Bernie Sanders had a “Bern the Witch” event on his campaign web site complete with a poster of Hillary being burned at the stake. Am I surprised Bernie said women can’t win the presidency? No. We Hillary supporters went through this in 2016. We knew and we warned y’all #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/vuJjVFcAdK— Trinity Auld Acquaintance 🎉 (@TrinityMustache) January 14, 2020Above official-looking Bernie 2016 letterhead and a painting of Hillary Clinton tied to a stake, @TrinityMustache wrote:Bernie Sanders had a “Bern the Witch” event on his campaign web site complete with a poster of Hillary being burned at the stake. Am I surprised Bernie said women can’t win the presidency? No. We Hillary supporters went through this in 2016. We knew and we warned y’all #DemDebateModern ContextTo understand the relevance of the claim from a 2020 perspective, some context is needed. One day prior to the January 14 2020 Democratic debate, CNN published a story about Sanders meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) with the headline, “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say.”The article’s first few paragraphs described a private meeting between the two lawmakers and presidential candidates in 2018, and said of the headline’s claims:[CNN’s] description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.It is unclear whether the item was amended or updated with additional details, but it continued with comment from both Warren and Sanders. Warren backed the claim, while Sanders denied it:After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”That evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win,” Sanders said. “It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”On social media, political reporters and Sanders supporters shared videos of Sanders stating that a woman could indeed become president:“In my view a woman could be elected president of the United States.” — Bernie Sanders, 1988 pic.twitter.com/WJd847DdmA— Meagan Day (@meaganmday) January 13, 2020Video in the above tweet was from 1988. In 1987, Sanders said roughly the same thing to a classroom full of young children, lamenting an absence of women in politics:Bernie Sanders telling a class of 3rd graders in 1987 that women have as much right as men do to run for office. ""It's changing, but it's not changing fast enough."" pic.twitter.com/XM1KNPJT0S— pj evans (@pjayevans) January 13, 2020Accompanying text read:Bernie Sanders telling a class of 3rd graders in 1987 that women have as much right as men do to run for office. “It’s changing, but it’s not changing fast enough.”Others pointed to Sanders’ relentless campaigning for former rival Hillary Clinton after the 2016 primary election, which was covered in a November 2016 New Yorker piece headlined, “Bernie Sanders’s Hard Fight for Hillary Clinton.” It concluded:Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign … As Sanders finished his speech in Raleigh — “We have to do everything that we can to elect Secretary Clinton!” — Clinton and Pharrell were on their feet, cheering. “Wow!” Clinton said, when she took to the rostrum. “Whew! I gotta say, after hearing from these two extraordinary men, I feel all fired up and ready to go for the next five days!” She knew what it was like to run against Sanders. Having him on her side was “a lot more fun.” A few hours later, Sanders was off on his own to Iowa. Trump is ahead in that state, in the latest average of polls, by about two and a half points. Sanders had three events scheduled for Friday — Cedar Falls, Iowa City, Davenport. On Saturday, there would be more.At the Debate, January 14 2020During January 2020 Democratic presidential debate on CNN, a moderator asked Sanders about the claim. In his response, Sanders asserted he was involved with a movement to draft Warren to run for president in 2016, and that Warren declined to run. Sanders added that he only ran after Warren decided not to do so:MODERATOR: Let’s now turn to — let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up in the last 48 hours. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that — and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?SANDERS: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what, I said — stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I then — I did run afterwards.Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear. If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination, I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me. (LAUGHTER)But if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country. (APPLAUSE)MODERATOR: So Sen. Sanders — Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?SANDERS: That is correct.Immediately after that, the same moderator posed a question to Warren:[MODERATOR]: Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election? (LAUGHTER)WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.‘Bern the Witch’ ClaimIn the afternoon on January 14 2020, the aforementioned tweet claiming “Bernie Sanders had a ‘Bern the Witch’ event on his campaign web site complete with a poster of Hillary being burned at the stake” that received thousands of engagements on Twitter.That claim appeared to originate with a March 11 2016 Reddit post to a subreddit called r/EnoughSandersSpam:""Bern the Witch"" event on campaign website: no sexism or whatever right? from enoughsandersspamAll archival links in the comments were no longer functional as of January 2020. A screenshot of the event also differed from the one used in the tweet referenced above, although both appeared to describe the same October 13 2015 event at a New Jersey pizzeria called Piezano’s.The following version appeared in the original tweet:In the Reddit thread, the wording was different, but the date and location were the same:The original tweet claimed that Bernie Sanders had a “‘Bern the Witch’ event” on his website. However, both screenshots displayed URLs from when they were presumably live events. In addition to the October 13 2015 date, both were attached to a subdomain for “debate watch parties” — not official events.One Reddit user objected:Anyone can post an event on the campaign website. No chance in hell that the campaign approved it.2016 Coverage of ‘Bern the Witch’ RumorWe then searched for media coverage of the claim Sanders’ campaign. On March 11 2016, Mic.com reported that the screenshot first surfaced via the Reddit post above. That outlet noted that the “event” was actually a “debate watch party,” which had been created by Piezano’s owner to drum up business during the October 2015 debate:Anyone can register a campaign event on Sanders’ website and that’s exactly what 39-year-old Joe Smith said he did a few months ago when he wanted to show his support for Sanders. Smith, the owner of Piezano’s Pizza Kitchen in Elizabeth, New Jersey, as the event description reads, told Mic around 30 people showed up to the viewing party, which he held in the restaurant’s dining room.Very few mentions of the supposed “Bern the Witch event” appeared from the time of the controversy in March 2016. One of the top results amplifying the claim pointed to a now-defunct site called “Blue Nation Review,” and an archive from that site showed a short blog post:No, this was not an official Sanders event. Yes, it was created by a user. And it lived on the official campaign site. The worst part of the story, which is gaining traction, is that 22 people signed up for it.We’ve continued to track and report on the vicious assault against Hillary’s character. This yet another example.Media Bias/Fact Check classifieded Blue Nation Review as an extension of Clinton’s presidential campaign. Clinton campaign operative David Brock abandoned the site after her 2016 loss:These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes … This source stopped publication in 2016.Factual Reporting: MIXEDBlue Nation Review is now called Share Blue. This source is owned by David Brock, a political operative of the Hillary Clinton Campaign. During the election this source only published Pro-Clinton content or negative reports on her opponents. After the election the source is publishing a highly one sided viewpoint that favors liberals. (5/13/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 4/4/2017)Hillary ‘Burning at the Stake’Absence of the Clinton “burning at the stake/Bern her down” image from Blue Nation Review — which pushed campaign talking points as news — was highly suggestive that the original rumor did not include the claim.The tweet’s assertion “Bernie Sanders had a ‘Bern the Witch’ event on his campaign web site complete with a poster of Hillary being burned at the stake” was also contextually implausible due to the collection of hashtags displayed on the bottom of the image. One of the hashtags, #DemExit, did not even exist until late July 2016 — several months after Reddit users found the debate party listing in question:On July 12th, 2016, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders formally endorsed rival Hillary Clinton for president against Republican candidate Donald Trump in the upcoming general election. That day, political news blogger Harlan Hill published an article titled “The Death of a Revolution and #DemExit,” noting that millions of Democrats would be considering leaving the political party to protest Clinton’s candidacy.A January 15 2020 TinEye search of the image (archived here) returned no matches prior to July 2016. The first working version of the image showed it actually originally former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz — not Hillary Clinton:Our search indicated that any versions featuring Hillary Clinton did not appear until 2017, well after the 2016 elections. We found no iterations of the Clinton version of the graphic used by anyone, whether supports of Clinton or Sanders, at any point in 2016.Additionally, the only context in which we located it involved claims that it was used by Sanders’ supporters, not actual usage of the image by Clinton opponents. But based on its hashtags alone, it could not have been used in conjunction with a debate watch party in October 2015.During a controversy over CNN’s unverified claim Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman could not win a presidential election, a Twitter user claimed that “Bernie Sanders had a ‘Bern the Witch’ event on his campaign web site complete with a poster of Hillary being burned at the stake.” That claim was both false and misleading — the “event” was a user-submitted debate watch party, of which there were hundreds or thousands across the United States. The party was neither created nor endorsed by the Sanders campaign.It also bears mentioning that aside from Mic.com, the story was primarily advanced by Clinton campaigner David Brock. An attendant claim around a purported graphic of Clinton being burned at the stake was clearly false due to its display of hashtags from several months after the inidial controversy, and we found no versions of the graphic featuring Clinton (versus Wasserman Schultz) until 2017. Whether it was intentional or not, the claim as presented was disinformation."
|
10104
|
Saving Your Life: Modern Medical Miracles: Matt Lauer’s heart scan
|
TV anchor Matt Lauer, an asymptomatic 47 year old man with no history of diabetes, with normal blood pressure, borderline high cholesterol, and with a family history of heart disease (his 72 year old father had coronary artery bypass graft surgery) undergoes a heart scan on national TV. We learn that two of his arteries are “pristine” while there is a small “bad” plaque in one artery that could “eventually develop into a problem.” The cardiologist suggests lifestyle modification, baby aspirin, and a statin. There is no independent, second opinion in the story. What have we gained from this experience? Nothing, unless we are GE (parent company of NBC), and manufacturer of the scanning device used in the story. There are many problems with this story. At the end, we are told that this technology should be used only for people experiencing symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, etc. Yet the story featured asymptomatic Matt Lauer modeling the procedure. That is an example of disease-mongering. In the end, the true message of what this technology can and can’t do is completely distorted by the beautiful pictures (3-D rendering of the heart) and empty, non-evidence-based promises. The costs of this technology are ignored. Insurance coverage (an important issue) is downplayed. And the potential harms of having such a scan are not mentioned at all.
|
false
|
Does not specify what the costs are, which are entirely out-of-pocket since most insurance companies do not cover it. The cardiologist downplays cost saying that they have had “good luck” getting insurance companies to cover it. No estimates of benefit are provided. No information on harms is provided, which is a glaring omission. Harms might include: reaction to beta-blockers (to slow the heart rate) or to the contrast dye, exposure to radiation that is many times greater than an x-ray, not to mention any risks from any interventions (catheterization) needed to follow-up on any abnormal findings (that may or may not result in any benefit to the patient). Furthermore, the cardiologist recommends taking statins and aspirin as a result of the findings, but what about the harms of these drugs? What if the lesion were a false positive and the drugs were entirely unnecessary? There is absolutely no evidence provided. In order to really evaluate this, we would need to know how the images correlate with his actual plaque buildup and we would want evidence that early intervention with these scans can actually do anything to prevent an event or bad outcome. Furthermore, we don’t know if this lesion could be confirmed with a catheterization (gold standard). Although the story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence of heart disease, it does not accurately portray the natural history of heart disease. It is still controversial to say that these scans “can show us exactly what’s going on in the heart.” We still don’t know whether plaques (good or bad) found with these scans are actually going to be the ones to cause problems down the road. Matt Lauer’s father’s heart disease is actually not a major risk factor, which raises the controversy that we don’t know what to do with asymptomatic, active and healthy people who could have ‘bad’ plaques. Matt Lauer also confuses his plaque value of 56 as being ‘mild’, when in reality this indicates a ‘soft’ plaque that is more vulnerable to developing an MI. No attempts are made at independent corroboration. Only a single source is quoted. Does mention that GE makes the machine and owns NBC. Mentions cardiac catheterization but neglects exercise tests, MRI and older CT scan alternatives. Does not attempt to place this kind of CT in context or explain the advantages or disadvantages. Mentions the availability of the machine in the U.S. since May, 2005. The story is clear that this is very new technology. We don’t know if the info came from a press release.
|
|
28083
|
"A person can ""survive"" living on a diet of nothing but potatoes and butter."
|
What's true: Eating nothing but potatoes and butter, in sufficient quantities, could keep a person alive for an indeterminate period of time. What's false: Whether a person could remain healthy in the long term on such a dietary regimen would depend upon on other health factors.
|
true
|
Food
|
The idea that potatoes can be a catch-all form of sustenance for human beings has been popularized at various times by public campaigns and movies, but health experts are split on the potential impact of “surviving” on just one type of food. This claim has been widely circulated online in meme form, with the slight modification of adding butter to the “menu” of the all-potato diet: Katherine Basbaum, a cardiovascular dietitian for the University of Virginia health system, is skeptical of this meme’s assertion. She told us that potatoes and butter would provide enough macronutrients for the body at a “very basic level,” but added that remaining alive and remaining healthy are two very different things: There’s a big difference between what your body needs to survive and what your body needs to work as best as it possibly can — to be as efficient, to be as healthy, to be as strong and it possibly can. There’s a big difference between that and merely surviving. If you were hard-pressed and you had to do it, you could absolutely survive on it. Is it nutritious? Is it healthy and balanced? Absolutely not. Dana Hunnes, senior dietitian at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, disagreed slightly. She told us that this type of diet could be sustainable for persons who consumed enough potatoes to support their body weight and muscle mass. However, she said she would advise anyone looking to pursue that kind of regimen to instead eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. “You can certainly survive healthily — it’s been done,” Hunnes said. “Would I recommend it for people? No. Because I think you’d be bored in that diet.” At least two public campaigns have touted the supposed merits of an all-potato diet. In 2010 Chris Voigt, head of the Washington State Potato Commission, promoted the merits of tubers by living off of them for two months. “I’m not encouraging anyone to go on this crazy diet, nor would my doctor,” he said at the time. “This diet was just a bold statement to remind people that there is a lot of nutrition in a potato.” Voigt lost 23 pounds during that experience and denied rumors that he had abandoned his plan early. That type of short-term effort, Basbaum said, was unlikely to cause a person much damage provided that they not only had a clean bill of health but also no family history or risk of heart or kidney disease. Butter, she told us, is extremely high in saturated fats and can lead to unhealthy cholesterol levels. “If somebody came in here saying, ‘I heard about this potato and butter diet,’ I would tell them not to touch it with a 10-foot pole,” she said. Similarly, potatoes on their own are rich in potassium but are best enjoyed in moderation because of the threat they pose to the kidneys, which manage potassium intake for the body. “If someone goes from a regular balanced diet getting the normal amount of potassium to just eating potatoes (like 20 a day or whatever), that’s dangerous. It’s not a good idea. You’re overloading your kidneys with all of this potassium,” Basbaum said. “If you have someone with pre-diabetes or diabetes or at risk for developing Type 2 diabetes, I don’t really want to put them on an all-starch diet. You’re risking increased levels of blood sugar and the body producing way too much insulin for your own good.” Six years after Voigt’s efforts, an Australian man, Andrew Taylor, also made news when he announced that he lost 114 pounds after spending the year eating around eight or nine pounds of potatoes per day on a “spud fit” diet. Taylor posted before-and-after pictures touting his weight loss, but Basbaum did not interpret the results as being fully positive. “As a dietitian I don’t look at that picture and [say] ‘That dude lost a bunch of weight, good for him,” she said. “I look at the before and after photo and I can tell this guy is malnourished. You can see the wasting in his shoulder and his clavicle area. You can see that he’s lost muscle tone, he’s got barely any muscle tone in his arms. Obviously I couldn’t diagnose him, but we do nutrition-based physical exams with our patients and you can tell that that guy wasn’t optimum health. Not by a long shot.” Heavily-restricted diets gain popularity, Hunnes told us, because some people are seeking “the magic bullet” to keep them healthy. “If someone says anecdotally, ‘This works for me,’ I think there’s a lot of power in people being able to see with their own eyes what’s happening to someone else,” she said. “I think that’s the makings of a fad, particularly if a celebrity gets caught on to it or if a person has a lot of followers on Facebook or Instagram social media, posting those types of images is very powerful for people.” For her part, Basbaum said that restricting oneself to that extent gives some dieters a feeling of control because it limits their margin of error. “But at the end of the day, these diets that ask you to either eat only one thing or ask you to eliminate an entire nutrient — take no fat or no carbohydrates at all — they don’t work. They work for a time just like all diets,” she added. “But they don’t work for everybody and they’re not sustainable. What happens when you go off of it?” In popular culture, the popular novel The Martian (which was adapted into a 2015 feature film) featured a subplot in which stranded astronaut Mark Watney grew potatoes on the surface of Mars and ate them to keep himself alive. Subsequent research by the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru produced “encouraging results” regarding the prospect of growing potato crops on the red planet. “With this study, we have the basis for contributing to the so-called ‘Bioregenerative Food System’ proposed by space agencies, based on a space agriculture using local resources — such as soil — in future missions to Mars,” lead researcher David Ramirez said at the time.
|
37559
|
A test for COVID-19 is mandatory for anyone seeking to donate blood.
|
Is There a COVID-19 ‘Loophole’ in Blood Donations?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
For a brief period of time, a Twitter user’s admittedly “bold and brash” — but wrong — idea about a “loophole” allowing people more access to testing for COVID-19 got widespread traction on the platform.On March 9 2020, the user wrote, “If you don’t have insurance and can’t afford to take the $3,200 test for the virus ($1,000 with insurance), DONATE BLOOD. They HAVE to test you for the virus in order to donate blood. Tell your friends! Tell your family! !”In reality, there is no “loophole” involving blood donations and tests for the virus. A statement from America’s Blood Centers (ABC), a network of non-profit blood centers active in 45 American states as well as in the Canadian province of Quebec, addresses exactly that:“Blood centers are not healthcare providers and thus do not provide coronavirus tests,” the group said:Blood centers do however screen all donors to make sure they are healthy and eligible to donate. Each donor also goes through a mini physical that includes a temperature check as well as a visual check on the donor’s well-being.Both that group and the American Red Cross are encouraging healthy individuals to donate blood. “We are facing a national blood supply issue. As coronavirus fears intensify, blood centers around the country are experiencing a significant decrease in donations and blood drives are being canceled,” said chief executive officer Kate Fry.AABB, the not-for-profit group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks, released a separate statement further debunking the idea of a connection between blood donation and the virus:Individuals are not at risk of contracting COVID-19 through the blood donation process or via a blood transfusion, since respiratory viruses are generally not known to be transmitted by donation or transfusion. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to report that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date. In addition, no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past two decades (SARS, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast Respiratory Syndrome).The original poster subsequently not only deleted her comment, but retracted it and recanted as well.“My coworker told me this,” she later explained. “Listen a lot of young ppl I know can’t afford insurance myself included this was honestly just a bold and brash idea being tweeted without really thinking and [obviously] not thinking it’d get this popular.”Nevertheless, the original continues to circulate in screenshot form in perpetuity.
|
6531
|
After health scare, Seattle’s Dipoto getting back to normal.
|
Seattle Mariners general manager Jerry Dipoto completed his morning routine Tuesday then headed out for a jog. It was only 3 ½ miles, a minuscule total for a lifetime runner like Dipoto who used to take weekly jogs of 10 to 12 miles.
|
true
|
MLB, Baseball, Seattle Mariners, Health, Jerry Dipoto
|
But it was the first time he had run more than mile without stopping since he was hospitalized during the baseball winter meetings in December with blood clots in his lungs. “It used to be something for all my life I enjoyed doing and gives you a chance to clear your mind, gives you some semblance of shape and for a couple of months I wasn’t able to do it,” Dipoto said. “This morning for my initial foray into going three miles or longer without having to stop and allow myself to catch up, it was fun.” The 50-year-old Dipoto had a hectic offseason, his fourth in charge of the Mariners, as he overhauled Seattle’s roster in the hopes of creating a contender in two or three years rather than remaining on the fringes of the postseason. Seattle won 89 games last season, but still finished eight games out of the wild card race, leading to an offseason that featured nine trades and a handful of free agent signings. One of those trades stands out above the others because of how it was completed. When Seattle acquired Edwin Encarnacion from Cleveland in exchange for Carlos Santana, Dipoto had to give a thumbs up from his hospital bed in Las Vegas. He’d been taken there a day earlier after feeling ill for several days and suffering from chest pains. Dipoto’s illness left manager Scott Servais and assistant general manager Justin Hollander to finish up the details of the trade. “I think that was a little overblown. ... We had done 90 percent of that trade before I had to go to the hospital and Justin and Scott saw it through,” Dipoto said. “I was sitting there giving them a thumbs up with an IV hooked up. I barely remember it. Justin still fills me in on some small details of it.” The situation was scary for Dipoto and his family. But other than having to take it easy for the first few weeks after being hospitalized, the only major changes Dipoto had to make were adding a battery of medications and limiting his running. It’s not the first time Dipoto dealt with blood clots but he noted there had been a two-decade gap between issues. “I’ve been through a fair bit in my life and it’s cultured me to deal with it,” he said. “Scares my wife every time but hopefully this is the last of them, at least for a while.” ___ More AP MLB: https://apnews.com/MLB and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
|
1341
|
EU proposes joint studies to speed acceptance of new medicine.
|
The European Commission proposed on Wednesday joint clinical assessments to determine whether approved new drugs and medical devices offer value for money and should be prescribed for patients within national healthcare systems.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The joint action, set to take more than three years to enter into force, would replace a largely national approach to health technology assessment (HTA) that duplicates work, limits transparency and impedes market access for innovation. The Commission’s plans aim to make better use of available resources, to have a consistent methodology and to improve business predictability in a healthcare sector accounting for some 10 percent of the EU’s economic output. Monique Goyens, director general of European consumer organization BEUC, welcomed the plans. She said too many new drugs or devices did not make a real difference compared to those already on the market, wasting taxpayers’ money. “The Commission is right to encourage member states to work together so that only health technologies with an added value get the go-ahead,” she said in a statement. HTA is used by most European countries. Agencies such as Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), France’s Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and Germany’s Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) effectively act as gatekeepers to big markets. Their role can be frustrating for drug companies that have already had their medicines cleared as safe and effective by the European Medicines Agency, but then need to submit different evidence to different agencies in different countries to get their products reimbursed. This has led to growing calls for some degree of harmonization, although there has been voluntary cooperation for years, with an EU-wide network set up in 2013. The Commission is proposing joint work on clinical assessments, scientific consultations with business, identification of emerging health technologies and voluntary cooperation on, for example, surgical procedures. A group of representatives from national authorities would be responsible for overseeing joint work. National HTA authorities will still be responsible for determining pricing and reimbursement, albeit using the joint assessments. The rules will apply some three years after approval by the European Parliament and EU members. There will then be a further three-year transition period for EU countries to adapt. The Commission said it envisaged 10-15 assessments could start in the first year, rising to 65 towards the end of the transition period. The changes will therefore happen after Britain has exited the European Union and will have to be factored into the next EU budget covering the period after 2020.
|
10534
|
Gastric Bypass May Help Obese Teens
|
"The content of this television segment is generally accurate. A small study suggests that obese, diabetic teens can benefit significantly from gastric bypass surgery. It correctly says that this is an important finding for a condition that is serious and very hard to treat. It also indicates the surgery is controversial and its long-term effects unknown. But the story’s tone is excessively positive in a way the facts do not allow. The study’s flaws and limitations should have made the report more circumspect and restrained. The surgery group was very small, extremely obese and not well-matched to the controls. The study was retrospective and as a result fails to capture some key data. In addition, the surgery has serious side-effects that were not reported. The lack of data on long-term risks and benefits is mentioned as a small caveat, rather than a major gap in the research that leaves the most fundamental questions unanswered. The story’s most serious technical shortcoming is a failure to quantify the findings, which would have allowed people to appreciate how few teens were involved yet how many of them benefited. It would also have shown viewers how unusually obese the studied population was. The story illustrates how journalists may use unnecessarily loaded language to overdramatize findings. The segment uses the following words: * dramatic (2) * drastic * radical * remarkable * huge * dire * life-threatening * reversed * disappeared * vanished While some of these words may be accurate in context, the cumulative effect is to heighten hope and fear beyond what the facts permit. This is often found in television reports, where the need to ""sell"" the story both to get it on the air and to engage viewers second-by-second drives writers and producers to hyperbole. If findings are significant enough to justify air time, they do not need to be oversold. If they need to be oversold, they do not belong on the air."
|
false
|
"The story does not report the costs of gastric bypass surgery. $20,000 is a figure commonly cited. The report says little more than that in the small study diabetes was ""reversed, disappearing in almost [all]"" of the obese teens who got the surgery. The overall impression this creates is accurate. But the term ""reversed"" has unclear medical meaning, and ""disappearing"" is not correct either. This appears to be a case of the familiar habit of journalists using overheated language to make the story seem even more dramatic than it is. A more accurate statement of the findings would be that the surgery led to significant improvements in the important markers and risk factors for diabetes in nearly all patients. If these changes remain over time and don’t increase risk of other serious diseases, the surgery could save lives and improve quality of life. That’s a mouthful, but the report could have tailored its language more carefully to reflect this. The story also missed two easy opportunities to quantify the benefits. It could easily have said that 10 of 11 patients had these results. It could also have stated that the average weight of surgery patients was 313 pounds, indicating that these were not merely ""fat teens"" but unusually, dangerously obese ones. It could also have said that while all of the patients lost significant amounts of weight, none reached a BMI within the healthy range, and some remained obese. The segment mentions at the beginning that the treatment is controversial. Near the end it says some doctors oppose the surgery in teens because it may affect growth and development and its long-term effects are unknown. But this is insufficient. A recent study of the surgery in pediatric patients showed a 25 percent rate of serious complications, a fact the report fails to mention. It should also have mentioned that there is a substantial incidence of weight regain in adults who get the procedure. There have been deaths in adult surgery patients as well. The report hinges on a very small study with 11 patients in the experimental group and 67 controls. The story responsibly describes the study as small. But it doesn’t drive home the point about why that’s an important limitation. The research itself has serious shortcomings–it is based on retrospective chart reviews, the control group is not well-matched and some key data on blood sugar levels is missing–limitations that should have dampened the story’s enthusiasm. Existing data suggests that the failure rate for excessively obese adults to avoid weight gain after successful surgery and significant weight loss can be as high as 50%. Given the short follow up period of the study, suggesting the patient is diabetes free is premature. While the story opens with a dramatic anecdote about a severely obese patient with multiple morbidities, she fairly represents the treated population. Her successful outcome is consistent with the findings. But the second-hand report of the doctor’s prediction of her death by 25 is clearly excessive and unsubstantiated by the literature. Lead-ins are meant to be hooks – to keep us watching. This story’s lead-in, promising ""new findings tonight that could offer hope to the growing number of teenagers struggling with obesity and diabetes"" failed to acknowledge that the study subjects were extremely obese with nearly all in excess of the 99th percentile for body mass index. The report includes interviews with one patient, the lead researcher and one independent expert. It’s interesting that the ABC website includes a skeptical quote from another independent source, but the on-air story minimized the following caveats that WERE on the website: Dr. David Nathan, the director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, believes there is still reason to delay the surgery in children because ""there is concern regarding the effects of such surgery on growth and development."" Also, doctors say little is known about the long-term effects of this surgery. Physicians, including the study authors, caution that gastric bypass surgery does not cure diabetes. If patients regain their weight, the diabetes can resurface. The segment fails to report the conventional treatment for severely obese teens with diabetes is drug management. It also fails to mention that even in morbidly obese teens, diet and exercise are recommended and can improve markers and risks for a number of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Diet and exercise have not been shown to be effective strategies of achieving a healthy weight in this population, however. The story fails to mention where, if anywhere, gastric bypass surgery is done on teens. It fails to mention how often it is used in teens for its current indication, to reduce weight for the morbidly obese. The story correctly reports that the surgery is often used in adults but is not commonly used in teens. One independent expert was interviewed, so we can assume that that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release."
|
|
30117
|
"Thomas Daffron, Sen. Susan Collins' husband, is ""a lobbyist for a firm that has numerous connections to Russia and Russian oligarchs."
|
Other than the fact that Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Russian election interference have been a focus of interest for Republican opponents, it’s unclear how those two subjects are supposedly linked in some sinister way through Collins and her husband.
|
false
|
Politics, brett kavanaugh, russia
|
The rancorous, partisan fight over the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh spilled over into the personal lives of senators. Senator Susan Collins of Maine was thought to be the one Republican who might break ranks with the GOP and vote against Kavanaugh’s nomination, but she drew heavy criticism from disappointed Democrats when she ended up toeing the party line — on top of which her husband, Thomas Daffron, was accused of being a lobbyist with “Russia connections.” Daffrom worked for the Washington, D.C.-based Jefferson Consulting Group from 5 September 2006 until 7 June 2016 as chief operating officer. During his tenure with Jefferson, Daffron told us, the firm had no Russian clients. Furthermore, in his management role he was responsible for overseeing company operations such as budgeting and hiring, not lobbying activities. He said he initially thought the claims were a joke: “It’s so absurd I don’t know where to start,” Daffron told us about the accusation. “It’s like someone coming up and saying you have three heads.” Nevertheless the rumor has continued to dog him. The claim first appeared on social media in September 2018 but gained new momentum on 6 October 2018 when, after a series of bellicose hearings, Collins joined the Republican majority in the Senate and voted to confirm Kavanaugh. Just over a week prior, California college professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when the two were teens, an allegation Kavanaugh vehemently denied. In the days leading up to the final vote, Collins was the subject of intense scrutiny because as a moderate, she was seen as one of the Republican majority’s swing voters. After Collins announced she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, “progressive” blog DeepLeftField.info published an article with the headline “EXPOSED: Susan Collins’ Husband Is a Lobbyist for Russian Interests”: When she stood on the floor of the Senate Friday afternoon and announced that she would be voting to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to be the next associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the question was immediately asked: Why would she do such a thing? How could a woman ignore the accusations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh? Now, a day later, we may have an answer to why Senator Collins made the decision she did. It turns out that she’s married to a man, Thomas Daffron, who just so happens to be a lobbyist for a firm that has numerous connections to Russia and Russian oligarchs. The story was sourced entirely from a string of posts written one month earlier by Twitter personality Eric Garland, who has 179,000 followers. On 9 September 2018, Garland wrote: <THREAD> You want to talk Sen. Susan Collins' vote on #Kavanaugh? Let's talk about her husband, lobbyist Thomas Daffron. And a whole bunch of Russia connections. You need to hear this, because the media is going to yell about abortion to cover this up. pic.twitter.com/RUxKtsHexX — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 The key pieces of information laid out as evidence of Daffron’s “Russia connections,” however, were either misleading or false. Perhaps the most spurious information tidbits were claims that small lobbying contracts performed by Jefferson Consulting on behalf of two Alaskan towns, Kenai and Cordova, were suspicious because of their geographical proximity to Russia, or the fact that those tiny communities have historical Russian settlements: NOW HERE’S WHERE I GET REALLY INTERESTED. In 2008, Mr. Daffron apparently lobbies for free for Kenai, Alaska. Well, that place has an interesting history. As a HISTORIC RUSSIAN SETTLEMENT. pic.twitter.com/Aszwre1mjD — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 Kenai is a port town with heavy significance for Russia, being one of its original American settlements. This dates back definitely to Catherine the Great, and maybe as far back as Ivan the Terrible. Also, who loves port towns? Mobsters. pic.twitter.com/NBPxqi8Gxd — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 2009? Mr. Daffron’s group also picks up Cordova, Alaska as a client. Another port town near Russia with Russian churches and stuff. SENSING A PATTERN? pic.twitter.com/eWhOVisltJ — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 Daffron confirmed that Jefferson Consulting did work for those towns but added the work had “not a scintilla” of relation to Russia. Citing company accounting records, Daffron told us Kenai paid Jefferson Consulting a grand total of $10,871.03 in 2009 to lobby Washington for federal help repairing bluff erosion, while Cordova paid Jefferson a total of $36,396.80 over an 18-month period ending in 2011 to lobby the federal government for appropriations. Cities sometimes hire lobbyists on Capitol Hill because “for the price of an airline ticket they can get someone to work in D.C. on their behalf,” Daffron told us. “Alaska is close to Russia as Maine is close to Canada, but that doesn’t mean we did any business with them,” Daffron said. “[Jefferson] is a multi-million dollar firm, these [were] not big contracts.” Garland also claimed that Daffron left his post as chief of staff for the late Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee), who was “mixed up in Watergate and the Savings and Loan scandal,” to found Jefferson Consulting Group: Thompson was also mixed up in Watergate and the Savings and Loan scandal, but we have to focus. Daffron, his chief of staff, leaves his office and starts “Jefferson Consulting Group.” And such an INTERESTING LIST OF CLIENTS. pic.twitter.com/XP1GGbOVBL — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 But Jefferson Consulting was in fact established by CEO and owner Julie Susman before Daffron was hired, as documented on 20 September 2005 by D.C.-oriented news publication The Hill: Jefferson Consulting Group lobbies, but its main business focus has been on federal marketing. The practice matches client products with federal-agency needs. Business is booming, according to firm founder Julie Susman. The firm has added 10 employees, for a total of 45, in the past two years, and Susman expects revenues to grow as much as 30 percent this year. She does not disclose the revenues that fall outside of the LDA reports. As evidence of Daffron’s supposed involvement in foreign corruption, Garland reported that in 2003, “Daffron’s lobbying firm” represented Baker Botts LLP, a Texas-based law firm who is registered as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice: In 2003, Daffron’s lobbying firm is representing Baker Botts LLP, which *is* in the FARA database. Representing offshore bank haven the Cayman Islands. pic.twitter.com/RQhzOYnXN4 — Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 9, 2018 But as we’ve already reported, Daffron didn’t begin his employment with Jefferson Consulting until 2006, three years after they represented Baker Botts. And Baker Botts didn’t register as a foreign agent until very recently, due to work they performed in 2017 on behalf of the Cayman Islands. Moreover, Daffron wasn’t employed as a lobbyist, and calling Jefferson Consulting “Daffron’s lobbying firm” creates the false impression that he is the founder and owner, when that has never been the case. We were unable to locate contact information for the blog Deep Left Info, but we reached out to Garland for comment, who told us: I have not said Thomas Daffron is a Russian spy. I have said this is somebody who has worked for these following clients and, for example, with regards to the two cities in Alaska, they are unquestionably the Russian homeland in Alaska, with Russian Orthodox churches in them that go back centuries. You will find this is a matter of Russian political interest as in, there are extremists in Russia who talk about taking Alaska back. The fact that Alaska used to be part of the Russian empire and not the U.S. has been mentioned by Russian politicians. In that thread, I was merely pointing out, that’s a very interesting thing to be lobbying on behalf of those two cities. I’m not making conclusions based on that, that’s for federal prosecutors.
|
813
|
Death toll from UK hospital listeria outbreak rises to five.
|
The number of people to die from a listeria outbreak in British hospitals has risen to five from three, Public Health England (PHE) said on Friday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The agency said that since the outbreak it had reviewed earlier cases and established that one other death had also been linked to the infection, which is thought to stem from sandwiches and salads. One patient who had been seriously ill has also since died, taking the number to five. “To date, there have been no patients linked to this incident outside healthcare organizations, but we continue to investigate,” said PHE’s Nick Phin. “Swift action was taken to protect patients and any risk to the public is low.
|
26522
|
Facebook post Says this poem about people staying home was written by Kathleen O’Mara in 1869.
|
Catherine O’Meara, a retired teacher and chaplain, published the poem on her blog on March 16, 2020.
|
false
|
Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"""History repeats itself,"" begins the introduction to a poem recently published on Facebook accounts like this one. The post claims that the poem was written in 1869 by Kathleen O’Mara and reprinted in 1918 during the 1918 influenza, sometimes called the Spanish flu. The poem describes life much like today: ""And people stayed at home, and read books, and listened, and they rested, and did exercises, and made art and played."" But the posts sharing the poem have been flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That’s because the poem was written all of three weeks ago. Though the version appearing on Facebook is slightly different, Catherine M. O’Meara, or Kitty, posted it on her blog, The Daily Round, on March 16. O magazine, which interviewed O’Meara, called her the ""poet laureate of the pandemic."" O’Meara is a retired teacher and chaplain who lives outside of Madison, Wisc., according to the magazine. ""I was getting kind of sad,"" O quotes her as saying about the coronavirus pandemic. ""There was nothing I could do. I couldn’t help my friends. I was very worried about them. My husband said: ‘Write. Just write again.’"" You can read more of her writing here."
|
22467
|
"Under the clear letter of the law, (Justice Clarence Thomas) must recuse himself"" from the case challenging the constitutionality of the health care law."
|
Rep. Anthony Weiner: Law clear that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from health care case
|
mixture
|
National, Ethics, Health Care, Supreme Court, Anthony Weiner,
|
"A recent Fox News interview of Rep. Anthony Weiner was compelling TV -- if you enjoy political sparring. The New York Democrat argued that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from the case challenging the constitutionality of the health care law because his wife, Virginia, made more than $700,000 working for groups that oppose the law. In the interview with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, there were feisty exchanges back and forth, and lots of cross talk. It ended with Weiner's sarcastic kicker, ""Great interview. Aces."" But in between, the two sparred on a couple of important issues that are sure to be debated as lawsuits over the health care law make their way to the Supreme Court. The court's vote is likely to be close, so if any justices were to recuse themselves, it could decide the case. In this item, we're focusing on Weiner's argument that Justice Thomas must recuse himself. Here's some of Weiner's back and forth with Kelly: ""What it comes down to is a pretty clear federal law that requires judges and justices to recuse themselves whenever there is … an appearance of any bias in the case,"" Weiner said. The law, he said, ""has certain categories where you must recuse yourself, and one of them is if you or your household, your spouse has any financial interest in the outcome. And we found out recently that Ginni Thomas, the spouse of Justice Thomas, has received more than $700,000 from organizations whose existence is based on making sure the health care law is ruled unconstitutional."" Indeed, federal tax records show Virginia Thomas earned nearly $700,000 between 2003 and 2007 as a liaison between the conservative Heritage Foundation and George W. Bush's White House. Heritage has advocated strongly against the health care law passed by Democrats in 2010, and has consistently called for its full repeal (though Thomas obviously left Heritage before the law passed). In addition, she helped organize Liberty Central, a conservative advocacy group that argues the health law will discourage hiring and drive up health costs. Weiner added that ""It got worse over the weekend because Justice Thomas basically said he agreed with his wife."" The congressman is referring to comments from Thomas, speaking to a conservative group, in which he said that his wife was involved in organizations ""in defense of liberty"" and that ""we believe in the same things, we are focused on defending liberty."" ""So now it's pretty clear he's stated his bias in this case before it's reached him,"" Weiner said. ""And under the clear letter of the law, he must recuse himself."" Kelly said Supreme Court experts she spoke with -- including some on the left -- told her that ""having any sort of professional interest in a case, as his wife arguably does, is not grounds for recusal."" ""It'd be a different thing,"" she said, ""if Clarence Thomas himself had stock in some company that was being affected. But they say this is not that."" Said Weiner: ""I'll read you from U.S. Title 28: 'Any justice must disqualify himself in any of the following circumstances: he individually, or his spouse, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy.' "" Our fact-check here is Weiner's claim, ""Under the clear letter of the law, (Justice Clarence Thomas) must recuse himself."" Let's start with the section of U.S. Title 28 cited by Weiner. Under Section 455, it states that ""Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."" It then lists specific circumstances under which justices should disqualify themselves. One of them, ""He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."" One of the key phrases in there is ""financial interest,"" which is defined later in the section as ""ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party."" Weiner's argument is that Virginia Thomas' work for a group that actively opposed the bill means she has a ""financial interest"" in the outcome, and that Justice Thomas must therefore recuse himself. But several legal experts we spoke to disagreed. Rex Perschbacher, a professor at University of California-Davis School of Law, said the law ""applies to more direct financial interests than Mrs. Thomas’."" ""It would have to be a financial interest in a corporation that was itself before the court rather than someone employed by an organization with an interest in one of the outcomes,"" Perschbacher said. ""A greater problem here is that Supreme Court Justices have always considered themselves the ultimate arbiters of their own disqualification or recusal, and they do not apply an evenhanded or uniform standard whether it comes to family members or bias or relatives who may be involved as lawyers in the cases before them,"" Perschbacher said. ""The justices of the Supreme Court see themselves, with some reason, as unique among the federal judiciary such that statutes like 455 (applicable to all members of the federal judiciary) apply to them with less force than to the usual district or circuit judge."" David Garrow, a professor at the University of Cambridge who follows the Supreme Court, and a self-described liberal Democrat, said, ""Justice Thomas should not recuse himself, and the recent boomlet of contentions that he should, in this matter and/or others, because of Ginni's beliefs and work, is entirely unmerited."" Weiner ""is clearly wrong,"" said Washington, D.C., attorney Tom Goldstein, founder of ScotusBlog, a widely read blog on the Supreme Court. ""The provision he cites about having a financial interest has always required something more direct,"" said Goldstein, who noted that he spoke to Fox's Kelly before the Weiner interview. ""For example, a justice will recuse if he or she or a spouse owns stock in a company in the case. The justices also have a rule that they will recuse if a child has a financial interest – for example, the child is a lawyer in a firm in the case and the firm’s profits are affected by the case. So, the financial interest has to be in the litigation (as opposed to a general issue) and has to be much more direct than is true for Ginni Thomas."" Paul F. Campos, professor at the University of Colorado Law School, agreed with Weiner that Thomas ought to recuse himself. He argues that Virginia Thomas has a ""strong interest in the precise outcome of the litigation."" ""If the standard for recusal is, 'Does it look really bad?' I think it looks really bad,"" Campos said. But even Campos acknowledges that ultimately it ""depends on the interpretation of direct financial interest. It's not a completely clear-cut case."" Asked for backup for Weiner's claim that the law is clear, and that Justice Thomas must recuse himself, Dave Arnold, a spokesman for Weiner, pointed us toward comments made by several law experts who argued Thomas ought to recuse himself. One of them, Monroe H. Freedman, a Hofstra Law School professor specializing in legal ethics, told the New York Times that Justice Thomas ''should not be sitting on a case or reviewing a statute that his wife has lobbied for. If the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that creates a perception problem.'' Another was Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, who noted in a Chicago Tribune op-ed that Virginia Thomas founded Liberty Central, ""an organization with strong ties to the tea party movement and whose Web site has demanded the repeal of 'ObamaCare,' which it has characterized as 'tyranny,'"" ""That alone will lead many observers to wonder whether Justice Thomas can maintain the appearance of impartiality when constitutional challenges reach his court,"" Lubet wrote. We called Lubet and asked whether the law was ""clear"" that Justice Thomas should recuse himself. ""It's not,"" Lubet said. ""First, I think it is not correct to say that he has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding."" Having a wife who works for an advocacy group is not the same as having a financial interest in the outcome, he said. ""If his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that's a much closer issue,"" Lubet said. ""I wouldn't say it's clear, though. That's a matter of judgment."" And ultimately, Lubet and other legal scholars said, it is Justice Thomas who will determine whether he ought to recuse himself. ""Unfortunately, only Justice Thomas gets to vote on that question,"" Lubet said. ""It's a one-man decision."" Trevor Burrus, a legal associate at the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, said Weiner's argument assumes Virginia Thomas would profit from the law being declared unconstitutional. ""In fact,"" Burrrus stated, ""there is a better case to be made that upholding the law would give his wife more 'business' in the future when as-applied challenges are brought against Obamacare."" Our aim here is not to settle a dispute between legal scholars about the application of federal ethics laws. But Weiner said that ""under the clear letter of the law, (Justice Clarence Thomas) must recuse himself."" A legitimate legal argument can be mounted for that position. But that's all it would be, an argument. It is by no means ""clear"" under the letter of law that Justice Thomas must recuse himself. In fact, there is a great deal of disagreement among legal experts we spoke to that Virginia Thomas' previous jobs meet the definition of ""financial interest"" or whether it's enough to establish that Justice Thomas' ""impartiality might reasonably be questioned."" Weiner's statement suggests the letter of the law is clear cut in backing his position, and it is not. Even those who support Weiner's position allow that it boils down to a matter of interpretation."
|
34866
|
"The film ""Helltown"" is a genuine documentary about a teenager's mysterious disappearance, a cult, and a military mission gone wrong. "
|
"The Travel Channel's ""Helltown"" definitely includes a whole lot of fiction."
|
false
|
Horrors
|
In November 2019, we started receiving queries about a Travel Channel television “documentary” called “Helltown” that supposedly showed the strange goings-on in an abandoned town in Ohio. Among other things, this show claimed that this town was the site of a “cult compound shooting” that left 14 people dead in the 1960s, that a teenager mysteriously disappeared after entering a restricted area in 2016 and was most likely eaten by a Wendigo (a fictional creature), and that a military operation in the area went haywire after the soldiers stumbled upon a group of occultists. We’ll point out some specific inaccuracies throughout this article, but by and large “Helltown” is a work of fiction. This is a scripted piece of entertainment and not a genuine documentary. The experts, townspeople, police officers, and even the soldiers in the “archival” or “found footage” are actors. “Helltown” first aired on the Travel Channel just before Halloween in 2017, but it still frequently gets re-aired. Here’s a trailer for the movie. It starts with a brief disclaimer noting that “this story is inspired by accounts of a real American town that has been abandoned for more than 40 years.” It isn’t until the final frames of the film, however, that the Travel Channel reveals that “certain events in this film are fictional”: None of the institutions or agencies that appear in the film are affiliated or associated with it in any way, nor have approved its contents. Any similarities in the film to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. Though certain events in this film are fictional, the town of Boston, Ohio was real, and was forcibly evacuated by the United States Government in 1975. Travel Channel’s disclaimer goes on to say that the “reports of Paranormal and Occult Activity in the town are real, and have been cited as a possible reasons for the 1975 evacuation,” and that “conspiracy theorists continue to debate why the U.S. Government evacuated Boston, Ohio.” While this Travel Channel special states that it is based on real “reports” and rumors, it also peddles a number of outright falsehoods. For instance, a 16-year-old was not killed by a Wendigo (or a bear) in 2016, authorities did not kill 14 people during a shootout with a cult, and two children did not mysteriously vanish from the area. This article is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every misleading detail included in the “Helltown” show. Rather, we’re going to point out how some of the “evidence” was manufactured in order to show that this “documentary” is really just a work of fiction. What’s the real story about “Helltown”? In 1974, Congress passed Public Law 93-555, which allowed the federal government to acquire land in order to establish the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. Boston Township in Ohio was one piece of land that was acquired for this project. Shortly after U.S. President Gerald Ford signed this legislation into law, the government started to purchase properties in Boston and forced people to move out of the newly designated national recreation area. The Frontline special “For the Good of All” took a look at how this legislation impacted the local population of Boston: When a national recreation site between Cleveland and Akron was first mandated by Congress in 1974, everyone applauded the project. But Frontline found that park policies of condemning hundreds of businesses and homes soon generated intense local opposition as well as charges that the homes of politically influential citizens were being spared. The government purchased hundreds of homes with the hopes of turning the area into a national park, but the project quickly fell behind schedule. As houses sat abandoned and vacant for years, urban legends about the area started to grow. Some claimed that the area was haunted, and that the government only purchased the land to cover up some sort of nefarious activity. Similar rumors spread, and soon the area became known as “Helltown.” According to Atlas Obscura, the last of the abandoned buildings of “Helltown” were torn down in 2016. What does the Travel Channel special “Helltown” get wrong? It’s true that a number of houses were left abandoned in the 1970s after the government acquired the area of Boston Township in Ohio in 1974 to develop the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. While this historical event serves as the starting point for this show, “Helltown” quickly veers off into the world of fiction. The “experts” in “Helltown” are actors. For starters, the main expert in this “Helltown” video is presented as a professor of folklore and mythology at Cuyahoga Community College named Paul Wyndham: But this is not a “professor of folklore.” This is an actor. We reached out to Cuyahoga Community College and we were told that there was no “Paul Wyndham” on staff. Furthermore, according to a spokesperson for the college, Wyndham doesn’t even pronounce “Cuyahoga” correctly in the film. This character is being played by actor Dave Evans, who apparently has a penchant for playing “experts” in pseudo-science documentaries. In 2012, he played “Dr. Paul Robertson, former NOAA scientist,” in Animal Planet’s pseudo-documentary “Mermaids: The Body Found.” “Helltown” presents a number of other characters as if they were “locals” from the area. Again, however, these are just actors. The most misleading use of an actor comes from the “archival” footage that was supposedly unearthed during the making of this mockumentary. While conspiracy theorist Terry Greenbaum (played by actor Darren White) presents this footage as if it were taken in 1975 — the footage is preceded by a title card reading “The following is an edited version of the raw 16mm footage recovered from Jack Writer’s Camera Magazine, Filmed in 1975” — it actually features modern footage of actor Michael Lipka. A 16-year-old was not eaten by a Wendigo (or a bear) in 2016. One outlandish claim in the movie is that a teenager was killed by a “Wendigo,” a mythological man-eating creature, in 2016. In addition to claiming that a teenager was killed, “Helltown” also claims that authorities covered up the truth about the mythical man-eater by blaming a bear for the teen’s death. While this anecdote is presented in the form of a news report, this is just another staged production. This section (which appears around the 10-minute mark) features a fictional police official named Capt. Marie Hutchinson and stock footage of a deceased bear. There is also not a “WBOH News” channel in Ohio. We were unable to find any credible reports about a 16-year-old who was killed by a bear (or a Wendigo) in Cuyahoga National Forest in 2016. It appears that this rumor was made up out of whole cloth. Two children did not disappear in “Helltown.” At one point in this “documentary,” the filmmakers blame the disappearance of two children from Boston Township on a local cult. As evidence, they show what appears at first glance to be a newspaper clipping: This image, however, doesn’t feature two children who went missing in Boston Township. Both of these images were taken from modern stock photographs: A shootout at a cult compound did not result in 14 deaths. A second fake newspaper clipping is also featured in the “Helltown” movie. This time, a doctored newspaper clipping is used to push the false claim that 14 people were killed in a shootout between authorities and the “WW Cult.”
|
9175
|
Topical curcumin gel effective in treating burns and scalds
|
A case series review published in BioDiscovery follows the recovery of three patients after they are treated with topical curcumin gel. Curcumin is the active substance found in the common spice turmeric, which has been extensively studied in the past half century for its role in treating various conditions. For example, some promising effects have been observed in patients with pro-inflammatory diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and arthritis. The news release for this journal article does a good job explaining what curcumin is and how this ingredient is recently the focus of many scientific studies. However, it’s not clear from the news release how effective topical curcumin gel really is in treating burns and scalds. For example, the release states curcumin gel “reduces the severity of injury, lessens pain and inflammation and improves health with less than expected scarring” but doesn’t put the claim in numerical context. Furthermore, there is no discussion in the news release on the study limitations, the main one being that the research article is a case series report with no control group. Therefore, it is impossible to attribute the patients’ outcomes to the gel alone. There is no mention of costs, harms and conflicts of interest, even though the author of this review is the founder of Omnicure Inc, a company manufacturing and marketing topical curcumin gel. We also question the novelty of this treatment approach, since the same three patient cases detailed in the journal article were published in a book in 2011. News of an alternative treatment for burns is likely to capture interest since this is a common injury, and scarring is an unfortunate outcome, particularly on the face. Treatment with curcumin is considered to be alternative medicine, but complementary treatments should still be backed up by evidence to prove their safety and effectiveness. Some unconventional cancer therapies, for example, have proven to be ineffective, while some alternative treatments can have potentially dangerous adverse effects and interactions with standard treatments. In the case with curcumin, a recent article in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry reviewed more than 120 clinical trials of this active ingredient against several diseases. They found that no double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful and concluded that “curcumin is an unstable, reactive, nonbioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead.” Curcumin will continue to be investigated in clinical trials and when its results are reported, it’s up to news release writers and journalists to scrutinize evidence and assess its quality before making recommendations, even with complementary treatments.
|
false
|
burns,curcumin gel,Pensoft Publishers
|
Since there is no discussion of costs in the news release, we give it a Not Satisfactory rating here. A Google search reveals that curcumin gel is available for purchase, mostly in natural food stores and through alternative medicine websites. A 2-oz tub of “Curcumin Gel For Face And Body” from Omnicure sells for about $89. Topical curcumin is also available as a cream, in which a 4-oz. bottle goes for $44.95. Other companies also market and manufacture topical curcumin gel, but the researcher in this study owns Omnicure shares (see our conflict of interests section). The news release doesn’t give any numbers to support the author’s statements about benefits. There is only one paragraph devoted to benefits in the news release, which states the “use of curcumin after burns and scalds were found to reduce the severity of the injury, lessen pain and inflammation, and improve healing with less than expected scarring, or even no scarring, of the affected skin.” Without any numbers, we don’t know the extent of the reduction from this vague, comparative wording. And how were these parameters measured? The original journal article also doesn’t provide any benefits data. Instead, it shows before and after pictures of three patients and then describes their recovery ranging from one day to six months after treatment. We still expect the news release to provide the quantitative scope of the potential benefits by asking the researcher to supply these numbers. Since no data are given, we give the news release a Not Satisfactory rating. Curcumin, the active ingredient of tumeric, is considered to be an alternative therapy. Neither turmeric nor curcumin has been extensively studied in clinical trials, but animal studies have shown that chronic use could lead to stomach ulcers. In addition, the American Herbal Products Association classifies turmeric as a menstrual stimulant. Turmeric should be avoided in patients with bleeding disorders and bile duct obstruction. Experts believe tumeric is generally safe, although the quality of the available clinical studies is questionable. An additional potential harm is failure to be treated with appropriate care. We would not want parents of kids with severe burns to forgo appropriate, evidence-based medical care in favor of an alternative over-the-counter product with no scientific evidence to support its use. The last sentence of the news release states that the doctor uses curcumin gel in addition to standard medical treatment. That important bit of information should have been highlighted more prominently in the release so that people skimming the release wouldn’t assume they could attempt to self-treat burns or scalds with curcumin alone. Since harms weren’t mentioned in the news release we give it a Not Satisfactory rating here. There are no caveats in the news release about the research type and quality. The published review was a case series, in which three patients were treated with topical curcumin gel. Case series are usually low on the hierarchy of evidence-based research, since they are anecdotal reports and employ no control group to compare outcomes. As a result, they have little statistical validity. In this study, all three patients presented with second degree burns, but they were of various ages and followed up for different times. We also don’t know how these patients were treated for their burns apart from curcumin gel application. The news release suggests that they were given standard treatment for their burns, since “Dr. Heng uses curcumin gel for burns, scalds and other skin conditions as complementary treatment.” What standard care were these patients given? And were they all the same? How could these patients’ results be attributed to curcumin gel alone? Might the patients have improved with time without the gel? Since the news release does not critically evaluate the evidence, we give it a Not Satisfactory rating here. There is no disease mongering in the news release. The release provides some context on the medicinal uses of curcumin throughout history. The journal article (but not the news release) states that Dr. Heng has shares in Omnicure Inc., a company that manufactures and markets topical curcumin gel. We also found that Dr. Heng is the founder and practicing research physician of this US-based company. Its main product line Psoria-Gold has been used as an anti-inflammatory gel in various spas, health stores and medical clinics in the US and Canada, according to its website. Did the company also help fund the research? That isn’t made transparent in either the news release or the journal article. Since the news release does not disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest, we give it a Not Satisfactory rating. Although the news release does mention the use of curcumin tablets, we wish it could have gone into depth about some conventional therapies used to minimize scarring after a burn. There are various ways to treat burns, such as specialty wound dressings and antibiotics to prevent infection and to speed up healing. Careful monitoring for infection is critical. To minimize scarring, some doctors recommend wearing pressure garments, which are tight-fitting clothes to be worn over burned areas. These are worn 23 hours per day (taken off only for bathing) for up to 2 years after the burn. If the burn area is very large, patients may undergo physical therapy. Deep burns could require plastic surgery or skin grafts. Since none of the more traditional burn treatments are discussed, we give the news release a Not Satisfactory rating here. The news release discusses the uses of curcumin for gastronomical and cosmetic purposes — many of which go back centuries. It adds that medicinal aspects of curcumin have been studied intensely for various human ailments in recent years. It’s also clear from the news release that patients have the option of taking curcumin tablets orally for “other conditions.” A quick Google search shows that curcumin tablets are available for purchase at health food stores. For these reasons, we give the news release a Satisfactory rating. It’s unclear from the news release how exactly this research is novel. Since 2009, researchers have been developing curcumin gel for topical application and studying its effects. Topical curcumin has also been studied in animal models, such as a treatment for burns in rats and for radiation burns in mini-pigs. In addition, the author of the study Dr. Madalene Heng published a book in August 30, 2011, entitled BURNS & SCARS: Improvement with Curcumin Gel. This book contains numerous before and after photographs — some of which were re-published in the recent BioDiscovery article. In fact, all three patients highlighted in the Feb 24 research paper were drawn from her book. For these reasons, we give the news release a Not Satisfactory rating. The news release does not include unjustifiable, sensational language.
|
16242
|
You cannot get (Ebola) from just riding on a plane or bus.
|
"Obama said, ""You cannot get (Ebola) from just riding on a plane or a bus."" He’s right in the sense that you can’t get it ""just"" from being on a plane or bus with someone who is infected. It would take additional steps: The infected person must be showing symptoms and you must have direct contact with that individual’s bodily fluids, i.e. blood or vomit. Could that happen? Hypothetically, sure. Experts confirmed as much, and the CDC goes so far as to warn people exposed to the virus that they should not take public transportation. But it’s also a very unlikely scenario. It’s rare that one would ever come in direct contact with bodily fluids from sick people while riding on a bus or plane. And someone in that stage of the disease is likely too sick to fly or ride. Experts said the probability of such a transmission occurring is so small that the sentiment is largely accurate."
|
true
|
National, Ebola, Public Health, Transportation, Barack Obama,
|
"President Barack Obama has sought to assuage fears about Ebola in the face of panic and misinformation. In his Oct. 18 weekly address, he called on people to ""be guided by the science and ""remember the basic facts."" ""Ebola is actually a difficult disease to catch,"" Obama said. ""It's not transmitted through the air like the flu. You cannot get it from just riding on a plane or a bus."" That last line, repeated often by the administration in various forms, has caught the ire of critics, who believe the statement is too cavalier. It’s also at odds with some advice from health officials that people who may have been exposed to the virus should avoid public transportation. So we decided to take a look at it ourselves: Can you get Ebola from ""just riding"" on a plane or a bus? As Thomas Fekete, a professor of infectious diseases at the Temple University School of Medicine, told us, ""There is no ‘infection free’ zone just because you're on a bus or a plane."" However, Fekete and others said the likelihood that someone would contract Ebola while flying or using public transportation is small. Extremely small. It would take a lot more than just sitting next to or sharing air with an infected individual. Let’s explain. How Ebola spreads People infected with the virus are not contagious until they are showing symptoms, according to experts and research. Symptoms are, first, a fever, followed by vomiting and diarrhea, which usually occurs between 2 and 21 days of contracting the virus. Risk of contracting Ebola is greatest if you come in direct contact with ""blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people,"" according to the World Health Organization. These fluids contain high concentrations of the virus that can result in infection if they are exposed to your eyes, mouth, nose or a cut on your skin, even for a relatively short amount of time. There is also some risk, albeit low, that the virus can be spread by ""being within approximately 3 feet of an (Ebola) patient or within the patient’s room or care area for a prolonged period of time,"" or by touching surfaces contaminated by bodily fluids of an infected patient. However, there is little evidence to date that Ebola spreads this way. Studies from previous Ebola outbreaks show that ""all cases were infected by direct close contact with symptomatic patients,"" the World Health Organization noted. What the government says Some critics say that Obama and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are sending mixed signals about the virus. While Obama says you can’t simply catch it from riding on a plane or bus, the CDC at the same time has cautioned people experiencing symptoms to ""limit your contact with other people"" and ""avoid public transportation."" The CDC also advises people who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus to remain in controlled movement, which means, in part, ""These individuals should not travel by commercial conveyances (e.g. airplane, ship, long-distance bus, or train)."" CDC director Tom Frieden recently addressed this on a conference call with reporters: ""I think there are two different parts of that equation. The first is, if you're a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? The answer is no. Second, if you're sick, and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? The answer to that is also no. You might become ill; you might have a problem that exposes someone around you. Because the risk is so low, we think there is an extremely low likelihood that anyone who travelled on this plane would have been exposed, but we're putting into place extra margins of safety and that's why we're contacting everyone who was on that flight."" Experts told us this appears to be a case of the CDC taking extra precautions to be safe. ""The risk comes from the direct contact with the human secretions and is greatest in the hospital when the secretions are heavily contaminated with lots of viable virus or in an intimate home setting for the person in the earliest stage of illness when no one thinks to take any precautions because it seems like a ‘regular’ illness,"" Fekete said. ""But none of these things describe what happens on bus or plane rides."" Planes, trains and automobiles So how might someone get Ebola from riding on a bus or train? Ebola is not airborne. So you would have to be in close proximity to someone who is infected with Ebola and at least has a fever. On top of that, you would have to come in direct contact with bodily fluids from the infected individual. The most realistic scenario we could think of is someone sitting next to you is really sick and throws up on you. It’s an upsetting situation, to be sure, and without thinking you touch your nose or your eyes before you’re fully disinfected. However, people who are sick enough to be vomiting are also very unlikely to be in a state where they can take public transportation or fly, said Anne Rimoin, an epidemiology professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. That’s why so far the only individuals who have contracted Ebola in the United States have been health care workers. ""The thing about Ebola is that at the point that you’re really infectious to other people is when you are in the later stages of your illness, when you have really terrible diarrhea and nonstop vomiting,"" Rimoin said. ""And nobody is going to be in contact with somebody who has Ebola at that stage under any kind of normal situation."" What about a sneeze or cough? Stephen Gire, a researcher at the Harvard Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology who studies the Ebola genome, said if someone who is showing symptoms sneezed directly on you from within 3 feet, it could, technically, transfer the virus. But people further away wouldn’t have to worry about those particles lingering in the air. We should add coughing and sneezing are not symptoms of Ebola and there’s no documented evidence the disease has ever been transmitted this way. What if bodily fluids from an infected individual ended up on a bus seat or a plane armrest? Could you get the Ebola virus that way? Under very limited conditions the virus could survive outside the body, Gire said. First, the fluid would have to remain in liquid form. Once it dried up, the virus would die. Second, it would have to be a very cool and dark setting. ""It has to be a highly engineered environment for Ebola to survive in this environment,"" Gire said. ""Stable temperature; on the right type of surface; not exposed to light, etc. These are highly, highly unlikely scenarios in nature and normal environments, and should not be seen as something that is likely to happen."" Our ruling Obama said, ""You cannot get (Ebola) from just riding on a plane or a bus."" He’s right in the sense that you can’t get it ""just"" from being on a plane or bus with someone who is infected. It would take additional steps: The infected person must be showing symptoms and you must have direct contact with that individual’s bodily fluids, i.e. blood or vomit. Could that happen? Hypothetically, sure. Experts confirmed as much, and the CDC goes so far as to warn people exposed to the virus that they should not take public transportation. But it’s also a very unlikely scenario. It’s rare that one would ever come in direct contact with bodily fluids from sick people while riding on a bus or plane. And someone in that stage of the disease is likely too sick to fly or ride. Experts said the probability of such a transmission occurring is so small that the sentiment is largely accurate."
|
8928
|
Coronavirus worries have surgical masks flying off shelves in New York's Chinatown.
|
Teresa Zhan, a pharmacist in Manhattan’s Chinatown, had not seen protective face masks sell out in her 10 years as an employee until this week, when China’s coronavirus arrived in the United States just days before Lunar New Year celebrations.
|
true
|
Health News
|
More than a dozen pharmacies in the tiny district had run out of face masks or only had a few left on Friday. Pharmacists said hundreds of locals had rushed to buy masks for protection from the newly discovered coronavirus that has killed 26 people in China and infected at least 800 others, including a case in Chicago and another near Seattle. “Everybody’s been coming in the morning and saying, do you have face masks? Do you have face masks?” Zhan said. During a typical flu season, customers will purchase one or two surgical masks at a time to protect themselves from the virus, Zhan said. “Now they’re like, give me the whole box,” she said. The bulk purchases of masks, as many as 250 at a time, started earlier this week as people prepared to travel to China for Saturday’s Lunar New Year holiday, which health officials fear could accelerate the infection rate. Many people also hope to send masks to their families in China. “Some people buy it to send it home, because right now in China, they are out of all the masks,” said Ryan Ngo, a technician at Tu Quynh Pharmacy, which sold its last box of masks on Thursday. The World Health Organization on Thursday declared the virus an “emergency in China”, but said it was too soon to call it a global health emergency. Symptoms include fever, difficulty breathing and coughing. Annie Chan, a 30-year-old accountant, was searching for face masks on Friday for her cousin, who was traveling to New York from Hong Kong for the holiday. Chan checked Harmony Pharmacy, which had run out of protective surgical masks but still had a few boxes of a less protective brand. “I honestly don’t know what she wants, I was just trying to see what places still have them,” Chan said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed two U.S. cases of the coronavirus, in Illinois and Washington, and said on Friday as many as 63 potential cases were being investigated. People in Chinatown were also flocking to herbal shops to stock up on home remedies. Their sense of alarm reminded herbal shop manager Patrick Siu of the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which originated in China and killed 774 people worldwide. For the first time since the SARS outbreak, Siu noticed nearly twice as much demand this week for the isatis root, used in Chinese traditional medicine to treat respiratory illness. Customers have called ahead to ask Siu to place some on hold. Given that health officials do not yet know how dangerous the coronavirus is and how easily it spreads, their caution is justified, Siu said. “You never know what will happen,” he said. “If you are the one, then maybe your whole family is the victim.”
|
9388
|
Roche's Tecentriq cocktail adds to lung cancer survival success
|
This article from Reuters is categorized under its “Health News” service, but in both content and reality is a “business and marketing” story about an incremental big pharma clinical trial of cancer immunotherapy drugs that closely follows the format, tone and conclusion of a Roche pharmaceutical news release. The headline on the story, “Roche’s Tecentriq cocktail adds to lung cancer survival success,” asks readers to take Roche’s word for it, because neither it nor Roche offers any quantitative data to support the claim. Patients, physicians and the general public will have no idea from the story by how long, to what degree, and with what quality, the drug cocktail — as a first line treatment — extends survival for people with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer; or for that matter anything about the the makeup of the trial in terms of numbers of patients, or their diagnostic and treatment histories. The story makes clear that the results of this trial of the immunotherapy Tecentriq combined with two chemotherapies, is the latest in a series of studies designed as head-to-head tests of various combinations of cancer treatment cocktails. And to its substantial credit, the story also makes clear that Roche is going public with such incomplete and at best data-free pronouncements about incremental results in a “bid to catch up” to competitors’ better known immunotherapies and increase its market share of a drug already in use but facing stiff competition. It also reports that the ploy is working: Shares of Roche rose on the news about 1 percent the day the results were reported. For the general public, as well as for cancer patients, the speed of “new news” about advances in immunotherapy drugs alone or in combination with other medicines is confusing if not head-spinning and overwhelming. And although such drugs — including Avastin, Keytruda and Opdivo — have indeed been shown to slow progression and/or extend survival in subsets of some cancer patients, drug makers, clinicians and researchers are far from having definitive understanding of when, how, in what combinations, and in what patients these extraordinarily expensive drugs work or don’t work. In addition, patients also face confusion about the success of these drugs as first-line treatments, as compared to “last resort” therapies. Thus, establishing and increasing market share — as reflected in the drumbeat of TV and magazine ads for these new therapies — is a higher priority for drug makers than clarity and consensus, despite the modest clinical successes and unresolved treatment decisions. Stories that report claims of success should be carefully put in context and quantified — a difficult task at best to accomplish in a few hundred words. But without such care and caution, patients and those who care for them are often misled.
|
false
|
lung cancer
|
Not discussion of costs. Some estimates have put the monthly cost of Tecentriq alone at $12,500. Adding the three other drugs brings it to about This is essentially a data-free story, as noted above. How long does this drug cocktail help patients live compared to the other treatment groups? This critical question goes unanswered. Again, there is no information in the story about side effects, patient exclusions, or other potential harms of Tecentriq or the chemotherapies included in the cocktail. Also, the common talking point around immunotherapy includes the claim that it is less toxic than traditional chemotherapy, so why would a person take both, instead of just one or the other? What does that do to the side effect profile? Given that Roche gave very incomplete information about the trial’s protocol and outcomes, the Reuters article probably did the best it could in some respects to put the information in context and reveal the “marketing” strategy behind the company’s release. However, we think it should have more emphatically stated that readers must be cautious about this evidence, since no one has actually seen the data. It has not been published nor peer-reviewed. No mongering here, but no need. The mere mention of lung cancer will put many lung cancer patients, smokers, or worried well on high alert to this story. Some discussion of prevalence would have helped. What percentage of lung cancers fall into the category targeted by these treatments? How long do those people usually live? The story includes an unattributed quote lifted from the Roche news release, and a quote from a financial analyst, who discusses the drug’s shifting market share–not the science. This was not sufficient sourcing. The story contains some information about the nature of the new clinical trial and that it was designed to compare the “newer” cocktail to older ones, including one with a drug made by Roche. It’s also open that this is meant to boost sales of a drug to help offset the loss associated with other drugs going generic or facing biosimilar competition. That wasn’t enough, though. Readers are not given enough information to know if this cocktail is better than cheaper and more tested alternatives. For example: What about the outcomes of lung cancer patients treated with the combination of drugs without immunotherapy? For better or worse, the story makes clear that Roche intends to submit the new data to regulators right away. This was a close call. The article does not address the ways in which Roche’s cocktail of drugs works better or differently than its own older therapies, or others on the market that are similar. But it does reveal that it’s probably more of a financial move than a patient care concern: The world’s biggest maker of cancer drugs is counting on growing sales of Tecentriq, which notched 487 million Swiss francs in 2017, to help offset falling revenue from its older cancer medicines Avastin, Rituxan and Herceptin whose patent expirations are exposing them to rivals’ cheaper copies. This is useful and so we’ll lean toward satisfactory on this one. The story used a quote from a Roche news release, but did not attribute it to the release: We are pleased that the IMpower150 study demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit for people receiving their initial treatment for this type of advanced lung cancer,” said Sandra Horning, MD, Roche’s Chief Medical Officer and Head of Global Product Development.” But since it discussed the profit motives at play, which Roche didn’t disclose, it just barely offsets the reliance on the news release and earns a satisfactory score.
|
41310
|
The antibiotics gentamicin sulfate and polymyxin b are in vaccines and can cause allergic reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening.
|
Traces of these antibiotics can end up in certain vaccines, but would only cause a reaction in someone severely allergic.
|
unproven
|
online
|
Beta-Propiolactone is in vaccines and is known to cause cancer, suspected gastrointestinal, liver, nerve and respiratory, skin and sense organ poison. It may be present in trace amounts of some vaccines. It is potentially carcinogenic, but only in much larger amounts than would be in a vaccine. The antibiotics gentamicin sulfate and polymyxin b are in vaccines and can cause allergic reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening. Traces of these antibiotics can end up in certain vaccines, but would only cause a reaction in someone severely allergic. Genetically modified yeast, animal, bacterial and viral DNA in vaccines can be incorporated into the recipient’s DNA causing unknown genetic mutations. Modified DNA can be used in the production of some vaccines, but is very unlikely to end up in the final product. Even if it did, there’s no evidence it can cause mutations. Glutaraldehyde is in vaccines and is poisonous if ingested and causes birth defects in animals. There are trace amounts in some vaccines from manufacturing, and not enough to cause harm. Formaldehyde is in vaccines and causes cancer in humans among other issues and is banned from vaccines in most European countries. It’s not banned in Europe. There are only trace amounts in certain vaccines and not enough to be carcinogenic. Latex rubber is in vaccines and causes life-threatening allergic reactions. Latex is used in the packaging of some vaccines, which could potentially cause harm if someone’s strongly allergic to it. Human and animal cells from sources like aborted foetuses are in vaccines and are linked to childhood leukaemia and diabetes. They may be used in certain vaccines’ production, but are unlikely to make it to the final product. Mercury (aka thimerosal or thiomersal) is in vaccines and can damage brain, gut, liver, bone marrow, nervous system and kidneys, is linked to autoimmune disorder, autism. Thiomersal isn’t in any UK vaccines any more. This is down to concern around a slightly different mercury-based chemical. MSG is in vaccines and is linked to birth defects, developmental delays, infertility and is banned in Europe. It’s not banned in Europe. It’s used in some vaccines to stabilise them. There’s no strong evidence it causes these problems in humans. Neomycin sulphate, an antibiotic, is in vaccines and can lead to epilepsy, brain damage and allergic reactions. Trace amounts of this antibiotic may end up in certain vaccines. If you are allergic to it could cause an allergic reaction. Phenol / phenoxyethanol is in vaccines and is used as antifreeze. It is toxic to all cells and can destroy the immune system. These chemicals have been used in vaccines as preservatives. They are not in antifreeze. Polysorbate 80 and 20 are in vaccines and cause cancer in animals and are linked to autoimmune issues and infertility. Tiny amounts of Polysorbate 80 is in a type of flu vaccine. There isn’t evidence ingesting it is linked to these issues in humans. Tri(n) butylphosphate is in vaccines and is potentially damaging to the kidneys and the nervous system. We can find no evidence of this being used in vaccines in the UK. Claim 1 of 14
|
26646
|
“Italy has decided not to treat their elderly for this virus.”
|
Italy, second only to China in the number of COVID-19 cases, hasn’t decided to stop treating elderly COVID-19 patients. But the elderly are a lower priority because they are less likely to survive, and hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus cases.
|
false
|
Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,
|
"In Italy, beset by more cases of COVID-19 than any country but China, hospitals have been forced to make tough triage decisions and ration treatment. But that doesn’t mean the country decided to stop treating elderly coronavirus patients. A post on Facebook made that claim on March 14, 2020. ""Italy has decided not to treat their elderly for this virus. That, my friends, is socialized healthcare,"" the post claimed. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On the day of the post, Italy had recorded 17,660 cases of coronavirus and 1,268 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The number of deaths represented 58% of the 2,199 coronavirus deaths outside China, including 41 deaths in the United States. By that point, Italy’s hospitals were faced with choosing which of the sickest patients should be treated, and priorities tended to exclude the elderly, who experts say are among the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Triage is a common tool used in health care systems. For example, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality promotes an algorithm for emergency department triage that divides patients into five groups — most urgent to least urgent, ""on the basis of acuity and resource needs."" But with the exceptional situation presented by the coronavirus in Italy, special guidelines were developed for Italian health care professionals dealing with COVID-19. By mid March, news organizations had already reported on how Italian doctors were being forced to choose which patients to treat — with the elderly getting a lower priority. ""There are now simply too many patients for each one of them to receive adequate care,"" The Atlantic reported. ""Doctors and nurses are unable to tend to everybody. They lack machines to ventilate all those gasping for air."" The Atlantic also reported that COVID-19 guidelines that had been established by medical doctors from the Italian College of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care: ""Informed by the principle of maximizing benefits for the largest number,"" the guidelines suggest that ""the allocation criteria need to guarantee that those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success will retain access to intensive care. ... It may become necessary to establish an age limit for access to intensive care."" The New York Times, reporting from Rome, quoted Dr. Flavia Petrini, president of the college, as saying: ""No one is getting kicked out, but we’re offering criteria of priority. These choices are made in normal times, but what’s not normal is when you have to assist 600 people all at once."" The Times also reported that Giorgo Gori, mayor of Bergamo, in Lombardy, Italy’s worst affected region, said that in some cases, the gap between resources and the enormous influx of patients ""forced the doctors to decide not to intubate some very old patients,"" essentially leaving them to die. ""Were there more intensive care units,"" he added, ""it would have been possible to save more lives."" As of March 17, 2020, the latest World Health Organization update showed Italy with 27,980 cases and 2,503 deaths. That was second to China, which had 81,116 and 3,231. The United States had 3,503 and 58. A Facebook post claiming Italy had decided to stop treating elderly COVID-19 patients goes too far. Overwhelmed by the number of cases, the country was relying on guidelines to give priority for some treatments, such as ventilators, to those patients most likely to survive."
|
26637
|
David A. Clarke Jr. Says coronavirus is just “the damn flu.”
|
In a barrage of tweets slamming the coronavirus response, Clarke said he was tired of erring on the side of caution since this is just “the damn flu.” That tweet was among several removed by Twitter, a platform Clarke now says he’s leaving. Coronavirus and the flu do have similarities in spread and symptoms, but there are huge differences in the death rate and ability to treat coronavirus.
|
false
|
Wisconsin, Coronavirus, David A. Clarke Jr.,
|
"David A. Clarke, the outspoken former sheriff of Milwaukee County, says he is leaving Twitter. If that’s true, he sure went out with a bang. Clarke put the nation’s coronavirus response on blast with a barrage of tweets on March 15, 2020, some of which were later removed by Twitter. Among them: He urged people to ""go out into the streets"" and demand that schools reopen and government stop exerting such ""control over our lives."" He said the coronavirus is ""an orchestrated attempt to destroy capitalism."" He insisted — without any evidence — that George Soros, a prominent backer of liberal causes, is ""somewhere involved in this."" Whew. There’s plenty of potential ratings to be had from the Stetson-wearing controversy-magnet, but we’re going to focus on a fourth, since-deleted tweet. Here’s the full text (minus a few choice words): ""I am tired of all this, ‘We have to err on the side of caution’ (expletive). We have to get back to reasonableness dammit. It’s the damn flu. Stop being afraid and start being sensible. Wash your (expletive) hands! Stop buying toilet paper. Do you (expletive) hear me????"" Clarke stepped down as sheriff in 2017 after 15 years as the county’s top cop, saying he was leaving to take a high-ranking post in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — a job that never materialized. In the time since, Clarke has also lost posts at a pro-President Trump super PAC and as a regular contributor on Fox News. Now he’s using his free time to make the case everyone is being unreasonable because this is just ""the damn flu."" Let’s break it down. Coronavirus and the flu are both viruses, and experts say they have some shared characteristics: Risk factors — The groups of people at highest risk are similar, including the elderly. Spread — Both diseases spread from person to person through respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes (though it’s possible coronavirus lingers in the air longer after the sick person has left). Prevention — The expert advice is similar: wash your hands, don’t touch your face, stay away from people who are sick and stay home if you are sick. Symptoms — Both cause fever, cough, body aches and fatigue, though coronavirus is more likely to cause shortness of breath. Treatment — Neither virus is treatable with antibiotics (those only work on bacterial infections). The diseases have some critical differences, most importantly the death rate and lack of a vaccine. Based on the current numbers, someone with COVID-19 — the disease caused by coronavirus — is 23 to 68 times more likely to die than someone who contracts the flu, based on the latest data from the World Health Organization, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine — A flu vaccine is available and effective to prevent the flu, or at least reduce its severity. A coronavirus vaccine is not yet available, and likely won’t be for at least a year. Treatment — There are antiviral medications that address flu symptoms and can even shorten the duration of the illness, but such medications are still being tested for coronavirus. Death rate — The fatality rate for this year’s flu is estimated by the CDC at between 0.05% and 0.1% in the United States. The coronavirus fatality rate was estimated at 2.3% of those infected by China’s CDC and 3.4% by the World Health Organization (though many expect that to fall to the 1-2% range once we know more about how many people have been infected). Infections — Coronavirus has, so far, infected far fewer people. There were about 3,500 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. when Clarke tweeted, compared to an estimated 36 million to 51 million flu illnesses this season. Knowledge and research — Scientists know much more about the flu, such as details on how it is transmitted, the range of symptoms and treatment. Such details on coronavirus remain a point of debate. All this to say, the CDC and other health officials have made it clear coronavirus presents a litany of risks the standard flu does not. The overwhelmed health care systems in first China, then Italy reinforced the severity of the disease and the breadth of its potential impact here. And the reaction of government alone — closing schools, bars, restaurants and more — makes it clear there is a stark difference between the two. Ranting against those who would ""err on the side of caution,"" Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the ""damn flu."" There is indeed overlap in some basic areas — what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke’s tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal — that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced."
|
24931
|
In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress.
|
Congress didn't pass Obama's economic plan
|
false
|
National, Economy, Stimulus, Barack Obama,
|
"With global financial markets shaken by the credit crisis, Barack Obama is promoting his ability to devise solutions for a troubled economy. In a Sept. 16 speech in Golden, Colo., Obama took credit for inspiring the economic stimulus package that Congress enacted and President Bush signed in February, saying its components had roots in an economic plan he outlined a month earlier on the campaign trail. ""In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress,"" Obama said. He went on to criticize his GOP opponent, John McCain, for promoting corporate tax breaks at the same time. The stimulus package was Congress’ attempt to promote consumer spending and revive the flagging economy through a combination of tax rebates, business tax incentives and housing provisions worth a total of $124.5-billion through the end of fiscal 2018. Despite most lawmakers’ initial optimism, recent signs are it hasn’t achieved its intended effect; August housing starts hit a 17-year low and credit rating agencies are forecasting weak holiday sales this winter. But can Obama really take credit for having ""formed the basis"" of the plan? He did articulate some policy proposals that found their way into the package, but he was far from the only politician promoting ways to prime the economy. And in many cases, he was endorsing ideas that already had been raised by others. The economic stimulus plan began life on Jan. 11, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sent President Bush a letter asking him to help hammer out a bipartisan package to shore up the economy. By enlisting White House involvement, Pelosi and Reid hoped to pre-empt a possible avalanche of competing proposals to address the nation's economic problems. Bush endorsed the idea on Jan. 17, and the next day delivered an economic address calling for tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for businesses to deliver ""a shot in the arm"" to the faltering economy. Obama announced his plan in a news release on Jan. 13. The backbone of Obama’s plan was tax relief for working-class Americans and senior citizens. He called for an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and a $250 bonus for seniors, to be delivered in their Social Security checks. He advocated further cuts if the economy continued to worsen. And he backed expanding unemployment insurance and providing relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis. Congress decided to go much further on the question of rebates. The final package incorporated a House-written stimulus plan that directed $600 payments to individuals who paid taxes in 2007 on wages or investment income, and $1,200 for couples. The payments would phase out beginning with individuals who made more than $75,000 in adjusted gross income and couples with more than $150,000. But anyone qualifying for a check would receive an additional $300 for each dependent child under age 17. It should be noted that the practice of providing tax breaks in tough times is not exactly new, meaning no one in the current Congress can claim credit for thinking up the idea. President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, for example, sent rebates of $300 for individuals and $600 for married couples filing jointly in the hopes of stimulating the economy, though the payments in that instance were called ""advance refunds."" Obama’s call for expanded unemployment insurance never made it into the stimulus package, though Democratic leaders included an extension of the program in a supplemental war spending bill that Congress cleared in June. The provision, which gained traction after the nation’s jobless rate recorded its biggest jump in 20 years, extended unemployment insurance in all states by 13 weeks beyond the 26 weeks already authorized under law. States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher got an additional 13 weeks. So while Obama might have broached the idea, it took dire news from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to prod Congress into taking action. Obama’s somewhat vague call for relief to distressed homeowners also was not included in the stimulus package. However, similar, more detailed plans had floated around Congress for nearly a year, as the depth and intensity of the mortgage crisis became apparent. Lawmakers including Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut — a former Democratic presidential candidate — and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., discussed ways of averting more foreclosures as early as March 2007, including creating public-private ""rescue funds"" that ease the way for borrowers to rewrite the terms of their mortgages. These discussions eventually led to provisions in a mortgage relief bill that Congress enacted and President Bush signed on July 30 that established a temporary government program to help borrowers who can’t afford current mortgage payments avoid foreclosure. The program, called HOPE for Homeowners, reinsures mortgages between Oct. 1, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2011, thereby making the government liable if the borrower defaults on the new loan and if the amount received in foreclosure is less than the outstanding principal. The costs of the program will be paid for by funds diverted from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As to Obama's claim that his economic plan ""formed the basis"" for the package that became law, we see lots to dispute that. Congress had its own ideas about the size of tax rebates to individuals and didn’t adopt Obama’s ideas about unemployment insurance or homeowner relief. What’s more, lawmakers on committees with jurisdiction over the housing market discussed more detailed plans for helping homeowners months before Obama articulated them. Obama clearly deserves credit for offering a plan to bolster the sagging economy before Congress acted. But he is exaggerating the role his plan played in the stimulus package, which was jointly constructed with congressional leaders and the White House."
|
9261
|
Implanted device successfully treats central sleep apnea, study finds
|
In a small study published in The Lancet, a nerve-stimulating pacemaker was surgically implanted in patients already suffering from central sleep apnea. The 151 patients were randomly assigned to either an activated device (68) or to a control group (73) whose device remained inactive. After six months, a little more than half (51%) of the group receiving the active neuro-stimulator device showed their apnea events per night cut in half or more, compared to 11% of the control group with the inactive implant. The release provided a good discussion of the benefits, and used absolute numbers to quantify them. The principal investigator is a consultant for the device company that paid for the research, which the release disclosed in an end note. The release could have provided more context on how the device might impact future quality of life, and where the neuro-stimulator is placed. One might imagine it is in the brain rather than in the chest pectoral region which is the case here. Central sleep apnea (CSA) occurs when the brain fails to signal sleep properly. It is less common than obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) which results in disrupted breathing during sleep because of upper airway obstruction. It isn’t easy to try to estimate how many Americans have CSA. The release notes that “CSA is a serious concern because it affects about a third of people with heart failure and it’s known to make the condition worse.” The rate of CSA referenced in the published study is 0.9% or 9 out of 1,000. Another recent study estimated that 9 percent of a group of 5,000 patients in a sleep and heart health program had CSA.
|
mixture
|
Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center,Sleep apnea
|
There was no mention of cost. Surgery to implant a device is likely to be quite costly and it will require maintenance. We were glad to see absolute numbers and not just percentages used to quantify the benefits of the study. “At the six month evaluation, the device reduced CSA events per hour by half or more for 35 of the 68 members (51 percent) of the treatment group. Only eight (11 percent) of those in the control group achieved the same reduction.” A bit more discussion on how the device might impact future quality of life or how long the benefit might be sustained — provided the data was available — would have been useful context. The release contains this short phrase “without causing serious side effects” in reference to potential harms. We find that inadequate considering that CSA is serious condition that occurs in already very ill people. Presumably, they would be susceptible to a range of risks for side effects from the surgical placement of the device. The release also states that 10 study enrollees were “excluded due to non-study related medical issues or deaths, exiting the study or missing visits,” and “About a third of patients in the treatment group reported therapy-related discomfort that was resolved with some reprogramming of the device.” We think a discussion on why some patients exited the study (was it due to intolerance?) and some details on “therapy-related discomfort” were warranted here. Overall, the release contains enough information for readers to judge the quality of the evidence. It includes information about the randomized trial and number of patients in both the control and experimental groups, as well as the duration. Most of the outcomes had objective measures — and that’s to the good — but important patient-relevant outcomes like congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, cardiovascular event rates, etc., were not studied. The release could have mentioned that this was a limitation of the research. There was no disease mongering. The release meets this standard with an end note stating that the study was funded by the manufacturer of the device, and that the quoted researcher is a consultant to the manufacturer. We are glad to see news releases beginning to incorporate more transparency and addressing conflicts of interest. We give this a borderline satisfactory rating. The release gives brief mention to a common treatment for sleep apnea — continuous “positive airway pressure,” or CPAP devices — but it provides little context other than to say “many patients don’t tolerate them well and a recent study showed them to be harmful.” The release could have included more context to help a reader evaluate the traditional treatment compared to the surgical implant, or weigh risks vs. benefits of having the implant. The implant was made available to patient volunteers through a clinical trial, and that’s an implication to savvy readers that the device isn’t available to the general public. But there’s no clear indication of whether the device is on the market or not. The news release should have stated that it is not generally available and it is unknown if major payers will cover it if it ever comes into wider use. The release does not make any claim of novelty, and that’s unfortunate. The published study did note that the trial was the first of its kind, to the best of knowledge of the researchers. But readers who don’t go beyond the release won’t be privy to this. We did not find unjustifiable language.
|
36371
|
"Alabama's abortion ban includes ""tacked on"" language enabling the prosecution of people who report a rape if the accused is not found guilty."
|
Does the Alabama Abortion Ban Have a ‘False Rape’ Reporting Clause?
|
mixture
|
Fact Checks, Politics
|
Four days before the Alabama Senate voted to pass a near-total ban on abortion in Alabama, a Facebook screenshot by act.tv of two tweets (archived here) claimed that the legislation included a clause enabling imprisoning those reporting rapes in the state if the accused was not found guilty:A tweet at the bottom by Adam Savage from May 9 2019 was still live on May 15 2019, but whatever he retweeted was no longer available. Together, they read:so the Alabama abortion criminalization bill has an extra tacked on to the end of it wherein, if a woman reports being raped and they find the person she accused not guilty, SHE goes to jail, because it’s declared a false rape accusation.What. The. Fucking. Fuck. (I rarely curse this pointedly on the tweets but this shit just keeps getting darker and darker)The original accusation was worrisome, especially compared with statistics about reporting and successfully prosecuting rape charges overall.A 2018 Washington Post piece, relying on data from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), noted that less than a third of rapes are reported to police. From there, prosecution statistics are bleak:Just 5.7 percent of incidents end in arrest, 0.7 percent result in a felony conviction and 0.6 percent result in incarceration, RAINN found. The organization’s website notes these figures are approximations, not scientific estimates, because their analysis “combines data from studies with different methodologies.”Back to the May 2019 passage of a new abortion ban in Alabama, the bill as it passed (Alabama House Bill 314) was available for review on the state’s legislature site. No portion of that bill mentioned the word “rape,” as the legislation famously allowed no provision for individuals who become pregnant as a result of rape to legally obtain an abortion in the state of Alabama. Consequently, penalties for false reporting of rape would be out of place, as rape survivors in the state of Alabama were legally unable to obtain an abortion under the law in the form in which it was passed.In that light, it looked as if the claim was entirely false. However, that wasn’t exactly the case.Savage’s tweet appeared on May 9 2019; on May 8 2019, Alabama news site AL.com reported on a bill proposed by Alabama State Representative Dickie Drake in an article with the headline, “Alabama bill would criminalize false rape accusations”:The bill, introduced by Rep. Dickie Drake, R-Leeds, would make falsely reporting a sex crime a Class C felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the accused is found not guilty, the accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person’s legal expenses.It is already illegal to make a false police report in Alabama. […]Drake said he decided to create the bill because of a friend whose ex wife falsely accused him and his new wife of sexually abusing their kids.As AL.com noted, the false reporting of any crime was already a crime itself. Drake’s bill was House Bill 544 [PDF], and available for review in the same format as House Bill 314. HB 544 was introduced on May 2 2019, reading in part:BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA: 19 Section 1. Section 13A-6-72 is added to the Code of Alabama 1975, to read as follows: (a) A person commits the crime of making a false sexual allegation if: (1) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, or sexual torture, and whose allegations are proven to be false. (2) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, indecent exposure, enticing child to enter vehicle, house etc., for immoral purposes, sexual abuse of a child under 12, or foster parent engaging in a sex act, etc., with a foster child, and whose allegations are proven to be false.In the above tweet, the original poster said, “if a woman reports being raped and they find the person she accused not guilty, SHE goes to jail, because it’s declared a false rape accusation.” By contrast, the law held if “[a person reporting a rape] willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape … and whose allegations are proven to be false” he or she could be charged with a ” Class C felony.” (In Alabama, a Class C felony is punishable by between one year and one day and ten years in prison. )Under the wording of House Bill 544 as proposed, the individual would have to “willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, make a false report of rape” in order to be charged. However, the “whose allegations are proven to be false” portion introduced some ambiguity as to whether that included false reporting of a sexual assault with intent to deceive, or simply a defendant being found not guilty.Unlike House Bill 314 banning nearly all abortions in Alabama, House Bill 544’s rape reporting legislation had not yet been passed as of May 15 2019. The original post implied that the two bills were one, which was not the case. However, it was true that both bills traversed the Alabama state legislature at the same time and both were real. Also, given the already extremely low rate of rape prosecution, it stood to reason House Bill 544 would deter sexual assault victims from reporting their assaults for fear of further consequence.The circulating pair of tweets are not exactly untrue, but they conflate two bills: Alabama’s abortion ban and a proposed rape reporting law. As of May 15 2019, nearly all abortion was slated to become illegal in the state of Alabama, and a proposed bill would enact penalties for “false rape” reporting. Although the two bills are separate, both are authentic.
|
2005
|
Teen substance abuse on rise over past 3 years: study.
|
Substance abuse has trended upward among American teens over the past three years after a decade of declines, according to a report issued on Wednesday by the Partnership at Drugfree.org.
|
true
|
Health News
|
It said marijuana and ecstasy use among teens shows marked increases while attitudes toward alcohol use have become more relaxed. The study, sponsored by MetLife Foundation and the 22nd in an annual series, found that between 2008 and 2010 teens who said they had used marijuana in the past year climbed to 39 percent from 32 percent. Between 2008 and 2010, teens who said they had used the “party” drug ecstasy in the past year increased to 10 percent from six percent. The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study, which based its findings on a survey of around 2,500 high school students, found that 45 percent said they do not see a “great risk” in heavy daily drinking, while 31 percent strongly disapprove of their peers getting drunk. A total of 68 percent of those surveyed said they had had at least one drink in their lifetimes. Among them, the average age for that drink was 14. Sean Clarkin, director of strategy for the Partnership at Drugfree.org, which last year changed its name from the Partnership for a Drug Free America, said the normalization of drug use in social media, the proliferation and discussion of medical marijuana, and budget cuts to substance abuse prevention programs have contributed to the rise of substance use and abuse. “There are very high levels of kids reporting that they are using drugs and alcohol to deal with stress,” Clarkin told Reuters in a phone interview, adding that the struggles families face in the current economy could be a factor in that. “The net impact of all that puts an even heavier burden on parents who really need to play a active roll in preventing this behavior and knowing how to get help for a kid when they are abusing any of these substances,” Clarkin said.
|
10491
|
Device breathes new life into sleep apnea sufferer
|
This article on one woman’s successful diagnosis and treatment for sleep apnea is an example of a local newspaper feature whose main benefit is to raise awareness of a little-understood condition. The article accomplishes this. But the article falls far short of journalistic best practices in several significant ways: It draws exclusively on the experience of one patient, who works for the doctor who treated her and whose professional position with the sleep medicine facility creates a conflict of interest. She is not an unbiased source. It does not include the perspectives of independent sleep specialists who can provide context, caveats and other insight into the treatment and its alternatives. It does not include references to any independent research into efficacy of the CPAP treatment generally or patient compliance rates. It also provides no data on alternative treatments. It does not provide any information about the costs or insurance coverage of diagnosis or treatment, which in this case are considerable.
|
false
|
"The article makes no mention of the costs of the testing for sleep apnea, the CPAP device itself or the continuing costs of operation. All are considerable. The article does not indicate whether any of the costs are covered by insurance or Medicare. The article makes no attempt to quantify the benefits of treatment generally for people treated by CPAP. Nor does it attempt to do so with the featured patient, beyond the self-reported of success. While not precisely a harm, low compliance is a serious problem with CPAP patients, many of whom do not get used to the device and stop using it. Non-compliance continues the patient’s exposure to the serious consequences of sleep apnea, including cardiovascular, cognitive and mood issues, impaired relationships and work performance, and danger from falling asleep while driving. Other treatment problems include failure to adjust the machine over time, and failure to replace the non-durable elements such as hoses and face mask. All can compromise treatment efficacy. The article provides no evidence of the efficacy of CPAP treatment beyond the patient’s successful experience. The article states that ""Obstructive sleep apnea affects 20 million Americans."" But no source is given for that estimate, which may be inflated. Also, the story veers toward disease mongering because it spends a significant amount of space detailing the experience of a woman whose quality of life is severely affected by apnea. Are we to believe that 20-million Americans are so affected? The only source interviewed, beyond the patient herself, is the sleep specialist who treated the patient. Because the patient works for the facility that treated her, she is not a fully credible source. The article briefly mentions surgery and changing sleep position as options, but does not provide sufficient detail about their variety, limits and potential applications. Some patients prefer trying behavioral changes, especially weight loss, or mechanical devices before using CPAP; this should have been acknowledged. There is an experimental treatment that stiffens the upper palate that, while not been widely used or studied, might have been worth mentioning. The article implies, correctly, that the continuous positive airway pressure treatment is widely available via sleep treatment centers. The article makes no claim that CPAP treatment is novel. We can’t be sure if the article was prompted or informed by a press release, but we do know that it discusses only one patient who is an employee of the only sleep center that is cited in the story."
|
|
23317
|
"Florida seniors are exempt"" from losing Medicare Advantage under the federal health care bill."
|
George Pataki says Florida seniors get 'Gator Aid' to protect their Medicare Advantage
|
false
|
Medicare, Florida, George Pataki,
|
"Did Florida seniors get a deal dubbed ""Gator Aid"" that protected their Medicare Advantage unlike the rest of the nation? That's the case, according to former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, who is now chairman of Revere America, an organization that aims to repeal the health care bill. Pataki announced his campaign to target members of Congress who voted for the bill at a Sept. 8 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Here is the full context of what Pataki said about Medicare Advantage and Florida around minute 9:25 on the video: ""In addition, there are a lot of lawsuits out there. Attorney General McCollum in Florida has one on behalf of Florida and other states. And Revere America will be involved in a lawsuit being brought by the lieutenant governor of Missouri, which is very interesting because it's not government-versus-government; it's based on some of the corrupt deals in this bill -- in this case, the fact that if you're a senior citizen on Medicare Advantage, you will lose in the overwhelming number of cases that ability to have Medicare Advantage, unless you live in the state of Florida, because they made a corrupt deal for a Florida vote, so that Florida seniors are exempt. And we believe that is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection."" For this Truth-O-Meter we wanted to check: Are Florida seniors exempt from losing Medicare Advantage? First, some background on Medicare Advantage. A Dec. 23, 2009, Truth-O-Meter item about Medicare Advantage explained it this way: ""Medicare Advantage is an optional program that lets Medicare recipients 65 and older receive their benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the traditional Medicare program. The idea behind the program was to save the government money, but it hasn't worked out that way. ""Under the program, the government pays Advantage companies a set amount per enrollee, about $10,000, and they make a profit if they keep average costs below that level. The reimbursement amounts to about 14 percent more, on average, than the government spends on a traditional Medicare beneficiary. ""The extra money allows companies to offer Medicare Advantage members additional services, such as prescription drug, vision and dental coverage at a much lower cost, as well as other perks like gym memberships. About 11 million people are enrolled in the program nationwide."" According to a September 2010 fact-sheet about Medicare Advantage from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the health reform law ""reduces federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time, bringing them closer to the average costs of care under the fee-for-service Medicare program."" About 24 percent of the 47 million people enrolled in Medicare are on Medicare Advantage, according to Kaiser. The December 2009 PolitiFact provides us with background regarding an initial plan that would have helped Florida seniors on Medicare Advantage. But remember, that Truth-O-Meter item was written before the final version of the bill passed in March 2010. That PolitFact report examined a claim by Karl Rove that U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, got a ""$25 billion to $30 billion carve-out for Medicare Advantage patients,"" for Florida. Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said on Fox News: ""Every Medicare Advantage policyholder in America, except those in Florida, will see a huge cut in the federal support for those policies, and as a result, a dramatic decline in their benefits and an increase in their premiums, except if you live in Florida."" Nelson had initially sought to grandfather in all seniors on Medicare Advantage at the time, said Nelson spokesman Bryan Gulley. But the Senate said that was too expensive so Nelson proposed an amendment that protected Medicare Advantage for seniors who lived in areas where services cost the highest. But the bill itself didn't mention Florida -- it was based on a formula and would have benefitted a few states. The previous PolitiFact quoted a spokesman for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., as saying that the protection would help seniors in their states, too. Nelson's amendment, part of the broader health care bill, passed the Senate in December 2009 and the House in March. But it was changed in the reconciliation bill -- the final bill President Barack Obama signed into law. Under the president's plan, Gulley said, ""Florida would not benefit over anybody else ... because the cuts were more evenly spread across the whole country, meaning that seniors in states like Florida wouldn't be unfairly penalized."" We asked Gulley to send us the provision in the bill that passed with Nelson's language and the final version, which cut it. Note that HR 3590, which was approved by the House and Senate and includes Section 3201 on Medicare Advantage Payment, doesn't state ""Florida"" but includes a series of formulas. HR 4872, the reconciliation bill, includes the following language in Section 1102: ""a) Repeal- Effective as if included in the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sections 3201 and 3203 of such Act (and the amendments made by such sections) are repealed."" A March 28, 2010, article in the Miami Herald stated that Nelson ""successfully amended an early version of the health care bill to soften cuts to Medicare Advantage, a privatized Medicare program. But the amendment was killed after Republicans denigrated it as a backroom deal for Florida that was nicknamed 'Gator Aid.' "" We contacted Pataki spokesman David Catalfamo Sept. 16. He sent us this: ""Section 3201 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as 'PPACA,' or 'Obamacare' (as amended by H.R. 4872, Sec. 1102) reduces Medicare Part C ('Medicare Advantage') supplemental coverage for most Americans by eliminating the Medicare Advantage Stabilization Fund. This process begins on January 1, 2011, by freezing payments at 2010 levels. Medicare supplemental coverage reimbursements are then reduced to an unsustainable level beginning in 2012. This prohibition on Medicare Advantage supplemental coverage applies to all U.S. citizens, except individuals living in certain qualifying Florida counties described in Section 3201(c)(3)(B) of PPACA. This is the provision that it opponents labeled 'Gator Aid.' "" We asked Catalfamo if he was quoting from a document or if this was his own analysis. And we summarized for him what we had learned from Nelson's office and asked him to point to a specific section in the final bill that included an exemption for Florida. On Sept. 20, he sent us this response and attached bills: ""The exact 'Gator Aid' provision that was in the first bill was removed when the House reconciliation bill was passed, and replaced with a provision that did the same thing, but did not name counties outright and instead provided very narrow criteria to isolate certain counties in Florida and 2 counties in other states."" Then he sent us links to the bills. We asked Catalfamo on Sept. 20 to allow us to speak directly to his policy expert providing the information on Medicare to point us to the specific provision in the final bill that would provide a unique benefit to Florida. A week later, we had not heard from anyone willing to speak on the record. We reached three experts about Medicare Advantage who disputed Pataki's claim. Our sources: Brian Biles, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University; Marc Steinberg, deputy director of health policy at Families USA, a nonprofit health consumer organization; and Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesperson for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Steinberg put it the most bluntly: ""I really think they are 100 percent wrong,'' he said. Congress is scaling back the payments to Medicare Advantage plans to bring them more in line on average to what is paid in Medicare. But it's too soon to say what that means for the average senior in various parts of the country while the reductions are being phased in over a few years. It's possible some Medicare Advantage providers will get out of the business, cut services or increase costs, he said. The change in the payment formulas isn't flat across the country -- it takes into account geographic differences, Steinberg said. For example, the payment rates to health care companies will be scaled back more in counties that were well above the Medicare average while counties that were below the Medicare average could see the health care providers receive higher reimbursements. That means that some Florida seniors could see a reduction in benefits to their plans, Steinberg said. ""I think it's really a misreading of the law,'' Steinberg said. ""It doesn't seem to understand what Medicare Advantage is or how the new payment formula works and it really misinterprets the geographic adjustment."" Biles, who co-wrote a paper on Medicare Advantage comparing costs in various states including Florida, said in an interview ""in the final bill again some of the South Florida counties are paid among the lowest amounts relative to fee for service of any counties in the country."" In fact, Biles' paper shows that in 2009, the level of Medicare Advantage payments in Florida had been 103 percent of the payments to the traditional fee-for-service costs, while the national average was higher at 113 percent. Under the new payment plan, Florida Medicare Advantage providers will be paid 94 percent of traditional Medicare, still lower than the national average of 101 percent. Biles said in an e-mail that ""Florida was never a significant part of the extra payment to MA plans problem."" Nonetheless, he said, some plans in South Florida under the new law will be paid a lower percentage of traditional Medicare ""than any plans anywhere in the nation at any time in the 25-year history of the Medicare private plan program."" That's not exactly a sweet ""Gator-Aid"" drink for Florida seniors. Ashkenaz, after reading Pataki's claim, responded in an email: ""there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that impacts MA (Medicare Advantage) in this way."" Let's review: Does ""Gator-Aid"" exist in the form of a special deal for Florida seniors and Medicare Advantage? U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's spokesman said that Nelson tried to get a break for a few high-cost areas including parts of Florida, but that provision was repealed in the final version of the law. The experts we spoke to are adamant and unanimous that Pataki's description is wrong."
|
6110
|
Trump orders faster issuance of air pollution permits.
|
President Donald Trump prodded federal regulators Thursday to quicken processing of air quality permits for businesses, saying it would boost economic growth and job creation but drawing criticism from environmentalists who described the move as a green light for polluters.
|
true
|
Clean Air Act, Air pollution, North America, Environment, Donald Trump, Air quality, Pollution
|
Among steps outlined in a White House memorandum to the Environmental Protection Agency were deadlines for acting on Clean Air Act permit applications, a search for changes in rules or procedures that would expedite permit decisions and giving state agencies greater authority to deal with air pollution. Trump said in a Rose Garden appearance he was directing the EPA “to cut even more red tape on our manufacturers so they can expand and will continue to hire and grow.” Tax cuts enacted late last year will help, he said, but “the cutting of regulations could have had the same or even bigger impact on our economy.” Trump’s memo does not propose specific regulatory rollbacks, focusing instead on EPA operations — particularly issuance of permits that limit emissions of contaminants such as ozone, soot, carbon monoxide and lead. Among provisions in the document: —A limit of 18 months for EPA to complete reviews of state plans for complying with changes in federal air pollution standards. —A limit of one year for final action on clean-air permits businesses need before starting construction of new or expanded facilities. —A review of whether federal plans that EPA has ordered some states to implement for reducing haze could be replaced with state plans. —A requirement that EPA take into account pollution from other countries when developing emission standards, which critics said would enable some states to avoid cleanup by blaming China, India or Mexico. —Allowing states to approve pollution increases in one area by “offsetting” them with reductions in another part of the state — or even in another state. John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said such offsets would violate a Clean Air Act requirement that cutbacks happen in the same area where pollution increases occur. Walke said Trump’s memo is “a laundry list of the fondest, dirty dreams of polluters and their air pollution attorneys.” The memo also would require EPA science advisers to examine purported “adverse public health or other effects” of revising clean air standards, which Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch described as a long-sought goal of industry groups that contend toughening pollution rules would cause harm such as raising costs of air conditioning. Environmentalists consider some of Trump’s proposals violations of the clean air law and will fight them in court if EPA carries them out, said Mary Anne Hitt of the Sierra Club. Ross Eisenberg, vice president for Energy and Resources Policy with the National Association of Manufacturers, praised the plan as “a tremendous step forward in helping manufacturers negotiate the maze of federal air permitting regulations.” ___ Flesher reported from Traverse City, Michigan.
|
7479
|
Whistleblower: US failed to prepare, sought quick virus fix.
|
The Trump administration failed to prepare for the onslaught of the coronavirus, then sought a quick fix by trying to rush an unproven drug to patients, a senior government scientist alleged in a whistleblower complaint Tuesday.
|
true
|
U.S. News, AP Top News, Malaria, Health, General News, Politics, United Nations, Virus Outbreak, Donald Trump
|
Dr. Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, alleges he was reassigned to a lesser role because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug pushed by President Donald Trump. He said the Trump administration wanted to “flood” hot spots in New York and New Jersey with the drug. “I witnessed government leadership rushing blindly into a potentially dangerous situation by bringing in a non-FDA approved chloroquine from Pakistan and India, from facilities that had never been approved by the FDA,” Bright said Tuesday on a call with reporters. “Their eagerness to push blindly forward without sufficient data to put this drug into the hands of Americans was alarming to me and my fellow scientists.” Bright filed the complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, a government agency that investigates retaliation against federal employees who uncover problems. He wants his job back and a full investigation. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a terse statement saying that Bright was transferred to the National Institutes of Health to work on coronavirus testing, a crucial assignment. “We are deeply disappointed that he has not shown up to work on behalf of the American people and lead on this critical endeavor,” HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said. According HHS, Bright has not reported to his new post. But his spokeswoman said that Bright is on sick leave, following his doctor’s orders, and that HHS has provided him no details on his new role. Bright’s complaint comes as the Trump administration faces criticism over its response to the pandemic, including testing and supplies of ventilators, masks and other equipment to stem the spread. There have been nearly 1.2 million confirmed cases in the United States and more than 70,000 deaths. Bright said his superiors repeatedly rejected his warnings that the virus would spread in the U.S., missing an early opportunity to stock up on protective masks for first responders. He said he “acted with urgency” to address the growing spread of COVID-19 — the disease the virus causes — after the World Health Organization issued a warning in January. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, said she plans to hold a hearing into his complaint next week, and Bright’s lawyers said he would testify. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appearing on MSNBC, called the complaint “very damaging.” In his complaint, Bright said he “encountered resistance from HHS leadership, including Secretary (Alex) Azar, who appeared intent on downplaying this catastrophic event.” During a Feb. 23 meeting, Azar, as well as Bright’s boss, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec, “responded with surprise at (Bright’s) dire predictions and urgency, and asserted that the United States would be able to contain the virus and keep it out,” the whistleblower complaint said. Bright said White House trade adviser Peter Navarro was a rare exception among administration officials, extremely concerned about the potential consequences of an outbreak. He described working with Navarro to break a bureaucratic logjam and set up military transport from Italy for swabs needed in the U.S. Navarro was the author of several urgent memos within the White House. Bright said Navarro asked for his help, saying the trade adviser told him the memos were needed to “save lives.” Navarro’s memos to top officials raised alarms even as Trump was publicly assuring Americans that the outbreak was under control. Bright’s allegation that he was removed over his resistance to widespread use of the malaria drug was already public, but his whistleblower complaint added details from emails and internal communications while bringing to light his early attempts to acquire N95 respirator masks, which he said were ignored by superiors. In late January, Bright said he was contacted by an official of a leading mask manufacturer about ramping up production. It was estimated that as many as 3.5 billion would be needed, while the national stockpile had about 300 million. The complaint said that when Bright tried to press the issue about masks with superiors at HHS, he was ignored or rebuffed. “HHS publicly represented not only that COVID-19 was not an imminent threat, but also that HHS already had all the masks it would need,” the complaint said. As the epidemic spread in the U.S. and engulfed the New York metropolitan area, Bright alleges that political appointees at HHS tried to promote hydroxychloroquine “as a panacea.” The officials also “demanded that New York and New Jersey be ‘flooded’ with these drugs, which were imported from factories in Pakistan and India that had not been inspected by the FDA,” the complaint says. Last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned doctors against prescribing the drug except in hospitals and research studies. In an alert, regulators flagged reports of sometimes fatal heart side effects among coronavirus patients taking hydroxychloroquine or the related drug chloroquine. Bright felt officials had “refused to listen or take appropriate action to accurately inform the public” and spoke to a reporter about the drug. He said he had to tell the public about the lack of science backing up its use, despite the drug being pushed by the president at press briefings. “As the death toll mounted exponentially each day, Dr. Bright concluded that he had a moral obligation to the American public, including those vulnerable as a result of illness from COVID-19, to protect it from drugs which he believed constituted a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety,” the complaint says. On Jan. 20, according to the complaint, the WHO held an emergency call that was attended by many HHS officials, and WHO officials advised that “the outbreak is a big problem.” Trump has accused the U.N. agency of mismanaging and covering up the spread of the virus after it emerged in China. He has also said he wants to cut the WHO’s funding. Bright’s agency works to guard against pandemics and emergent infectious diseases and is working to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. Top officials also pressured him to steer contracts to a client of a lobbyist, he reported. “Time after time I was pressured to ignore or dismiss expert scientific recommendations and instead to award lucrative contracts based on political connections,” Bright said in the call with reporters. “In other words, I was pressured to let politics and cronyism drive decisions over the opinions of the best scientists we have in government.” Zachary Kurz, a spokesman for the agency where Bright filed his complaint, said the office couldn’t comment or confirm the status of open investigations.
|
9117
|
Earlier blood testing for iron deficiency, anemia recommended for young women
|
This release reports on two separate studies, one combing the medical histories and records of more than 6,000 women, and another where 96 patients were surveyed. In the first study, researchers found that a significant number of young women had iron deficiency that wasn’t quite as severe as anemia. In the second study, they tried to find a way to predict who might have iron deficiency by asking about fatigue and other factors, but were unable to find a predictive question. The release declares that doctors should screen all teens for “iron deficiency” but this conclusion seems beyond the scope of the two studies. Finding teens who may suffer health issues from iron deficiency is a great goal. However, whether universal screening is the best way requires further research. For more context about the potential harms of over-screening, see this blog post from our archives. Screening every 16-year-old girl in the US for “iron deficiency” may not be the best idea. This news release goes too far in reporting on two studies about iron deficiency, which is a health issue for some teens. Readers are not given any balancing context on whether the screening could cause anxiety or lead to false-positive diagnoses that could lead to unnecessary treatment. These studies were exploratory and attempt to identify factors that medical staff could use to more selectively screen teens (or screen earlier) for iron deficiency. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine screening for anemia. The release stated that several adverse associations exist with anemia (lower math scores, poor attention) but those are likely associated with more severe anemia and it is not clear that the relationship is causal. In fact, screening more aggressively for iron deficiency could result in over-treatment.
|
mixture
|
anemia,iron deficiency,Penn State
|
The release mentions that existing hemoglobin tests are affordable, but that screening for iron-deficiency below the level of anemia can be costly. This squeaks by as discussing “costs” but we wish figures had been offered. Is affordable $2 or $20? Is costly $100 or $500? Numbers would help readers better understand the cost implications of screening. Both studies summarized in the release relate to measuring iron deficiency in adolescents, but the release doesn’t provide any numerical context to show specifically how teens would benefit from more aggressive screening. Will identifying these teens prevent specific health problems? The release relies on associations but not proven relationships between deficiency and poor health. Here is an excerpt: “Women are typically tested some time in their teens for anemia — the severe form of iron deficiency — using a quick and affordable hemoglobin test. However, iron deficiency can develop years before anemia and can be missed by hemoglobin testing alone.” The release is suggesting that before the “severe form” of iron deficiency is measured, there may be a less severe form. But this is not defined or quantified. Readers cannot judge how important the potential new screening would be without knowing how and when it would have a benefit and the definition of that benefit. Here is where the release addresses some potential benefit: “Iron deficiency without anemia has been associated with lower standardized math scores, attention deficit disorder and restless leg syndrome in children and adolescents. Among iron-deficient adolescent women there is a future risk of maternal iron deficiency and negative effects on infant health.” But the association is not the same as proof that the less severe form of iron deficiency is the cause of lower math scores, or other conditions listed. Screening is not without harms. The release does not mention any potential harms or downsides from identifying more teens with iron deficiency, or pre-anemia. Would a positive screen result in iron supplementation or a change in eating habits? Some research has suggested that mild iron deficiency is protective. Iron supplementation is associated with constipation and too much iron is harmful to the liver, heart and other organs. A harm to society might be more financial drain on an already strained health care system if widespread screening were adopted. The release describes the two studies and gives enough details about their methods and the questions they were trying to answer for readers to judge the quality of the evidence. However, contrary to the release headline, the two studies that were published do not contain specific recommendations for expanded or universal screening for iron deficiency. In the release itself, the study’s main author is quoted saying: “I think we need to establish the optimal timing for an objective assessment of adolescent iron deficiency and anemia.” She does not say that she knows the optimal timing. She further states that more research is needed. “In addition to timing, further research will be needed to determine which blood test for iron deficiency without anemia is accurate, cost-efficient and practical for routine doctor’s office use.” The release would have been stronger if it had included a sentence reminding readers that association is not causation. We don’t know that changing the iron levels in teens prevents any of the problems listed. There is probably very little harm and possibly some benefit to having lower iron stores, but the headline makes it seem like a disease. The release identifies the source of grant funding for both journal articles referenced. We wish it had also said “there are no conflicts of interest.” The alternative to expanded screening is the status quo so this category is not applicable. However, the release does note that once identified through additional screening, “Iron deficiency can be corrected with dietary changes and supplementation.” The release states that low-cost hemoglobin tests are affordable and given to most young women, but that more sensitive tests that screen for iron deficiency are more costly and thus “difficult to obtain in the doctor’s office.” The release does not make a claim of novelty. The headline, “Earlier blood testing for iron deficiency, anemia recommended for young women” is unjustified and is not supported by the study findings.
|
8964
|
Nucleix Announces Positive Clinical Results for Lung EpiCheck in Early Detection of Lung Cancer
|
This release describes a preliminary study of a new proposed blood test for lung cancer that’s going to be presented at an upcoming scientific meeting. The release frames the test as a potentially useful screening tool for detecting cancer in people who seem otherwise healthy. However, that’s not the population that the researchers studied and reported on — the study results came from individuals known to have (or not have) cancer. The test’s ability to correctly identify cancer in a seemingly healthy population whose cancer status is unknown is an entirely different matter — and one that must be assessed in subsequent studies to determine how useful the test may or may not be for screening. Other concerns include the lack of cost information and no mention of the harms from possible false positives or negatives. While the release seems more targeted to potential investors than the general public we still encourage releases to include relevant information on benefits, potential harms and clear descriptions of the evidence. Lung cancer can be a vicious disease and many advanced cancer patients are given a poor prognosis. Part of the challenge of improving outcomes is earlier detection, so a potential blood test that could screen for the disease would be advantageous. But this work is very preliminary and its difficult to assess its potential value. Readers, particularly lung cancer patients and their families, may derive false hopes from the way the test is pitched in the release.
|
false
|
lung cancer screening,Nucleix
|
There’s no discussion of cost. While we understand that this news release is touting a product in the early stage of development, it would still be beneficial to give readers some idea of the projected cost. The release touts this as a new screening tool to detect lung cancer, and the release provides numbers on both the specificity and sensitivity of the test, indicators of how good the test is at detecting disease and at ignoring disease-free individuals. While that’s a good start, there are also big problems here. The release claims that the test will assist with the early detection of lung cancer in people who are seemingly healthy. And yet the data referenced in the release came from patients already known to have lung cancer and either current or former smokers who didn’t have lung cancer — not a general population of at-risk people whose lung cancer status is unknown. This is a crucial distinction. Testing in a much broader group is needed to determine how effective the test would actually be when used to screen healthy people in practice. There’s no discussion on the potential harms of the screening test. False positives can result in invasive and potentially dangerous procedures and false negatives can give a false sense of security, which can prevent or delay other interventions such as smoking cessation. The potential for false positives and negatives are very high for this blood test, according to the results presented in the release: In particular, in the non-small-cell lung carcinoma group (n=162), the most prevalent type of lung cancer affecting about 85% of lung cancer patients, Lung EpiCheck was able to identify correctly approximately 70% of patients. With a correct identification of 59% of stage I patients, 77% of stage II, 76% of stage III and 83% of stage IV patients. Of note, low dose CT scanning for lung cancer has reported false-positive rate that is lower than the rate reported for this blood test — and yet according to recent real-world experience, it still returns some 2,749 false positives for every lung cancer death averted. In the study, the test used blood from either known lung cancer patients or current or former smokers known not to have lung cancer. The researchers didn’t prospectively look at individuals whose lung cancer status wasn’t known — which is a much tougher and more realistic assessment of how the test would perform in practice. Moreover, the release notes the research will be presented during an upcoming scientific conference. It has not yet gone through peer review and been published in a scientific journal. The authors’ conclusions state that this test “could” improve diagnosis in the future. That’s conjecture at this point. Finally, the usefulness of a screening test depends upon the prevalence of disease in the population being tested. If the population had a 1-in-10 chance of getting lung cancer, the likelihood of a positive result being cancer is only about 10%. But in this study of current lung cancer patients and current and former smokers, the prevalence of lung cancer is higher at 28% (1-in-7), making the likelihood that a positive test means cancer is about 82%. (See our primer — Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value — for more details on these calculations.) In the real world, the number of people who develop lung cancer is lower than in these examples, which is why screening even with a test much more accurate than this one would likely return a prohibitive number of false-positive results — something we addressed in this recent analysis of a different experimental blood test for lung cancer. The release doesn’t engage in disease-mongering. Lung cancer is widely understood to be a potentially devastating disease. The release provides some context on the prevalence of lung cancer worldwide. There is some concern that people at very low risk might be encouraged to ask for the test based on the positive report on this preliminary test. It’s clear from the release that the research was supported by the company that makes the proposed lung cancer screening tool. Neither the release or abstract provide information on whether or not there are financial conflicts of interest between the investigators and the company that makes the test. The release notes alternatives to the blood test include the standard CT scan. Currently, early stage lung cancer can be detected either accidentally, when testing for other conditions, or by using low-dose CT scans, which are costly, carry associated risks such as high radiation, and are employed only for a very high-risk population. We’ll give this a marginal satisfactory for giving readers a hint that the test is not yet available when it says the company is “looking forward to begin extensive clinical trials in the US, Europe and China next year, in order to get the test to the market as soon as possible at an affordable price.” That tells us that the test is likely years away from being commercialized — if ever. The release claims the test is a novel detection method but there are many other screening tests — often called “liquid biopsies” for lung cancer at various stages of development. The release uses exaggeration to describe the results. One example: Such promising results combined with the simplicity of the test, could allow us to detect lung cancer at the early stages and hence improve 5-year survival from about 15% to about 50-70%. This will offer significant added value in the fight against lung cancer. That’s pure conjecture.
|
5266
|
Romney calls for early detection, logging to stop wildfires.
|
As wildfires ravage the U.S. West, Republican Senate candidate Mitt Romney has called for more logging and a high-tech early detection system in a plan that was met with some skepticism.
|
true
|
Wildfires, Utah, Environment, Fires, Ryan Zinke, Mitt Romney, U.S. News
|
Romney, a candidate in Utah, said in an essay that more logging would thin out forests and clear dead timber so fires have less fuel. “If the devastation of wildfires were being caused by a foreign enemy rather than by natural causes, we would do and spend whatever it took to stop it,” he wrote. U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also advocated for thinning out forests in a USA Today op-ed published Wednesday, as California fights its largest wildfire in state history. Zinke took aim at “radical environmentalists,” who oppose logging, but Romney said there could be common ground if stopping fires meant saving animals and habitat. Romney’s Democratic Senate opponent Jenny Wilson lauded protective measures but said Romney’s plan misses the mark by not specifically addressing climate change-linked factors such as warmer weather and drought. “We must address climate change as a national crisis in order to protect the American West,” she said in a statement. Romney said he also wants to beef up regional firefighter resources and create an early detection system of drones, satellites and sensors. Romney’s campaign didn’t provide additional detail on his ideas. Fire experts said an early detection system isn’t at the top of their wish list. The Utah governor’s office agreed with most of Romney’s plan but said most wildfires are spotted and suppressed quickly. “We believe that prevention, preparedness and suppression response capacity should be the top priorities for investment,” said Paul Edwards, deputy chief of staff for communications and policy. Such a system would likely be expensive and would only help with a small portion of wildfires — ones that start at night when people are asleep and are fast-moving near urban areas, said Tom Cova, director of the University of Utah’s Center for Natural and Technological Hazards “Detection of wildfires is not really a problem,” Cova said. More logging would help but wouldn’t solve the problem, he said. Firefighters use human spotters in lookout towers. There are also cameras placed on existing cell towers on mountaintops in many Western states, including Nevada and California, said Jessica Gardetto, spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Money spent thinning forests of weeds and other vegetation, especially near buildings, is well spent, she said. Wildfires are a confluence of many factors, including longer, hotter summers, she said. “We’re seeing more of a fire year whereas we were seeing fire seasons in the past,” she said. Nearly 1,000 fires large and small have been sparked in Utah alone this year, costing some $60 million to fight, the state said. ___ Associated Press reported Brady McCombs contributed to this report.
|
5085
|
West African nation of Guinea reports Lassa fever death.
|
Authorities in Guinea announced the first death from Lassa fever in more than two decades Thursday, heightening anxiety about another hemorrhagic fever in the West African country where an Ebola epidemic first emerged.
|
true
|
Liberia, Health, Guinea, Africa, Epidemics, Conakry, West Africa, Hemorrhagic fever
|
The Ebola outbreak in late 2013 went on to kill more than 11,000 people in part because local authorities and the international community were slow to act when cases first popped up in a rural part of the deeply impoverished nation. In a government statement, health authorities confirmed that at least one person was dead and more than two dozen others had been monitored for possible symptoms. However, critics questioned why the government was only now making the news public when the victim died Jan. 11. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the Guinean citizen died across the border in Liberia — the same way that Ebola initially spread. Guinea’s government had vowed to improve its response to crises after initial efforts were disorganized and met with mistrust. “This official silence in the face of an epidemic is the reason I buried eight members of my family who became victims of Ebola,” said student Allareenni Bangoura in the capital, Conakry. Authorities in Guinea, though, said appropriate contact tracing was done and that there was nothing for people to fear. “None of the patient’s contacts in Liberia became sick or tested positive for Lassa,” the statement said. It did not mention whether Liberian authorities had been informed. It said the World Health Organization was told two days after the death. There is no approved vaccine for Lassa fever, whose symptoms are similar to Ebola. After starting as a fever with aches and pains it can progress to headache, vomiting and diarrhea. According to WHO, severe cases can cause victims to bleed from the mouth and nose. Like Ebola, Lassa fever can be spread through contact with the bodily fluids of sick people. Humans also can contract it from eating food that has been tainted by the urine or feces of rodents. Dr. Sakoba Keita, who coordinated Guinea’s national response to the Ebola outbreak from 2014-2016, told private radio station Espace FM that the new Lassa fever case was the country’s first known one since 1996. The disease, however, has long existed in West Africa. Nigerian authorities have reported more than 440 suspected cases throughout the country so far this year, according to the non-governmental organization known as ALIMA. At least 40 people are believed to have died from Lassa fever there. ___ Larson reported from Dakar, Senegal.
|
3554
|
Who says you can’t eat red meat? Food advice questioned anew.
|
So is red meat good or bad for you? If the answer were only that simple.
|
true
|
Nutrition, AP Top News, Health, General News, Lifestyle, Science, U.S. News
|
A team of international researchers recently rattled the nutrition world by saying there isn’t enough evidence to tell people to cut back on red or processed meat, seemingly contradicting advice from prominent health experts and groups including the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association. But the researchers didn’t say people should eat more meat, or that it’s healthy. No new studies were conducted, and they reported no new understanding of meat’s effects on the body. Instead, the papers offer a new approach to giving advice about food and health — and a rebuke to how it’s often done. The dispute lays bare problems with nutrition research long acknowledged in the scientific world: Nutrition studies are almost never conclusive, and whatever supposed risk and benefits there are to any food are often oversimplified. “People like bumper sticker guidance,” said Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at Harvard who has led studies tying meat to bad health. Now health experts are wrestling with how solid scientific findings should be before guidance is issued, how to address biases that might skew conclusions and whether the pleasure we get from eating should be considered. The scrutiny is likely to spill over to other dietary advice as obesity becomes an ever more critical public health concern, and people become increasingly frustrated with flip-flopping messages. MEAT TWO WAYS The papers analyzed past studies on red and processed meat and generally corroborated the links to cancers, heart disease and other bad health outcomes. But they said the chance of any benefit from eating less of them appeared small or negligible. For every 1,000 people, for instance, cutting back on red meat by three servings a week was linked to seven fewer deaths from cancer. For some other health measures, like strokes, the difference was smaller or nonexistent. What’s more, the researchers said there’s little certainty meat was the reason for the differences. Uncertainty is common in nutrition research. Many studies about food and health are based on links researchers make between people’s health and what they say they eat. But that doesn’t prove one causes the other. If a thin person loves cereal and eats it nearly every day, for instance, that doesn’t mean cereal is the reason they’re thin. Health experts who defend advice to cut back meat say the researchers were applying an unreasonable standard — evaluating the strength of the meat studies with a method intended for medical studies, where a specific dose of drug can be tested under controlled conditions. With nutrition, they say it’s impossible to conduct studies where people’s diets and lifestyles are controlled and monitored over long periods. They say the statistical signals they see in nutrition studies are meaningful, and that people should be given guidance on the best available data. THE PERSON VS. THE POPULATION If it’s true that there would be seven fewer cancer deaths for every 1,000 people who cut back on red meat, then it is also true that 993 of those people would not see that benefit even if they ate fewer burgers. For many public health experts, the potential for those seven fewer deaths is worth making a broad recommendation to limit meat. Across an entire population, the numbers could add up to many lives saved. But the question is where to draw the line, and at what point the potential benefit is too small and uncertain to ask people to change their behavior. The authors also argue the individual being asked to change their behavior should be considered. For those who regularly eat and enjoy meat, cutting back on it may seem drastic if all they are getting in return is small reduction in risk, if any at all. “Recommendations should consider the values and preferences of people who actually bear the consequences,” said Bradley Johnston, lead author of the papers, who specializes in research methodologies. TILTING THE EVIDENCE Given the uncertainties of nutrition science, another long-running concern is the potential for findings to be skewed by personal beliefs or financial incentives. The latest papers were no exception, with critics and supporters each pointing to factors that could have influenced the others’ position. Critics noted Johnston, the lead author, undermined another dietary recommendation in the past. He previously led a study funded by the food industry that challenged guidelines to limit added sugars, which serves the interests of many food companies. That paper initially said the authors independently wrote the plan for the study. After emails obtained by the Associated Press showed the industry group sent “requested revisions,” the paper was corrected to say the group reviewed and approved the plan. Johnston and supporters of the papers countered, saying critics have long advised people to limit meat and could feel the need to defend their position. The back-and-forth underscores the difficulty of ruling out the biases any researcher is likely to have, given the amount of industry money in nutrition research and the strong beliefs people often have about food. Meat is an especially polarizing topic, given the animal welfare and environmental consequences that come with it. That could further confuse people about who or what to believe, or they just focus on research that backs up what they want to believe. LOST IN TRANSLATION Wherever researchers stand on meat, there’s agreement that the nuances of nutrition science often get lost in translation. Foods are often labeled as good or bad, even when researchers try to be nuanced. Take red meat. The advice to “limit” it often doesn’t specify by how much, which could lead people to think cutting back is good regardless of the context. But in poorer countries, red meat might help improve diets. In richer countries, Willett said the benefits of cutting back would vary depending on what replaces it, and that pizza might not be an improvement. Still, Willett and others who criticized last week’s papers say the many Americans who eat red meat once a day or more could benefit from eating less. There’s no consistent recommendation for an acceptable amount. The American Cancer Society’s experts say “a few” servings a week or less. A study by Willett, which also addressed the environmental impact of food, advised a limit of one serving a week. Public health experts want to give people advice that’s easy to communicate. But most acknowledge that doing a better job of conveying nuances and uncertainties could help prevent mistrust and confusion. SO WHAT SHOULD WE EAT? Already, the U.S. dietary guidelines have backpedaled on advice to limit total fat, which has been blamed for encouraging people to eat too much pasta and cookies. In the years since, the guidelines have focused on the saturated fat found in foods like meat, butter and some packaged foods, saying it should be limited to 10% of calories. As advice around specific foods changes, health experts have increasingly focused on the importance of overall diets. Some note focusing on single foods, which often have a complex mix of nutrients, can also distract from a simpler message: Don’t eat too much, since eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight. “If everyone would just pay attention to that one, we would solve a lot of problems,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food policy at New York University. ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
|
8535
|
Tokyo seeks shop shutdowns, Kyoto warns tourists away as coronavirus threatens Japan economy.
|
Metropolitan Tokyo asked some businesses to close and the ancient capital of Kyoto warned tourists to stay away as Japan battles a fast-spreading outbreak of the new coronavirus, amid fears the government’s measures are too little and too late.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike said she was targeting a range of businesses for shutdowns from Saturday during a month-long emergency through May 6, after resolving a feud with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s team over the extent of the closures. Koike had wanted to move sooner but Abe has resisted measures likely to put greater pressure on an economy which is already tipped to fall into recession, fuelling concerns that the central government is putting business ahead of people’s lives. “This will be tough on residents but if we act swiftly, the pain will be short and the outbreak contained quickly,” Koike told a task force meeting on Friday. Businesses including pachinko parlours and internet cafes are being asked to close and restaurants to shorten their hours. Department stores, home-furnishing centres and barber shops will be exempted, in a concession to the central government. Abe declared an emergency on Tuesday for Tokyo and six other prefectures but the details and timing of how life would change in the capital were thrashed out in tense inter-governmental talks. “I thought governors would get authority akin to a CEO but ... I feel more like a middle manager,” Koike told reporters in a sign of frustration over central government pressure. Abe’s move came after a jump in coronavirus cases in Tokyo sparked concern that Japan was headed for the sort of explosive outbreak seen in many other countries. The number of cases in Japan rose to 6,003 on Friday, with 112 deaths, NHK said. Tokyo accounted for 1,708 cases, heightening concerns about sluggish action. The governor of Aichi in Japan’s industrial heartland, which hosts Toyota Motor Corp, declared its own state of emergency on Friday and has asked to be added to the government’s targeted regions. Gifu in central Japan was also poised to issue an emergency declaration and at least one other prefecture was set to do the same, media said. The governor of Kyoto prefecture and the mayor of the ancient capital also asked to be included in the national emergency, and urged tourists to stay away from the city’s famous palaces, temples and gardens. “I call on all people who love Kyoto and tourists from all over the world - until this situation is ended, to protect yourself and your families, please refrain from visiting Kyoto,” Mayor Daisaku Kadokawa told a news conference. Critics say the Abe government’s cautious approach to business closures will undermine his goal to cut person-to-person contact by 80% to slow the spread of the pathogen. SoftBank Group CEO Masayoshi Son took to twitter to query the government’s handling of the outbreak. “Why has Japan put its economy minister in charge?” he asked, comparing the Japanese government’s response to the leadership of Antoni Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases in the United States. Tokyo Governor Koike had warned in March that the capital could face a full “lockdown” if infections surged, although Japanese law does not mandate penalties for residents who refuse to stay home or businesses that stay open. Koike also said that businesses that met her requests to close would receive between 500,000 yen ($4,595) and 1 million yen from a fund set up by the metropolitan government. Abe has rejected calls to compensate such businesses from the central government’s purse. The new coronavirus has pushed 51 Japanese companies into bankruptcy with a spike in new cases seen in April, Tokyo Shoko Research said on Friday. Interactive graphic tracking global spread of coronavirus: open tmsnrt.rs/3aIRuz7 in an external browser. ($1 = 108.8139 yen)
|
10892
|
Special Report: Life and death in the age of the bionic heart
|
This is a story about some of the new medical devices either on the market or in development to help people with serious heart conditions live longer. The story included several personal vignettes of individuals whose lives have been markedly improved with the technology. The story did a good job providing an interesting description of technology, but it failed to included any quantitative information that readers could use for insight about the likelihood of benefit or of harm from the use of the devices. It is not possible for readers to evaluate the value of a treatment in the absence of information about how well devices work, how often problems occur, and how much treatment costs. So, while we applaud the space and time provided to report on this topic, we think that some of the space and time should have been given over to an exploration of some of the issues we look for in our criteria.
|
false
|
"There was no discussion of costs – a huge issue. We learn a portfolio manager’s projection of the size of the potential market, but not a word about costs to the individual or to society. The three patients interviewed had clear improvement in their quality of life. The story provided no data to assess how representative their experience was. The story mentioned that infections, bleeding and stroke are fairly common without explaining what ""common"" really means. Are these problems that occur in more than half of patients? 25% 10% or ?%. The story also raised the issue of what to do when the implanted device is able to keep pumping even though the patient’s other organ systems have shut down. But it provided no insight about how often this issue was something families of patients have to deal with. The story included human interest vignettes rather than evidence. The story said that one of the manufacturers cited 1-2 year survival data of 60-70%, but we weren’t told if this is published and, if so, where. That’s not a rigorous evaluation of the evidence. There is no disease-mongering of end-stage cardiovascular disease. But there is in another area. The story raised the specter of ‘unnatural death’, a potential issue that can come up for patients who have the implanted device. It quoted a clinical ethicist saying, ""It’s not hard to imagine a person who has had severe stroke that has impacted both sides of the brain, the kidneys are shutting down, he is on a respirator, but yet the LVAD just keeps churning along."" But stories should do more than ""imagine"" – they should report on true track records. The story didn’t give readers an idea of how frequently this is an issue. Several clinicians and patients were interviewed as part of this story. The story did not compare outcomes of patients following different treatment approaches. It was clear from this story that the HeartMate II is an available product though the story did not indicate whether implantation of the device was something that could be done at any hospital or only in specialty facilities. The story was pretty clear that the LVAD and TETS technology had been around. Given the depth of the story, it’s clear that it didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release."
|
|
8309
|
Exclusive: South Korea set to ship coronavirus testing kits to U.S. - source.
|
South Korea plans to send kits designed to run up to 600,000 coronavirus tests to the United States on Tuesday after an appeal from U.S. President Donald Trump, a Seoul official said.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Trump made the request in a telephone call with President Moon Jae-in on March 25, as the United States was grappling with fast-growing outbreaks in many states. South Korean companies have previously shipped test kits to U.S. cities including Los Angeles, but this would mark the first bulk order from the U.S. federal government. A U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency cargo plane carrying the equipment is scheduled to leave at 10:30 p.m. (1330 GMT) on Tuesday, the official said on Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. South Korea’s foreign minister Kang Kyung-wha confirmed the Reuters report in an interview on French news channel France 24, saying that contracts have been signed and the shipments will be “ready any time soon”. The first shipments will be handed over to and paid for by the U.S. government, the official told Reuters. An additional package of kits that can conduct as many as 150,000 tests will be exported in the near future and will be sold through an unspecified local retailer, the official said. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) kits will be sourced from three companies that secured preliminary approval late last month from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to export kits to the United States, the official said. He declined to name the two companies that will provide the shipments on Tuesday. However, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said, on condition of anonymity, that one of the two firms is Osang Healthcare and the company will provide kits for 300,000 tests. Calls to Osang Healthcare for a comment were not answered. Once struggling with the first large outbreak outside China, South Korea has largely managed to bring its coronavirus cases under control without major disruptions thanks to a massive testing campaign and intensive contact tracing. South Korea credits part of its success to moves by government officials and private companies to develop and secure regulatory approval for tests, allowing the country to quickly test thousands of people. The United States has recorded more fatalities from COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus, than any other country, nearly 22,000 as of Sunday, with 42 states imposing strict stay-at-home orders. “We’ve moved as quickly as possible to get necessary clearances given the urgency of the situation there,” the South Korean official said.
|
3374
|
Tennessee county clinics offering free flu vaccinations.
|
Tennessee’s county health department clinics are offering flu vaccines at no charge.
|
true
|
General News, Nashville, Flu, Tennessee, Memphis, Public health
|
“It’s extremely important for young children, the elderly and pregnant women to receive a flu vaccine because they are at the most serious risk for illness or death from influenza,” Tennessee Health Commissioner Lisa Piercey said in a news release. She encouraged anyone who has not received a flu shot this season to get one as soon as possible. The state Health Department suggests contacting local health departments for information. Information about nearby departments is available online. Free flu vaccines are also available at the Shelby County Health Department in Memphis and the Metro Public Health Department in Nashville, in addition to health departments run by the state throughout Tennessee, the state said. Even after being vaccinated, the state Health Department recommends washing hands with soapy water or using alcohol-based hand sanitizers and covering coughs and sneezes with a sleeve or tissue to help prevent the spread of illness. People who are sick should stay home so they can recover and avoid infecting others.
|
37533
|
"The CDC had ""advanced knowledge"" of the COVID-19 outbreak in November 2019."
|
Did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Have ‘Advance Knowledge’ of COVID-19?
|
false
|
Disinformation, Fact Checks
|
In mid-March 2020, as the United States continued to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, the anti-science blog Natural News posted a “story” pushing the claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, “appears to have had advanced knowledge” of the disease.The only source for the allegation is a job posting on the CDC website for what the agency calls a public health advisor specializing in quarantines. The blog, though, refers to the position as “quarantine program advisor.”After republishing the job posting verbatim, the blog admits it cannot corroborate its “reporting”:Although we have no direct proof, it would be entirely consistent for the CDC to be part of a globalist program to deliberately release a deadly pandemic virus in order to push for mandatory vaccines and funnel billions of dollars into the vaccine manufacturers (which has already begun).Yet just a few paragraphs later, the blog claimed that “the proof is right on [the CDC’s] own website. The blog also claimed that the agency “had a hand in releasing measles at Disneyland in California in order to create mass media hysteria” favoring SB277, a state law passed in 2015 that bars parents from citing “personal beliefs” as a reason to oppose vaccinations if they want to enroll their children in public elementary school or secondary education.The blog also accused the CDC of deliberately stalling the implementation of test kits for the disease, citing a Politico report on the overnight delay faced by an official from the Food and Drug Administration when he arrived at CDC headquarters in Atlanta to coordinate test efforts.But while there have been several reports from legitimate outlets on the delays and mistakes the CDC has made in making testing kits that were free of defects, none of them have accused the agency of deliberately allowing the pandemic to fester.The post is another example of why Natural News topped the list of worst websites for science compiled in 2016 by RealClearScience (RCS), a site that actually adheres to scientific principles. According to RCS:Founder Mike Adams and his slew of contributors spew all sorts of conspiratorial, anti-science slime on a daily basis to their more than seven million monthly visitors. Examples include labeling the HPV vaccine Gardasil the “most dangerous vaccine in America”, claiming a “mass chemical suicide” is underway in the U.S. from contaminated drinking water, and comparing pro-GMO science writers to Nazis. Natural News has possibly done more to popularize conspiracy-oriented and pseudoscientific beliefs than any other news outlet this century.We contacted the CDC for comment regarding Natural News’ latest set of accusations, but we did not receive a response.
|
31933
|
President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to cut Social Security benefits.
|
But we can tell you with certainty that he said he would.
|
false
|
Politics, 2016 presidential election, donald trump, donald trump quote
|
Among the toughest long-term challenges facing President-elect Donald Trump and the incoming 115th U.S. Congress is ensuring the continued viability of the Social Security and Medicare programs, both of which, according to reports by their boards of trustees, face insolvency by the year 2034. On 8 December 2016, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson, chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, introduced legislation — titled The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 (H.R. 6489) — designed to “permanently” save Social Security: My commonsense plan is the start of a fact-based conversation about how we do just that. I urge my colleagues to also put pen to paper and offer their ideas about how they would save Social Security for generations to come. Americans want, need, and deserve for us to finally come up with a solution to saving this important program. Among other measures proposed by Johnson, the plan would gradually increase the normal retirement age to 69, progressively reduce benefits for the top half (in income) of retirees, and limit cost-of-living adjustments and spousal benefits for the highest-income retirees, while increasing minimum benefits for those who earn the lowest. No matter how it’s sliced and diced, Johnson’s plan calls for benefit cuts — one of the biggest no-nos in American politics. All eyes are therefore on President-elect Trump, who repeatedly said during the 2016 campaign that he would not consider cutting Social Security — or did he? Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders certainly thinks Trump said he wouldn’t: Donald Trump said he would not cut Medicare or Social Security. He must keep his word. It’s a life-and-death issue for millions of people. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 10, 2016 But Johnson’s plan has caused confusion, even among some who supported him, about Trump’s own position on the issue. At snopes.com we’ve been inundated with questions about what Trump does or doesn’t plan to do about Social Security, so we gathered together some of his more recent statements to see how they added up. On the whole — at least during the campaign — Trump has consistently said he’s against cutting benefits, while acknowledging that the system needs fixing: “Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it. Get rid of the fraud. Get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it. People have been paying it for years. And now many of these candidates want to cut it. You save it by making the United States, by making us rich again, by taking back all of the money that’s being lost.” (16 June 2015) Scott Pelley: “In your book, The America We Deserve, you proposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Is that still your plan?” Donald Trump: “Yeah, not anymore because now what I want to do is take money back from other countries that are killing us and I want to save Social Security. And we’re going to save it without increases. We’re not going to raise the age and it will be just fine.” (27 September 2015) “I’m going to save Social Security. You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. We have in Social Security thousands of people over 106 years old. You know they don’t exist. There’s tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we’re going to get it. But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to get less. We’re bringing jobs back.” (13 February 2016) “And it’s my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” (10 March 2016) “We’re going to save your Social Security and we’re going to save your Medicare. We are going to save it because we’re going to make our country rich again, we’re going to bring back our jobs. We’re not going to let our jobs go. And we’re going to be able to afford. You’ve been paying in it for a long time and a lot of these guys want it to be knocked to hell. It’s not going to happen, OK? Remember that. It’s not going to happen.” (4 April 2016) Going back further in time, we found statements contradicting his statements during the campaign, such as when, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. “The pyramids are made of papier-mâché,” he wrote, going on to suggest that the retirement age be raised to 70 and the system be at least partially privatized. But that was 16 years ago. He’s said nothing of the kind more recently. According to an unnamed source quoted by Bloomberg Week in May 2016, Trump insisted during a conversation with House Speaker Paul Ryan (who has generally supported entitlements cuts and has spoken in favor of Social Security privatization), that no Republican who vowed to cut Social Security could win the presidential election: According to a source in the room, Trump criticized Ryan’s proposed entitlement cuts as unfair and politically foolish. “From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump told Ryan. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more. '” There’s often a considerable disconnect between the promises candidates make on the campaign trail and the positions they take in office — especially when those promises differ from the stands taken by other powerful members of their own party — so we can’t predict whether or not Donald Trump will hold the line against any and all Social Security cuts.
|
26676
|
Donald Trump Says Joe Biden “was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!
|
Elements of Trump’s blame for the H1N1 pandemic that killed thousands of Americans are either wrong or misleading. Joe Biden was not in charge of the Obama administration’s H1N1 response. Trump overstated public confidence in his administration’s response to the coronavirus and downplayed confidence in the Obama administration’s response to H1N1.
|
false
|
Health Care, Public Health, Coronavirus, Donald Trump,
|
"President Donald Trump went on Twitter to applaud his administration’s response to the coronavirus and shift attention to another pandemic that happened when Joe Biden was vice president. The first U.S. case of a new H1N1 influenza virus (also called swine flu) was detected in April 2009, three months after the Obama administration began. The pandemic took a toll on Americans, with an estimated 60.8 million H1N1 cases and 12,469 deaths from April 2009 to April 2010. Worldwide, it’s estimated the virus killed between 151,700 to 575,400 people during its first year. (By August 2010, the World Health Organization said the virus had largely run its course.) Trump said Biden, a top Democratic presidential candidate, led an ineffective effort to combat the outbreak. ""Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!"" Trump tweeted March 12. Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest! Trump previously falsely claimed the Obama administration ""didn't do anything about"" swine flu. How does his recent tweet line up with the facts? He’s wrong about Biden’s role and omitted important context about his polling. ""Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people."" Biden was the vice president, but he was not in charge of the Obama administration’s handling of the H1N1 pandemic. That responsibility mainly fell on the leaders of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Trump enlisted Vice President Mike Pence to helm the country’s response to COVID-19.) Health policy experts told PolitiFact they did not recall Biden having a prominent leadership role. PolitiFact also reviewed archives of Obama’s public statements on H1N1 and found that Obama generally mentioned the leadership of department heads and of his homeland security adviser, not Biden. Biden’s coronavirus response plan says he ""helped lead"" the Obama administration’s response to H1N1 in 2009 and the Ebola virus in 2014. It does not offer further detail. The H1N1 response ""was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!"" Neither the White House nor Trump’s campaign responded to our requests for information backing Trump’s claim. If Trump was talking about public confidence in the federal government’s ability to handle outbreaks, he might have been referring to a Gallup poll taken Feb. 3-16. But he isn’t correct about its findings and ignores key context. A lot has happened since Gallup asked a random sample of 1,028 adults how confident they were that the federal government would be able to handle a coronavirus outbreak. Trump’s ""78% approval rating"" could be alluding to the combined 77% who were very confident (31%) or somewhat confident (46%). The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Gallup in February said that the 77% figure showed a higher level of confidence than Gallup had found for previous health scares during other administrations. But confidence in the 2009 H1N1 response was the second highest, not ""one of the worst on record."" The averages of two polls in 2009 showed that 67% of respondents were very confident or somewhat confident in the federal government’s ability to handle the H1N1 outbreak. Those two polls were released in May and August of that year, about a month and four months into the outbreak. Public confidence in the federal government’s handling of the Zika virus, Ebola virus, and bird flu were lower than for H1N1. Gallup’s February poll began days after the Trump administration announced restrictions on travelers who had been in China in the prior two weeks, and at that time, no one had died within the United States from the disease caused by the new coronavirus. ""This high level of confidence may be related to the fact that all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred abroad, rather than on U.S. soil,"" Gallup said in February. By the time of Trump’s March 12 tweet, there were more than 1,600 coronavirus cases in the United States and at least 41 deaths. Polling done after Gallup’s shows a drop in confidence in the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus. A Feb. 28-March 1 Morning Consult survey showed that 49% of voters approved of Trump’s response to the outbreak, down from 56% in a Feb. 24-26 survey — a decline fueled by drops among independents and Democrats. The poll surveyed 1,997 registered voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. Trump said, ""Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest! Biden was not in charge of the Obama administration’s H1N1 response. A Gallup poll in February — before any coronavirus deaths in the United States — showed that 77% of respondents had confidence in the administration’s handling of the outbreak. It ranked higher than averages of two 2009 polls on confidence in the Obama administration’s handling of H1N1. Public confidence in H1N1 was the second highest, not ""one of the worst"" or the ""lowest."" Polling done after the Gallup poll showed a decline in approval of Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. Trump’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
|
30708
|
Dr. Bandy Lee, who has warned the United States that Donald Trump is dangerously impaired, lacks a medical license.
|
It’s not about Mr. Trump as a person. We’re not insulting him. It’s simply about a public health threat he poses because of the power he now holds.
|
false
|
Medical, Campus Reform, daily caller, hal turner
|
On 10 January 2018, an article posted to the web site of white supremacist online radio host Hal Turner reported — falsely — that Dr. Bandy Lee, a renowned psychiatrist and violence expert at Yale University who has been vocal about her views on the deleterious societal effects of President Donald Trump’s mental state and presidency, did not have a medical license: For months, a woman purporting to be an expert in Psychiatry, has been unethically remotely diagnosing President Donald Trump, and has also been unethically publicly claiming he is emotionally unstable and thus unfit to be President. But a quick look into Dr. Bandy Lee shows she doesn’t have a License to practice! As proof of this claim, Turner posted a screen shot from a Connecticut professional license database along with triumphal text boasting his purported discovery that Lee’s physician’s license had “lapsed”: Medical doctors are required to be licensed by the states they practice in, and some maintain multiple licenses. So it wouldn’t be far-fetched to think that, even if Dr. Lee did not have a current license in Connecticut, she might hold one in another state. Despite this likelihood, and the fact Hal Turner is a brazen white supremacist, similar articles raising doubts about the status of Dr. Lee’s professional license also appeared on larger conservative web sites. First Campus Reform posted the story, splashing their proprietary watermark over the public record showing Lee’s license as “lapsed” in Connecticut, and then the Daily Caller picked it up. Campus Reform, a right wing web site funded by the Leadership Institute, that trawls the Internet and social media for signs of perceived liberalism on college campuses, reported: Yale University psychology professor Bandy Lee has deleted her Twitter account amid mounting allegations that she is not licensed in her home state of Connecticut. Accusations have been circulating on Twitter that the prominent Yale professor, known for her public diagnosis of President Donald Trump as having a “mental impairment” and who recently met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to discuss the issue, isn’t actually a licensed psychiatrist. Nonetheless, Dr. Lee does hold an active physician’s license in the state of New York: In a phone interview, Dr. Lee told us that the explanation for her lapsed license in Connecticut is a simple one: she previously held medical licenses in three states — California, Connecticut, and New York. (She also held a license in France for five years while working for the Ministry of Justice there.) But because her work as a forensic psychiatrist specializing in violence has led her to perform mostly consultation and policy-oriented work, she decided that holding multiple state licences wasn’t practical or necessary: I had been maintaining all three [state medical licenses], but it got to be a lot of work, so I decided for the consultation work I do that I don’t need a licensee in every state I consult in. I held New York, Connecticut and California for many years, but the Connecticut one I just let go of because in terms of maintenance you have to renew every year and it got cumbersome. In California you have to constantly update [Continued Medical Education]. I kept the New York license because it’s the easiest to maintain. Peter Fricke, editor of Campus Reform (a publication that claims to hold itself “to rigorous journalism standards”) told us they published the story headlined “Records show psych prof who ‘diagnosed’ Trump lacks license” without all the relevant information one would expect in such an article because when they reached out to Dr. Lee, she didn’t specify which state she was currently licensed in. Nevertheless, Fricke told us that he felt it was valuable to report Lee doesn’t hold a current Connecticut license, because she is on the faculty at Yale (which is in New Haven): She works in Connecticut and she uses her affiliation with Yale University to give relevance to what she does. We haven’t said anything that’s untrue. We did independently verify the status of her license in Connecticut. We were made aware of her story because she had deleted her Twitter account in the wake of the fallout. Lee has become yet another focus of disreputable partisan web sites that help foster online hate from some supporters of President Donald Trump. She found herself in the spotlight most recently after Politico reported on 3 January 2018 that she had traveled to Capitol Hill one month earlier to warn lawmakers that President Trump’s instability is a public danger, and that it will only get worse as time goes on. Lee also edited the October 2017 book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, and in mid-January 2018, she authored two op-eds in large publications delineating her concerns. Lee told us she deleted her Twitter account because after gaining the type of toxic, hyperpartisan attention that is now commonplace on social media, she started receiving death threats which caused her to be so fearful that she now wears a disguise whenever she steps outside. Aside from the political controversy, Lee and her cohort made intra-disciplinary waves on 9 January 2018, when the American Psychiatric Association put out a statement calling for an end to “armchair” psychiatry, saying doctors evaluating public figures they have not personally examined violates the “Goldwater Rule,” an ethical principle that “guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context.” Lee told us despite this criticism, she feels it is in fact unethical for her to remain silent and that it is her professional duty to caution the public about what she and other experts see as a threat: The morning after the election, at 8 a.m. I was flooded with phone calls and emails, because I’m a well-known expert on violence. People were getting in touch because they were concerned about violence — and they were right. Now we have data that shows unprecedented spike in hate crimes since the day after the election that have not abated to this day. There have been increases in school yard bullying in the name of Trump and things he has said, and a rise in gun-related deaths since his campaign. So now we have tangible numbers to show they were right in their concerns. Silence allows harm just as much as active collusion. When [the medical community] sees signs of danger it’s an emergency and we respond right away. But now we have enabled it to pervade our lives and create a malignant normality where if we start to speak out, we are attacked and people try and discredit us. I have faced considerable threats.
|
2756
|
California college to offer non-approved meningitis vaccine.
|
Students at a California public university where meningococcal disease broke out in the fall will be offered a vaccine not approved for use in the United States, public health officials said on Friday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
Officials in the most populous U.S. state had sought permission from the federal government to use the European vaccine, which inoculates against a strain of the disease that has struck four students at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The outbreak, which resulted in a student having his feet amputated, is similar to the one that struck eight students at Princeton University in New Jersey, where students won approval to use the same foreign vaccine in the fall. Bexsero, made by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis AG, is the only vaccine to protect against serotype B of the meningococcal bacteria, which can attack the nervous system as meningitis or cause a deadly blood condition. California health officials sought access to the vaccine for the Santa Barbara students in December amid renewed concern about meningococcal disease, which is highly contagious among people who live in close quarters, such as college students. Most strains of the bacteria can be controlled with a vaccine that is widely available in the United States. But Bexsero has not been submitted for approval for use in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Students at Princeton began receiving that vaccine after the CDC intervened on their behalf. But when the California outbreak was announced, the CDC said it wanted to wait, in part to see if the disease spread to more students. In a statement released to students, parents and employees on Friday, officials at UC Santa Barbara said they would make the vaccine available to students free of charge next month. No additional cases have been reported at the university, health director Dr. Mary Ferris said in the statement. Novartis said in a statement that it would coordinate with the CDC, the university and the California Department of Health to make Bexsero available to the students. The company said it had submitted to U.S. officials documentation from its European studies to show that the vaccine was effective and safe, and was working on a version for eventual use in the United States
|
9952
|
Chinese Herbs Equal to Tamiflu in Reducing H1N1 Fever: Study
|
This story was about a study comparing a Chinese herbal mixture to Tamiflu for the treatment of H1N1 flu (also called swine flu). Although it communicated the basics of the study well enough, it didn’t provide important information on costs or quantify the benefits with sufficient precision. It also lacked crucial context that a truly independent observer might have provided — specifically, that the patients included in the study (healthy adults with very mild cases) are not the kind of people for whom Tamiflu makes a big difference, as these patients typically get better quickly on their own without treatment. What’s truly needed is an alternative treatment for patients with severe cases who don’t have access to antiviral drugs. This study gets us a step closer to determining whether this herb mixture might be effective for those patients, but it doesn’t address the question directly. In the recent worldwide flu pandemic, many patients in poor countries did not have access to antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu. It is important to know whether locally available alternatives, such as this Chinese herbal remedy, are useful for treating the disease. Consumers in the developed world also want to know if popular herbal medicines are worth taking. Stories that report on these kinds of alternative remedies should focus on efficacy and risks, so that consumers can weigh these against the cost and outcome of seeing a physician for a prescription medication.
|
mixture
|
health food claims,HealthDay
|
The story says the herb mixture is much less expensive than Tamiflu. But how much does Tamiflu (and the related physician visit) cost? Providing an actual price tag would have dispelled any uncertainty. Not enough information here. The story says that Tamiflu, the herb mixture, and the combination of the two “helped to resolve fever sooner than no intervention whatsoever.” But the story never tells us how much sooner the fevers resolved. As it turns out, the fastest resolution was seen in the combination group (about 15 hours from onset), whereas the control group fevers typically resolved after about 26 hours. There was also no discussion of the fact that other symptoms (cough, sore throat, etc) were not affected by any of the treatments. The story mentions adverse effects that have been associated with ephedra, one of the constituents of the herbal treatment being tested. It also says that minimal side effects were seen in all treatment groups of this study. The story could have commented on other possible side effects of herbals, such as potential interactions with other medications. We would have liked to see more qualifiers, specifically regarding the fact that these were patients with very mild disease. We don’t know how effective the herb mixture would be for patients with more severe cases of H1N1 flu, which is where Tamiflu has a more pronounced effect. The story does, however, quote an expert who counsels readers not to self-medicate and to see a doctor. That advice, together with a generally adequate description of the study, allows this story to squeak by with a satisfactory. Although the writer didn’t hype the problem of influenza (which does result in a large number of deaths every year), the majority of those with the flu do not require treatment. So the story edges into disease-mongering territory when it suggests that Tamiflu was the “treatment of choice” for most cases of H1N1. In fact, antiviral drugs were unconditionally recommended by WHO guidelines only for certain groups, such as those with severe illness or who were at risk of developing a severe illness. Patients like those in this study who had “very mild” cases of the flu were not necessarily candidates for treatment with antivirals because their illnesses were typically short and self-limited and would not be substantially affected by taking Tamiflu. In addition, overuse of antivirals encourages the development of drug resistant virus strains. By failing to draw this distinction, the story leads readers to believe that every case of H1N1, even very mild ones, should be treated with Tamiflu, which is not accurate. The story provides commentary from one of the study authors and a representative of the dietary supplement industry. Neither of these sources could be called truly independent. A primary care physician or public health person could have provided perspective about who is a candidate for treatment with antiviral drugs. The story never mentions vaccines, which of course can prevent the H1N1 flu from developing in the first place. Also, existing medications such as acetaminophen and ibuprofen can ease fever and other flu symptoms. The description of the herb mixture’s availability is good enough for a satisfactory. The story says that “finding the medicine in the United States is difficult, if not impossible, given that it contains the stimulant ephedra.” The story could have noted that ephedra’s use remains legal in traditional Chinese medicine (the application being discussed in this story), but patients may only obtain the medicine through a Chinese medicine practitioner. The story notes that herbal remedies like the one tested in this study have been used for thousands of years in China. This story was not based on a news release.
|
24765
|
Teddy Roosevelt first called for (health care) reform nearly a century ago.
|
Obama invokes Republican icons on health care
|
true
|
National, Health Care, Barack Obama,
|
"Not content to emulate Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, Republican icons for whom President Obama has expressed admiration in the past, Obama has aligned himself with a third GOP hero on the issue of health care. ""The problems we face today are a direct consequence of actions that we failed to take yesterday,"" Obama said, opening a health care conference in the East Room of the White House on March 5. ""Since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform nearly a century ago, we have talked and we have tinkered. We have tried and fallen short, we've stalled for time, and again we have failed to act because of Washington politics or industry lobbying."" We wondered whether Roosevelt really proposed reform on the scale of the near-universal health care Obama advocates, or if the new president was pushing the whole bipartisan-appeal thing a bit far. We consulted two well-regarded biographers of Roosevelt, H.W. Brands and Kathleen Dalton. Both confirmed that in 1912, when the former Republican president was running as a Progressive Party candidate for what would have been his third term (after a four-year break), the party advocated national health insurance in its platform . Health care was the 11th issue listed under ""Social and Industrial Justice,"" after occupational safety, a child labor prohibition, a minimum wage, ""one day's rest in seven"" and other progressive ideas. ""The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice,"" the platform said. ""We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for ... the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."" ""What this envisioned was pretty much what FDR accomplished with Social Security, but with health insurance added,"" said Brand, author of TR: The Last Romantic (1998). ""We don’t know the specifics of the plan,"" said Dalton, author of Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life (2002). ""The roots were probably British, though he knew about German health insurance."" Dalton said unequivocally Obama was on solid ground evoking Roosevelt. Brands more or less agreed, though he cautioned that health care was ""not the priority that trust-busting or conservation was"" for Roosevelt. ""It's worth remembering that health care was a far smaller concern in those days,"" Brands said. ""Doctors had few medicines, and most people died or got better on their own. The biggest issues were public health — eradicating malaria, cleaning up water supplies, and so on."" In Healthcare Reform in America: A Reference Handbook (2004), Jennie Kronenfeld, a sociology professor at Arizona State University, writes that ""this was the first inclusion of a health insurance plank in any national platform with a major candidate, although the Socialist Party had endorsed a compulsory system as early as 1904."" Roosevelt and the Progressives, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party, lost the election to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party candidate. Republican William Taft finished third. Clearly, Obama is on solid ground tracing the push for national health care back to Theodore Roosevelt. We find this claim to be ."
|
4662
|
Indiana resisting marijuana trend of neighboring states.
|
Indiana’s Republican Statehouse leaders are firmly against taking any steps toward following neighboring states in legalizing marijuana use during the upcoming legislative session.
|
true
|
Legislature, Indianapolis, Medical marijuana, General News, Recreational marijuana, Marijuana, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan
|
They might not be able to avoid talking about it during the 2020 election campaign. Indiana lawmakers have not seriously debated proposals such as allowing medical marijuana or removing the threat of jail time for possessing small amounts of the drug, even as recreational marijuana sales have won approval in Michigan and Illinois and medical use is allowed in Ohio. Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb says he’ll remain opposed as long as the federal government classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug, and the leaders of the GOP-dominated Legislature back him. Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray of Martinsville said he doesn’t see the value of allowing marijuana use at the same time lawmakers are considering raising the legal age for smoking cigarettes from 18 to 21. “The idea of then legalizing a different kind of cigarette doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” Bray said. “I don’t think it works very well for the productivity of our citizens in the workplace, so you’re going to see me very hesitant to go there.” Advocates of legalization steps say they sense growing support in Indiana — and signs exist for that. A poll last year by Ball State University’s Bowen Center for Public Affairs found about 80% of Indiana adults favoring medical marijuana use and 40% supportive of legal recreational use, with just 16% backing the total ban. Since then, the county prosecutor for Indianapolis has stopped pressing criminal charges against adults for possessing about one ounce or less of marijuana and officials in Lake County, which borders Chicago and is the state’s second-most populous county, are considering whether to give sheriff’s deputies the discretion to write a $50 to $250 ticket for small levels of marijuana, instead of taking someone to jail. Republican state Attorney General Curtis Hill, another opponent of marijuana legalization, denounced both steps and called the Indianapolis decision “a curious strategy to put out a welcome mat for lawbreakers.” Marijuana legalization looms as a likely campaign issue for the 2020 statewide elections. The three Democrats seeking to challenge Holcomb’s reelection bid — state Sen. Eddie Melton of Gary, former state health commissioner Woody Myers and tech business executive Josh Owens — all support allowing some level of marijuana use, although Myers opposes recreational sales. One of the Legislature’s most prominent legal marijuana advocates, Democratic Sen. Karen Tallian of Odgen Dunes, is in the 2020 attorney general’s race and plans to again file a bill to strip possible prison sentences for possession of small marijuana amounts for the legislative session that begins in early January. “I think anybody who’s running who’s totally against this is running against the wind,” Tallian said. “... What I absolutely am fighting for is that we no longer saddle these people with criminal records. That’s always been my very first priority.” Marijuana legalization is a topic where Democrats can distinguish themselves from Republicans next year and could help them attract supporters who otherwise might not vote, said Charles Taylor, the managing director of Ball State’s Bowen center. The 2018 Ball State poll found stronger support among Democrats than Republicans for allowing recreational use, but just about one-fifth of Republicans said no marijuana use should be legal. “It’s not like some of these issues where it is a small majority, and then you look, and one party is way in favor of something and the other is not,” Taylor said. “There is a lot of support across party affiliation.” Nearly two-thirds of states have legalized marijuana, mainly for medical uses, even though federal health officials issued a new warning in August that smoking the drug is dangerous for adolescents, pregnant women and their developing babies. U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams, a former Indiana state health commissioner, said science shows that for teens marijuana carries a risk of affecting brain development, which continues in their 20s. Frequent marijuana use by teenagers is associated with changes in parts of the brain involved with attention, memory, decision-making and motivation. Health officials have also linked a vaping illness that has killed at least 52 people across the country to products containing THC, the ingredient that produces a high in marijuana. Some 2,400 hospitalized cases have been reported nationally this year, with some of the highest rates in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Michigan’s handful of licensed recreational marijuana shops first opened to long lines of customers on Dec. 1 and reported about $1.6 million in sales during the first week. Illinois starts allowing recreational sales in January. Indiana lawmakers realize that presents a dilemma regarding a drug for which state law makes possession of any amount a potential felony with a maximum sentence of three years in prison, although no resolution appears at hand. “We’re in the process of getting surrounded by states that have either medical or recreational marijuana,” said Bray, the Republican Senate leader. “Whether we want it or not, that’s going to have a very direct impact on the state because people bring it across state lines easily, people driving under the influence of it. We’re going to have to figure out how we are going to react to that. We can’t just be in a vacuum.”
|
2491
|
Lure, variety of designer drugs is alarming, U.N. agency says.
|
A sharp rise in the variety of legal “designer drugs” with names that entice young people into thinking they pose no risk is alarming from a public health standpoint, the United Nations drugs agency said on Wednesday.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The number of new psychoactive substances - marketed as “designer drugs” and “legal highs” - as reported by member states jumped by more than 50 percent in less than three years to 251 by mid-2012, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said. “This is an alarming drug problem - but the drugs are legal,” it said. “Sold openly, including via the Internet, NPS (new psychoactive substances), which have not been tested for safety, can be far more dangerous than traditional drugs.” Names including “spice”, “meow-meow” and “bath salts” mislead young people into believing they are indulging in low-risk fun, UNODC said. But “the adverse effects and addictive potential of most of these uncontrolled substances are at best poorly understood”, the agency said in an annual survey. Use of such substances among youth in the United States appears to be more than twice as widespread as in the 27-nation European Union, where the United Kingdom, Poland and France have the most users, it said. New psychoactive substances can be made by slightly modifying the molecular structure of controlled drugs, making a new drug with similar effects which can elude national and international bans. They are “proliferating at an unprecedented rate and posing unforeseen public health challenges,” said the report that examines production, trafficking and consumption trends. “The international drug control system is floundering, for the first time, under the speed and creativity of the phenomenon” of this type of substances, the UNODC report said. Overall, global drug consumption has remained stable, the report said, referring to the number of drug users with dependence or drug-use disorders. In 2011, the number of drug-related deaths was estimated at 211,000. “While the use of traditional drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, seems to be declining in some parts of the world, prescription drug abuse and new psychoactive substance abuse is growing,” it said. Heroin use in Europe and that of cocaine in the United States appear to be falling while the cocaine market is expanding in South America and the emerging economies in Asia. The U.N. agency’s 2013 World Drug Report also said revised data showed that the prevalence of people injecting drugs who are also infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS was sharply lower than previously estimated. In 2011, about 1.6 million people between the ages of 15 and 64 who injected drugs were living with HIV, a 46 percent decline since estimates three years earlier. The overall number of people using needles to take drugs was also lower. The reduced figures are “in large part a result of the availability of more reliable information on HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs”, the report said. Criminals have been quick to tap into the lucrative market of new psychoactive substances while the law lags behind, the U.N. office said. Africa is becoming a target for the trafficking and production of illicit substances, it added. “East and West Africa seems to be gaining in prominence with regard to routes for maritime trafficking,” the report said. Seizures of heroin have risen sharply in Africa since 2009, especially in East Africa, where they increased almost tenfold.
|
31771
|
Placing a raw, cut onion in contact with your foot overnight “purifies your blood”, removes “toxins”, and heals your body.
|
All things considered, the evidence presented to support this fairly outlandish notion is either false or misleading, and we cannot find any plausible mechanism for a raw cut onion stuffed in your sock to reduce any disease.
|
false
|
Medical, david avocado wolfe, onions, phosphoric acid
|
Like so many questionable bits of scientific misinformation, the claim that putting onions on your feet will do something unspecified that has to do with “toxins” is repeated with similar or identical language on many different web sites. One site that has given this concept undue attention is that of David ‘Avocado’ Wolfe, a prolific purveyor of misinterpreted science and blenders. He explains the basic rationale in a November 2016 post: The Chinese found that there are thousands of tiny nerve endings on the bottom of the feet. These nerve endings act as access points to the internal organs. They are also closely linked to the nervous system. Onions have strong anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties. When you cut an onion and place it on the bottom of the foot, it gets right to work removing toxins and healing your body. If that explanation isn’t doing it for you, Wolfe provides additional reasoning as well. But, like a desperate student called on in class after a heavy night of not studying, Wolfe lists numerous unrelated, disconnected, illogical, and wholly inaccurate claims about how an onions on your feet might impart a health benefit in the hopes that the sheer volume of answers will not betray his own lack of knowledge. Only three of these five explanations hold even a modicum of relevance to the onion sock theory: Onions detox the body – Onions are rich in sulphuric compounds. These compounds are responsible for their strong odor. Sulfer [sic] helps the body release unwanted toxins, especially in the liver. Onions purify your blood – While the onion is next to your foot, phosphoric acid is released. It enters your bloodstream and helps to purify the blood running through your veins. […] Onions support the immune system – Thanks to the anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties of onions, your immune system becomes better prepared to fight off infections and inflammation. […] With these claims in place, we can get a general picture of how Wolfe and others suggest this works: Borrowing from the Traditional Chinese Medicine concept of meridians, the feet are a gateway to multiple organ systems in your body which allow chemicals from the onion to enter your bloodstream like a portal, where they get to purifying, bacteria killing, and virus fighting. First off, the existence of meridians have not been demonstrated scientifically, and even if they had been, practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine describe their action as transporting energy or “qi”, not as transporting actual physical compounds, so Wolfe’s description of the mechanism by which beneficial onion compounds make it to your body is not off to a great start. Ignoring this problematic beginning, the next claim refers to an onion’s sulphuric compounds. They do indeed exist, and they have indeed been proposed as the primary chemicals responsible for an onion’s medicinal benefits. A 2002 review in the journal Phytotherapy describes these chemicals and lists their potential health effects: Onions are rich in two chemical groups that have perceived benefits to human health. These are the flavonoids and the alk(en)yl cysteine sulphoxides (ACSOs). […]. The ACSOs are the flavour precursors, which, when cleaved by the enzyme alliinase, generate the characteristic odour and taste of onion. The downstream products are a complex mixture of [sulfur-based compounds]. Compounds from onion have been reported to have a range of health benefits which include anticarcinogenic properties, antiplatelet activity, antithrombotic activity, antiasthmatic and antibiotic effects. Unfortunately for proponents of onion foot therapy, these potential benefits all necessitate the ingestion of these compounds, not passively leaving the entity responsible for their creation in close proximity to one’s foot. Ultimately, this kind of reasoning is a lazy distraction, equating the benefits of ingestion with other less plausible, and often undefined, pathways. While there have been some limited studies regarding some of these (ingested) benefits in laboratory settings, it needs to be noted that there has been little research definitively showing these effects on humans (though there is also a lack of research in general on the topic), per that same review: Clearly there are many claims on health benefits of Alliums [the genus that includes Onions], however, most, with the exception of garlic, have not received any rigorous (or even gentle) scientific investigation Further, the notion that these sulfur-based chemicals “release” toxins is vague oversimplification. The argument could be made that the antioxidant properties of some onion chemicals aid in the cleansing of “toxins” from your body, but, again, you would need to be ingesting said chemicals. In the same vein as releasing toxins is the notion that the phosphoric acid found in onions cleanses your blood. The inclusion of this pro-phosphoric acid statement is odd for a David Wolfe page, given the fact that he rails against the chemical on his other pages. Though there are myriad problems with the idea that phosphoric acid cleanses your blood and with the notion that topical application of it on your foot would have any effect whatsoever, all of these issues are irrelevant as onions do not contain phosphoric acid to begin with. In fact, phosphoric acid is used in laboratory settings to liberate compounds from onions and garlic for analysis. Every so often, alarm bells are sounded on food blogs about the inclusion of phosphoric acid as a preservative in minced packages of (the closely related) garlic. Needless to say, the lack of phosphoric acid in onions is another serious blow to the proffered theories for why sock onions could have medicinal properties. In terms of the onion’s ability to boost your immune system through their antibacterial and antiviral compounds there are two ways to look at it: Yes, onions have been shown in laboratory settings to fight both viruses as well as bacteria and conceivably, these compounds could have a benefit to you — but, again, only when ingested. In this case, as well, the topical application of some chemicals in onions could kill bacteria externally. However, just as the ingestion of onions will not reduce external bacterial infections, neither will a topical application be effective at creating any change to the internal systems of one’s body, as claimed.
|
9884
|
Taking meds before exposure cuts HIV risk for heterosexuals
|
This CNN story on two new studies of antiretroviral drugs for HIV prevention could have been improved. The cost of these drugs, whether in Africa or the United States, is a major issue that affects their viability as a prevention tool — a fact which the story didn’t touch on. And while the story suggests that the studies only involved medication, both included other interventions. According to a University of Washington press release, “All study participants received a comprehensive package of HIV prevention services, which included intensive safer sex counseling (both individually and as a couple), HIV testing, free condoms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and monitoring and care for HIV infection.” These additional interventions are not routinely available and may have contributed to the studies results; an important consideration when considering an implementation strategy. Stopping the spread of AIDS, especially in developing countries, has proven to be a very large challenge. The development of a preventive vaccine has not been as clear cut as originally assumed so alternative strategies are clearly needed. Two new studies strongly suggest that preventive strategies in the partners of AIDS infected individuals may be an effective strategy. While many questions remain, especially on how to operationalize this strategy, these two studies provide a basis for additional work
|
mixture
|
CNN
|
Although these drugs are available cheaply in developing countries (less than $1 per pill according to some estimates), even these modest costs can put them out of reach in the poorest countries where they are most needed. In the United States, the cost of daily treatment with Truvada (one of the medications studied which contains a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir) can add up to some $13,000 annually. The story should have referenced cost as one of the obstacles to any large-scale new prevention effort Readers should have been given a bit more information on actual number of infections seen in the study groups. The story states that infection risk for drug-treated individuals was 63% to 73% lower relative to individuals who received the placebo. However, the story never provides the absolute risk data that are essential to determining the true magnitude of the benefit. Elsewhere, the story states that infection rates were decreased by 78% in those “who actually got the drugs.” This is a confusing statement. The story should have explained that this was an analysis of outcomes based on participants’ adherence to the medication regimen; those who took the drug more regularly were more likely to see a benefit. Given that the primary source was a press statement (the results haven’t been published yet), the story provided about as much information about potential harms as could be expected. In one of the studies, the story notes that the safety monitors saw no evidence of safety concerns. The story also notes that subjects taking the active drug in the the other study reported nausea, vomiting and dizziness. While it is clear that the studies being covered were large, placebo-controlled trials, the story didn’t provide sufficient discussion of the limitations of this research. As the competing AP story pointed out, all participants in both studies received services that might not be available to individuals outside of a research setting, including free condoms and behavioral counseling to reduce infection risk. These services may have contributed to the low overall infection rate seen in the study. In addition, the story should have pointed out that because these study results were released in press statements ahead of a major AIDS conference, they haven’t yet been subjected to peer review by outside experts. There was no disease-mongering in this story. At least one independent source is quoted, and there don’t appear to be any conflicts of interest that should have been pointed out to readers. The story mentions several other approaches that are effective for preventing HIV transmission, including microbicides, vaginal gels, clean needles, medical male circumcision, early treatment, counseling, testing, condoms and suppressive therapy for pregnant women. Unlike the competing AP story, this story didn’t make it clear that there will be issues in getting this strategy implemented in Africa and in the US. The story mentions earlier research showing that Truvada was effective for preventing HIV infections in men who have sex with other men. However, it did not reference the results of a large study showing that Truvada failed to prevent HIV infections in heterosexual African women — findings that remain somewhat of a mystery. The story could have done better here, but since it does not give readers the impression that these are completely novel or unexpected results, we’ll call it satisfactory. The story does not appear to take its content directly from news releases put out by the University of Washington or the CDC, and it quotes a researcher who was not directly involved with either study, so we can be sure the story meets our standard here.
|
9752
|
FDA approves tool for diagnosing dementia in a doctor’s office
|
There was more to like about this story than its 2-star score might suggest. There is substantial and thorough reporting about the problems with current approaches to diagnosing dementia, and the story demonstrates great legwork in seeking out the opinions of experts who have used the device that’s profiled in the piece. A lot of 2-star stories seem to be thrown together without much original reporting, and that’s certainly not the case here. With that being said, the story does lack some key information regarding the benefits, costs, and harms of the device. There were also a few borderline calls where we felt that a Satisfactory score couldn’t be given for specific reasons, even though the story came close to meeting our standard. In short, a few small changes would have altered our ratings substantially and resulted in a higher score. But the story is still well worth a read, and delivers plenty of valuable information. We encourage you to explore our comments in the review below to see how we thought the story could have been improved. As the story rightly points out, dementia is a significant issue that will likely grow in magnitude in the future as the population ages. The ability to more easily diagnose people in the early stages of dementia would be helpful and welcomed by most clinicians. Existing methods are time consuming, cumbersome, and their interpretation is complex usually requiring considerable expertise. But there’s an important point to keep in mind: We do not have good treatments for Alzheimer’s and other dementias, and certainly no cures, so even an accurate “early” diagnosis is a mixed blessing and a false positive could do significant harm.
|
false
|
Alzheimer's,Devices,Washington Post
|
Reporting on any new device, test or drug should include comments about cost. In this case a word or two about the cost of the device, whether or not it is reimbursable under commercial insurance plans or Medicare would have been helpful. There is a billing code used for payment by insurance companies and Medicare (CPT 96120: Neuropsychological testing [e.g. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, CNS Vital Signs], administered by a computer, with qualified health care professional interpretation and report). The reimbursement for the test and interpretation is $48. The story did mention that other tests can cost more than $1000, but it’s not clear how much less expensive the new test would be. The story also notes that the test could be administered without the physician present, which might indirectly cut costs and allow time for other important discussions. The headline suggests that the FDA approved the test for “diagnosing dementia in the doctor’s office.” But the actual FDA approval notice says: “The Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid is not intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.” The story does later qualify that the device “is not intended to be a stand-alone diagnostic tool,” but the FDA says the device isn’t a diagnostic device at all, which is a confusing disparity. We acknowledge that reporters often don’t have any control over their headlines but nonetheless the issue needs to be raised. We thought this needed more explanation. The story suggests that this non invasive, simple and quick (10 minutes sitting at a computer terminal) is either more accurate or just about as accurate as a commonly used test called the Mini Mental State Exam and is easier to use. The suggestion is supported by comments from the inventor of the test and two primary care physicians. We are also told that the device/test was applied in a sample of 401 older adults who were classified as cognitively normal, slightly impaired or impaired and compared to the results of another test with the acronym SLUM. But, we are never provided with any information about the test characteristics that have to do with accuracy (e.g. sensitivity, specificity) or how the two tests compared in the actual study. What were the rates of false positive and false negative results seen with Cognivue as compared to SLUM? To the article’s credit, it does bring up an important point about how the tool can be incorporated into physician workflow in a way that may make adoption easier (patient does the test right before or after seeing the doctor, for example). That’s useful context, but not enough for Satisfactory rating here. The story mentions that the FDA approved this test on the basis of “little risk.” But we really aren’t told anything about what those risks are. Here’s what the FDA had to say: “The risk of a false positive result may result in result in the clinician conducting a more detailed and extensive medical work-up to determine if a subject actually has cognitive impairment that would not be expected for his/her age and educational level. The risk of a false negative result would also be considered minimal. Clinicians would still be responsible for conducting a diagnostic work-up for patients presenting with cognitive impairment symptoms regardless of the Cognivue device result.” One thing both the story and FDA neglect to mention is that a false positive can produce patient/family anxiety regarding a devastating condition with no effective treatments. We’re not sure that qualifies as “little.” The evidence that the test is useful is limited to the comments of the inventor and two clinicians who have used the test. We are not provided with any quantitative data to support the anecdotal comments in the story. We assume that the FDA must have examined data as the basis for its approval, but that data isn’t present here. Dementia is a serious public health problem and as the population ages it will become a larger issue. The story does a good job in providing some useful context. However we think that the construct of a, “…late-life tsunami of late life cognitive decline coming at us…” and “…Dementia is the gorilla in the corner of the room in every primary care visit with every older adult..” don’t add much in the way of information and suggest that the problem is nearly universal after a given age. Such descriptions are particularly problematic when applied to a cognitive disease that is the source of worry for many and is often conflated with normal behaviors. The company source says doctors haven’t been provided with tools to assess dementia, yet several other tools are mentioned in the piece, including the one that is used as the gold standard comparison for his new test. This was a difficult call. The story includes extensive comments from a company source and two clinicians who are early adopters of the device. The comments of the two users especially are quite helpful and demonstrate thorough reporting. With that being said, we hesitate to call any of these sources truly independent. Although the story qualifies that one of the physician users has no ties to the company, the fact that she’s been using the system for several years, presumably with the equipment and support being supplied by the company at no cost, suggests a close relationship between the source and the manufacturer. The intent of this criterion is encourage a truly outside perspective. We think that comments from other sources not as close to the work and who could speak to other diagnostic approaches would have been helpful. The Not Satisfactory rating is not meant to suggest a lack of thoroughness on the part of the story or that the sources provided were not appropriate. It reflects our desire and hope that stories will always also include the perspective of at least one impartial expert. The story does a good job in providing the reader with other testing methods and a bit about their complexity and time requirements. We are told that the new approach is as good if not better that existing instruments. So, we are giving the story a Satisfactory rating. But again, we are never given any data supporting that viewpoint. The story notes that the device/test was approved by the FDA and that it is available for use. The story notes that the device has been approved by the FDA, which counts toward novelty, and it also links to a previous story that discusses other noninvasive exams being tested for early diagnosis of dementia. We’ll award a Satisfactory on that basis, although we think readers might come away from this story thinking that this is the first computerized diagnostic test for the diagnosis of dementia. In reality, there have been multiple attempts at the development of computerized testing including several that are available online. It’s clear that this story does not rely solely on a news release.
|
6481
|
California schools may allow medical cannabis on campuses.
|
California schools will get to decide if parents can administer medical marijuana to their children on school campuses.
|
true
|
Medical marijuana, General News, Legislation, Marijuana, California, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom
|
Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he signed the legislation that reverses a current prohibition on cannabis within 1,000 feet of K-12 campuses. School districts will have the final say on whether they will allow it. The law will take effect Jan. 1. Newsom’s predecessor, fellow Democrat Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar law last year. State Sen. Jerry Hill, the bill’s author, named it “Jojo’s Act” for a teenager in South San Francisco who uses medical cannabis to treat severe epilepsy. California has legalized medical marijuana since the 1990s, but there are strict rules about its use on campus. Washington, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois and New Mexico already have similar laws in place, Hill’s office said. “Jojo’s Act would lift barriers for students with severe medical disabilities - for whom medicinal cannabis is the only medication that works - so they can take their dose at school and then get on with their studies, without being removed from campus and without disrupting their educational experience or that of their classmates,” Hill said in a statement when the bill passed the state Legislature. Students must have a valid medical recommendation, and parents would have to bring the cannabis to the school rather than store it there. The cannabis would have to be in a non-smoking form, such as a capsule.
|
4378
|
Minnesota State University astronomer ends a stellar career.
|
It was about 60 years ago that little Steven Kipp, 10 or 11 years old, directed his new Jason telescope at the stars above Fairfax County, Virginia.
|
true
|
Mankato, Virginia, Minnesota, Science, Astronomy
|
He looked in the eyepiece and, at first, was anything but overwhelmed. Seen through the small telescope his mother purchased for him, the stars were still just points of light. Not everything in the night sky, however, is a distant star. “Then you point it at one that’s a planet and that’s a very exciting thing to happen to you,” Kipp said May 3 while taking a break from packing up 37 years’ worth of files in his Minnesota State University office. The spark of interest Kipp felt as a child is one he’s seen countless times at the observatory he helped build on the south side of the MSU campus. Sometimes it was the “Astronomy 101” students — taking the class as a general science requirement because they hoped it would be more interesting than basic chemistry or biology courses. “Very often the 101 class people aren’t terribly excited about the things that we’re excited about,” said Kipp, speaking of astronomers. A lot of the students expect to learn little more than the names of constellations and stars and a bit about the origin of celestial bodies. So they weren’t inherently motivated to trudge out to the remote observatory to look through a telescope. “But they’ll do anything for extra credit points,” he said. And when the big telescopes at the Standeford and Andreas observatories are pointed at something spectacular like Saturn, “they’re absolutely amazed, and they’re glad they came,” he said. Since Kipp’s arrival at MSU in the fall of 1981, he figures he’s introduced between 10,000 and 14,000 students to astronomy. While not every one of them is filled with wonderment by what they learn, the course — which includes a lot more physics than most students anticipate — tends to be memorable enough. “I meet them everywhere,” he said of encounters with former students. “So far they’ve all been very nice. I guess the ones who were dissatisfied don’t introduce themselves.” Along with the students, thousands of other southern Minnesotans know Kipp from the Department of Physics and Astronomy’s “Public Evenings” at the observatories. “He’s done a huge amount of engagement with the observatory,” said John Wallin, a 1984 MSU graduate who was the first astronomy major under Kipp. “They get hundreds and hundreds of people a year at the observatory.” The Mankato Free Press reports that Kipp is retiring from MSU effective this month, but he’ll still be coming to the Public Evenings, just like his longtime colleague Jim Pierce does nearly a decade after his retirement. “The little kids are the best,” Kipp said. “They’re the most enthusiastic, and they’re smart. They’re very smart.” The same was likely true of little Steven Kipp back in Virginia in the 1950s, who saw his interest in space ignited not just by that first telescope but by the launch of Sputnik and the drama of the space race and the Apollo missions. He ended up at the University of Virginia, double-majoring in physics and astronomy, and then Wesleyan University in Connecticut and the University of Pittsburgh, where he earned his master’s and doctoral degrees in astronomy. After Pittsburgh, there was a research opportunity on a 12,000-foot South American mountaintop at the Venezuelan national observatory. He was there when a physics and astronomy job opened in the Math Department at Mankato State University. He applied and he got the job. Kipp and Pierce worked to build astronomy’s standing at the university, scheduling introductory classes at times of the day that would appeal to late-sleeping students. The strategy attracted big classes, which calculated out to a lot of credit hours, which led to the hiring of another astronomy professor — Paul Eskridge. “We worked very hard and Jim was a genius at scheduling,” Kipp said. For the tiny number of astronomy majors, Kipp and Pierce and some of the physics professors in the department were incredibly attentive as teachers and mentors, said Wallin, who traveled to Mankato for Kipp’s retirement party last week. “They just played a huge, amazing role in my life,” said Wallin, a Hibbing native who is the director of computational sciences in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Middle Tennessee State University. “I wouldn’t be in my current job without those guys. It just wouldn’t have happened.” State budget cuts during the Great Recession, though, eliminated the astronomy major and the third faculty position, prompting Pierce to take early retirement to protect the jobs of his colleagues. “Phooey on them,” Wallin said of university administrators. “You can quote me on that.” Kipp said he sharply criticized his university then and a few other times during his tenure at MSU, as most employees at most organizations do at least occasionally. But as he prepared to walk out of his office for the final time, he was pleased with his decision to come to Mankato and to retire here. “It was a good career and MSU is a good employer,” he said. “And there’s a lot of good students here. ... We have as good students here as the U does, but we just don’t have as many of them.” Kipp and his wife, Elizabeth, have two adult children in the Twin Cities and intend to stick around Mankato. “My kids were born here and I am proud to be Minnesotan. It’s a fine state.” While star-gazing can be a bit chilly or a bit mosquito-plagued in his adopted state, Kipp will still be looking up with interest just like he did as a child. He’ll be closely watching news of discoveries about the impossibly large universe and the elusive particles that it’s composed of, and he’s particularly anticipating the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope two years from now. He expects at least a few of his former students, long after leaving MSU, still look skyward on a clear night and consider some of the mysteries — solved and unsolved — from their astronomy class back in college. “I hope they’re thinking,” Kipp said. “I don’t know if they’re thinking ‘I almost got a B and he didn’t give it to me.’” But he knows some of his students felt genuine amazement when considering where they fit in the universe — living in the middle of one continent on one of several planets orbiting a star that’s one of maybe 100 billion in a galaxy that’s part of a cluster of galaxies in a universe containing billions of them. And then there’s a fact that he tosses out to his introduction to astronomy students: that the basic building blocks that make up their body are typically billions of years old. “The atoms that make up you and me — everything but hydrogen and helium, and there’s not much hydrogen and helium in us — all were cooked up inside of stars,” Kipp said. “If you start with that and then you understand the sequence of the events that allow me to say that, that’s the story of astronomy.” ___ Information from: The Free Press, http://www.mankatofreepress.com
|
10948
|
New study finds adult fresh pear consumers had a lower body weight than non-pear consumers
|
This news release, issued by Edelman, a public relations firm, on behalf of the Pear Bureau Northwest, a pear marketing group, is a textbook example of how to conflate “correlation” with “cause and effect,” and confuse consumers all the way to the fruit aisle. The release describes results of an “analytic,” observational, data-mining study of some subset (readers never learn what subset, exactly) of pear-eating people among participants in the 2001-10 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of adult Americans. The data suggested that people who reported eating pears had a “lower” body weight than non-pear eaters and were “35 percent less likely to be obese.” From there it leaps to the idea that there are health benefits to eating a “pear a day,” attributing the benefits to the relatively high fiber content of the fruit. Although the release notes that the data suggest eating fresh pears “should be encouraged” as part of an “overall healthy diet;” and the lead investigator acknowledges in a quote that this is an “association” or “correlational” study, the body of the release offers no data to support the notion that pears are more likely than any other fiber source or food to actually reduce weight or obesity. It offers no information (as did the study, published in the journal Nutrition and Food Science) about the participants or the strengths/weaknesses of the correlation. And above all it fails to note that those who reported eating pears were older and seemed to be more health-conscious — they drank less alcohol and smoked less — all of which could have contributed to or even accounted for the lower body weight and lower risk of obesity. Most of the release is a predictable promotional piece for the wonders of Barletts and Boscs, noting of course that they are “cholesterol-free,” “fat-free” and potassium-rich. The release is likely to have some readers believing that pears potentially play a key role in stopping the obesity epidemic; oh, that it were so. Predictably, a couple of online news articles got the (wrong) message, including this one: “A Pear a Day Keeps the Pounds Away” (UK’s Daily Mail). Consumers already have a big problem figuring out healthy diets and healthy weight loss programs. The hope is that the agricultural marketing industry will help educate consumers, not mislead them.
|
mixture
|
industry/commercial news releases,Weight loss
|
If consumers are encouraged to eat a pear a day it would be helpful to include even a ballpark cost. Fresh pears may be available in all markets year-round but the cost rises substantially when they have to be shipped long distances. The release, as noted above, says pear consumers had a lower body weight and were “35 percent less likely” to be obese compared to non-pear consumers, but there is no hint of context. Was this over time? Did the correlation vary according to age groups? (The age ranged from 19 years old to senior status.) What were the absolute numbers? The release does state that the study found no differences in calories (energy) intake and physical activity between the pear eating and non-pear eating group. And while it mentioned that the analysis looked at cardiovascular risk factors, it was silent about any differences (or lack thereof) in cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk in pear eating and non-pear eating subjects. Aside from the poorly quantified main point about the association between pear consumption and body weight, the release did mention some of the dietary benefits of pears: “Pears are an excellent source of fiber and a good source of vitamin C. One medium pear provides about 24 percent of daily fiber needs for only 100 calories. They are sodium-free, cholesterol-free, fat-free and contain 190 mg of potassium.” The study looked at a possible association between pear eating and obesity but the protocol did not have a way to determine harms of eating or not eating the fruit. In any case, it’s hard to imagine any. The release sorely needed details about the make-up of the data set that was analyzed, along with information about the limitations of epidemiological correlation studies. The study was based on a survey of a group of people deemed representative of the nation, but we aren’t even told how many people were surveyed. The release didn’t list any of the limitations to the study, including the many variables that could have affected the outcome. The only common factors among the groups was that they either ate pears or they didn’t. What else was different? Was age taken into account as a variable in making the association since metabolism may slow down? Was gender taken into account due to weight gain during pregnancy or menopause? What about education and economic status? Although these variables are mentioned in the published study, the release could have mentioned briefly that other factors were taken into account. The published study also described the number of participants (24,808 respondents) as small for a national epidemiological study and stated that it is an observational study of a subset whose “data cannot be used to draw causal relationships.” It’s not “mongering” to acknowledge the obesity epidemic in the United States so we give this a Satisfactory. The release is transparent in acknowledging that the Pear Bureau is the source of its pear promotion and the “commissioning” of studies, in this case at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Like Macy’s and Gimbel’s, commercial competitiveness is unlikely to lead the Pear Bureau to carry water for, say, the Banana Bureau, or the Peach Bureau. But the release would have been strengthened by more explicitly noting the potential role of other high-fiber fruits and foods in a good diet. There was no mention of other alternatives to weight loss on a dietary or any other level. This article almost makes it seem that pears are the greatest solution. But when we compare the 4 grams of dietary fiber in pears with other fruit we find that a large apple contains 4.5 grams and 3 dried figs have 10.5 grams. The release goes into some detail about the wide availability of pears in the United States. With or without pear eating. it is not exactly news that higher consumption of fruits (and vegetables) have long been associated with better overall diets, nutritional status, and healthy weight. The quoted lines from the lead investigator are carefully phrased, but the overall release is misleading to suggest pears alone are a solution to the obesity problem. But since we’ve already raised that concern elsewhere in the release we’ll give the benefit of the doubt here.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.