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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
35948
|
The Sturgis motorcycle rally in 2020 resulted in 250,000 COVID-19 coronavirus cases.
|
They want to know if mass-events (protests, conventions, rallies) spread covid. But we don’t have individual level data on attendees and comparable stay-homes. So they resort to a diff-in-diff, looking to see if a place has more, less, or the same number of confirmed cases soon after an event than they ‘should.’ The argument is that the trend line for an entire location after time T can tell us if what happened on T is safe or risky.
|
unproven
|
Politics Medical, COVID-19
|
In September 2020, social media was abuzz over a report from the IZA Institute of Labor Economics that linked 266,796 COVID-19 coronavirus cases (a figure that was reported as “more than 250,000” in various headlines) to the Sturgis motorcycle rally held in Sturgis, South Dakota: IZA Institute of Labor Economics, a nonprofit research institute supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation and affiliated with the University of Bonn, truly did publish a paper estimating that the rally was linked to a surge of approximately 250,000 COVID-19 cases (representing a cost of $12.2 billion). However, while the rally likely contributed to a rise in coronavirus cases, the figures stated here are estimates from a non-peer reviewed paper and have not been demonstrated definitively. Furthermore, various statisticians and epidemiologists have indicated the study had some flaws. Before we get to the expert opinions on this study, let’s dispel a few quick rumors on social media. This study did not claim, for instance, that 250,000 people tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after attending the rally. The research attempted to quantify how many cases of COVID-19 could potentially be linked to people who attended the rally, traveled to other locations, and then spread the disease among their communities. It should also be noted that this is an estimate based on a wide variety of factors, not an actual headcount of COVID-19 patients who attended, or knew someone who attended, the rally. As mentioned above, this study was not peer-reviewed and was prefaced with a piece of text noting that “IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion.” The IZA paper’s finding that 250,000 COVID-19 cases were linked to the Sturgis rally was based on three key factors: anonymized smartphone data that showed an influx of out-of-state visitors and a sharp increase in foot traffic at “restaurants and bars, hotels, entertainment venues, and retail establishments”; a decrease in stay-at-home activity in the surrounding area; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data that showed COVID-19 cases increased both in South Dakota where the rally was held, and in areas where Sturgis attendees traveled to in the days after the rally. While this study may provide a broad estimate on how Sturgis could have impacted the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of epidemiologists and statisticians have taken issue with models used in the study and the report’s findings. Joshua Clayton, South Dakota’s state epidemiologist, said that the study’s findings did “not align with what we know” and argued that IZA did not account for other contributing factors, such as the fact that schools reopened around the same time as the rally. Local news outlet KEVN reported: “From what we know the results do not align with what we know,” state epidemiologist Joshua Clayton said. He mentioned that a white paper isn’t peer-reviewed. And pointed out the paper doesn’t note schools in the state also reopened close after the Rally ended, which could have attributed to the surge of cases in South Dakota. Rex Douglas, the director of the Machine Learning for Social Science Lab (MSSL), Center for Peace and Security Studies, University of California San Diego, and Kevin Griffin, an assistant professor at the Vanderbilt School of Medicine, also took issue with the methodology used in this paper. Griffin, for instance, noted that cases were already on the rise when the rally took place, while Douglas noted that authorities simply don’t have the data to reach such a precise conclusion.
|
401
|
AstraZeneca's infant respiratory drug prioritised in Europe, U.S.
|
Britain’s AstraZeneca said a potential medicine to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in babies and infants had been granted special status by U.S. and European regulators, designed to speed up the development of novel and better drugs.
|
true
|
Health News
|
The “Breakthrough Therapy” and “Prime” designations in the United States and Europe respectively were based on early results from Phase IIb trials of MEDI8897, AstraZeneca said. The drug is being developed for use in a broader infant population than the standard of care for RSV prevention, Synagis, which needs monthly injections and is therefore only approved in Europe for high-risk infants. MEDI8897, which is being developed in partnership with Sanofi Pasteur, only requires one dose during a typical five month RSV season, AstraZeneca said. RSV is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract infection in infants and children worldwide, and 90 percent of children are infected with RSV in the first two years of life.
|
2023
|
Testicular cancer deaths double with after 40 diagnosis.
|
Men diagnosed with testicular cancer at 40 years of age or older have twice the risk of dying from the disease as younger patients, according to a study of nearly 28,000 men.
|
true
|
Health News
|
This was true even when initial treatment and the extent of the disease were taken into account, according to findings published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. “This study comprehensively documents, for the first time, to our knowledge, the effect of age on TC-specific mortality, while taking into account disease characteristics, treatment factors and socio-demographic variables,” wrote Lois Travis, of the University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, along with colleagues from Oslo, Norway. The research is based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, a source for U.S. cancer statistics at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Travis and her team calculated hazard ratios for 10-year testicular cancer mortality. Mortality was doubled in patients diagnosed over the age of 40, the study found. But, those diagnosed after 1987 were less likely to die during follow-up than men diagnosed earlier, possibly due to the introduction of a certain kind of chemotherapy about 10 years earlier. “The question, however, remains whether association between socioeconomic variables and mortality reflect differences in the health care system’s ability to offer optimal treatment, the patient’s willingness to accept intensive treatment with a non-negligible risk of adverse effects, or the physician’s knowledge of optimal treatment approaches,” they wrote. Several factors may account for the age-related mortality difference, including the fact that many older patients are often not treated with the same intensity as younger patients, the researchers said. The researchers recommended giving more attention to the care of older patients as well as those of people of lower socioeconomic status for the best results. “In a cancer that is so highly curable, any influence that confers an increased risk of disease-specific mortality must be identified, and interventional strategies adopted,” they said. SOURCE: bit.ly/fGNEw9
|
38118
|
The FDA published “conclusive proof” that the DTaP vaccine causes autism in November 2017.
|
FDA Confirms DTaP Vaccine Causes Autism in November 2017
|
false
|
Medical
|
The FDA hasn’t confirmed a link between DTaP vaccines and autism. That rumors stems from an old (and false) report that was re-reported as “breaking” news in November 2017. First, we’ll take a step back. DTaP is given to children younger than seven to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has repeatedly stated that there’s no link between vaccines and autism. However, rumors like this one repeatedly surface. They often rely on information that’s outdated or taken out of context. And claims that the FDA confirmed DTaP vaccines cause autism in November 2017 are no exception. Latest False Claim: FDA Announces DTaP Vaccine Causes Autism November 2017 rumors appear to circle back to the website, InShapeToday.com. The site published a report under the headline “FDA announced that vaccines are causing autism,” that was widely shared on social media. A number of problems immediately emerge with that claim. First, it’s based on an information packet that was released by vaccine maker Sanfofi Pasteur in 2005. So, it’s not exactly a “new” development or admission. In fact, identical false claims circulated in April 2016. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine. So, it’s clear that the FDA hasn’t confirmed that DTaP causes autism. That rumor is based on a 2005 drug packet that goes on to state that no “causal relationship” between autism and the vaccine has been found.
|
24750
|
On whether he wrote a provision that allowed AIG to dole out bonuses.
|
Dodd flip-flopped on whether he changed amendment on bonuses to AIG and banks
|
false
|
National, Economy, Chris Dodd,
|
"Sen. Chris Dodd has been widely panned as the man responsible for allowing bailout recipient AIG to hand out huge bonuses, but it's really a half truth to say he's to blame. Dodd was actually the author of a provision that limited bonuses for AIG and other financial companies, though it's true that he later added a loophole that allowed some bonuses. Nevertheless, in the course of explaining his role in the matter, Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, committed one of this year’s most conspicuous flip-flops. As keepers of the Flip-O-Meter, we feel obligated to document it. Here’s what happened: As word of AIG’s bonuses filtered out, critics zeroed in on an amendment Congress passed in February that outlawed such bonuses but exempted contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. The amendment prohibited firms that had received federal bailout money from ""paying or accruing any bonus"" to the 25 most highly compensated employees as long as the company still owed the government money for the bailout. But somewhere in the legislative process, a line was added to say the amendment ""shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009."" The extra line allowed AIG to hand out $165 million in bonuses for 2008 to executives of a division that lost piles of money that year. Dodd had authored the original amendment. So CNN asked him on March 18 whether he was the one who added the Feb. 11 effective date. ""There is the suggestion today being made that you received more money from AIG than any other senator, and that you were responsible for the February 11th, 2009, date,"" CNN producer Ted Barrett said to Dodd on March 18. ""So, just — you know, again, I just want to get at ..."" ""No,"" Dodd said. ""You're saying you had nothing to do with that date?"" Barrett pressed. ""Absolutely not,"" Dodd said. That was pretty clear. And yet a day later, with other sources telling CNN that Dodd was in fact the one who made the change, Dodd admitted as much. ""I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly,"" he told CNN's Dana Bash. ""I wasn't negotiating with myself here. I wasn't changing my own amendment. I was changing the amendment because others were insisting upon it."" ""You were very adamant yesterday, very adamant that you didn't know how this change got in there,"" Bash said. ""And now you are saying that your staff did work with the administration?"" ""Going back and looking — obviously, I apologize,"" Dodd said. Treasury officials later confirmed they had asked Dodd to change the amendment because they were afraid executives would sue if it was retroactive. In a press conference , Dodd stressed that he was the one who authored the bonus restrictions in the first place, and that Treasury requested the change. ""I'm angry about it, and angry that in a sense I've been held up as sort of responsible for all this when in fact I responded to what I thought was a reasonable request at the time,"" Dodd said. ""I went through six weeks of a lot of criticism from the financial press, from Wall Street and others that my amendment was too restrictive, that it was unfair, that there would be a brain drain, that people would leave right and left."" Still, it was Dodd who chose to insert the loophole. For his 180-degree switch from steadfast denier to contrite confessor."
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.