Split (3)

train · 9.81k rows

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
37406	500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills.	500,000 Americans Will Go Bankrupt This Year from Medical Bills?	true	Fact Checks, Politics	"On January 12 2020, the Facebook page “Lower Drug Prices Now” shared what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet, which claimed that “500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year” due to medical bills:Claims referencing “this year” can be difficult to fact-check, as images like the one above could circulate for several years in perpetuity, muddying the timeframe of “this year” (or “this week,” or most commonly, “yesterday.”)A search for the phrasing used in the screenshot led back to its ostensible source, an August 20 2019 tweet by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) on Twitter. The tweet’s origin was unsurprising, as Medicare for All was a major plank of Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign platform:500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills.They didn't go to Las Vegas and blow their money at a casino.Their crime was that they got sick.How barbaric is a system that says, ""I'm going to destroy your family's finances because you had cancer""?— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 20, 2019Both the tweet and the screenshot contained four lines, and read:500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills.They didn’t go to Las Vegas and blow their money at a casino.Their crime was that they got sick.How barbaric is a system that says, “I’m going to destroy your family’s finances because you had cancer”?Although the Facebook post was shared in January 2020, the “this year” clearly referenced 2019 — the year in which Sanders published the tweet. No source was shared alongside the claim, but a fairly specific figure of 500,000 medical bankruptcies was mentioned.A cursory search revealed both a possible underlying source for the figure, as well as what appeared to be a controversial fact-check. On August 28 2019, a Los Angeles Times op-ed asserted that Sanders had reiterated the “500,000 medical bankruptcies” claim in a debate — and that the Washington Post fact-checked the claim and scored it as “mostly false” or “three Pinocchios.” (The article displays a date of September 4 2019, indicating that it was updated; additional commentary is marked, but changes to the article remained unmarked and impossible to identify via the article itself. )Diving in, the article explained:You’ve got to hand it to Sen. Bernie Sanders for his ability to keep hot-button issues in the forefront of the presidential race.The latest example is his assertion, made at least twice in the last month, that medical bills drive 500,000 Americans into bankruptcy every year. The Washington Post’s fact-checker column examined the numbers and concluded that Sanders deserved “three Pinocchios” for the statement, which means the Post found it “mostly false” and that Sanders was, basically, lying.The Post blundered, as the authors of the study on which Sanders based his claim point out. In the real world, Sanders’ assertion that “500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills” is “mostly true.” Medical bankruptcy is an American scandal, and possibly even more common than he or the study’s authors calculate.On the same date as the Los Angeles Times editorial, the Washington Post published a fact-check of Sanders’ assertion. It was indeed rated “mostly false” or “three Pinocchios” as the op-ed said.We noticed two familiar names in the paper’s examination of the claim — David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler. Himmelstein and Woolhandler were researchers credited with a study referenced by our January 13 2020 fact-check about the cost of Canadian healthcare versus that of the United States.In a section titled “The Facts,” the Washington Post reported:Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March [2019].That study, led by David U. Himmelstein, took a sample of bankruptcy court filings from 2013 to 2016, identified 3,200 bankrupt debtors and mailed them a survey. The response rate was 29.4 percent, with 910 responses and 108 surveys returned as undeliverable.Debtors were asked whether medical expenses, or loss of work related to illness, contributed to their bankruptcies. Of those who responded, 66.5 percent said at least one of those factors contributed “somewhat” or “very much.”Sixty-six percent of 750,000 is 500,000, so Sanders’s math adds up at first glance.The study referenced, “Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act,” was accepted by the American Journal of Public Health in November 2018 and published in February 2019. Sanders’ campaign website also hosted a page (“Medical Bankruptcy is Real, Even if the Washington Post Refuses to Believe it”) about the claim, controversy, and fact-check; the page was written by the study’s authors, Himmelstein et al.The Washington Post fact-check noted that as an editorial, that particular AJPH article “did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.” We were unable to find how they were able to make the determination that the article was not peer-reviewed.The paper also posited that while the 66 percent of bankruptcies cited medical bills as a factor, other factors may have been involved:This study includes a range of people for whom medical expenses or illness contributed “somewhat” to bankruptcy. What does “somewhat” mean? It’s broad enough to mean “slightly,” “fairly” or “moderately.” Sanders’s claim works only by erasing this ambiguity and taking “somewhat” to mean “mostly.”In Sanders’ tweet, no qualifiers (like “mostly”) were used. He said “500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills,” a statement that could reasonably be framed to mean either that medical bills were a defining factor in bankruptcies, or that medical bills caused bankruptcies, or that medical bills were a contributing factor in bankruptcies.Himmelstein was quoted by the paper in its attempt to assign a truth rating to the claim, and he explained that a number of confounding factors made sweeping statements difficult. Of note is that Himmelstein cited circumstances in which illness and mounting medical bills could drive other bankruptcy-exacerbating circumstances, such as work missed due to illness or compounding debt again related to health issues:“We did not ask about the sole or main reason for bankruptcy, because our past experience indicates that this is a meaningless question,” Himmelstein, a professor at CUNY’s Hunter College who supports single-payer health care, wrote in an email. “The vast majority of debtors suffer multiple problems that bring them to file, and cannot identify a single problem among them. Thus, if an illness led to lost work time (and hence income) and medical bills, debtors cannot separate out these different problems; they are of a piece.”Critics of Himmelstein and his colleagues’ research into medical bills and bankruptcy proposed different approaches, like “[instead of] looking at a sample of people who go bankrupt and see how many have medical debt, look at a sample of a bunch of people who have medical debt, and how many of them go bankrupt [to get an] idea of causality.” Another study cited a far lower number, while at the same time noting that the figure only involved debtors who had been hospitalized:“Based on our estimate of 4 percent of bankruptcy filings per year and the approximately 800,000 bankruptcy filings per year, our number would be much closer to something on the order of 30,000-50,000 bankruptcies caused by a hospitalization,” one of the co-authors of the NEJM study, economist Raymond Kluender of Harvard Business School, wrote in an email.“This would lead us to be skeptical of the 500,000 medical bankruptcies statistic, but that very much depends on how one defines a medical bankruptcy.… An enormous share of households have some amount of medical debt, so any survey of individuals will report a high share of them have medical debt but this does not imply that the debt caused them to file for bankruptcy.”Some people could still face high levels of medical debt without ever going through a hospital, and they wouldn’t be counted in the NEJM study.The Washington Post asked Himmelstein directly if Sanders had accurately represented the findings of his and his colleagues’ editorial, to which he replied in the affirmative:Himmelstein wrote: “37 percent of filers said medical bills ‘very much’ contributed to their bankruptcy. Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate — or an underestimate. There are about 700,000 bankruptcy filings each year. Many filings are joint husband/wife filings, and based on our past research, we estimate that on average 2.71 persons reside in each debtor’s household. So the total number of persons who undergo bankruptcy is about 1.9 million annually.“37 percent of 1.9 million is a bit over 700,000. Even if you only count the husband and wife in a filing, the number suffering a bankruptcy to which medical bills ‘very much’ contributed is about 500,000.”The fact-check then concluded that the claims constituted politically motivated “cherry-picking” over the researchers’ objections:This is a classic case of cherry-picking a number from a scientific study and twisting it to make a political point.An undated response from Himmelstein and Woolhandler appeared at the bottom of the post. The authors pointed out several objections to the fact-check and factors cited in it, writing:An August 28 [2019] Fact Checker article in the Post assigned a “Three Pinocchios” rating to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ statement that 500,000 Americans are bankrupted by medical bills annually. Sanders’ estimate relied on an editorial by David Himmelstein and colleagues in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) reporting findings from a Consumer Bankruptcy Project (CBP) survey that asked debtors about causes of their bankruptcy. The editorial (which the Post falsely implied had not undergone peer review) updated previous CBP studies carried out by Himmelstein, along with then-Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, Steffie Woolhandler and Deborah Thorne that reached similar conclusions and appeared in leading medical and policy journals.The Post’s denigration of Sanders’ statement rests on an econometric study that found only a modest uptick in bankruptcy filings among persons hospitalized in California between 2003 and 2007. As Himmelstein, Woolhandler and Warren noted in their response to that study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study excluded most persons with frequent hospitalizations (a group at high risk of medical bankruptcy); assumed that anyone not hospitalized could not suffer medical bankruptcy; that a child or partners’ illness couldn’t lead to bankruptcy; and that potentially bankrupting illnesses always commence at the moment of hospitalization – an assumption contradicted by the study’s own data.Rather than checking facts, the Post has chosen one side in an ongoing and unsettled scholarly debate, and labeled those on the other side (and public figures who cite their research) “liars”.More than 200 readers commented on the fact-check, most objecting to the paper’s dismissal of both the underlying research and the researchers’ responses. One commenter wrote:I’m not a political supporter of Senator Sanders, I’m a retired former CEO of several significant medical device companies and the former Co-Chairman for eight years of the National Council for Healthcare Technology. The authors of the original editorial and its supporting peer reviewed studies, are the widely acknowledged preeminent experts in the field of medical bankruptcy, which they’ve been studying and publishing peer reviewed articles on for many years. The Washington Post’s reporter has substituted his uninformed judgement for the expertise, acquired over many years, by the authors of the original editorial and its supporting studies. As the authors pointed out in their rebuttal, Senator Sanders’s estimate of medical debt related bankruptcies is, if anything, to conservative. Medical debt related bankruptcies are a huge problem in the US, the only developed country in the world where they occur. The Washington Post is flat out wrong on this issue.Another echoed:How hard is it to retract this? I think we are being generous when we say the author made some mistakes here, I think it is pretty clear to anyone who pays attention what the intent of this “fact check” was, and that is to try and discredit Bernie Sanders in any way possible.But you got called out on it by both Senator Sanders and the authors of the study he cited, now own up to it and retract it. If the WaPo had one shred of journalistic integrity, they would admit they were wrong and seek to correct it. All this does is damage the Post’s credibility going forward the longer they remain obstinate about this.A third addressed a conclusory claim by the Post that Himmelstein somehow moved the goalposts on his own original claim, remarking on the inferences underlying the “mostly” aspect:Is the WaPo serious here? The entire article is based on the fact checker’s claim that Sanders implied with his tweets “solely caused” instead of “one of the causes”. But him also saying “people(/Americans)” instead of “cases” isn’t relevant? The study refers to different contributions to bankruptcy. Which one are you proving false? If you are going off of the peer reviewed editorial it is talking about contribution and cases. If you are going off of Sander’s tweet, it’s cause and people. Himmelstein even gave you an easily verifiable fact as to how many people are experiencing bankruptcy per case. This article has many more basic logical inaccuracies, I just wanted to point out this blatant disregard of parallelism in fact checking.That commenter’s critique was not restricted to one comment:So…what is your point? Because health care costs may not be the sole reason for a person’s financial difficulties, it is wrong to point to them as a burden? Has WaPo never heard of the straw that broke the camel’s back?We were unable to find commenters defending the amended fact-check, but we did find an additional comment signed by Himmelstein:Although the Post agreed to post our brief letter responding to their column, it refused to include the names of the 101 additional colleagues who were signatories of that letter. David U. Himmelstein, MD and Steffie Woolhandler MD MPHClearly, Sanders’ claim (depicted in the January 12 2020 Facebook post above) that “500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills” (referencing 2019) was a point of contention, worsened by a widely-disputed Washington Post fact-check originally published on August 28 2019 — after Sanders’ tweet and a Democratic debate in which he referenced the same statistic. Normally, we turn to the source material to verify such debate — in this case, research published in a medical journal.In a very odd turn of events, the authors of the article in the medical journal spoke up to insist their figures were accurately represented by Sanders in both places. In turn, the Washington Post added some of their objections (but not all), did not correct a claim that the editorial was not subjected to peer-review, and left out important elements of the authors’ response. Although the paper retained its “mostly false/three Pinocchios” rating, we were hard pressed to replicate those findings based on extensive comment from researchers whose peer-reviewed work had been published in medical journals.Update, January 14 2020, 4:28 PM: Himmelstein responded quickly to our request for additional information, forwarding two documents. One was published to Sanders’ website and linked above.The second was a letter to the editor — signed, as Himmelstein noted — by several parties. We are including both in their entirety. The first:Medical Bankruptcy is Real, Even if the Washington Post Refuses to Believe it David U. Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.HThe Washington Post has broken new ground, calling a presidential candidate a liar for citing a statistic from research published in the world’s leading public health journal. ThePost’s Fact Checker column labeled Bernie Sanders a “three pinocchio” level liar for saying that 500,000 Americans are bankrupted by medical bills each year. Sanders’ statement relied on research that we and three colleagues published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH). Dozens of politicians and publications (including the Post itself!) have cited that study as a reliable source.Our AJPH study was part of an ongoing research effort by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project (CBP). For decades, the CBP has been surveying debtors about the causes (including medical ones) and consequences of their bankruptcy. In our 2019 research, 37.0% of bankrupts “very much” agreed that medical bills were an important factor, while another 21.5% “somewhat agreed”. Many others cited lost wages due to illness, and overall, two-thirds cited illness-related bills, income loss or both. As we wrote in the AJPH, that’s “. . . equivalent to about 530 000 medical bankruptcies annually.” That figure is in line with estimates based on our earlier CBP studies (carried out with then-Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren and sociologist Deborah Thorne), which were published in leading medical and policy journals.But even the 530,000 figure is an underestimate of the number of people affected by medical bankruptcies. Most bankruptcies involve more than one person – an average of about 2.7 people, often including a spouse/partner and children. That means that the 750,000 bankruptcies last year involved more than 2 million people. And even if you usethe most restrictive definition of medical bankruptcy – i.e. including only debtors who “very much” agreed that medical bills were a cause of their bankruptcy – Sanders’ 500,000 figure is, if anything, too low. The right number is more like three quarters of a million.And our studies aren’t the only indictor that many American families suffer a crushing burden of medical bills. A Nobel Prize winner was forced to sell his medal to pay medical bills. More than 250 000 people sought to raise funds for medical bills through GoFundMe campaigns last year. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,medical bills account for more than half of all unpaid bills sent to collection agencies.And in a New York Times/Kaiser Foundation survey, more than one quarter of respondents said they or someone in their household had a problem paying medical bills, and of them, 11% said they’d declared bankruptcy due, at least in part to medical bills.So why did the Fact Checker claim that Sanders told a whopper? That claim rests on an econometric study that found only a modest uptick in bankruptcy filings among persons hospitalized in California between 2003 and 2007. But that study appeared tailor made toundercount medical bankruptcies. As we and Elizabeth Warren noted in our response to it in the New England Journal of Medicine, it excluded most people who were frequently hospitalized (a group that’s at high risk of medical bankruptcy); it assumed that anyone not hospitalized could not suffer medical bankruptcy (even though people who aren’t hospitalized in the course of a year account for four-fifths of all out-of-pocket medical bills); that no one is bankrupted by bills for a child’s or partners’ care; and that potentially bankrupting illnesses never start before the moment of hospitalization – an assumption contradicted by the study’s own data.Yet despite these flaws, the economists behind the study insisted (and the Post believed) that their math was a more reliable indicator of what caused financial ruin than the testimony (and court records that we’ve used as cross-check) from the thousands of debtors surveyed and interviewed by the CBP.At this point everyone agrees that many thousands of Americans suffer medical bankruptcies each year, but there’s still scholarly debate over exactly how many; economists and business school professors (including some funded by the health insurance industry) generally offer lower estimates, and medical and legal researchers find higher numbers, We’d be happy to see the Post report the facts and nuances of that debate. But instead it’s chosen a side and labeled those on the other side – researchers, public figures who cite their research, and the debtors who shared their painful stories – “liars”.David U. Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. are both Distinguished Professors of Public Health, City University of New York at Hunter College and Lecturers in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program.As Himmelstein’s comment in the comments section of the Post article maintained, all of the many additional signatories of the letter had been stripped in the appended portion. We have included them below, in the full text of the second document:To the Editor:An August 28 Fact Checker article in the Post assigned a “three pinocchios” rating to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ statement that 500,000 Americans are bankrupted by medical bills annually. Sanders’ estimate relied on an editorial by David Himmelstein and colleagues in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) reporting findings from a Consumer Bankruptcy Project (CBP) survey that asked debtors about causes of their bankruptcy. The editorial (which the Post falsely implied had not undergone peer review) updated previous CBP studies carried out by Himmelstein, along with then-Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, Steffie Woolhandler and Deborah Thorne that reached similar conclusions and appeared in leading medical and policy journals.The Post’s denigration of Sanders’ statement rests on an econometric study that found only a modest uptick in bankruptcy filings among persons hospitalized in California between 2003 and -2007. As Himmelstein, Woolhandler and Warren noted in their response to that study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study excluded most persons with frequent hospitalizations (a group at high risk of medical bankruptcy); assumed that anyone not hospitalized could not suffer medical bankruptcy; that a child or partners’ illness couldn’t lead to bankruptcy; and that potentially bankrupting illnesses always commence at the moment of hospitalization – an assumption contradicted by the study’s own data.Rather than checking facts, the Post has chosen one side in an ongoing and unsettled scholarly debate, and labeled those on the other side (and public figures who cite their research) “liars”.Sincerely,David U. Himmelstein, MD Distinguished Professor Hunter College at City University of New York Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical SchoolSteffie Woolhandler MD MPH Distinguished Professor Hunter College at City University of New York Lecturer (formerly Professor) in Medicine, Harvard Medical SchoolMary T. Bassett MD MPH Director, FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard Former New York City Commissioner of HealthRobert Pollin, PhD Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Co-Director Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts-Amherst.David H. Bor, MD Chief Academic Officer Cambridge Health Alliance Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical SchoolSteven B. Auerbach, MD MPH Retired-CAPT U.S. Public Health Service/ Dept. of Health & Human ServicesAshwini Sehgal, MD Duncan Neuhauser Professor of Community Health Improvement Co-Director, Center for Reducing Health Disparities Case Western Reserve UniversityMarion Nestle, PhD, MPH Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health New York UniversityArthur MacEwan Professor Emeritus of Economics University of Massachusetts BostonHoward Waitzkin, MD, PhD, FACP Distinguished Professor Emeritus University of New Mexico Visiting Professor, Fulbright Senior Fellow Seoul National University School of Public Health Division of Health Care Management and PolicyKaren Lasser, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine and Public Health Boston UniversityJoia S. Mukherjee, MD, MPH Chief Medical Officer, Partners In Health Associate Professor, Harvard Medical SchoolPriyank Jain, MD Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical SchoolMardge H. Cohen, MD Boston Health Care for the Homeless Boston UniversityGordon Schiff, MD Associate Professor of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical SchoolSonali Saluja, MD, MPH University of Southern California School of MedicineSabrina A. Esbitt, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Family & Social Medicine Montefiore Medical Center/ Albert Einstein College of MedicineZinzi Bailey, PhD University of Miami, Miller School of MedicineKaren A. Becker, MD, MPH Associate Professor, Albert Einstein College of MedicineIman Hassan MD MS Montefiore Health System/Albert Einstein College of MedicineCarles Muntaner MD, PhD, MHS. Professor of Public Health, Nursing and Psychiatry University of Toronto Toronto, CanadaHenry S Kahn, MD, FACP Professor Emeritus Emory University School of MedicineScott Goldberg, MD Bronx, NYLara Goitein, M.D Santa Fe, NMVikas Saini, MD, F.A.C.C. President, Lown InstituteJoe de Jonge Medical Student, Columbia UniversityDavid Ozonoff, MD, MPH Professor of Environmental Health Boston University School of Public HealthLinda Prine MD Professor of Family Medicine Icahn Mount Sinai School of MedicineMerlin Chowkwanyun, PhD Assistant Professor of Public Health Mailman/Columbia University School of Public HealthMatt Anderson, MD Montefiore/Albert Einstein School of MedicineSheba Sethi, MD Montefiore/Albert Einstein School of MedicineChristopher J. Wong, MD University of Washington School of MedicineRichard J. Pels, MD Chief of Medicine Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical SchoolKathleen Hanley, MD Associate Professor NYU School of MedicineMark Eisenberg, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical SchoolAdam Gaffney, MD MPH Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School President, Physicians for a National Health ProgramJoel Lexchin MD Professor Emeritus School of Health Policy & Management York University Toronto Ontario, CanadaPaul Song, MD Los Angeles, CAPieter Cohen, MD Associate Professor of Medicine Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical SchoolLipi Roy, MD, MPH, FASAM New York CityHeather Paladine, MD Residency Director Family Medicine Residency Program New York Presbyterian/ Columbia University Medical CenterMartha Livingston, PhD Professor and Chair, Public Health State University of New York, Old WestburyMartin F. Shapiro, MD, PhD Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical CollegeDan O’Connell, MD MPH Asst. Prof Family Medicine, Albert Einstein School of MedicineVictoria Gorski, MD, FAAFP Associate Clinical Professor Department of Family and Social Medicine Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of MedicineAlec Feuerbach Medical student Icahn Mount Sinai School of MedicineGabriel Silversmith, MD, MS New York CityA.H. Strelnick, MD Associate Dean and Professor, Family & Social Medicine Albert Einstein College of Medicine Montefiore Medical CenterGordon Guyatt, MD, MSc, FRCP, OC Distinguished University Professor McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaLew Pepper, MD MPH Newton, MANancy Krieger, PhD Professor of Social Epidemiology American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthMichael A. Zingman, MPH MD Candidate, Columbia University College of Physicians & SurgeonsGarrett Adams, MD, MPH Past President, Physicians for National Health Program Louisville, KYEllen Benoit, PhD New York CityJoanna Watterson Medical StudentPhilip Verhoef, MD University of Chicago School of MedicineDeborah Thorne, PhD Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of IdahoLeo Eisenstein, MD Bellevue Hospital/NYU School of MedicineVikas Gampa, MD Cambridge, MAMargot Smith, DrPH Berkeley, CACatherine DeLorey, PhD Women’s Health Institute Boston, MAMartin Donohoe MD FACP Portland State UniversityRichard N. Gottfried Chair, New York State Assembly Health CommitteeRachel Madley PhD Candidate Columbia University Medical CenterTom Lieb, MD Portland, OR 97213William M. Fogarty, Jr., MD Webster Groves, MOEd Weisbart, MD, CPE, FAAFP St. Louis, MissouriKenneth D. Rosenberg, MD, MPH Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public HealthAirín D. Martínez, PhD Assistant Professor School of Public Health and Health Sciences University of Massachusetts-AmherstMark S. Krasnoff, MD FACP St. Louis, MOAndrew Goldstein, MD. New York, NYAaron D. Fox, MD MS Associate Professor of Medicine Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of MedicineSam Dickman, MD University of California San FranciscoChristine Jacobs MD Professor and Department Chair Family and Community Medicine St. Louis UniversityRachel Kreier, PhD Associate professor, health economics Saint Joseph’s College Patchogue, NYRobert E Aronson, DrPH, MPH Professor and Director, Public Health Program Department of Environmental Science, Public Health and Sustainable Development Taylor University Upland, INMichael Hochman, MD, MPH Director, USC Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science Keck Medicine of USCKevin Grumbach, MD Hellman Endowed Professor and Chair Department of Family and Community Medicine University of California San FranciscoOlveen Carrasquillo, MD MPH Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences Chief, Division of General Internal Medicine University of Miami, Miller School of MedicinePaul O’Rourke-Babb, MSN, FNP-C Chico, CAWilliam Honigman, M.D. Orange County, CATom Koren, PT San Francisco, CANoralou Roos, O.C., PhD Professor, University of MannitobaHarvey M. Weinstein, MD, MPH Senior Research Fellow, Human Rights Center, Berkeley LawCorinne Frugoni M.D. Humboldt County, CAMarc Sapir MD, MPH Hayward, CAHenry L. Abrons, MD, MPH Berkeley, CAJay Bowman-Kirigin MD/PhD student, Washington University, St. LouisJessica Schorr Saxe, MD Charlotte, NCLeonard Rodberg, PhD Professor Emeritus, Queens College/City University of New YorkMarce Abare, MD San Jose, CARuth Wangerin, PhD, MPH Lehman College, City University of New YorkJ. Wesley Boyd, MD, PhD Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical SchoolJudy Norsigian, Board Chair, on behalf of Our Bodies and OurselvesRussell Phillips, M,.D. William Applebaum Professor of Medicine; Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine and Director of the Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical SchoolMarcia Angell, M.D. Former Editor-in-chief, New England Journal of MedicineAffiliations are for identification only"
1292	Roche boss says Brexit and curbs on drug use pose threat to UK science.	Uncertainty over drug regulation and a reluctance by Britain’s health service to use certain pricey modern medicines pose a threat to the country’s respected life sciences sector, the head Swiss drugmaker Roche said on Thursday.	true	Science News	With only six months to go until the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union, the highly regulated pharmaceuticals industry still does not know exactly how medicines oversight will function. Severin Schwan, chief executive of the world’s biggest maker of cancer drugs, said in an interview that Europe was already slower than the United States to approve new medicines and there are fears the UK might fall further behind, jeopardizing investment. “The UK would get markedly less competitive and less interesting for the industry as a life science hub,” he told Reuters. “For us, this is a very relevant question and if the regulatory system should not keep up with Europe, then this would be a big issue for us.” Roche employs 2,100 staff in Britain and has been in the country since 1908. Staff work not only in the commercial business but also in a substantial drug development operation. “It goes without saying that we give preference in research and development activities where we bring the medicines to patients first,” Schwan said. “Even though we very much appreciate the science and capabilities in the UK, it is not possible to disconnect that from access to innovative medicines.” Schwan noted that the UK could, in theory, use Brexit to create an independent drugs regulator that was faster than the European Medicines Agency. However, he also said this would require large government investment in both staff and resources. In addition to uncertainty over the licensing of medicines, Schwan is also frustrated by curbs on access to some treatments within Britain’s National Health Service. His company is in a bitter row over the health service’s refusal to approve Ocrevus, the company’s new drug for treating a highly disabling form of multiple sclerosis. “We now have a situation where patients in need don’t get the medicine. It’s as simple as that,” Schwan said. In preparation for potential supply disruption in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal with Brussels, the government has told drugmakers to build an additional six weeks of medicine stockpiles. Schwan said that Roche is increasing its stocks in line with peers and would be able to continue to supply patients in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
36890	A video clip that apparently shows Hillary Clinton suffering a seizure on the campaign trail has raised questions about her health.	Hillary Clinton Had Seizures on Camera-Reported as Fiction!	false	Politics	Claims that video shows Hillary Clinton having a seizure on the campaign trail appear to be false. Theories that Hillary Clinton suffered a seizure on the campaign trail, or that she was suffering visible side effects from a stroke, went viral on websites like Reddit and 4chan. Users debated whether a video of Hillary Clinton doing impromptu interviews in a lobby in June captured her having a seizure. Those theories went mainstream after the website Conservative Outfitters reported that theories about the video had raised questions about Hillary Clinton’s health: It’s worth noting Hillary Clinton’s health has been on voter’s minds for a while now. Hillary is frequently seen suffering from violent coughing fits on the campaign trail. Sometimes the violent coughing fits leave her unable to speak for minutes at a time. Watch the two videos below showing both angles and decided for yourself. Did Hillary Clinton have a seizure? What do you think? Is Hillary Clinton healthy enough to be Commander-in-chief? But it seems obvious for a number of reasons that Hillary Clinton did not have a seizure in the video. After responding to a question about President Obama’s endorsement of her, a reporter loudly asked a question about who her vice presidential running mate would be. Clinton responded by nodding her head in mock surprise and shock and brushed off the question by holding up her coffee and saying, “You’ve got to try the iced chai,” to laughter. These types of rumors aren’t new, either. Theories about the condition of Hillary Clinton’s brain have been around since she suffered a concussion in December 2012. After Bill Clinton revealed that it took Hillary six months to get over the brain injury, Republican strategist Karl Rove stoked rumors that Clinton had suffered brain damage in the fall (he later retracted the claim). For a timeline of Hillary Clinton’s recovery from that concussion click here. Other theories about neurological conditions — including ones that she had a seizure on camera — are unfounded. That’s why we’re reporting this one as fiction.
38249	Congressman Trey Gowdy was found badly beaten and bloodied after being dragged from his congressional office in Washington, D.C., in June 2017 — and police are on the lookout for his attacker.	Congressman Trey Gowdy Found Beaten, Placed in Medically-Induced Coma	false	9/11 Attack on America	A self-described fake news website is behind false reports that U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy was found beaten and bloodied outside his office in Washington, D.C., on June 28, 2017. The rumor started with a report that appeared Last Line of Defense under the headline, “Trey Gowdy Found Beaten, Bloody And Unconscious.” The article claims that Gowdy was dragged from his office by an unknown attacker who evaded a five-mile wide police dragnet using hidden tunnels under the city: Trey Gowdy, on the other hand, is safe and recovering in a medically induced coma. Dr. Clem Brookstein told LLOD correspondent Skip Tetheluda: “Trey should be OK with time for his brain to drain a bit and the numerous bones to heal. He also has no fingernails. It appears in the short few hours he was missing that he was tortured.” Last Line of Defense has published multiple false reports of Trey Gowdy, his staff members or his family being attacked or kidnapped, and all of them have proven false. Most often, the site attributes the crimes against Gowdy to Bill and Hillary Clinton given that Gowdy led a congressional investigation of the Benghazi terror attack that unfolded while Hillary was secretary of state. The latest claim, that Trey Gowdy was found beaten, presents a “crime scene” photo that appears to depict Gowdy being loaded into an ambulance. However, the photo actually shows a man who was shot by a police officer in March 2016 in California: DISCLAIMER: America’s Last Line of Defense is a satirical publication that may sometimes appear to be telling the truth. We assure you that’s not the case. We present fiction as fact and our sources don’t actually exist. Names that represent actual people and places are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and do not in any way depict reality. This reports, like all others that appear at Last Line of Defense, is false. Comments
4359	Texas officials investigating possible tuberculosis exposure.	Health officials say about 150 high school students in western Texas may have been exposed to tuberculosis.	true	El Paso, Health, Tuberculosis, Public health, Texas	El Paso’s Department of Public Health is investigating the possible TB exposure at Hanks High School. Officials believe a student came in close contact with someone who had an active case of TB. Robert Resendes is the director of the city’s Public Health Department. He says free testing will be available to those who may have been exposed. Health officials say the bacterial illness isn’t easily transmitted and requires extensive exposure to spread. It can be contracted by breathing in infected droplets from the cough or sneeze of a person with active TB. Symptoms include a persistent cough, coughing up blood, fever, night sweats and chronic weakness.
32234	An African American man living in the Boston area was shot by police officers following a dispute regarding a marijuana cigarette.	While Associated Media Coverage may be changing their name to The Boston Tribune, their content is still nothing more than fake news.	false	Junk News, associated media coverage, boston tribune	On 23 September 2016, the Associated Media Coverage fake news site, which has now rebranded itself as the Boston Tribune, published an article reporting that a Boston police officer had killed a black man in a dispute over a marijuana cigarette: On the heels of recent scandals involving police brutality among the African American community, Malik Edwards, a 36-year old African American man living in the Boston area was shot by police officers following a dispute regarding a marijuana cigarette. According to witnesses, Edwards was seen sitting on the porch of his girlfriend’s home located in Evanston, Massachusetts, a municipality about 10-miles outside of Boston when the incident occurred. Edwards was accompanied by 2 additional African American males and his 32-year old girlfriend Nia Brown. According to witnesses, after approximately 90-seconds of Edwards failing to put out his marijuana cigarette, the responding police officers became very agitated and confrontational. One police officer allegedly told Edwards, “We have enough problems in our town without thugs like you peddling drugs”. When Edwards reached for a half-empty Gatorade bottle sitting on the porch next to his feet, Police Officer, Thomas Wright, drew his police issues handgun and shot the 36-year old man 3-times in the chest. Paramedics quickly arrived to Brown’s home and Edwards was pronounced dead on the scene. There was no truth to this report. Associated Media Coverage is a well-known purveyor of fake news that has been shamelessly exploiting occurrences of fatal police shootings of black men by publishing fabricated clickbait stories reporting similar incidents. Although many readers may now be familiar with Associated Media Coverage’s reputation, the site has recently started publishing articles under the banners of fictitious newspapers such as The Boston Tribune and The Baltimore Gazette:
9826	Debate over who needs a thyroid check in pregnancy	The article gives extensive context to the recent Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study and refers to other research done in the field. The article effectively breaks down and explains a complex debate in the physician community – whether all pregnant women should be screened for thyroid function and whether women with milder cases of hypothyroidism should be diagnosed and treated. The story says this will “add pressure” for science to settle this issue, but that pressure already exists from endocrinologists and obstetricians – with, as the study shows, about 1 in 5 pregnant women being tested from 2005-8.	true	Pregnancy	The story states that a $25 blood test can identify someone with a thyroid disorder. The costs associated with daily hormone therapy are not discussed. The article does an excellent job explaining the importance of thyroid hormones during pregnancy for fetal brain development, especially during the first trimester. It also points out the role in preventing miscarriage and premature birth. Furthermore, the story thoroughly details the risks that come with an overactive or an underactive thyroid gland for the average person. The article mentions that, for mild cases of hypothyroidism, scientists are unsure whether diagnoses and subsequent treatment sufficiently help pregnant patients or, instead, waste money on blood testing and thyroid medication. This is appropriately stated high up (in the first third) in the report. The article briefly mentions that the Quest Diagnostics study looked at records and surveys from half a million pregnant women, but apart from this fact, the story does not outline any more research methods or protocol. We could interpret the findings better if we knew, for example: There is no disease mongering in this story. The article gives appropriate and sufficient background information on various thyroid disorders and how they could affect pregnant women. The comment from Dr. Dena Goffman of New York’s Montefiore Medical Center offers an outside perspective on the research and the “long-running controversy” regarding thyroid testing for pregnant women. However, researchers at Quest Diagnostics – one of the world’s biggest companies for diagnostic services – conducted this study, which found a “higher-than-expected” number of pregnant women with underactive thyroids. Whether Quest Diagnostics funded the study, or whether Dr. Elizabeth Pearce had ties to the company, were not explicitly discussed. The story offers different perspectives and guidelines on thyroid screening from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Thyroid Association. The story makes it clear that “nearly a quarter of pregnant women are getting the simple thyroid blood test regardless of whether they have symptoms.” Thyroid function screening via a blood test is not a new concept. The question is whether milder cases of hypothyroidism in pregnant women should be treated with daily hormone therapy. In general, the article does an excellent job laying out both sides of the issue. There was no evidence that the story relied solely on a press release.
7215	Biden to discuss fight to end cancer at South By Southwest.	South By Southwest says former Vice President Joe Biden will give a speech at the festival about efforts to end cancer.	true	Cancer, Health, Joe Biden, Beau Biden, Austin, Texas	Organizers announced Monday that Biden will be a featured speaker in Austin on Sunday, during the portion of the festival focusing on interactive technology. Biden will discuss plans for his new cancer-fighting initiative. Biden has said recently that the initiative will focus on improving data standards to help researchers, work with community care organizations to improve access to care and push to ensure patients can afford treatments. Biden previously led a White House “cancer moonshot” effort to accelerate developments toward a cure. The former vice president has focused on improving cancer research efforts since his son, former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, died of brain cancer in 2015.
41882	"Said he got ""52 percent"" support from women during the 2016 presidential election. "	Trump’s August speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, was packed with familiar factual distortions.	false	estate tax, immigration, infrastructure, jobs, NATO, Russia investigation, Taxes, trade deficit, Veterans Affairs,	President Donald Trump has embarked on a string of political rallies around the country to support Republican candidates and tout his accomplishments as president. These speeches are often sprinkled with a regular roster of false and misleading claims. Here, we are highlighting more than a dozen familiar claims the president made at an August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.For instance:And there’s more — on the Department of Veterans Affairs, NATO, infrastructure, support from women, health care and the Russia investigation.In the Aug. 2 rally, Trump urged the crowd in Wilkes-Barre to vote for Rep. Lou Barletta, who is running for Senate against incumbent Sen. Bob Casey. But along the way, the president rattled off assertions that have become staples of his campaign events.Trump continues to find new ways to mangle the facts about immigration policy, specifically about three programs or policies he seeks to eliminate or overhaul: the diversity visa lottery, chain migration and catch-and-release.Diversity Visa LotteryAs he has done repeatedly, Trump wrongly suggested foreign governments decide who gets to enter into the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, and that they use the system to offload their worst citizens. In this case, Trump went even further, wrongly posing a hypothetical in which a person convicted of multiple murders is sent to the U.S. through the lottery system. There is a screening process that would specifically bar entry to a convicted killer.The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, or DV program, uses a computer lottery system to randomly issue up to 50,000 immigrant visas each year to applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Millions of applicants annually apply for the diversity visas.Here’s what the president said in Wilkes-Barre.Trump: We got to get rid of visa — how about that? — visa, visa lottery. You know what a lottery is? You pick it out of a hat. … “Ladies and gentlemen, our first lottery winner.” You know, they think we’re playing, like, a game show. “Our first lottery winner. Let’s see he has seven convictions for death. He’s killed nine people. And we’re getting him the hell out of our country and giving them to the stupid politicians that have been running the United States for many years. And we’re going to send him up there because he just won the lottery. Congratulations. Congratulations.” Yeah, that’s a beauty.As we wrote when Trump claimed other countries are gaming the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program to offload “their worst” to the U.S., that’s now how the system works. It’s not at all like “a game show.”Residents self-select to be considered for the lottery. And even if selected, they have to go through a background security vetting process. Criminal activity is one of more than a dozen grounds for inadmissibility. Needless to say, seven murder convictions would be a disqualifying factor.Chain migrationTrump cast chain migration as a pathway for killers to bring in extended family to the U.S.Trump: You have chain migration. You know what that is? A guy comes in — stone-cold killer in many cases. A guy comes in, and then you have to bring his aunt, his uncle, his father, his grandfather, his grandparents, his third niece by a different marriage.Trump doesn’t say how this hypothetical immigrant came to the U.S., but in order to be eligible for so-called “chain migration,” he would have to have entered legally. Trump says this immigrant would be a “stone-cold killer in many cases.” As we have written, studies have shown legal immigrants commit crimes at a rate far lower than native-born Americans. And, we should note, a convicted killer would be denied entry to the U.S. via legal immigration.As he often does to bolster his argument against so-called chain migration, Trump wrongly used the example of Sayfullo Saipov — the Uzbekistan national who was charged with driving his truck into a crowd of pedestrians, bicyclists and joggers along the Hudson River in New York City on Oct. 31, 2017, killing eight and wounding many others.Trump: So, this bad guy that ran over and killed eight people on the West Side Highway in New York City … And he came in through chain, and he has 22 relatives here that came in because he was here. He has his uncle and his aunt and he has his grandfather. So, we have to change this and we’re going to change it.Saipov arrived in the United States through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program in 2010, according to the Department of Homeland Security. But as we have written, there is no evidence that he brought in 22 family members, and it’s likely not even possible. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual says that a person who enters the country on a diversity visa may bring only his or her spouse and children — not parents, grandparents and other relatives, as Trump said. A Princeton University demographer who studies this issue told us Trump’s 22 figure was “an implausible exaggeration given the current visa system.”Catch-and-releaseTrump: This is like for stupid people, catch and release. Somebody walks across the border, they put their foot on there, not even two feet, just one foot. And you might as well, “Welcome to the United States, we’ll never get you out of here,” OK? …[T]hey want me to hire thousands of judges, thousands. … They want me to hire thousands. I said, “We don’t need judges. We need Border Patrol. We need Border Patrol.” …So catch and release. You catch him, now you take his name and then you release him. And he’s supposed to show up to a court hearing.The problem is, there’s thousands and thousands of people, we don’t have enough judges … So, they come back three or four years later but here’s the problem: They never come back. They don’t come back. Why the hell would they come back? So, a very tiny percentage comes back. So, you catch a stone-cold criminal, you take his name, you see he’s the criminal, you see he’s bad in many cases. Catch and release. You catch him and you then release him.As we’ve written before, catch-and-release refers to the practice of allowing some immigrants caught in the U.S. without proper documentation to be released back into the U.S., pending an immigration court hearing, rather than detaining or immediately deporting them. There are court cases and laws that require some unaccompanied children, families and asylum-seekers to be released in the U.S., pending an immigration hearing.The policy emerged years ago as the country faced a backlog of court cases involving people who illegally crossed the border and a shortage of space to hold them at immigration detention centers.As Trump said, there is a backlog of cases, and some Republican senators — led by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — have proposed legislation to increase the number of immigration judges in an attempt to alleviate the backlog and expedite the immigration hearings. The U.S. has “approximately 350 immigration judges,” according to the Department of Justice, and Graham’s bill would authorize an additional 225 judges and “prioritize resolving the cases of children and families in family residential centers.”Trump claims that among those released pending an immigration hearing, only “a very tiny percentage comes back,” but we recently wrote that the Justice Department’s FY2016 Statistics Yearbook reports that 25 percent of immigration cases were decided “in absentia” — meaning “when an alien fails to appear.” (See figure 23.) The report does not differentiate between those captured at the border for illegal crossing and those arrested in the interior of the country for other offenses.Trump repeated the false claim that he got 52 percent support from women during the 2016 presidential campaign. That was the figure among white women. The figure among all women was 41 percent.Trump: 52 percent. Oh, the women liked me, you know. They liked me. They liked me. … And we did great with the women. In fact, I remember, again, on election night they said, “How the hell did this happen?” Remember, they were giving you phony numbers on that, too.Trump made a similar false claim during a rally in western Pennsylvania on March 10 (beginning at the 23:40 mark).Trump, March 10: Hey, didn’t we surprise them with women during the election? Remember? ‘Women won’t like Donald Trump.’ I said, ‘Have I really had that kind of a problem?’ I don’t think so. But ‘Women won’t like Donald Trump. It will be a rough night for Donald Trump because the women won’t come out.’ We got 52 percent. Right? 52. Right. And I’m running against a woman. You know, that’s not that easy.That’s not right. According to exit polling, Trump got 41 percent of the vote among women (and 52 percent with men). Trump did get 52 percent of the vote among white women. But he garnered just 25 percent of the vote among Latino women, and an abysmal 4 percent among black women.The president’s support from women continues to lag that from men. According to a Quinnipiac poll released July 24, Trump enjoyed an approval rating of 38 percent. The breakdown was 31 percent among women, 45 percent among men.Trump claimed the tax bill he championed “saved our family farms and our small businesses from the estate tax, also known as the death tax.” But very few small business or farms paid the estate tax under the old law. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, only 80 small businesses or farms paid any estate tax in 2017.Trump: And very importantly, we saved our family farms and our small businesses from the estate tax, also known as the death tax. No longer the death tax. No longer will they pay the estate tax, our family farmers.As we have written before, the estate tax affects very few farms or small businesses. A study published last year, and updated in June, by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 37,994 farms would become part of estates in 2017. Of those, only 0.8 percent — around 300 estates — would owe any estate tax at all.An analysis by the Tax Policy Center found the number of small businesses and farms affected by the estate tax was even lower — just 80 in 2017.Primarily, the estate tax affects very few, very wealthy people. According to the Tax Policy Center, 5,460 estates had to pay estate taxes in 2017, and nearly 90 percent of those taxes were paid by those in the top 10 percent of income earners; the richest 0.1 percent paid over a quarter of the estate taxes.Trump was also wrong to say that because of the tax bill the estate tax is “no longer.” The tax bill increased the threshold for exemption from the estate tax from $5.49 million (nearly $11 million for couples) to $11.2 million ($22.4 million for couples).But as we wrote in December, while fewer people would have to pay it, revenue from estate taxes is expected to be cut by only a third over the next eight years. And then the changes would expire at the end of 2025 unless they are extended.Trump likes to say that job growth since the election has been so rapid that no one would have believed it if he had predicted it during the campaign. In fact, job growth — while brisk — has been slightly slower under Trump than it was during the previous few years, and it is lagging what Trump did actually promise on the campaign trail.Trump: Since the election, we’ve added a number that nobody would have believed, and that I would have never said on the campaign trail — I wouldn’t have said it, because they would have done a big number on me — 3.7 million new jobs, including close to 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing world.Before we get to the job numbers, let’s look back at what Trump promised during the campaign, when he vowed he would be “the greatest jobs president that God ever created.” At times, he was more specific. For example, during a speech in New York on Sept. 15, 2016, Trump said, “Over the next ten years, our economic team estimates that under our plan the economy will average 3.5% growth and create a total of 25 million new jobs.” After he was elected, Trump repeated that promise on the White House website. “To get the economy back on track, President Trump has outlined a bold plan to create 25 million new American jobs in the next decade and return to 4 percent annual economic growth,” the site stated early in Trump’s presidency. (The claim is no longer on the White House website. )But the job growth so far is not keeping pace with that campaign promise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has added 3.4 million jobs in the 18 months since January 2017, when Trump took office. That’s a bit short (about 18,000 jobs per month short) of the pace needed to create 25 million jobs over 10 years. It’s also fewer jobs than the 3.7 million jobs created in the 18 months prior to Trump taking office.As he often does, Trump starts the jobs clock at the election rather than his inauguration. By that count, the economy has added nearly 3.9 million jobs. But that’s still below what’s needed to keep pace with the promise to create 25 million jobs over 10 years, and it is fewer jobs than were created over the preceding 20 months.Nor has job growth kept up with the president’s stated goal of becoming the greatest jobs president in history. Assuming the current pace, and assuming Trump serves for eight years, the economy would add about 18 million jobs. That would be historically high — higher than the number of jobs created by recent two-term Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But it would not be as many as the 22.9 million new jobs created under President Bill Clinton.Trump said that U.S. Steel is planning to open “seven” new manufacturing plants. But there’s no evidence to support that claim.Trump used the example to bolster his claim that due to his policies, “We’re putting our steel workers back to work at clips that nobody would believe.”Trump: U.S. Steel is opening up seven plants. Nucor is opening up a brand new $250 million plant in Florida.U.S. Steel spokeswoman Meghan Cox told the Associated Press this month that any new plants are “publicly announced” and “made available on our website.”We checked the “newsroom” section of the U.S. Steel website and didn’t find announcements about the opening of seven plants. Other fact-checking organizations also came up empty.We did come across a press release from September 2017 about the construction of a new continuous galvanizing line at PRO-TEC Coating Company, a subsidiary in Leipsic, Ohio. “This line, which will utilize a proprietary process, will be capable of coating steel that will help automakers manufacture economically lightweight vehicles to meet increasing fuel efficiency requirements while maintaining exceptionally high safety standards,” the press release said.There were also subsequent announcements in March and June about the restarting of operations at two blast furnaces and steel-making facilities at an existing plant in Granite City, Illinois.We have reached out to Cox about the president’s claim and will update this item if she responds.Trump was right about Charlotte-based Nucor Corporation, though. In March, the company, which produces steel and other products, announced that it was putting $240 million into constructing its second rebar micro mill, which will be located in Frostproof, Florida.Update, Aug. 7: Cox emailed us the following response: “All of our operational changes have been publicly announced and all information shared with the federal government has been properly disclosed and made available on our website. We have shared with the government our asset revitalization investments, construction of the new CGL line at our PRO-TEC joint venture in Ohio, and updates on the restart of Granite City Works’ two blast furnaces and multiple related steelmaking facilities. As the President noted in his speech at our Granite City Works facility, a number of other American steelmakers have also made announcements on new investments and capacity.”The president falsely suggested that the Department of Veterans Affairs couldn’t fire neglectful employees until he signed a VA accountability law last year.Trump: We just passed the landmark VA accountability law. Now if a bad government worker mistreats or neglects or steals, does anything bad to our great veterans, we turn to them and we say, “You’re fired, get the hell out of here.”But it was already possible to fire employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs for misconduct or performance-related issues, as we have written.Going back to 2006, the VA terminated more than 2,000 employees each year before Trump took office, according to data kept by the Office of Personnel Management.It’s true that the bipartisan Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act intends to make it easier for the VA secretary to remove employees by, among other things, shortening the firing process and expediting the appeals process for senior executives. But making it less complicated to remove employees who behave poorly or under-perform does not mean it couldn’t previously be done.Trump continues to label a 2017 tax bill he made law the nation’s “biggest” tax cut. That’s not at all the case.Trump: Republicans just passed the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country.The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is not close to being the “biggest” tax cut ever.That distinction belongs to the 1981 tax cut under President Ronald Reagan, which was 2.9 percent of GDP, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.“If President Trump wanted to pass a tax cut that exceeds the record 2.9 percent of the economy in 1981, it would cost roughly $6.8 trillion over ten years,” CRFB wrote.Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the law Trump enacted would cost nearly $1.46 trillion between 2018 and 2027. Even a more recent projection by the Congressional Budget Office put the 10-year cost at just under $1.9 trillion.The president falsely claimed that the trade deficit dropped $52 billion in the second quarter of 2018. The correct figure is less than half that amount.Trump: In the numbers that were just released — the reporters didn’t cover this one; to me it was maybe more important than the 4.1 [GDP growth], because we’re going to be doing a lot better than 4.1 as things go — for the first time maybe ever, the trade deficit just fell — think of that — by, for the quarter, $52 billion. Nobody reports it.We wouldn’t recommend anyone report that bogus figure as the second quarter decline in the trade deficit.Trump got his number from the trade components of the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ estimate of gross domestic product released July 27. The GDP trade figures closely parallel the more commonly used “trade in goods and services” figures from BEA, but the GDP trade figures are stated as annual rates, not as the actual value of imports and exports during the quarter. Trump also referred to data in table 3b, which gives the figures for net exports of goods and services in 2012 dollars, not current dollars.Correcting for Trump’s mistakes shows a drop in the second-quarter trade deficit of $21.7 billion from the previous quarter. We checked our calculations with two economists, who agreed.In fact, the June figures for trade in goods and services BEA released on Aug. 3 show that the trade deficit went down by $20 billion from the first quarter of 2018 to the second quarter (see Exhibit 1).Trump frequently criticizes what other members of NATO spend on defense, and he often inaccurately describes that spending. This time, he said nations that don’t spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense are “not paying their bills,” and he repeated a false claim that defense spending by non-U.S. alliance members “was going down” prior to 2017.Trump: Now, NATO — in all fairness, 29 countries including us, NATO has been ripping us. We’ve been defending Europe and they’re not paying their bills. So I went in and I said, “Folks, you got to pay up. You’re delinquent.” They’ll be paying $200 billion. It took me one hour, but it was a rough hour.The head of NATO, Secretary General Stoltenberg, said to the press — they don’t report it, they only make up stories. They only make up.So what happened, he said, last year alone, because of what I did the previous year, we took in $44 billion more. You have to understand, this is money to guard against Russia. I wouldn’t say Putin’s thrilled about that. Not thrilled.Now, they will be taking in over a period — short period of years $200 billion, $200 billion. … So I raised 44 billion last year. And, you know — I don’t know if you know, NATO funding was going down.It’s not accurate to say that countries that don’t spend 2 percent of GDP on defense are “delinquent” or “not paying their bills.”Members of NATO determine their own national spending needs, and for the majority of the countries, there is no requirement to meet that suggested benchmark.When NATO leaders originally committed in 2006 to try to spend that much on their own defense, a NATO spokesman made it clear that “this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. … But it is a commitment to work towards it.” At a summit in Wales in 2014, countries again agreed to either “aim to continue” spending that amount or “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade,” according to a press release.NATO says, as of 2018, only four members of the alliance “have either national laws or political agreements which call for at least 2% of GDP to be spent on defence annually.” They are Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Romania.It’s true that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has partly credited Trump with getting more countries to develop national plans to increase spending. During a joint press conference with Trump in July, Stoltenberg said that NATO estimates that European allies and Canada will spend an additional $266 billion on defense from now until 2024.But Trump was wrong to claim that “NATO funding was going down” prior to last year.As this chart from a July 10 report shows, Canada and NATO Europe allies began increasing defense spending in 2015 and 2016.And this chart from the same report shows those countries increased their defense spending by $14 billion, or 5 percent, from 2014 to 2016.Trump continued to muddle his message about whether or not he is convinced that Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help his election chances.The president said his recent face-to-face private meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin went “great ” and that the two “got along really well.” That’s “a really good thing,” Trump said, adding however, “Now, we’re being hindered by the Russian hoax. It’s a hoax, OK? I’ll tell you what: Russia’s very unhappy that Trump won, that I can tell you.”Less than three weeks ago, Trump tweeted his thanks to Fox News for airing a montage on July 19 that he said showed “Trump recognized Russian Meddling MANY TIMES.” But, as we wrote, the video also shows Trump equivocating on the issue, saying, “I think it was probably other people and/or countries.” And he has made other comments questioning whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections.Just a few days after that tweet, Trump tweeted that the Russia investigation was “all a big hoax.” In a press conference, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump’s “hoax” comment was “referencing the collusion component,” not the Russia investigation in general. Said Sanders: “As the President has said many times, and stated over and over again — as have I, as have a number of other administration officials — we maintain that Russia interfered in the elections. The President, however, very much so, and has repeatedly — as, again, have the rest of us — that his campaign colluding in that process is a total hoax.”But his comment in Wilkes-Barre is yet another example of Trump blurring that message, and appearing to dismiss the entire investigation into Russian interference as a hoax. Trump followed up his “hoax” comment by saying, “I’ll tell you what: Russia’s very unhappy that Trump won.” It’s possible the president was referring to his actions counter to Russian interests since he was elected. But as for the election itself, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” and that Russia’s efforts — including hacking the Democratic National Committee computer network — were designed “to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” And when Putin himself was asked during a joint press conference on July 16 if he wanted Trump to win the election, Putin responded, “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.”As he often does during rallies, Trump accused Democrats of wanting open borders and advocating for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Because the president was stumping in Pennsylvania for Republican Senate candidate Lou Barletta, Trump’s comments this time were directed specifically toward incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey.“Bob Casey is for open borders,” Trump said. “Bob Casey wants to fire the incredible men and women of ICE. He wants to abolish ICE, because he’s weak.”Trump has frequently accused various Democrats, and Democrats in general, of supporting open borders. But we aren’t aware of any elected Democrats who have staked such a drastic position.Every Democrat in the Senate — including Casey — voted for the 2013 Senate immigration bill, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, which, in addition to providing a path to earned citizenship for those then in the country illegally, would have included significant investments in border security. The bill would have doubled the number of border patrol agents along the Mexican border, added 350 miles of new fencing, and added a host of security and technologies to prevent illegal immigration. Casey recently said he favors an immigration approach similar to that of the 2013 bill.As for abolishing ICE, as we wrote on July 3, there are a small number of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE, though Casey is not one of them. All of those Democrats who have called to end ICE have said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.As PennLive reported on July 23, Casey told a crowd at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon that he does not support calls from some in the more liberal wing of the party to abolish ICE.“ICE abolished? No, for sure,” Casey said, according to PennLive, adding that “doesn’t mean like that, for any public agency, they shouldn’t be subject to reviews in the appropriations process. I hope we have ICE focused on bad guys instead of current policy where they are dealing with families and kids at the border. I don’t agree with the call to eliminate it.”Trump claimed that he had reduced the highway construction approval time from 21 years to two years. But the available data don’t support that.Trump: We had regulations that made it impossible to do business in this country. Highways would take 21 years to get approved. We have it down to two years, and it’s going to be one year very shortly. Very shortly.Federal Highway Administration figures show it took a median 3.7 years in fiscal 2016 and 3.75 years in fiscal 2015 for projects requiring environmental impact statements to complete the process, required by the National Environmental Policy Act. It took 3.8 years in fiscal 2017. As the New York Times recently wrote, the wait times ranged from three to six years from 1999 to 2016 — while these are median figures, they’re nowhere close to 21 years.In January, an administration official said the average permit wait time was 4.7 years, according to the Wall Street Journal. The paper reported in January that Alexander Herrgott, who serves on the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, said at a conference that month: “I think one of the most important things this administration can do is take permit delivery times from what is now an average of 4.7 years down to two years.”In fact, Trump signed an executive order in August 2017 setting a “goal of completing all Federal environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects within 2 years.”Data for fiscal 2018, which ends Sept. 30, isn’t yet available. We reached out to the White House press office to get support for the president’s claim, but we haven’t received a response.The president said that association health plans would provide “much better health care for a fraction of the cost.” The plans are likely to cost less, but that’s because they could cover fewer benefits than other plans sold on the individual and small-group market.Trump: The association health plans are giving us and allowing Americans to join forces to buy much better health care for a fraction of the cost. And you can go cross state lines and negotiate with everybody you want to negotiate with.Whether a cheaper plan with fewer benefits better suits an individual purchaser is a matter of opinion, but calling it “better health care” implies it’s more robust.Association health plans, as we’ve written before, are created by a group of employers, such as those in a similar industry. In June, the Labor Department issued its final federal rule designed to expand and change the regulation of these plans, and the rule will begin applying to association plans on Sept. 1.Under the rule, associations could form for those in the same trade or industry, or for businesses in the same state or metropolitan area. The insurance plans they offer couldn’t charge more based on health status, but prices could be based on age, gender or occupation. The plans won’t have to cover the 10 essential health benefits the Affordable Care Act requires of plans on the small-group market or individual market.U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Green Card Through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.” Accessed 6 Aug 2018.U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Consular Processing.” Accessed 6 Aug 2018.Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Baseless Immigration Claim.” FactCheck.org. 14 Dec 2017.Farley, Robert. “Is Illegal Immigration Linked to More or Less Crime?” FactCheck.org. 27 Jun 2018.Kiely, Eugene. “Trump’s ‘Chain Migration’ Fable.” FactCheck.org 10 Apr 2018.Farley, Robert. “FactChecking Trump’s Immigration Tweets.” FactCheck.org. 03 Apr 2018.Department of Justice. Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Accessed 06 Aug 2018.Kiely, Eugene. “More Bogus Border Claims.” FactCheck.org. 21 Jun 2018.Department of Justice. “Courts: In Absentia Immigration Orders.” Accessed 06 Aug 2018.CNN Politics. “Exit Polls.” Updated 23 Nov. 2016.Tax Policy Center. “Who Pays the Estate Tax?” Accessed 06 Aug 2018.Farley, Robert. “’Death Tax’ Talking Point Won’t Die.’” FactCheck.org. 27 Sep 2017.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Federal Estate Taxes. Updated 28 Jun 2018.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National). Accessed 06 Aug 2018.Yen, Hope. “AP FACT CHECK: Trump says US Steel opening mills. Not so.” Associated Press. 3 Aug 2018.Kessler, Glenn. “President Trump announces a major U.S. Steel expansion — that isn’t happening.” Washington Post. 28 Jun 2018.Tobias, Manuela. “No, U.S. Steel is not opening six new mills as Donald Trump said.” Politifact.com. 2 Aug 2018.U.S. Steel Corporation. “United States Steel Corporation and Kobe Steel Announce New Investment in Advanced High-Strength Steel Capabilities.” News release. 25 Sep 2017.U.S. Steel Corporation. “United States Steel to Restart Granite City Works Blast Furnace, Steelmaking Facilities.” News release. 7 Mar 2018.U.S. Steel Corporation. “United States Steel to Restart Second Granite City Works Blast Furnace, Comments on 2018 Guidance.” News release. 5 Jun 2018.Gore, D’Angelo. “VA Could Fire Workers Before Trump Signed Law.” FactCheck.org. 27 Jul 2018.U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act.” Summary. 1 Jun 2017.U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Separations Trend Cubes. FedScope.gov. Accessed 27 Jul 2018.Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Is President Trump’s Tax Cut the Largest in History Yet?” 25 Oct 2017.Page, Benjamin. “CBO Thinks The TCJA Will Cost $433 Billion More Than Last December’s Estimate. What Happened?” Tax Policy Center. 30 Apr 2018.Jackson, Brooks. “Trump’s Trade-Balance Mistake.” FactCheck.org. 1 Aug 2018.U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2018 (Advance Estimate), and Comprehensive Update.” News release. 27 Jun 2018.U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services: June 2018.” News release. 3 Aug 2018.Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Trump’s False Claims at NATO.” FactCheck.org 12 Jul 2018.North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (011-2018).” News release. 10 Jul 2018.Federal Highway Administration. Estimated Time Required to Complete the NEPA Process. accessed 6 Aug 2018.Mann, Ted. “Trump’s Infrastructure Push Makes Effort to Speed Permits.” Wall Street Journal. 25 Jan 2018.White House. Presidential Executive Order on Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure. 15 Aug 2017.Department of Labor. Employee Benefits Security Administration. Definition of “Employer” under Section 3(5) of ERISA — Association Health Plans. Final rule 19 Jun 2018.Keith, Katie. “Final Rule Rapidly Eases Restrictions On Non-ACA-Compliant Association Health Plans.” Health Affairs. 21 Jun 2018. Editor’s note: We display only new Share the Facts widgets in this story, rather than repeat those we have already created.
5733	Data show 25% increase in religious exemptions for vaccines.	New data released Thursday show more Connecticut students are being exempted from vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella for religious reasons.	true	Immunizations, Health, General News, Connecticut, Public health	The overall number of religious exemptions in the state climbed by 25%, from the 2017-18 school year to the 2018-19 school year, according to the state’s Department of Public Health. The agency said the increase from 2% of students to 2.5% represents the largest single year upturn in religious exemptions for vaccinations since it began tracking statewide data 10 years ago. While the immunization rate for kindergarten students remains high in Connecticut, the new information shows it has declined from 96.5% to 95.9%. “It does raise concern,” said Public Health Commissioner Renee D. Coleman-Mitchell, adding how the new numbers warrant releasing more data, including county-by-county and school-by-school. The commissioner originally planned not to release the school-by-school data, but Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont on Wednesday overruled that decision, arguing the public should have the information. A Bristol couple on Thursday asked a court to stop the release of the school-by-school vaccination rates, arguing they’ll suffer “irreparable harm” if the information is released. Their unvaccinated son attends a private school where 18% of the students claimed a religious exemption from vaccinations, according to school-by-school data DPH released in May. The couple has another lawsuit pending. “We believe that out of deference and respect for the authority of the court, no new data should be released during the pendency of this litigation,” the couple said in a written statement. “To do otherwise is to move into the dangerous waters of undermining the separation of powers that is so important to our system of government.” Lamont’s office declined to comment on the pending litigation. Coleman-Mitchell said the resurgence of measles in the U.S. is of great concern and the decline in Connecticut’s vaccination rates, coupled with the increase in religious exemptions, validates the need to release both county-by-county and school-by-school data by Oct. 21. There have been three cases so far in Connecticut this year. ___ This story has been corrected to show that the Festas live in Bristol, not Woodstock.
5857	Wyoming health officials report rise in STDs.	Wyoming health officials say there were six times as many gonorrhea cases in 2016 than in 2012.	true	Casper, Health, Wyoming, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Chlamydia	The Casper Star-Tribune reported Monday (http://bit.ly/2oUz0aa ) that a press release by the Wyoming Health Department said while the rates for other sexual transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and syphilis have risen, gonorrhea has affected young people the most. The department says there were 44 reported gonorrhea cases in Wyoming in 2012. The number of gonorrhea cases rose to 279 in 2016. Communicable Disease Surveillance Program Manager Courtney Smith says two-thirds of the gonorrhea cases and half of chlamydia cases were reported by people between 15 and 24 years old. Smith says that Natrona County has the highest gonorrhea infection rate in the state in 2016. It’s followed by Laramie and Fremont counties. ___ Information from: Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, http://www.trib.com
9926	Olive Oil Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk	An added nice touch was the discussion of the possible etiology of the olive oil effect (e.g., inflammation). Overall, a solid summary. When an observational study points to a statistical association between one factor and one outcome, it is important to explain why that doesn’t necessarily mean that one factor caused that one outcome. This story did a better job of that than its LA Times competition.	true	Stroke,WebMD	Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. The story only cited a 41% lower risk of stroke but didn’t give the actual numbers of how many versus how many in the different groups. That may give an inflated sense of benefit or risk reduction. Not applicable. Unlike the LA Times piece, WebMD rurns to an editorial writer and two other independent experts to evaluate the evidence. It mentioned that this was an observational study but didn’t explicitly define that or why that’s a potential limitation. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. Great sourcing – with 3 independent voices besides the study authors. The story ends, appropriately, with this: “Keeping blood pressure controlled, not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a healthy diet that is low in salt and rich in fruits and vegetables can also help reduce stroke risk.” Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The relative novelty of the study’s focus was clear in the story. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
31736	Studies have proved that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.	Observational studies of any kind will always come with limitations and wiggle room for politically motivated players to exploit, as was the case 2002. As a whole, however, we regard use of these data to make a causal link between breast cancer and abortions, without any discussion of their significant caveats involved, intentionally misleading enough to be disqualifying.	false	Medical, abortion, breast cancer, cancer	The claim that undergoing an abortion increases a woman’s chances of contracting breast cancer, often cited by anti-abortion activists, arguably has two origins: a scientific one and a political one. Its scientific origins have their roots in the 1980s and 1990s, with a series of studies investigating a link between induced abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. Those early studies were ambiguous — no matter what side of the abortion issue one was on, one could (and still can) find a study to support their preferred narrative. From a scientific standpoint, the issue is no longer ambiguous. After an authoritative 1997 study utilizing government-collected data on every Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 concluded there was no increased risk of breast cancer from abortions, organizations such as the World Health Organization, U.S. National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and many others now reject the existence of any such link. The conclusions drawn from that study, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), were that: Overall, the risk of breast cancer in women with a history of induced abortion was not different from that in women without such a history, after potential confounding by age, parity, age at delivery of a first child, and calendar period was taken into account. From a political standpoint, the issue saw a resurgence in attention under the socially conservative administration of George W. Bush, which changed the language on an National Cancer Institute fact sheet regarding breast cancer and abortions against the wishes of that organization’s scientists. This issue was discussed, later, in an August 2003 US Congressional report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that investigated changes to science policy under the Bush administration: Until the summer of 2002, the National Cancer Institute posted an analysis on its web site concluding that the current body of scientific evidence does not support the claim that abortions increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. The analysis explained that after some uncertainty before the mid-1990s, this issue had been resolved by several well-designed studies, the largest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, finding no link between abortion and breast cancer risk. In November 2002, however, the Bush Administration removed this analysis and posted new information about abortion and breast cancer on the NCI web site. […] This new fact sheet erroneously suggested that whether abortion caused breast cancer was an open question with studies of equal weight supporting both sides. The New York Times called the NCI’s new statement “an egregious distortion of the evidence.” According to the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, “This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate.” After members of Congress protested the change, NCI convened a three-day conference of experts on abortion and breast cancer. Participants reviewed all existing population-based, clinical, and animal data available, and concluded that “[i]nduced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,” ranking this conclusion as “well-established.” On March 21, 2003, the NCI web site was updated to reflect this conclusion. The notion that reproductive choices affect breast cancer risk is not new, nor is it controversial. It is widely accepted, for example, that carrying a pregnancy to term reduces one’s risk of developing breast cancer later in life. This issue is often conflated with the question of abortions increasing a woman’s risk, because since carrying a pregnancy to term may reduce risk of breast cancer, having an abortion may offset that reduced risk. That is not the question at hand, however: the question, strictly defined, is ‘will having an abortion make you more likely to get breast cancer when compared to women who never give birth?’ The scientific basis for the breast cancer-abortion link has its roots, most notably, in a 1980 paper in the American Journal of Pathology that investigated one potential mechanism proposed for relationships between abortion and breast cancer: that leftover undifferentiated cells in a woman’s breast (which occur as part of hormonal changes that help to prepare a woman for breastfeeding and appear during pregnancy, and which would become fully differentiated by the end of a pregnancy) are more susceptible to cancer. To test this notion, researchers intentionally injected laboratory rats with a carcinogen after interrupted pregnancies, and then compared these results to a series of rats who were never pregnant, and to rats that carried pregnancies to full term, to see if interrupted pregnancies were related to an increased susceptibility to developing cancerous cells. The researchers demonstrated that the likelihood of developing cancerous cells was higher in those rats with interrupted pregnancies. The researchers suggested these results were consistent with the idea that the interruption of a pregnancy leaves undifferentiated cells in a woman’s breast, and that these cells are more susceptible to cancer: We show here that, in order to be protective, the development of the gland must be complete. Pregnant or lactating rats treated with chemical carcinogens respond with a significant reduction in mammary tumor incidence, while pregnancy interruption gives no protection at all. This is due to the fact that in the mammary gland of animals in which pregnancy has been interrupted, the glands contain some areas with completely differentiated structures and others in which undifferentiated structures prevailed. Since then, a goal of many researchers has been to design studies to see if this mechanism is valid and if it may be relevant in humans as well. For obvious reasons, a carcinogen injection kind of experiment on humans is out of the question, so scientists have to settle for observational studies. The different ways in which one can go about designing such studies have created a cornucopia of results with differing levels of veracity that anyone can point to, in isolation, to support their narrative. In terms of research on humans, there are two kinds of observational studies that would be used: case-control studies and cohort studies. In general, case control studies are smaller, and the way in which their control group is identified has the potential to be more subjective or error prone. The National Cancer Institute defines both as follows: [A case-control study is] a study that compares two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases) and a very similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition (controls). Researchers study the medical and lifestyle histories of the people in each group to learn what factors may be associated with the disease or condition. For example, one group may have been exposed to a particular substance that the other was not. Also called retrospective study. [A cohort study is] a research study that compares a particular outcome (such as lung cancer) in groups of individuals who are alike in many ways but differ by a certain characteristic (for example, female nurses who smoke compared with those who do not smoke). Dominantly, studies suggesting a link fall into the case-control study design, which are problematic, according to an extensive 2004 review in The Lancet: The findings from case-control studies — in which women were asked their abortion history after they were diagnosed with breast cancer — have been especially difficult to interpret. For, women who have had an induced abortion are known to under-report such events, but they might be more likely to disclose this information than they would otherwise have been if they had been diagnosed with breast cancer and knew that they were taking part in a research project investigating the causes of their disease. […] For example, among women in a Swedish case-control study who had, in fact, had a previous induced abortion recorded on a national abortion register, 21% of those with breast cancer and 27% of those without the disease reported incorrectly that they had never had an induced abortion. Any such systematic differences between women with and without breast cancer in the under-reporting of past induced abortions could appreciably distort the results from studies with retrospectively recorded information on abortion […] An illustration of the quantitative effects such misreporting — sometimes referred to as a “recall” bias or reporting bias — could have on final results can be found in a 1996 study whose target population, by design, included both a conservative Catholic region and more socially liberal areas. Though this small, case-control study did show a correlation between abortions and breast cancer risk when comparing populations of women who have never given birth, the study’s more significant contribution was demonstrating the effect of recall bias on this kind of study: The association between induced abortion and breast cancer was stronger in the southeastern regions of the country, where there is a predominantly Roman Catholic population, suggesting reporting bias. Support for reporting bias as an explanation for regional differences was also found in data supplied by study participants and their physicians on the use of oral contraception. The authors conclude that reporting bias is a real problem in case-control studies of induced abortion and breast cancer risk if study findings are based solely upon information from study subjects. The 1997 NEJM study was a cohort study and is generally cited as the authoritative study on the alleged risk of abortion. It avoided reporting bias entirely by not conducting interviews at all, instead relying only on Danish data collected by the Danish government: In our study, all the information on dates and the number of induced abortions, reproductive history, and cancer diagnosis was obtained from national registries, which are compiled through a system of mandatory reporting for the entire population. Follow-up included complete information on death and emigration and was performed through computerized linkage of registry information by means of individually identifiable registration numbers. These measures, we believe, allowed us to avoid some of the major methodologic problems of previous studies. That doesn’t mean you won’t find studies or individuals still suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer. The non-profit Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI), founded by Joel Brind (one of the main scientists promoting the abortion and breast cancer connection), an organization whose sole purpose appears to be “educating” people about said connection, presents a list of studies that they say support their argument. This list is heavily referenced on anti-abortion websites and can commonly be found shared with the claim that “73 Studies Have Examined Abortion and Breast Cancer, 53 Show Higher Risk” or similar. BCPI’s is an extremely misleading representation of that information, however. Included among those (presently) 60 studies showing a “higher risk” of breast cancer from induced abortions, 23 were self-described on that organization’s list as being not statistically significant. Suggesting that a statistically insignificant correlation supports any argument is, in a word, deceptive. That leaves 37 studies with statistically significant positive correlations: a ragtag collection of studies as old as 1957 and as recent as 2013, all of which were case-control or meta-analyses that relied primarily on case-controlled studies, and many of which were designed to test questions other than the abortion-breast cancer connection itself. One of the listed studies, discussed above, aimed to demonstrate (successfully) that case-control studies are a poor design to analyze a purported connection between abortions and breast cancer. Two of the listed studies included on the list were not, strictly speaking, studies, as they were conference presentations that received little to no peer review (i.e. Laing et al 1994, Bu et al 1995). Many of the studies on the list (e.g., Segi et al 1957, Daling et al 1994, Daling et al 1996) cautioned that while they may have demonstrated correlations, their data were not sufficient to establish causation or even to represent actual trends. Four of the studies on the list reached conclusions explicitly counter to the claim that they demonstrate an increased risk of breast in populations of women who have had abortions: Rosenberg et al. 1998: “These data suggest that the risk of breast cancer is not materially affected by abortion, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the first term birth.” Lipworth et al. 1995: “The risk for breast cancer was not increased for women who had a history of abortion, compared to nulliparous women [women who never gave birth] with no history of abortion.” Talamini et al. 1996: “No trend in risk was evident for induced abortions.” Tavani et al. 1996: “Our results indicate a lack of association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.” Arguably the most notable publication on this list, both in scope and in citations, is a 1996 paper authored by Brind himself (who created this list in the first place), a meta-review of 28 studies (many of which are also featured individually on the list). His own study concluded: The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy. Although the increase in risk was relatively low, the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age. Typically, meta-reviews have stated inclusion standards delineating what studies are of high enough quality to be analyzed. In Brind’s study, however, “no quality criteria were imposed, but a narrative review of all included studies is presented for the reader’s use in assessing the quality of individual studies.” Numerous scientists have serious issues with it on this basis. A team of Harvard epidemiologists used Brind’s methods in their own study, concluding that the causation he so confidently claimed the could not be made with the data he used. Mads Melbye, author of the 1997 Danish cohort study, took issue with Brind’s study as well, as covered in a history of the topic: Criticizing Brind directly, Melbye pointed out that he had relied almost entirely on case-control studies and had based his results on “a crude analysis of published odds ratios and relative risks with no attempt to incorporate the original raw data into a more sophisticated statistical analysis” Our classification of “false” acknowledges that some scientists and studies suggest a link between abortion and breast cancer, but that suggestion is rooted in the fact that the methodologies utilized in the studies supporting such a link are widely accepted as flawed by the majority of the scientific community and by the fact that large cohort studies, better suited to test this question in the first place, suggest that no link exists.
8743	Paracetamol use may raise asthma risk in children.	Infants who have been given the common pain reliever paracetamol may have a higher risk of developing asthma and eczema by the time they are 6 or 7, a large study covering children in 31 countries has found.	true	Health News	An asthma sufferer wears a paper face mask as she is attended by nurses in this undated file image. REUTERS/Jason Reed The findings were published in the journal Lancet together with two other studies, which found that runny noses and wheezing early on in life may be strong predictors of asthma. In the first study, researchers pored through data provided by parents of more than 205,000 children and found paracetamol use in the first year of life was associated with a 46 percent higher risk of asthma by the time the children were 6 or 7 compared to those never exposed to the drug. Known as acetaminophen in the United States, where it is widely sold under the brand Tylenol, it is used to relieve fever, minor aches and pain, and is used in a liquid suspension for children. Medium use of paracetamol in the past 12 months increased asthma risk by 61 percent, while high dosages of once a month or more in the past year raised the risk by over three times. Medium use was defined as once per year or more, but less than once a month. Suspicions of a possible link between paracetamol and asthma emerged in recent years when experts observed an increased use of the drug to a simultaneous rise in asthma prevalence worldwide. One theory is that paracetamol reduces antioxidants in the body. Some experts think antioxidants, which stop unstable molecules known as free radicals from doing too much damage, can lower the risk of cancer, heart disease and other ailments. “Paracetamol can reduce antioxidant levels and ... that can give oxidative stress in the lungs and cause asthma,” one of the researchers, Richard Beasley at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, told Reuters in a telephone interview. As with asthma, monthly use of paracetamol doubled the risk of eczema and trebled that of rhinoconjunctivitis — repetitive sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion and hay fever — by the time children were 6 or 7, the study found. However, the researchers stressed paracetamol should remain the preferred drug to relieve pain and fever in children because its alternative, aspirin, was linked to the risk of Reye’s syndrome, a rare but serious complication in children. “The findings do lend support to the current guidelines of the World Health Organization, which recommend that paracetamol should not be used routinely, but should be reserved for children with a high fever (38.5 Celsius or above),” they wrote. Another study in The Lancet found that rhinitis, or hay fever and other allergic reactions causing a runny nose, was a strong predictor of asthma that develops in adulthood. Researchers monitored 6,461 people in 14 countries who were free of asthma at the start of study for more than 8 years. Those who suffered rhinitis and were allergic to an assortment of agents like house dust mites, cat, grass and birch were 3.5 times more likely to develop asthma later on compared to those who suffered no allergies nor rhinitis. The third study in Arizona in the United States found wheezing early in life may be an ominous sign of asthma developing in adulthood. Researchers pored through data on 849 people going back 22 years to the time they were babies. Of 181 cases of active asthma, 49 were newly diagnosed, of which 35 were women. “In over 70 percent of people with current asthma and 63 percent of those with newly diagnosed asthma at age 22 years, episodes of wheezing had happened in the first three years of life or were reported by parents at age six years,” wrote the researchers at the Arizona Respiratory Center. In an accompanying comment, Suzanne Lau of Charite University Medicine in Germany, wrote: “These findings identify a population at risk of chronic obstructive airway disease in early adulthood, and they already showed a predisposition during preschool years.” Lau was not involved in the study.
11168	Diabetes drug linked to heart attacks, death	The story reports that the popular diabetes drug Avandia may potentially be linked to a higher chance of cardiovascular disease or death. An important omission in the story is that the evidence upon which the study findings are based is not discussed, which is very important because there are important limitations to the data. Complete data could not be obtained by the study authors. Actual event rates were low and estimates of the risk were pretty wide, which means there is a lack of precision about what the real rates might be. The story makes it sound as if the study conclusions are definite and this is not the case, although the results are certainly concerning. But, caution must be used. It should be a call to the pharmaceutical industry to release the rest of the data. Alternate treatment options were also not discussed, although patients were encouraged to talk with their doctors about the risk-benefit picture. Many other glucose-lowering medications are available and don’t appear to increase cardiovascular risk and should be considered while the safety of Avandia remains uncertain.	mixture		"The story does not mention any costs of treatment of this drug or other glucose-lowering drugs. The story describes relative risks only and not absolute risks. (See our primer on this topic.) So, when the story states ""the drug increases heart attacks by 43% and heart deaths by 64 percent,"" the audience and the journalist should be asking 43% of what? 64% of what? The entire story is devoted to one harm in particular – a potential increased risk of cardiovascular disease with one particular glucose-lowering drug. While other side effects are possible with this drug, they are not mentioned. However, an important potential harm that is new in these study findings is discussed. The story does not describe the evidence upon which the findings are based, which is very important because the study authors didn’t have access to full data from the 42 studies evaluated. There are important limitations to the study design which are not mentioned at all. For instance, confidence intervals (a way of statistically stating the level of confidence about a result) are wide and actual numbers of events are very low, so having complete data might sway the results. The story calls the results ""scathing,"" making it appear as if the findings are conclusive, yet they are not. The story describes the increased cardiovascular risks associated with diabetes. And, although there isn’t much background information on diabetes, there isn’t any overt disease-mongering. The story uses multiple sources. The story doesn’t discuss other treatment options, namely that there are many other glucose-lowering medications available that don’t appear to increase cardiovascular risk. While the advice for patients to talk to their physicians in the next weeks is sound, the story could have gone further in pointing out that there are options that seem safer given the uncertain cardiovascular risk with Avandia. There are both medication options that have been around for a very long time and behavioral options, such as exercise and weight loss that could improve glycemic control. The story tells viewers that Avandia is FDA-approved and has not been taken off the market as a result of the latest study. The story states Avandia was approved in 1999, so it’s clear this is not a new treatment. The story uses multiple sources and interviews."
27851	Photographs show Peng Shuilin, a Chinese man who lost the lower half of his body in an automobile accident.	In November 2009, the Australian Daily Telegraph reported that Peng had opened his own bargain supermarket, called the Half Man-Half Price Store.	true	Fauxtography, People	A set of photographs circulated online show Peng Shuilin, a Chinese man who lost the lower half of his body in an automobile accident in the town of Shenzhen in 1995. Surgeons were able to save his life by closing up his bottomless torso, but his weakened condition required him to remain largely immobile in a horizontal position. After years of building up his strength, Peng was fitted with specially made “bionic legs” attached to a casting that allowed him to regain a substantial degree of mobility: “Half Man — Half Price Store” — The Story of Peng Shuilin In life we keep complaining about what is or why we don’t have. Half the time we seem dissatisfied, though full-bodied and free to choose. Fat people say,”I want to be slim.” Skinny people say,”I want to be fatter.” Poor people want to be rich and rich are never satisfied with what they have. In 1995, in Shenzhen, a freight truck sliced his body in half. His lower body and legs were beyond repair. Peng Shuilin, 37, spent nearly two years in hospital in Shenzhen, southern China, undergoing a series of operations to re-route nearly every major organ or system inside his body. Peng kept exercising his arms, building up strength, washing his face and brushing his teeth. He survived against all odds. Now Peng Shulin has astounded doctors by learning to walk again after a decade. Peng has been walking the corridors of Beijing Rehabilitation Centre with the aid of his specially adapted legs and a re-sized walking frame. There is a cable attached to both legs so when one goes forward, the other goes backwards. Rock to the side, add a bit of a twist and the leg without the weight on it advances while the other one stays still, giving a highly inefficient way of ambulation. Oh so satisfying to ‘walk’ again after ten years with half a body! Peng Shuilin has opened his own bargain supermarket, called the Half Man Half Price Store. The inspirational 37-year-old has become a businessman and is used as a role model for other amputees. At just 2ft 7ins tall, he moves around in a wheelchair giving lectures on recovery from disability. His attitude is amazing, he doesn’t complain. He had good care, but his secret is cheerfulness. Nothing ever gets him down. You have a whole body. You have feet. Now you have met a man who has neither. His life is a feat of endurance, a triumph of the human spirit in overcoming extreme adversity. So the next time you want to complain about something trivial – don’t. Remember Peng Shulin instead. The Telegraph reported of Peng in January 2008 that: Nearly 13 years after his body was sliced in half when he was struck by a freight truck, Peng Shuilin is making the most of life, thanks to an assortment of mobility aids. The Chinese man — who measures just 78cm — was discovered in two pieces after a road accident in the town of Shenzhen in 1995. Medics realised his lower half was beyond salvation but a series of operations closed up his bottomless torso. Skin was transferred from his head to the underside of his severed body to keep his organs alive and away from the damaging effects of outside exposure. After several operations he was still too weak to contain his organs and spent the subsequent months in a horizontal position. Mr Peng built up the strength in his arms for mobility and then began searching for firms specialising in manufacturing artificial limbs. Experts assembled artificial legs for Mr Peng, specially fitted to his torso. Doctors at the China Rehabilitation Research Centre helped Mr Peng learn to walk again with two bionic legs, attached to a special casting. His perseverance and fight for life, and a number of mobility aids, now help him negotiate the everyday activities of normal-bodied people.
29280	Internet list accurately cites historical facts and figures proving that the worst mass exterminations of civilian populations in the twentieth century were the result of gun control laws.	"What's true: Mass killings of civilians by military dictatorships in the 1900s were more often than not preceded by the confiscation of firearms from targeted populations, a task made easier by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of privately-owned weapons. What's false: ""Gun control"" isn't synonymous with gun confiscation; in some cases where genocide occurred, gun restriction laws had already been in place for many years prior, and evidence does not demonstrate a causal link between gun control and mass exterminations."	false	Politics Guns, armenian genocide, genocide, gun control	If you’ve landed on this page, odds are another mass shooting has occurred in the United States. We don’t say this flippantly. Depending on how you define “mass shooting” (there’s a discussion of the various ways to do so here), as of 7 August 2019 there had been no fewer than seven (according to Mother Jones magazine) and as many as 254 (according to the Gun Violence Archive) mass shootings in the U.S. during that year alone. In the deadliest mass shooting to date, on 1 October 2017, 58 people were killed and 546 were wounded at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas by a lone shooter armed with 23 guns. Even for a nation painfully accustomed to grappling with gun violence, this was an immense loss. Yet among the outpourings of grief, the pangs of soul searching and regret, and the inevitable calls for tougher gun regulations, there was also this — a decades-old (1996 vintage, by our best estimate) recitation of the horrors of “gun control,” freshly re-shared for the occasion: A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information…. The NY Sullivan Act intended to tip the advantage toward Irish criminals, away from Italian criminals, and far away from the lawful. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. All of those assertions beg for fact checking, but before we dig into the particulars it will be useful to recall some of the history of America’s unique relationship with firearms for clues as to why someone might feel posting such a polemic is called for. In addition to boasting the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any country in the world (and the highest firearm-related homicide rate of any developed country, according to the American Journal of Medicine), Americans have a thing called the “gun control debate.” To be sure, most other countries wrestle with how and to what extent private gun ownership ought be regulated as well, but the issue has a special potency for U.S. citizens thanks to what is known as “the right to keep and bear arms,” a birthright guaranteed and protected for the past 200-plus years by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Arguments about how to properly interpret the vaguely-worded amendment remain at the heart of the gun control debate two centuries later. In simplest terms, there are two schools of thought, one holding that the Second Amendment protects a collective right for the purpose of providing for the common defense (emphasis on the “well-regulated militia” clause), and the other holding that it protects an individual right irrespective of any such collective purpose. One finds both readings anticipated in individual state constitutions adopted prior to the ratification of the Second Amendment. While North Carolina’s 1776 constitution limited the purpose of the right to bear arms to defending the state, for example (“…the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the state”), as did the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 (“The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense”), the 1776 and 1777 constitutions of Pennsylvania and Vermont specified that “…the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has swung both ways in interpreting the Second Amendment, favoring the “common defense” reading for the better part of the twentieth century before veering sharply to an individual “self-defense” interpretation with its landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in that decision, which overturned a law prohibiting handgun possession in Washington, D.C., hinged mainly on a careful parsing of the language of the amendment that reveals, Scalia argued, an intent on the part of the framers to protect an individual right completely independent of the militia clause. Interestingly, however, he went on to make the tangential case that, anyway, the framers understood “militia” to mean a “people’s militia” made up of private citizens whose right to bear arms could not be abrogated by their own government, thus providing a “safeguard against tyranny”: It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution. The dissenting justices in the case (the more liberal contingent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) argued that the established interpretation of the Second Amendment upheld by previous Supreme Courts (namely that the “well-regulated militia” clause was meant to restrict the scope of the protected right to a collective, not an individual one) ought to stand, with Breyer adding that even granting an individual-right interpretation of the amendment, restrictions such as handgun bans and trigger-lock requirements would still be constitutional. In any case, the Heller decision was music to the ears of pro-firearms groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), and not just because it went in their favor. For decades, the premise that private gun ownership is synonymous with freedom and resisting tyranny had been a cornerstone of the NRA’s lobbying and recruitment efforts. For example, a full-page newspaper ad for the group in 1989 read: America’s founding fathers understood that an armed people are a free people. Free to rise up against tyranny. That’s why the individual armed citizen remains one of democracy’s strongest symbols. It’s but a short step from there to the more extreme assertion that any effort to restrict the right to bear arms is itself a prelude to (if not an instance of) tyranny — which is in fact the tack taken in the Internet text before us. Relying on absolutist language that does not distinguish between regulation and confiscation, the text trumpets the conclusion that 56 million people were rounded up and exterminated during the twentieth century “because of gun control.” Tempting as it is to dismiss that kind of language as mere rhetoric, bear in mind that a sizable portion of the American public buys into the “slippery slope” mentality that undergirds it, with 52 percent of Republican Party voters agreeing in a 2015 public opinion poll, for example, that it is somewhat-to-very likely that “stricter gun laws will eventually lead to the federal government trying to take away guns from Americans who legally own them.” This is the text’s target audience. The term “gun control” is not, in fact, synonymous with “gun confiscation,” “gun prohibition,” or “gun registration” (although gun control can take any of those forms). Nor is the “gun control debate” about whether or not gun control laws ought to exist in the United States at all — they already do on both the federal and state levels, because the right to bear arms must be balanced against the safety and well-being of the populace as a whole. In practical terms, gun control boils down to addressing issues such as how to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged, how to regulate their manufacture and sale, and what types of firearms and ammunition are appropriate for private citizens to own and use. Besides leaving the term undefined and implying it means taking away people’s weapons, the text fallaciously asserts a causal link between “gun control” and mass exterminations. The argument fails to take into account other determining factors — most notably, what sorts of political regimes committed all these atrocities (hint: they weren’t democracies). It also fails to take into account counter-examples of nations (including the United States) with longstanding gun control laws on the books where no mass exterminations have occurred. Consider, too, that, in several of the cited instances the gun control laws in effect when the genocides took place were enacted years or even decades earlier. It’s further implied that unrestricted private gun ownership would have prevented the genocides from occurring. Although a greater availability of weapons would have put targeted populations in a better position to defend themselves, however, it’s not a given that they would have prevailed over the better-equipped, better-trained government forces sent to annihilate them. As best we can determine, most of the facts and figures cited in the text are very loosely based on research published in two (now out-of-print) books, Death by ‘Gun Control’ by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens, published by Mazel Freedom Press in 2001, and Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) in 1994. We’ve relied on scholarly reviews of those books (mainly Dave Kopel’s “Lethal Laws,” published in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law in 1995) for access to some of the authors’ original research and findings, which have been garbled almost beyond recognition in the text we will now examine in more detail. Claim: “In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” The time period cited, 1929 to 1953, roughly coincides with dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, whose regime was responsible for the deaths of many millions of people, though historians disagree on the total. For a long time, 20 million was the generally accepted number, but since the fall of the Soviet Union more documentation has become available. “Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of the Soviet regime’s terrors can hardly be lower than some 15 million,” wrote historian Robert Conquest in his 2008 book The Great Terror: A Reassessment, to cite one example. In 2011, Yale historian Timothy Snyder cited a significantly lower number, 6 million, as “the total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism.” Either way, it’s not strictly accurate to say that all of Stalin’s victims were “rounded up and exterminated.” More than 3 million died of forced starvation. Gun control regulations, including a requirement to register all weapons with the government, were in force during that period. “Policemen were responsible for gun control,” writes Katherine Bliss Eaton in Daily Life in the Soviet Union (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004): Private citizens and institutions could own hunting weapons if they had police permission and registered their guns at the local station house. The militia could confiscate weapons and ammunition from people who showed signs of dangerously irresponsible behavior. Large-scale gun confiscations were aimed at subpopulations deemed to be subversive or dissident. For example, Robert Conquest reports in The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (Oxford University Press, 1987) that rural peasants were disarmed en masse for purposes of enforcing the social policy of “agricultural collectivization,” which the peasants resisted: In 1929-30 a great effort had been made to prevent the peasantry possessing arms. Registration of hunting weapons had become compulsory in decrees of 1926, 1928, and 1929, and rules were also established to ensure that “criminal and socially dangerous elements” should not be sold guns, this to be “checked by the GPU [Soviet secret police] authorities.” In August 1930, when various minor insurrections and individual acts of resistance had made it clear that this was not being obeyed, a massive arms search was ordered. By this time, however, few arms were left. Gun registration and targeted confiscations therefore played an essential role in Stalin’s genocidal activities. Claim: “In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” This entry refers to the Armenian genocide, in which as many as 1.5 million Armenians (then a persecuted Christian minority concentrated in the eastern provinces of Ottoman Turkey) were massacred by the Ottoman Empire. With regard to gun ownership, non-Muslims had never been legally permitted to privately own weapons under Ottoman rule (though some did), but military conscription laws enacted by a newly constituted government (the so-called “Young Turks”) between 1908 and 1914 put guns in the hands of tens of thousands of Armenians drafted to fight for the empire in World War I. After suffering military losses early on in that war, the government blamed the Armenians, whom they accused of treachery and subversion, and on that pretext embarked on a program of disarming and eradicating the Armenian population as a whole. New York Times foreign correspondent John Kifner wrote: The Young Turks, who called themselves the Committee of Unity and Progress, launched a set of measures against the Armenians, including a law authorizing the military and government to deport anyone they “sensed” was a security threat. A later law allowed the confiscation of abandoned Armenian property. Armenians were ordered to turn in any weapons that they owned to the authorities. Those in the army were disarmed and transferred into labor battalions where they were either killed or worked to death. There were executions into mass graves, and death marches of men, women and children across the Syrian desert to concentration camps with many dying along the way of exhaustion, exposure and starvation. The Armenians had been officially prohibited from owning firearms for hundreds of years in the Ottoman Empire; what weapons they did have were confiscated in the interests of eradicating that part of the population. Claim: “Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.” This is misleading. Jews were prohibited from owning guns and disarmed. Overall, however, gun control laws passed by the Nazis in 1938 actually loosened firearms restrictions that had been in force since the end of World War I. Gun ownership was banned outright for all German citizens in 1919. A 1928 revision of the law lifted the ban, while still requiring individuals to obtain permits to own, sell, carry, or manufacture firearms. According to Stephen Halbrook, author of Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’ (Independence Institute, 2013), the Nazis used the extant law when they came to power in 1933 to revoke the permits of communists, Jews, and other “undesirables,” and disarm them. The first gun law actually enacted under Nazi rule, the German Weapons Act of 1938, eased some of the permit requirements (those on rifles and ammunition, though not on handguns), and lowered the legal age for the possession of firearms, but also forbade Jews, specifically, from manufacturing or selling arms. The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, enacted later that year, prohibited Jews from possessing or carrying any kind of weapon at all. So, while the Nazis ultimately favored loosening gun restrictions on the German population as a whole, the disarmament of Jews and other targeted minority populations was an essential feature of Hitler’s genocidal program, which included the murder of six million Jews (and millions of others deemed unworthy to live under the Third Reich) between 1938 and the end of World War II. Claim: “China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” As in the case of the Soviet Union, historians disagree on how many Chinese civilians perished at the hands of the communist government. One source, Hong Kong historian Frank Dikötter, estimates that as many as 45 million people were “worked, starved or beaten to death” in China between 1948 and 1952. Other sources place the death toll at closer to one million. The claim that China “established gun control in 1935” appears to have been plucked from mid-air. According to Lethal Laws, a 1912 law made it illegal to possess or import rifles, cannons, or explosives without a permit. The Security Administration Punishment Act of 1957 took the additional step of making it illegal to make, purchase, or possess firearms or ammunition without the government’s permission — though by that time at least a million “class enemies” had already died in the name of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. Claim: “Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” According to the Center for Justice and Accountability, well over 100,000 indigenous Mayans were indeed systematically murdered by the Guatemalan government between 1960 and 1996 (concurrent with the Guatemala Civil War). It should be noted, however, Guatemala’s stringent gun control laws, which required expensive, hard-to-obtain permits for carrying firearms, predated the 1960s by some forty years. For the most part it would have been unnecessary for the government to confiscate weapons from their intended victims, however, given that (as Kopel points out) firearms were too costly for Mayan peasants to obtain in the first place. Claim: “Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” Ugandan dictator Idi Amin is indeed considered responsible for the massacre of at least 300,000 civilians in his own country, most of them members of Christian tribes loyal to his predecessor, Milton Obote. Rather than being rounded up for extermination, Amin’s victims were typically murdered on the spot by roving bands of soldiers. Before Obote, Uganda’s gun control laws (dating from 1955) allowed the private ownership of weapons by permit only, and applicants were required to prove their “fitness” to carry firearms. Obote’s government rewrote the law in 1969, instituting a total, nationwide ban on the ownership and possession of weapons except for government officials and individuals who were granted special exemptions. Kopel reports that the law changed again in 1970, under Amin, essentially reverting to a version of the 1955 law requiring permits and proof of fitness for gun ownership, but by that time, presumably, a large percentage of the guns in private hands had already been confiscated. Claim: “Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” The actual estimates are that between 1.5 and 3 million Cambodians, including about a half-million members of ethnic minority groups, were slaughtered by the communist Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979. Although the dictatorship enacted no gun laws itself, there were gun control measures on the books dating from 1920 and 1938 that required the licensing of firearms and limited their ownership to hunters. According to the Small Arms Survey of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, the Khmer Rouge went about disarming the Cambodian public — and arming itself — via a program of gun confiscation: The Khmer Rouge regime eliminated the previous elite, and in the process effectively ended private gun ownership. Memoirs of the time provide accounts of how Khmer Rouge cadres confiscated firearms along with watches, motorbikes, and foreign currencies during the first days of the takeover of power in Phnom Penh (Simkin and Rice, 1994, supra note 2, p. 306; referred to in Kopel,1995). During the rule of the Khmer Rouge, all private firearms were moved from private ownership into the stockpiles of the regime. Claim: “Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.” This simply isn’t true, and not just because historians still quibble over the exact numbers of those killed. Tens of millions of people became victims of genocide in the twentieth century because they were members of groups targeted for eradication for reasons of ethnicity, religion, or ideology by ruthless military dictatorships. More often than not, these massacres were preceded by (or concurrent with) concerted efforts to disarm the targeted populations, a task obviously made easier by the existence of gun registration requirements. But to say those millions died because of gun control is an abuse of the facts and logic. Claim: “It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. … Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. [etc. ]” In case it isn’t obvious, this item is categorically different from all the others on the list in that it claims that the establishment of gun control resulted in a higher violent crime rate in a country rather than a mass extermination. As we have demonstrated previously (because this set of assertions about gun laws Australia has made the social media rounds separately from the rest of the text), it is false. Ironically, it also stands as a counter-example disproving the main thesis of the overall text, namely that gun control leads to mass exterminations. Twenty years after strict national gun control laws were enacted in Australia, the country remains genocide-free. Claim: “During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!” Not so. This urban legend of World War II based on an alleged quote from Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”) was debunked in 2009 by FactCheck.org. Although the quote has long circulated, online and off, no one has ever been able to cite a source to substantiate it. As World War II historian Donald M. Goldstein told the web site, “As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where [it was said].” Based on the actual evidence at hand, we find it reasonable to conclude that gun confiscations, facilitated by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of firearms, played a crucial role in the carrying out of twentieth-century genocides. However, gun control per se — properly defined as a set of laws regulating gun ownership that can range from minimally restrictive to outright prohibitive — is neither a cause nor even a reliable predictor of mass exterminations, whereas the presence of a repressive military dictatorship most certainly is.
8159	Italy coronavirus deaths surge by 793 in a day, lifting total death toll to 4,825.	The death toll from an outbreak of coronavirus in Italy has leapt by 793 to 4,825, officials said on Saturday, an increase of 19.6% — by far the largest daily rise in absolute terms since the contagion emerged a month ago.	true	Health News	On Thursday, Italy overtook China as the country to register most deaths from the highly contagious virus. The total number of cases in Italy rose to 53,578 from a previous 47,021, an increase of 13.9%, the Civil Protection Agency said. The hardest-hit northern region of Lombardy remains in a critical situation, with 3,095 deaths and 25,515 cases. Of those originally infected nationwide, 6,072 had fully recovered on Saturday compared to 5,129 the day before. There were 2,857 people in intensive care against a previous 2,655.
6754	3 indicted in unlicensed assisted living facilities case.	Maryland’s attorney general has announced three people have been indicted for allegedly operating unlicensed assisted living facilities in the Baltimore area.	true	Health, General News, Indictments, Assisted living, Maryland, Baltimore	Brian Frosh announced the indictments on Wednesday. Officials say multiple charges have been filed against Troy Brown, Sharon Isaac and Barbara Parker, all of Baltimore. The charges include abuse and neglect of a vulnerable adult and financial exploitation. The attorney general’s office says it began investigating Neiswanger Management Services in 2015. The company operated five nursing homes throughout Maryland. The investigation was led by the attorney general’s office and the Maryland State Police. Officials say the investigation found that the company was discharging their nursing home patients at sham unlicensed living facilities. Search warrants revealed overcrowded homes and deplorable living conditions in some cases, including bed bugs and mice.
10823	Study: Monthly fasting may help heart	"This report on findings about heart disease in a mostly Mormon population of once-a-month fasters is solidly done. It presents data fairly and quotes one independent source. It also includes the essential caveats that the study is ""far from proof"" that fasting cuts heart disease risk, that monthly fasting may be a marker for personal self-discipline generally, and that fasting doesn’t necessarily lead to weight loss. The article’s major shortcoming is that it is based on a fairly low quality of data source subject to bias–an unpublished presentation of information gathered from self-reports of healthy people about lifestyle behaviors linked to their religious beliefs. The question here is not with the reporter’s execution of the story, but whether it should have been published at all. Despite its prominent acknowledgment of caveats, the story’s length and very existence invite the inference that fasting is an effective method to reduce heart disease risk. The researchers themselves admit their study can in no way responsibly answer that question–that their study at best raises questions that may justify further study. When making assignments, editors would be wise to ask the questions: Will this report invite an inference about a recommended change in personal health behavior? If so, does the data justify this inference? In this case, the answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is no. Viewed from this perspective, an argument can be made that the story should not have been published. (An abstract of the presentation appears as a meeting supplement to the journal Circulation.)"	true		"There are no financial costs associated with fasting one day per month. The article generally presents data well: While at the top it uses the phrase ""40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with heart disease,"" later in the text it explains that 67 percent of the non-fasters were diagnosed, compard to 59 percent of fasters. Providing both measures is useful. The article also lays out the study’s methodology in considerable detail. The article cites the two important safety issues regarding fasting: That it can be dangerous for diabetics, and that it can depress metabolism and possibly make weight gain more likely. It should also have said that anyone who wants to fast should consult their doctor first. While the article reports that the study was presented at an American Heart Association meeting, it did not explain that this means the data has not been peer-reviewed or published – and as such carries less credibility until (or if) it is published in such a journal. The article also failed to point out an observational study of self-reported behavior is a less powerful type of evidence than a prospective clinical trial. The risk in this study of ""Healthy user bias"" – the fact that people who choose to fast may have healthy characteristics that others do not – should have been emphasized. The article also permits the researchers to overinterpret some data. It quotes the researchers as saying the results apply to non-Mormons too. But only 8 percent of the survey group of 515 – or 41 people – were not Mormons. Conclusions of disease prevalence based on such a small sample size are premature. The article does not exaggerate the consequences or prevalence of heart disease. This article was based on a presentation at a medical meeting. It included interviews from two sources: The study’s author, and an independent expert on the subject of diet and heart disease. The article states that quitting smoking also reduces heart disease risk. But it fails to indicate that a more common approach to reducing heart risk is controlling what and how much you eat rather than when. It would have been useful to know how much benefit this group of fasters saw compared to a similar group that used more common dietary measures to reduce heart risk. The article also fails to mention other common and effective ways to reduce heart risk, such as controlling high blood pressure and lipids, taking aspirin, etc. The activity studied, refraining from food and drink one day per month, is available to anyone. The article correctly implies that little research has been done on the cardiac benefits of once-a-month daily fasting. There is no evidence the article is based on a press release."
9745	Asterias's stem cell therapy shows promise in study	Stem cell therapy is a controversial area both in terms of ethics and scientific merit. Despite the promise, there has been little progress in the treatment of disease. Asterias Biotherapeutics released the results of the first stage of a phase 1/2 trial of a stem cell-derived therapy called AST OPC-1 in the treamtent of spinal cord injuries. This first stage was conducted in three patients with spinal cord injuries with the lowest of three doses of the treatment. The Reuters report gave a good background on the therapy, outlining its history at Geron Corp to Asterias’ acquisition in 2013. Where the story falls short, however, is in explaining the research itself, in its incomplete description of the benefits and potential harms, and in its use of a single source, the company’s CEO. An independent expert would have help put this research into perspective. What also is missing is a brief description on the natural history of spinal cord injuries (how much do they usually get better on their own?) and their usual treatments. Spinal cord damage can be life altering and in far too many cases irreversible. Existing treatments, while helpful, frequently do not allow the patient to undergo a complete recovery. Stem cells, although controversial, have the potential to develop into specialized cell types and to replace damaged tissue. But much work still needs to be done on how stem cells can be translated into meaningful therapies to treat diseases and injuries. Stories shedding light on this area of research could encourage more public discussion, which in turn might lead to more research and subsequent advances.	mixture	spinal cord injury,stem cells	The therapy, AST OPC-1, is in its early developmental stages – making it difficult to estimate costs in this case. Since the story is clear about the early state of the research. We think this report could have done a more thorough job here, especially since its headline claims the stem cell therapy “shows promise.” We think that it is helpful to point out that this is a phase 1/2 trial and is the first cohort of patients to be enrolled. A very early stage in the arduous path to commercialization. The only mention of benefits in this Reuters story is that “severity of the spinal injury was reduced in the first patient,” but the story doesn’t try to quantify his improvement. To what extent was the spinal injury reduced? And in what time frame? Since there is no control group in this study, it would have been helpful to know if patients normally experience improvements over time. The news release provides a bit more useful information in this regard with a quote from one of the investigators; “This progress in the first patient is very encouraging and is observed in less than 5 percent of our AIS A patients at this stage of their recovery.” The story does include a restraining quote from the company CEO who says, “It is important to know that we do not expect patients to get up and play basketball. But we do expect the patients to have significant improvements in mobility.” But what does “significant improvement” mean? AST OPC-1 just completed its phase 1/2a clinical trial, which essentially evaluates the safety of the therapy. The three patients in the trial have not shown any serious adverse events, and the story reports this. However, we think the story could made it clearer that that is very early data, and that harms resulting from the therapy remain to be seen. This is the first stage of a three-step dose escalation trial and the dose used was the lowest envisioned. It’s certainly possible that adverse events not seen at a low dose will occur more frequently with a higher dose of the therapy. The first sentence of the Reuters report was a bit misleading. Initial data did not indicate that stem cell therapy “could improve mobility in patients” with spinal cord injuries. Instead, the initial trial indicated this stem cell therapy was safe in low doses, or at two million stem cells. Since this was a phase 1/2a clinical trial, the main purpose was to determine the therapy’s safety. Efficacy was a secondary consideration. With such a tiny sample size of 3 patients, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the therapy’s effectiveness. The story also could have used some discussion about the limitations of an open-label, single-arm study. In an open-label trial, both researchers and patients know which treatment is being administered. In single-arm or non-randomized trials, everyone enrolled in the study receives the therapy. And in this clinical trial, there was no control group. A comment or two about the natural course of untreated injury would have provided an important context to the story These study designs may be common during phase 1 and 2 testing, but they provide opportunities to introduce bias into the trial. Until scientists conduct a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, it would be premature to draw conclusions on the therapy’s efficacy. There is no disease mongering in the article. Only the CEO of Asterias is quoted in this article. An independent source – who could have discussed the limitations and significance of the trial – would have helped balance the story, bringing a much-needed perspective to readers. Severe spinal cord damage is unfortunately irreversible, but treatments to improve nerve function exist. These include medications, such as intravenous methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injuries, and surgery to remove foreign objects that are compressing the spine. Rehabilitation nurses and physical therapists could also work with patients to maintain and strengthen muscle function. Since the article does not mention any of these alternatives, we give it a Not Satisfactory rating here. The Reuters story makes it fairly clear that this therapy is in its early phases. The article describes how Asterias acquired the therapy from another research company in 2013 and how this announcement has been the first about the research in more than two years. The report does a good job detailing the therapy’s history at Geron Corp, which also conducted an early-phase study with five patients suffering from spinal cord injuries prior to 2011. Asterias bought OPC-1 in 2013 and just completed its own early-stage trial, the article said. It also notes that AST OPC-1 “is the first product derived from human embryos to be tested on humans.” Although the article refers to the company’s news release, the comments from CEO Lichtinger are original. But one-source stories are not ideal: We would have liked to have seen comments from other researchers, especially one who was not involved in the trial. Since the Reuters story made an effort to go beyond the news release, we give it a Satisfactory rating here.
7515	China virus outbreak may wallop economy, financial markets.	News that a new virus that has afflicted hundreds of people in central China can spread between humans has rattled financial markets and raised concern it might wallop the economy just as it might be regaining momentum.	true	AP Top News, Health, Ebola virus, Asia, Wuhan, Business, China, Travel, Asia Pacific, General News, Economy	Health authorities across Asia have been stepping up surveillance and other precautions to prevent a repeat of the disruptions and deaths during the 2003 SARS crisis, which caused $40 billion to $50 billion in losses from reduced travel and spending. The first cases of what has been identified as a novel coronavirus were linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, suggesting animal-to-human transmission, but it now is also thought to be spread between people. As of Wednesday, more than 500 people were confirmed infected and 17 had died from the illness, which can cause pneumonia and other severe respiratory symptoms. A retreat in financial markets on Tuesday was followed by a rebound on Wednesday, as investors snapped up bargains. Share benchmarks were mostly higher both in Asia, Europe and the U.S. While the new virus appears much less dangerous than SARS, “the most significant Asia risk could lie ahead as the regional peak travel season takes hold, which could multiply the disease diffusion,” said Stephen Innes, chief Asian strategist for AxiCorp. “So, while the risk is returning to the market, the lights might not turn green until we move through the Lunar New Year travel season to better gauge the coronavirus dispersion.” The 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in China, along with cases of a deadly form of bird flu, resulted in widespread quarantine measures in many Chinese cities and in Hong Kong. More than 8,000 people fell sick and just under 800 people died, a mortality rate of under 10%. While the ordinary flu kills hundreds of thousands of people each year, such new diseases raise alarm due to the uncertainties over how deadly they might be and how they might spread. That’s especially true during the annual mass travel of the Lunar New Year festival, which begins this week. “The cost to the global economy can be quite staggering in negative GDP terms if this outbreak reaches epidemic proportions,” Innes said in a report. In China, health officials stepped up screening for fevers. “We ask the public to avoid crowds and minimize the public gatherings to reduce the possibility of cross infection,” Li Bin, deputy director of the National Health Commission, said Wednesday. As with SARS, the impact of the disease is likely to fall heaviest on specific industries, such as hotels and airlines, railways, casinos and other leisure businesses and retailers, analysts said. In a statement on its website Wednesday, Shanghai Disney Resort said it was operating normally but understood if some guests wished to change their travel plans. The park said it would let guests reschedule their visits or refund their money. China’s Civil Aviation Administration called on airlines to offer free refunds for tickets in or out of Wuhan. “If the pneumonia couldn’t be contained in the short term, we expect China’s retail sales, tourism, hotel & catering, travel activities likely to be hit, especially in the first and second quarters,” said Ning Zhang of UBS. Government efforts to offset the shock would help, but growth will likely rebound less than earlier forecast, Zhang said. The outbreak is a boon, meanwhile, for pharmaceutical companies and makers of protective masks and other medical gear. As of Jan. 17, the World Health Organization had not recommended any international restrictions on travel but urged local authorities to work with the travel industry to help prevent the disease from spreading while warning travelers who fall ill to seek medical attention. The illness is yet another blow for Hong Kong, whose economy is reeling from months of often violent anti-government protests. The wider concern is China, where the economy grew at a 30-year low 6.1% annual pace in 2019. An interim trade pact between Beijing and Washington had raised hopes that some pressure from tensions between the two biggest economies might ease, and the latest data have showed signs of improved demand for exports. The virus outbreak raises the risk such optimism might be premature. “We expect increased downward pressure on China’s growth, particularly in the services sector,” said Ting Lu and other analysts at Nomura in Hong Kong, who based their projections on the spread of the SARS virus. The growing number of global travelers has contributed to the spread of various diseases in recent years, including Middle East respiratory syndrome, the Ebola and Zika viruses, the plague, measles and other highly contagious illnesses. The World Economic Forum estimates that pandemics — cross-border outbreaks like the flu that killed 50 million people a century ago — have the potential to cause an $570 billion in annual economic losses. The 2014-16 Ebola virus epidemic caused losses amounting to over $2.2 billion, according to the World Bank. That includes a 40% decrease in the number of working Liberians at the height of the crisis, lower exports and harvests, and costs for combating the disease. Apart from the human tragedy, such crises gobble up resources needed for other government spending, exacting a harsh toll on the poorest economies. In Africa, the loss of health care workers to Ebola resulted in thousands more deaths of mothers and babies, hindered work on other diseases such as preventing and treating malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, reduced vaccination rates and fewer surgeries, the World Bank said in a report. Many survivors, meanwhile, suffer from lingering effects of the illnesses and the powerful drugs used to save their lives, becoming more vulnerable to hunger and other risks. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated tools for collecting data and analyzing are aiding efforts to prepare for and cope with severe disease outbreaks. In 2016, the World Bank set up a $500 million rapid response insurance fund, working with the WHO and insurance companies, to combat pandemics in developing countries. The fund uses “cat bonds,” or catastrophe bonds, whose principal will be lost if the funds are needed to help deal with an outbreak. Private insurers have followed with products of their own meant to hedge against risks from such disasters.
14148	Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year.	"Lew said that ""almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year."" That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While that’s not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States."	true	Global News Service, Bankruptcy, Economy, Population, Jack Lew,	"Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is urging Congress to pass legislation to deal with Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, saying that without action the economy and welfare of the U.S. territory will continue to deteriorate. During an interview on the Bloomberg network, Lew said that Puerto Rican hospitals are ill-equipped to deal with the spread of the Zika virus, that schools are closing and that the failing economy is driving people out. ""You have broad economic stress causing people to leave the island,"" Lew said May 3, 2016. ""Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year."" For an island with a total population around 3.5 million, that’s a serious exodus. We decided to see if Lew was right. Looking at the data Census data shows a small, but steady increase in the number of people leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland. More than 360,000 people went from Puerto Rico to the United States btween 2010 and 2014. However, the Census data isn’t out for 2015, which is the year Lew was talking about. So where did Lew get that figure? The estimate comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation, which tracks passengers departing from and arriving to the island. The Treasury Department has relied on this data before, according to department spokesperson Daniel Watson. The data show about 90,000 more people left Puerto Rico for the United States than came in. The American Community Survey showing total out-migration of Puerto Rico to the US mainland *T-100 Domestic Market Data (US Carriers) None of this data includes people leaving Puerto Rico for somewhere other than the United States. Islanders mostly tend to head to the mainland, however, countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic and Spain have been attracting Puerto Ricans as well. So the total number of migrants leaving the island is actually larger. Recent qualitative interviews by researchers from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies found that the people leaving Puerto Rico in the greatest numbers are nurses, paramedics, police officers, teachers, college professors and lawyers. They are often recruited and going to states with growing Hispanic populations in need of bilingual professionals. The surge in departures has led to the social media tag #yonomequito (""I am not going anywhere""). On Facebook this movement has been liked by 70,000 people. Our ruling Lew said that ""almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year."" That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While that’s not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States. Lew’s statement is ."
23397	"On whether President Obama's speeches to school children spread ""socialist ideology."	Former Florida GOP chair apologizes to Obama on education speech	false	Education, Florida, Jim Greer,	"A year ago, we fact-checked a statement from the Republican Party of Florida that claimed President Barack Obama intended to indoctrinate school children with socialist ideology. The alleged vehicle: a back-to-school speech given to the nation's students. Some of Obama's other political opponents echoed the charge, and principals across the country had to answer questions from parents about whether students were required to watch the speech. This year, Obama gave a speech to schoolchildren on Sept. 14, 2010, with little controversy. Like last year, he spoke of the necessity of hard work and a good education. But we were surprised by a dramatic change of position for Jim Greer, the former head of the Republican Party of Florida. Here's his statement from last year: ""As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."" We fact-checked that at the time and rated it . We found no evidence that Obama intended to address school children on public policy matters, much less socialism. All evidence pointed to a more generic speech on the importance of education, and that's what Obama delivered. Greer's position has entirely changed since then, and in more ways than one. Greer lost his party chairmanship in January 2010, and state authorities arrested him in June on corruption charges, alleging that he used a secret contract to send party donations to a consulting firm he owned. Greer now faces six felony charges, including fraud and money laundering. (PolitiFact Florida has detailed a timeline on Greer's departure from the state party.) Meanwhile, Gov. Charlie Crist -- who picked Greer as party chairman after Crist became governor in 2006 -- left the Republican Party in April to run as an independent for U.S. Senate. The party supports Marco Rubio, a former state legislator and speaker of the House, in that race. This year, to mark Obama's speech to students, Greer sent the following text message to Florida reporters: ""In the year since I issued a prepared statement regarding President Obama speaking to the nation’s school children, I have learned a great deal about the party I so deeply loved and served. Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views and I apologize to the president for my opposition to his speech last year and my efforts to placate the extremists who dominate our party today. My children and I look forward to the president's speech."" We called the Republican Party of Florida and asked them about Greer's statement, but they declined to comment. That could be because Greer earlier this year filed a lawsuit against the party for failing to pay him severance of $124,000, plus health care. Just this past weekend, party officials said they were contemplating their own lawsuit against Greer and Crist for misspending party funds. So Greer is no longer head of the party and repudiates his own statements from a year ago. Could Greer's new view on Obama's school speech be just another stick-in-the-eye to the people who kicked him out of his job? Sure. Greer sent a letter to Crist last month asking for his campaign contributions back, because Greer said he needs the money to defend himself. In the letter, he blasted state party leaders, some by name, saying they ""are simply liars, racists, and extremists ... the current bunch that are running the show will stop at nothing to cover for their own misdeeds."" Whatever Greer's motivations, we very seldom see such a thorough change of position on over-the-top political rhetoric, much less an apology. To note that dramatic reversal, we put Greer on the Flip-O-Meter and rate his statement a ."
37569	"Quarantined children in Wuhan ""defeated"" the app assigning them homework by deluging it with one-star reviews, which caused it to be removed from the app store."	Did Quarantined Kids in in Wuhan Defeat a Homework App by Spamming it With One-Star Reviews?	mixture	Fact Checks, Viral Content	In a tweet which became a Facebook post, @zenalbatross reported that Wuhan’s clever schoolchildren “defeated the app assigning them homework” by spamming it with one-star reviews to trigger its deletion from an app store:good morning to all the kids under quarantine in wuhan who defeated the app assigning them homework by spamming it with 1-star reviews until it got removed from the app store https://t.co/gDxjivabte— 𝕁𝕒𝕟𝕦𝕤 ℝ𝕠𝕤𝕖 🥀 (@zenalbatross) March 7, 2020That tweet was itself a retweet of a screenshot from a March 5 2020 item in the London Review of Books, “The Word from Wuhan.” Portions of the paragraph in question were cut off; in its entirety it read:Schools are suspended until further notice. With many workplaces also shut, notoriously absent Chinese fathers have been forced to stay home and entertain their children. Video clips of life under quarantine are trending on TikTok. Children were presumably glad to be off school – until, that is, an app called DingTalk was introduced. Students are meant to sign in and join their class for online lessons; teachers use the app to set homework. Somehow the little brats worked out that if enough users gave the app a one-star review it would get booted off the App Store. Tens of thousands of reviews flooded in, and DingTalk’s rating plummeted overnight from 4.9 to 1.4. The app has had to beg for mercy on social media: ‘I’m only five years old myself, please don’t kill me.’The same claim appeared in the UK’s Daily Mirror, on Interesting Engineering, via Mashable, and on Boy Genius Report (BGR). All iterations cited the London Review of Books as their source for the anecdote.The London Review of Books mentioned the app — DingTalk — by name, and DingTalk was referenced in previous reporting. On February 27 2020, the Economist described DingTalk’s role in education in China during the coronavirus quarantine:“Don’t delete your browser history,” Lin Kai warns his 11-year-old son, who is supposed to be live-streaming lectures delivered by his schoolteachers. Mr Lin has reason to be anxious. To curb the spread of covid-19, the authorities have closed schools and universities indefinitely. But “study must not stop”, says the education ministry. Under its orders, the country’s biggest exercise in remote learning is under way, watched over by parents. Mr Lin, who lives in the eastern city of Hangzhou, has caught his son being distracted by online games. He wants his son to know that he will inspect the browser for evidence of such naughtiness.There are other ways to enforce discipline. Liu Weihua, who teaches at Wuhan University of Technology, cold-calls his students during live streams. With sit-down exams now impossible, his grading system places more emphasis on how students perform in classroom discussions, Mr Liu explains. These are conducted using video-conferencing platforms such as Dingtalk by Alibaba, a tech giant, and Ketang by Tencent, a competitor.The Economist noted that not all homes in China had internet access sufficient for education via DingTalk, which is described as similar to the workplace chat app Slack. The article mentioned other means used to ensure that quarantined students remained caught up via a 14-hour programming block beginning with primary school and ending with classes for older students:In poor rural areas, where some households lack internet access, instruction by television fills the void. Since February 17th [2020] China Education Network, a state-run service, has been broadcasting classes every weekday from 8am to 10pm. The first lesson of the day is aimed at pupils in the first year of primary school. Programmes for older children air in the afternoon and evening. All core subjects, such as mathematics and Chinese, are covered.One student in China consulted for the piece said “that some of [the students] study just as hard at home as in school, and [perhaps] take perverse pleasure in the fact that others must be slacking off.” That student seemed to feel that quarantining students due to coronavirus provided a competitive edge. And a teacher in Beijing mused that the reliance on distance learning tools might make for a sea change in post-quarantine education due to the creation of new information channels between students and teachers.Back in October 2019 — before COVID-19 was even identified — Quartz profiled the “Orwellian” DingTalk app as a Chinese version of Slack, mentioning a geotagging surveillance feature proving to be a frustration for workers. DingTalk’s name also appeared in a January 28 2020 South China Morning Post article, as a tool used in conjunction with Youku (described as similar to YouTube) for communication:Schools in China are postponing spring semester classes due to the recent outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus, so online education providers are getting a chance to show what they have to offer.Alibaba’s Youku, China’s answer to YouTube, announced on Monday that it will launch online classes for primary and secondary school students. The classes will be free with the help of another Alibaba product called DingTalk, an office communication tool similar to Slack. State media has reported that nearly 50 primary and secondary schools in Hubei province, of which Wuhan is the capital, have joined the program. (Abacus is a unit of the South China Morning Post, which is owned by Alibaba. )The London Review of Books mention of DingTalk indicated students were “meant to sign in and join their class for online lessons; teachers use the app to set homework,” and the viral tweet described the app as “assigning” them homework. In more nuanced accounts, students with access to stable internet were provided classes via video and they used DingTalk for discussion of lessons and sometimes to receive assignments.However, that article on March 5 2020 was not the first iteration of claims that Chinese students were giving DingTalk low ratings. A February 17 2020 report from Reuters Shanghai noted that DingTalk “begged” China’s school students to stop giving it poor ratings:On [February 17 2020], DingTalk had a score of 2.5 out of 5 stars, despite being No.1 in the business category.“I know, young heroes, you were not expecting such a fulfilling holiday, it’s difficult for you,” it said in a music video with cartoons posted on its verified Weibo late on Sunday“Young heroes please spare my life, you all are my papas,” it said.Alibaba did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for further comment. Many of the roughly 800,000 reviews on the app on the Apple store platform criticised DingTalk for spoiling their plans for a rest.“My holidays! I love DingTalk, say no more, there is one star for you,” said one review.In that reporting, Reuters described “homework grading” (not assigning) as a “new” DingTalk feature. However, it was clear the app was not just used for assigning homework or even for schoolchildren, and those features were developed to cater to educators during a lengthy quarantine:Authorities shut schools until at least the end of February [2020] to try to stop the spread of [coronavirus,] and many school students were hoping for an extended holiday … So [students] were less than grateful when DingTalk, originally designed for China’s white collar workers, adapted to the virus outbreak by offering the service to help educate primary and middle school teenagers.Its app, with new features such as homework grading, the ability to livestream classes and watch video replays, has received a flood of one-star reviews from disgruntled pupils.On March 2 2020, China-focused tech site TechNode reported that DingTalk was locked in a “meme war” due to student objections over its adoption as an education tool during the coronavirus quarantine. The October 2019 Quartz profile of DingTalk (or Ding Ding) characterized the app as invasive for workers; TechNode said that “DingTalk has gained a bad reputation for enabling companies to micro-manage, monitor, and exploit its employees.”And while quarantined children were blamed for DingTalk’s poor ratings on English-language social media, TechNode reported that it wasn’t just their bad reviews:Prior to launching online learning tools, DingTalk’s app rating was already unenviable. The app’s rating dropped to close to one star across popular app stores in China and the negative reviews piled up … According to data from mobile data and analytics company App Annie, Dingtalk received over 15,000 one-star reviews on Feb. 11 [2020], and just a little over 2,000 five-star ratings.According to TechNode, there may have been student coordination to rate the app negatively (although it wasn’t China’s most popular app to begin with) and DingTalk’s CEO admitted that he would probably have done the same thing as a child. Moreover, much of the student backlash and DingTalk’s response occurred in February 2020 — by the end of that month, DingTalk went back up to a 2.6 star rating:Propelled by a rumor that apps rated below one star would get removed, Chinese students organizing a campaign to lower DingTalk’s rating.In an attempt to appease their anger, Dingtalk uploaded an apology video on Chinese streaming site Bilibili. The video featured memes and cartoons singing a catchy tune with lyrics begging for better reviews like “I know guys, you were not expecting such a productive holiday” and “Please don’t give me any more one-star ratings. I was chosen for this job and there is not much I can do about it.” The video has been viewed nearly 17 million times.In response to DingTalk’s pleas, a widely circulated joke, students wrote in the review section they were willing to give DingTalk five stars, but in five “installments.”On Feb. 17, App Annie’s data shows that five-star reviews started to flood in too, balancing the one stars. Some appeared to be written by older users lashing out at the youth: “Students don’t like online classes will turn into adults who don’t want to work. But the reality is they will need to earn money for their family. Students need to study for their future’s sake,” wrote user ddtfyuvf in a review on the iOS app store … The [DingTalk response] videos seem to have won support from some users. As of Feb. 27 [2020], DingTalk had rebounded to 2.6 stars.Going back to the viral tweet:good morning to all the kids under quarantine in wuhan who defeated the app assigning them homework by spamming it with 1-star reviews until it got removed from the app storeDingTalk — the app mentioned in the London Review of Books screenshot — was more than an app assigning students homework; it was better described as a workplace app similar to Slack. DingTalk bolstered tools for education in light of looming extended quarantines, but the app was already controversial thanks to its worker-monitoring functionalities, such as geotagging. TechNode reported that DingTalk’s ratings dropped due to a rumor that an under one-star rating would cause the app to be deleted from the app store, but DingTalk was never deleted or removed as the tweet suggested. By the time the tweet circulated, DingTalk had curried favor via funny videos on Chinese social media sites like Weibo, and as of February 27 2020, it maintained a 2.6 star rating.
2831	South Korea steps up measures to contain bird flu.	South Korea is stepping up efforts to prevent the spread of bird flu ahead of the Lunar New Year holidays, after migratory birds were found to be infected with the same strain of the virus that hit poultry farms last week.	true	Health News	The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said in a statement on Monday that it suspects a flock of migratory birds found dead last week brought the latest outbreak of the H5N8 strain of bird flu. Since the virus hit three farms in the southwestern part of the country last week, about 90,000 poultry have been culled from South Korea’s population of 160 million farm birds as of Saturday, according to ministry data. Asia’s fourth-largest economy has had four outbreaks of bird flu viruses in the past 10 years. The most recent, in 2011, led to a cull of more than 3 million poultry. The government has issued a movement control order for livestock and related transport in North and South Jeolla provinces in the southwestern part of the country, and raised its bird flu warning level to ‘alert’ from ‘caution’ ahead of next week’s Lunar New Year holiday. The farms hit last week were in North Jeolla province. No human infection has been reported in the most recent outbreak. The first case of H5N8 bird flu was discovered last Friday at a duck farm in the county of Gochang, about 300 kilometers (186 miles) from Seoul. Another two farms were hit in the nearby county of Buan, some 240 km from Seoul. The H5N8 strain was first identified in a 2010 case reported in China and is similar to the H5N1 type. In Asia, around 150 people in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong have been infected by a new H759 strain of bird flu since it emerged in China last year, claiming at least 46 lives.
12492	"Farmers ""are now dumping milk into the ditches"" because of a trade dispute with Canada"	"Collins said farmers ""are now dumping milk into the ditches"" because of a trade dispute with Canada. The Canadian dairy industry's new pricing for ultra-filtered milk affects dairy processors and farmers in upstate New York, but we could not find any who have dumped their milk because of the trade dispute. It has been more difficult for dairy producers to find a market for their product for the last few years because of a persistent milk glut in the United States. Collins points out the dispute has made it harder for processors to bring milk to market. Indeed, farmers might begin dumping their milk soon if the trend continues. But we found no evidence, and he has not provided any, that it has happened yet."	false	Agriculture, Economy, New York, Chris Collins,	"You’re not supposed to cry over spilt milk -- unless you’re a dairy farmer in upstate New York. Rep. Chris Collins says a trade dispute with the Canada has forced New York state farmers to dump their milk ""into ditches"" because they can no longer sell it across the border. ""They’ve now taken something they call ultra-filtered milk. They effectively with a pricing move, our dairy farmers are no longer able to get that product into Canada,"" Collins said in an interview with Bloomberg. ""They are now dumping milk into the ditches. The travesty there is beyond belief to see tankers of milk being dumped because there’s no market to sell them in."" The dispute began last year when the Canadian dairy industry created a new pricing class for ultra-filtered milk, a protein-heavy version of the milk you buy at the supermarket. It’s typically used to produce yogurt and certain cheeses. The new pricing class lowered the price of ultra-filtered milk from Canadian dairy producers, making it cheaper for companies in Canada to buy the product domestically instead of importing it from New York state. The new pricing class took effect at the beginning of April. Both Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and President Donald Trump have criticized Canada for the action, saying it hurts the state’s dairy industry. But is Collins right that the dispute has forced farmers to dump milk into ditches? Dairy processors A spokesman for Collins’ office could not point to any farms that have dumped milk because of the trade dispute, but did say the congressman was talking about farmers in New York state. There are two major processing facilities in New York state that export ultra-filtered milk to Canada: Cayuga Milk Ingredients in Auburn and O-AT-KA Milk Products in Batavia. O-AT-KA is mostly supplied by Upstate Niagara Cooperative but also receives milk from Dairy Farmers of America. Cayuga Milk Ingredients, itself a cooperative, receives milk from 30 local dairy farms. The cooperatives are responsible for marketing their members’ milk to processors and elsewhere. If a member’s product has to be dumped, the loss is spread across all members of the cooperative instead of an individual farmer. Craig S. Alexander, vice president for dairy ingredients and regulatory affairs at O-AT-KA, said no milk from Upstate Niagara Cooperative has been dumped because of the Canada issue. ""We haven’t dumped any milk yet,"" Alexander said. ""However, it’s an evolving situation and the milk supply hasn’t peaked seasonally yet so it’s really week to week to see if we can make ends meet."" Alexander says the dispute could lead to a loss of $20 million for the company if it’s not resolved. Dairy Farmers of America did not reply to our inquiry. The situation is similar in Auburn. ""We’ve been close to dumping but we’ve been able to manage it,"" said Kevin Ellis, CEO of Cayuga Milk Ingredients. ""I’m responsible for marketing the milk, and I’ve been able to effectively market it."" Ellis says the trade dispute threatens $30 million of its annual sales to Canadian markets, about 25 percent of total revenue. The New York Farm Bureau, the Northeast Dairy Producers Association, the Northeast Dairy Foods Association, the American Dairy Association Northeast, and the state Department of Agriculture did not know of any farmers dumping milk because of the problem. Dumping data Some milk has been dumped in the Northeast. Neither the state nor federal Departments of Agriculture tracks how much milk is dumped by state, but federal data shows the amount of milk dumped in a specific region. In the region that includes part of upstate New York and other states in the Northeast, 44.8 million pounds of milk were dumped in the first three months of this year, about 40 percent of the total milk dumped in the U.S. during that time. That’s more than twice the amount of milk dumped in the first three months of last year, but still less than 1 percent of the milk produced in the region. The numbers include more than just milk that was dumped because it couldn’t be sold. It includes milk dumped in all circumstances, like milk used for animal feed. Dumping milk is rarely a total loss for farmers. Processors will often take the cream from milk to sell, leaving only the skim part to be dumped. When processors have no demand for any part of the milk, cooperatives will dump the extra product. But there are rules for how this is done. State regulations require farmers to dispose of excess milk by either adding it to their manure storage structure or by directly applying it to fields to recycle the nutrients. Any dumping that may lead to a waterway, like a ditch, would be a violation of the state Environmental Conservation Law. Our ruling Collins said farmers ""are now dumping milk into the ditches"" because of a trade dispute with Canada. The Canadian dairy industry's new pricing for ultra-filtered milk affects dairy processors and farmers in upstate New York, but we could not find any who have dumped their milk because of the trade dispute. It has been more difficult for dairy producers to find a market for their product for the last few years because of a persistent milk glut in the United States. Collins points out the dispute has made it harder for processors to bring milk to market. Indeed, farmers might begin dumping their milk soon if the trend continues. But we found no evidence, and he has not provided any, that it has happened yet."
2128	U.N. helicopters fly baby Congo gorillas to safety.	United Nations peacekeepers in Congo have used helicopters to airlift endangered baby gorillas to a sanctuary after they were rescued in a conflict zone where they faced being captured or eaten.	true	Environment	The animals ferried to safety are eastern lowland gorillas, a species that only lives in Democratic Republic of Congo and is classified as “endangered” on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) red list. The four gorillas, which had been rescued from traffickers in various parts of Congo’s rebel-infested east, were flown by helicopter on Tuesday from Goma to the Kasugho Sanctuary in North Kivu province. “If you use vehicles, there is a great risk of losing the animals because they are traumatized. We used aircraft because we really wanted to reduce their stress level,” Benoit Kisuki, Conservation International’s country director, told Reuters. Kisuki said the air transfer was part of a wider project to combat the illegal trade in baby gorillas, which has intensified in recent years with the proliferation of armed groups and constant insecurity in eastern Congo. “The objective is to reintroduce them in their natural environment,” he added. The gorillas are often caught, trafficked and sold for thousands of dollars on the world market as exotic pets. Others are killed and sold locally as “bush meat.” The research center in Kasugho has developed a two-hectare (4.9 acre) area where scientists can monitor young gorillas as they prepare to be released into the wild. Six other individuals, currently under protection in Rwanda, are due to be flown in on June 10 to “socialize” with the first group and “form a family of 10,” Kisuki said. The gorillas could be a valuable asset for the future economic development of east Congo, after the animals became a major tourist attraction in Uganda and Rwanda, raising several million dollars in revenues. There is no accurate data for eastern lowland gorilla populations. But Congo’s gorillas have weathered years of warfare in the east and more than 150 rangers have been killed trying to protect the area’s five national parks from poachers. A U.N.-backed report last month said gorillas may become near-extinct in Africa’s Greater Congo Basin by the mid-2020s unless action is taken to stop poaching and protect their habitat.
2486	Three million Europeans catch infections in hospital annually.	On any given day, some 80,000 patients in Europe are fighting an infection they picked up in hospital, often while in intensive care, the EU’s disease monitoring agency said in a survey published on Thursday.	true	Health News	Although some of these infections can be treated easily, others - like the superbug MRSA and other drug-resistant bugs - can be fatal or affect patients’ health very seriously, taking several months of costly hospital care and medication to beat. A survey by the European Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (ECDC) found that on any given day, one in 18 patients in European hospitals has at least one hospital-acquired infection - amounting to around 3.2 million patients per year. “Healthcare-associated infections pose a major public health problem and a threat to European patients,” said Marc Sprenger, director of the Stockholm-based ECDC. He said many of these infections could be prevented by well thought-out, sustained and multi-pronged prevention and control programs and he urged hospitals to step up the fight. “Such programs, as well as prudent use of antibiotics, will help all actors involved to protect the patients of European hospitals,” he said in a statement. The ECDC warned last year that doctors are increasingly having to turn to last-ditch antibiotics due to growing drug-resistant superbug infections in Europe - many of them acquired in hospitals. The latest survey, which covered 1,000 hospitals in 30 European countries, found the highest rates of hospital-acquired infections were among patients admitted to intensive care units, where 19.5 percent of patients had at least one bug they had picked up from the hospital. The most common types of infection are respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and infections of the bloodstream. These are often caused by Klebsiella pneumonia and E. coli bacteria, both of which have shown an ability to develop resistance to some of the most powerful antibiotics. Among a total 15,000 reported healthcare-associated infections, surgical site infections and urinary tract infections are also common. Many of the infections are also found to be drug-resistant “superbugs”, the survey showed. Among all infections with Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in which full testing was carried out, more than 40 percent were reported as resistant to methicillin - in other words they were MRSA infections, the ECDC said. Worldwide, MRSA infects an estimated 53 million people annually and costs more than $20 billion a year to treat. It kills around 20,000 people a year in the United States and a similar number in Europe. EU health and consumer affairs commissioner Paola Testori Coggi said the findings of the European survey were “worrying” and urged health authorities to do more to protect patients in hospital and to step up the fight against antibiotic resistance. Drug resistance is driven by the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, which encourages bacteria to develop new ways of overcoming them. Experts say hospitals are often guilty of overusing antibiotics, giving them as “blanket” treatments before full testing has established which drugs are really needed.
12758	According to the FBI, Mexican drug cartels are working with 100,000 street gang members in Chicago alone.	"LaPierre said, ""According to the FBI, Mexican drug cartels are working with 100,000 street gang members in Chicago alone."" LaPierre cites data in a 2013 national gang report produced by the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center. But it’s hard to gauge how solid that figure is, and experts question its veracity. The figure tracks back to a 2012 interview of a DEA special agent in The Blaze. The DEA told PolitiFact there’s an estimated 100,000 gang members in Chicago heavily involved in drug trafficking. It’s hard to quantify exactly how many of them are working with cartels, though cartels are the source for the drugs distributed by street gangs in Chicago, the DEA said. Independent experts, meanwhile, are skeptical about generalizing that all 100,000 street gang members — Latino and non-Latino — are collaborating with cartels, since the cartels mainly collaborate with Latino street gangs."	mixture	National, Drugs, Homeland Security, Crime, Guns, Wayne LaPierre,	"Echoing President Donald Trump’s views on criminal activity in the United States, the top executive with the National Rifle Association recently said crime is going up in many American cities and raised concerns about the role Mexican criminal organizations play. ""According to the FBI, drug gangs are expanding their networks all across the country. The FBI also says gang members are infiltrating law enforcement and even the military,"" Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said Feb. 24 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He continued: ""On the outside, gangs are committing more and more cross-border crimes. According to the FBI, Mexican drug cartels are working with 100,000 street gang members in Chicago alone. Think about that."" We were intrigued by LaPierre’s claim of Mexican drug cartels working with thousands of Chicago street gangs. An FBI report does offer this number, citing a media interview with a Drug Enforcement Agency special agent. But experts are skeptical about linking cartels to an estimated 100,000 street gang members in the city. National Gang Report The NRA referred us to a 2013 National Gang Report produced by the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center. It was compiled using surveys from the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, open source reports and anecdotal information from gang investigators. The 2013 report affirmed that gangs in the United States have relationships with Mexican drug cartels and that they most commonly work with Los Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel. Specifically about Chicago: Mexican transnational criminal organizations ""partner with more than 100,000 documented street gang members in Chicago to advance their criminal activities,"" the report said. That statistic cites a September 2012 article from the conservative website The Blaze. The Blaze’s article centers on an interview with Jack Riley, then special agent in charge for the Chicago Field Division of the DEA. (The FBI referred our questions to the DEA.) Riley told the website the Sinaloa cartel likely had the strongest presence in Chicago out of all Mexican drug cartels. The cartels have made Chicago one of their main hubs due to its location, large Mexican population and high street gang activity, Riley told The Blaze. They also played a role in the city’s violent crime, he said. Regarding the 100,000 gang members figure, The Blaze reported: ""The drug cartels from Mexico have found willing business partners in more than 100,000 ‘documented’ street gang members in Chicago. The cartel operatives hide in plain sight, within the crowds of millions of hardworking Mexican citizens living in the city. ""It’s the perfect cover,"" Riley said. That number came up again in a November 2012 interview with the Washington Post. Attributing information to the DEA, the Washington Post reported that members of the Sinaloa cartel are selling record amounts of heroin and methamphetamine from Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood and that drugs then make their way to south and west Chicago in mostly African-American neighborhoods. ""Chicago, with 100,000 gang members to put the dope on the street, is a logistical winner for the Sinaloa cartel,"" Riley told the Washington Post. Experts weigh in John Hagedorn, a criminology professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, raised questions about Mexican cartels partnering with 100,000 gang members in Chicago, as the 2013 report said. ""The cartels have organizations in Chicago that supply mainly Latino gangs largely through kinship connections. Black gangs here have largely shattered and are not major wholesalers in drugs,"" said Hagedorn, who has researched gangs for more than three decades. ""The statement that the cartels 'partner' with 100,000 gang members is untrue, to be charitable."" DEA’s Riley has long linked the cartels to Chicago’s high rates of violence, Hagedorn said. While the cartels deal mainly with Latino gangs, the majority of homicide victims and offenders in Chicago are African-American, he said. Fulton T. Armstrong, a research fellow at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University, also had doubts about linking Mexican cartels to 100,000 gang members -- almost 4 percent of Chicago’s estimated 2.7 million population, he noted. ""I find the 100,000 figure very hard to believe. Law enforcement routinely exaggerates both the threats we face and their performance dealing with them,"" said Armstrong, who formerly was a national intelligence officer for Latin America, chief of staff of the CIA’s crime and narcotics center and career CIA officer. Armstrong said that when he also worked on the staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he repeatedly asked the DEA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and other agencies for information on the flow of drugs within the country, but was told the data wasn’t available. His last unfulfilled request was in 2011, Armstrong said. Cartels' continued presence in Chicago The Sinaloa cartel exports and distributes wholesale amounts of methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin in the United States, James L. Jones, public information officer for the DEA’s Chicago field office told PolitiFact. ""It maintains the most expansive international footprint amongst Mexican cartels,"" Jones said. It also remains the largest supplier of drugs to the Chicago area and uses street gangs for distribution, Jones said. ""Chicago is home to an estimated 100,000 active gang members that are heavily involved in drug trafficking, violent crime, and other criminal activity,"" Jones said. ""These gangs operate as the primary mid-level and retail-level distributors of drugs in the city and are responsible for a significant portion of the city’s violent crime."" But it is not clear whether the 100,000 active gang members are all linked to Mexican cartels, which is what is suggested in LaPierre's original citation of the FBI. We asked the DEA for clarification on an estimate of how many or what percentage of the 100,000 are working with the cartels. ""That’s tough to quantify,"" Jones said. ""However, we know that cartels are the source for the drugs that are being distributed by the street gangs in Chicago."" The 2013 gang report cited by the NRA is not the latest version of the report. The 2015 report no longer references the specific figure, but also notes that due to new survey methodology, the 2015 and 2013 reports do not compare. The 2013 report also offers an overall cautionary note: ""Due to inconclusive reporting and lack of confidence in estimates collected from the (National Gang Survey), the (National Gang Report) does not contain numbers or estimates of gang members in the United States."" It recommends contacting local agencies for more information. We reached out to the Chicago Police Department for the estimated number of street gang members in Chicago and how many of them are believed to be working with Mexican drug cartels. The department’s office of news affairs said it did not have a way to immediately provide a count. (AP in January citing the Chicago Crime Commission reported that the city had more than 150,000 street gang members, but many are not active. In January 2012, the commission released a gang book estimating there were more than 68,000 gang members in the city.) Our ruling LaPierre said, ""According to the FBI, Mexican drug cartels are working with 100,000 street gang members in Chicago alone."" LaPierre cites data in a 2013 national gang report produced by the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center. But it’s hard to gauge how solid that figure is, and experts question its veracity. The figure tracks back to a 2012 interview of a DEA special agent in The Blaze. The DEA told PolitiFact there’s an estimated 100,000 gang members in Chicago heavily involved in drug trafficking. It’s hard to quantify exactly how many of them are working with cartels, though cartels are the source for the drugs distributed by street gangs in Chicago, the DEA said. Independent experts, meanwhile, are skeptical about generalizing that all 100,000 street gang members — Latino and non-Latino — are collaborating with cartels, since the cartels mainly collaborate with Latino street gangs."
17733	"In 1929, the Secretary of State shut down a program that was ""collecting information to protect America"" because it was ""unseemly,"" but that move led to ""millions and millions"" of deaths in World War II."	"Rogers said that in 1929, the Secretary of State shut down a program that was ""collecting information to protect America"" because it was ""unseemly,"" but that move led to ""millions and millions"" of deaths in World War II. He is generally correct in his description of that year’s shuttering of a pioneering codebreaking project called the Black Chamber, but historians dismiss any suggestion that the program led inexorably to the onset of World War II. At best, they say, that notion is greatly exaggerated."	mixture	National, History, Foreign Policy, Mike Rogers,	"The debate over the federal government’s surveillance policies -- prompted by the release of National Security Agency documents taken by leaker Edward Snowden -- has revived interest in a decades-old tale of spycraft. The story of the ""American Black Chamber"" intelligence program came up during an interview with House Intelligence chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., on the Nov. 3, 2013, edition of CBS’ Face the Nation. Amid a discussion of whether the United States had been wrong to spy on friendly foreign leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Rogers stood up for an aggressive American intelligence effort overseas. ""We did this in the 1930s,"" Rogers said. ""We turned it off. In 1929, the Secretary of State at that time, (when) they were collecting information to protect America, said, ‘You know, we shouldn't do this. This is unseemly.’ They turned it off. Well, that led to a whole bunch of misunderstanding that led to World War II, that killed millions and millions of people."" We had two questions about Rogers’ claim. First, was he accurate in describing the history of this early United States intelligence effort? And second, is it reasonable to argue that the elimination of such a program led to ""millions and millions"" of deaths in World War II? The ""American Black Chamber"" This part of the story begins with Herbert O. Yardley (1889-1958), an Indiana native who became a code clerk with the State Department and later served during World War I in the cryptologic section of military intelligence. He parlayed that experience into what is generally considered the United States’ first peacetime code-breaking operation -- a joint project of the Army and the State Department. Using a shell company office in Manhattan, cryptoanalysts toiled behind a locked door, breaking foreign codes used in telegrams. During its dozen years of operation, the office cracked the codes of 45,000 telegrams, including messages sent by at least 19 nations, both allies (England and France) and rivals (Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union), according to David Kahn’s landmark 1996 history, The Codebreakers: The Comprehensive History of Secret Communication from Ancient Times to the Internet. In 1921 and 1922, the office figured out the codes used by Japanese negotiators at an international naval conference in Washington, providing internal Japanese bargaining positions to chief negotiator Charles Evans Hughes. Their work made it possible for the United States to secure an advantageous outcome. But by the late 1920s, the project began to fall out of favor. Congress was reluctant to provide more funding, while telegraph company executives were increasingly uncomfortable diverting telegrams. (This part of the story offers an eerie parallel to the unease expressed by Google and other companies to customer data traffic being surveilled by the NSA.) For Yardley, a new source of turbulence emerged when Herbert Hoover became president in 1929. Listening to Hoover’s first speech as president from a speakeasy, Yardley could sense that the administration’s goal of following high ethical standards would pose a serious challenge to his office. He was right. In a bid to pre-empt any change to his program, Yardley waited until Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson had been in office for a few months -- banking that Stimson had ""lost some of his innocence is wrestling with the hardheaded realities of diplomacy,"" as Kahn put it -- and then presented him with some important code-breaking results. The tactic had worked with previous Cabinet officials, but this time, it backfired. Stimson, Kahn writes, ""was shocked to learn of the existence of the Black Chamber, and totally disapproved of it. He regarded it as a low, snooping activity, a sneaking, spying, keyhole-peering kind of dirty business, a violation of the principle of mutual trust upon which he conducted both his personal affairs and his foreign policy. ... Stimson rejected the view that such means justified even patriotic ends (and) said later, 'Gentlemen do not read each other's mail.' In an act of pure moral courage, Stimson, affirming principle over expediency, withdrew all State Department funds, (and) since these constituted its major income, their loss shuttered the office."" We interviewed several scholars of intelligence and all agreed that on the basic facts of the Black Chamber, Rogers was essentially right -- the who (the Secretary of State), the when (1929) and the why (that such surveillance was ungentlemanly). The only objection we heard is that while the Hoover administration shut down the Black Chamber, it did not shut down all such intelligence activities. The Army Signal Corps, under the leadership of William Friedman, continued to produce intelligence. Before we move on to the second part of Rogers’ quote, we’ll provide a brief postscript about the key players. Yardley was initially ostracized when his shop closed down, never working again for the U.S. government (though he consulted with such foreign countries as Canada and China). He did, however, get a revenge of sorts by publishing a book, The American Black Chamber, that became a financial and critical success. To this day, it remains a classic of the cryptologic literary genre. Meanwhile, the highly ethical Hoover administration proceeded to ""lie straightforwardly"" (Kahn’s words) by denying, in no uncertain terms, the existence of the Black Chamber, even when confronted with Yardley’s book. And Stimson? As peacetime morphed into World War II, he changed his tune. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Stimson received intelligence from MAGIC, a highly classified codebreaking effort run by divisions of the Army and Navy. Did the shuttering of the Black Chamber lead the United States to World War II While Rogers’ description of the Black Chamber is generally accurate, our experts said, his suggestion that its absence led to World War II is, at the very least, greatly exaggerated. Richard Breitman, an American University scholar of the World War II era, acknowledged that the closure of Yardley’s office ""undoubtedly hindered American intelligence collection during the 1930s,"" but he added that ""connecting this with the outbreak of World War II, which began in Europe without U.S. participation, is way off."" Breitman noted that ""there was plenty of public information, including Hitler's Mein Kampf, about Nazi Germany's general inclination to go to war,"" he said. In addition, ""various western diplomats reported specific details from Berlin and elsewhere about Nazi plans. But Congress had limited the Roosevelt Administration's capacity to react with the Neutrality Acts."" Joseph Wippl, a professor of the practice of international relations at Boston University, also points to the broader push in the United States toward neutrality, arguing that the disbanding of the Black Chamber was a symptom of a more general disengagement the nation was undergoing at the time. ""After World War I, the United States returned to a policy of isolationism, in spite of the fact we were the world's dominant power,"" he said. ""The fact that we did not have military or intelligence capability before World War II reflects what happened to the United States after World War I -- that is, back to isolationism."" John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, said that after spending ""nearly half a century studying World War II, only in recent years have I come to think I have some understanding of the thing. To me, (Rogers’) is a novel proposition. There were certainly many intelligence failures in the years before the war, but they were mainly failures of imagination, not collection."" Our ruling Rogers said that in 1929, the Secretary of State shut down a program that was ""collecting information to protect America"" because it was ""unseemly,"" but that move led to ""millions and millions"" of deaths in World War II. He is generally correct in his description of that year’s shuttering of a pioneering codebreaking project called the Black Chamber, but historians dismiss any suggestion that the program led inexorably to the onset of World War II. At best, they say, that notion is greatly exaggerated."
10181	Gene therapy for rare bleeding disorder achieves proof-of-concept	Credit: UC Davis Comparative Oncology ProgramThis short news release describes a gene therapy experiment in four dogs that might turn out to help human patients with a rare blood disorder known as Factor VII deficiency. The release does a good job of making clear that this is just a proof-of-concept and needs human trials. Great specific language is used to make that clear. But it does not give any context for the problems of developing gene therapies for rare diseases. Companies may balk at developing a treatment than can’t be sold very widely, which contributes to high costs. Gene therapies are emotional minefields for patients and families, especially since so much has been promised and actual successes have been few. One gene therapy offered in Europe has a price tag of $1 million. This release would serve readers better if it gave some of that daunting context. A Washington Post story explains some of the challenges: “No [gene] therapy is approved yet in the United States, so discussions about price — as well as crucial questions about how much patients will pay directly — are hypothetical. But industry leaders are already talking about ways to get ahead of potentially massive one-time price tags that could make insurers and patients balk.”	true	Animal research,Hospital news release	The news release does not bring up costs, but we’ll rate this Not Applicable since the release is clear that this is early-stage work that is not yet ready for use in humans. Some mention of costs would have been valuable nonetheless. Gene therapy is known to be extremely costly, and when a disease is rare, as this is, that raises questions about what company would find it profitable to pursue the potential treatment. The University of Utah provides some excellent background on the “commercial viability” of gene therapy. The release squeaks by on this. There are no numbers used to quantify, but this excerpt at least touches on the method of measurement and the three-year follow up. “The treated dogs had expressed levels of clotting factor VII that would be therapeutic in humans, with long-term stability. In one dog, the effects persisted nearly three years.” The release could have explained what a “therapeutic” expression level of clotting factor actually means. A closer look at the paper reveals that a clinically therapeutic level is greater than or equal to 15% of normal. The release addresses harms in a couple of places, as in this excerpt: “The FVII-deficient dogs tolerated the initial gene therapy infusions very well and have had no adverse side effects over several years of follow up.” and in a quote by the lead researcher: “Based on kidney function, liver function, and blood measurements in the dogs, the treatment was safe, and did not elicit unwanted immune responses.” But as this study was done in canines, we would have liked a bit more detail on how harms might manifest in human clinical trials. The limited information given in the news release describes the quality of the evidence, particularly the fact that this was an animal study that is not directly applicable to humans. The release notes that the study “sets the stage for clinical trials in humans.” The release could have noted that a study with only four (canine) participants is very small. There is no disease mongering. There were no conflicts identified. All the funding sources were listed. The release tells us that this rare clotting disorder is currently treated by infusions of clotting factors. The release could have done a better job of explaining how difficult that therapy is for patients. Is the disorder regulated well by that method? We aren’t given any information or what those costs are vs. what a one-time gene therapy might cost. The release makes clear that this treatment will not be available until human clinical trials are conducted. This gene therapy is novel for this particular condition. The news release should also be commended for pointing out that a similar gene therapy approach has been tested by the same researchers for hemophilia. It’s admirable that they are not overselling the novelty of this approach by referencing their own previous work in related areas. We were pleased to see proof-of-concept in the headline, because this is a very useful way to immediately alert readers that an idea has been validated, but not a therapy for human patients.
40832	People from black and minority ethnic populations are most affected by detentions under the Mental Health Act.	If you're black and minority ethnic, you're more likely to be detained than if you're white. Overall, more white people are detained, since they make up a larger portion of the population.	true	mental-health	Four times as many black people are being detained as white people. If you're black, you're about four times as likely to be detained than if you're white. Overall, more white people are detained, since they make up a larger portion of the population. The number of people detained under the Mental Health Act has increased by 47% in ten years. Correct in England between 2005/06 and 2015/16. Claim 1 of 3
4464	Another gene-edited baby may be on the way, scientist says.	A Chinese researcher who claims to have helped make the world’s first genetically edited babies says a second pregnancy may be underway.	true	AP Top News, Genetics, International News, Hong Kong, Genetic Frontiers, North America, Health, Science, Asia Pacific	The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, revealed the pregnancy Wednesday while making his first public comments about his controversial work at an international conference in Hong Kong. He claims to have altered the DNA of twin girls born earlier this month to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. Mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are investigating. The second pregnancy is in a very early stage and needs more time to be monitored to see if it will last, He said. Leading scientists said there are now even more reasons to worry, and more questions than answers, after He’s talk. The leader of the conference called the experiment “irresponsible” and evidence that the scientific community had failed to regulate itself to prevent premature efforts to alter DNA. Altering DNA before or at the time of conception is highly controversial because the changes can be inherited and might harm other genes. It’s banned in some countries including the United States except for lab research. He defended his choice of HIV, rather than a fatal inherited disease, as a test case for gene editing, and insisted the girls could benefit from it. “They need this protection since a vaccine is not available,” He said. Scientists weren’t buying it. “This is a truly unacceptable development,” said Jennifer Doudna, a University of California-Berkeley scientist and one of the inventors of the CRISPR gene-editing tool that He said he used. “I’m grateful that he appeared today, but I don’t think that we heard answers. We still need to understand the motivation for this.” “I feel more disturbed now,” said David Liu of Harvard and MIT’s Broad Institute, and inventor of a variation of the gene-editing tool. “It’s an appalling example of what not to do about a promising technology that has great potential to benefit society. I hope it never happens again.” There is no independent confirmation of He’s claim and he has not yet published in any scientific journal where it would be vetted by experts. At the conference, He failed or refused to answer many questions including who paid for his work, how he ensured that participants understood potential risks and benefits, and why he kept his work secret until after it was done. After He spoke, David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate from the California Institute of Technology and a leader of the conference, said He’s work “would still be considered irresponsible” because it did not meet criteria many scientists agreed on several years ago before gene editing could be considered. “I personally don’t think that it was medically necessary. The choice of the diseases that we heard discussions about earlier today are much more pressing” than trying to prevent HIV infection this way, he said. If gene editing is ever allowed, many scientists have said it should be reserved to treat and prevent serious inherited disorders with no good alternatives, such as sickle cell anemia and Huntington’s disease. HIV is not an appropriate candidate because there are already safe ways to prevent transmission, and if contracted it can be kept under control with medications, researchers said. The case shows “there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community” and said the conference committee would meet and issue a statement on Thursday about the future of the field, Baltimore said. Before He’s talk, Dr. George Daley, Harvard Medical School’s dean and one of the conference organizers, warned against a backlash to gene editing because of He’s experiment. Just because the first case may have been a misstep “should in no way, I think, lead us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive aspects that could come forth by a more responsible pathway,” Daley said. “Scientists who go rogue ... it carries a deep, deep cost to the scientific community,” Daley said. Shortly after his talk, He canceled a planned appearance in a Thursday session on embryo gene editing, according to the Royal Society, one of the conference organizers. Regulators have been swift to condemn the experiment as unethical and unscientific. The National Health Commission has ordered local officials in Guangdong province to investigate He’s actions, and his employer, Southern University of Science and Technology of China, is investigating as well. On Tuesday, Qiu Renzong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences criticized the decision to let He speak at the conference, saying the claim “should not be on our agenda” until it has been reviewed by independent experts. Whether He violated reproductive medicine laws in China has been unclear; Qui contends that it did, but said, “the problem is, there’s no penalty.” The U.S. National Institutes of Health said Wednesday there should be international intervention. “Without such limits, the world will face the serious risk of a deluge of similarly ill-considered and unethical projects,” the agency said in a statement. Meanwhile, more American scientists said they had contact with He and were aware of or suspected what he was doing. Dr. Matthew Porteus, a genetics researcher at Stanford University, where He did postdoctoral research, said He told him in February that he intended to try human gene editing. Porteus said he discouraged He and told him “that it was irresponsible, that he could risk the entire field of gene editing by doing this in a cavalier fashion.” Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford ethicist, said he has “spent many hours” talking with He over the last two years about situations where gene editing might be appropriate. “I knew his early work. I knew where he was heading,” Hurlbut said. When he saw He four or five weeks ago, He did not say he had tried or achieved pregnancy with edited embryos but “I strongly suspected” it, Hurlbut said. “I disagree with the notion of stepping out of the general consensus of the scientific community,” Hurlbut said. If the science is not considered ready or safe enough, “it’s going to create misunderstanding, discordance and distrust.” Jennifer Doudna and David Liu are paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP’s Health & Science Department. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter: @MMarchioneAP ___ 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.
910	Climate fears lift Greens' chances of running Germany.	A former trampolinist and a children’s author have led the Greens to a spectacular comeback in Germany, raising the once-unthinkable prospect of a Green chancellor succeeding Angela Merkel.	true	Environment	Tapping mounting concern in Europe about climate change, especially among young people, ‘Die Gruenen’ won 20.5% of the German vote in May’s European Parliament elections, their best-ever result. Their success has caused convulsions in Merkel’s fragile coalition of conservatives and center-left Social Democrats (SPD), who have dominated German politics since World War Two. “This is in no way just a protest vote or a hoovering-up of Social Democrat (SPD) votes, it’s a longer-term trend,” said Heinrich Oberreuter, a politics professor at Passau University. “The advantage for the Greens is they own the issue of climate change which is a long-term problem.” Merkel has lost the status she enjoyed as “Climate Chancellor” for pushing global leaders to address climate change, and the SPD’s green credentials have been tarnished by close ties to the coal industry. Hitting 27%-29% in opinion polls in June, the Greens became Germany’s strongest party, spawning headlines about popular co-leader Robert Habeck becoming the chancellor. That may be a long shot, but they could well join the government and replace the SPD - the junior partner in the coalition - as the main center-left force, say experts. Inspired by the peace movements of the 1960s and founded in 1980, the party was long dismissed as a fringe group of tree -huggers. Politically, it is closest to the SPD, with which it shared power under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 1998-2005. A pro-European party that welcomed refugees in the 2015 migrant crisis, it wants a total switch to renewable energy, an end to the combustion engine and higher taxes on SUVs. The chances of a snap election before 2021 have increased since the European vote when the Greens pushed the SPD into third place. In turmoil, with ratings near all-time lows, the SPD may quit its loveless coalition with Merkel by the end of the year. Polls suggest the Greens would be big winners in an election. One option for national government would be a conservative-greens coalition, albeit without Merkel who, after 14 years leading Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, says this is her last term. But radically different positions on energy, tax cuts and migration would pose challenges for such an alliance. “(It) would need to direct its focus and available financial resources to climate protection and the energy transition,” said Deutsche Bank in a research note. “Citizens and corporates cannot hope for major tax relief.” However, the Greens may prefer a left alliance. In a May state election in Bremen, they emerged as kingmaker, but joined hands with the SPD and radical left instead of the conservatives, who had won most votes. The Greens have won over urban professionals by embracing social issues such as soaring rents in cities, and the leadership duo of scruffy-looking but media-friendly Habeck and less charismatic Annalena Baerbock, is also popular. “They have a pragmatic, rational political style and so far are acting wisely and keeping internal differences quiet,” said Manfred Guellner, head of the Forsa pollster. Habeck last month overtook Merkel to become Germany’s most popular politician. A novelist and children’s writer, he is the likelier candidate for the top job, said Guellner. He and Baerbock, an ex-trampoline competitor who studied international law, brush off questions about their ambitions but acknowledge the pressure is on. “We have awakened hopes that must be fulfilled. Everyone knows we must deliver,” Habeck said after the European election. On the plus side, they have something of a track record. In government, the Greens helped usher in a nuclear phase-out and bottle deposits to promote recycling, and they share power in nine of Germany’s 16 states. Yet the road to the chancellery is long. In the 2017 federal election they won just 8.9% of the vote and previous poll highs, especially after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, have evaporated fast. They are weak in the former Communist East, where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is strong. With some 85,000 members, the party is about a fifth the size of the main parties. Germans’ love affair with the car is also a hurdle. Keenly aware of the potency of popular movements like the yellow vests in France who opposed fuel tax plans, the Greens will not want to hurt an export-oriented economy that relies on companies like Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen and Porsche. Plans for a fuel-tax rise cost them votes in 1998. Winning the chancellery in a spring 2020 election may be a tall order, said Oberreuter, but movements, not traditional parties, have taken hold in France, Austria, Britain and Italy. “This goes to show that almost anyone can become chancellor - so who knows?” he said.
7294	Federal lawsuit filed to block Alabama’s new abortion ban.	A federal lawsuit filed Friday asks a judge to block an Alabama law that outlaws almost all abortions, the most far-reaching attempt by a conservative state to seek new restrictions on the procedure.	true	American Civil Liberties Union, AP Top News, Planned Parenthood, Health, Lawsuits, Abortion, North America, U.S. Supreme Court, Laws, Courts, Alabama, Montgomery, U.S. News	The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood filed the lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers seeking to overturn the Alabama law that would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison for the abortion provider. The only exception would be when the woman’s health is at serious risk. The law is set to take effect in November unless blocked by a judge. “Make no mistake: Abortion remains - and will remain - safe and legal in Alabama. With this lawsuit, we are seeking a court order to make sure this law never takes effect,” said Randall Marshall, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. The lawsuit says the Alabama law to criminalize abortion is clearly unconstitutional and would harm women by forcing them to continue pregnancies against their will. “For over 46 years — since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade — U.S. law has recognized the fundamental constitutional right to make the profoundly important and personal decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy,” the lawsuit reads. The plaintiffs in the case are the three Alabama clinics that perform abortions, Planned Parenthood and Dr. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician who also provides abortions at the Alabama Women’s Center in Huntsville. Robinson told The Associated Press last week the Alabama law has confused and scared patients, with some wrongly thinking abortion was already illegal. She said the law “further shames” women seeking abortions and “punishes providers like myself, and stigmatizes essential health care.” Emboldened by new conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama is part of a wave of conservative states seeking to mount new legal challenges to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Governors in Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. None of the laws has taken effect and all are expected to be blocked by the courts as the legal challenges play out with an ultimate eye on the Supreme Court. A federal judge temporarily blocked the Mississippi law on Friday . Supporters of the Alabama law have said they expected a lawsuit and to initially lose in court, but they hope the appeal could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Rep. Terri Collins, the bill’s sponsor, said the law is “a vehicle to challenge the constitutional abomination known as Roe v. Wade.” “This lawsuit is simply the first battle in what we hope will ultimately be a victorious effort to overturn Roe and protect unborn babies from harm,” Collins said. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey did not have an immediate response on the lawsuit. In signing the bill last week, Ivey said, “to the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.” Ivey also acknowledged the state ban may be unenforceable “at least for the short term.” The case was filed in Montgomery federal court and assigned to U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson. Thompson has previously struck down Alabama’s attempt to require abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and to ban a commonly used procedure for second trimester abortions. Alabama has appealed the ruling striking down the second trimester procedure ban to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices have not said whether they will hear the case.
16317	"Weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon."	"Davis said that weeks ""after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon. Davis’ statement needs clarification – that Abbott’s intervention was limited to defending the constitutionality of Texas’ tort-reform laws. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."	true	Campaign Finance, Health Care, Legal Issues, Texas, Wendy Davis,	"CORRECTION, 5:22 p.m., Oct. 15, 2014: This story has been amended to remove the incorrect original declaration that the $250,000 donation was given before the suits were filed. According to copies of the filings provided by Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Davis, one of several suits singled out by Davis as the basis of her ad was filed in January 2014, before the donation the next month. This change led us to change our rating of the statement from Half True. (See the original fact check here.) In a TV ad, Wendy Davis said Greg Abbott took a hefty campaign donation before siding with a hospital against patients injured and killed by a drug-taking surgeon. Davis, the Fort Worth state senator and Democratic gubernatorial nominee, consistently depicts Abbott, the state attorney general and Republican choice for governor, as an unethical insider beholden to powerful interests. The narrator of the ad, titled ""Operation,"" says: ""He was a Texas surgeon, performing operations while reportedly using cocaine. Two people died, others were paralyzed. Doctors spoke out,"" the narrator says, ""but the hospital did nothing to stop him. Families and victims sued the hospital. ""Then, weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution from the hospital's chairman, Greg Abbott got involved, using his office to go to court -- against the victims."" Abbott solicited and accepted the donation, we confirmed, and the state intervened in lawsuits pitting patients against the hospital, though he got involved to defend a state law. Senator’s backup By email, Davis spokesman Zac Petkanas said Davis based her claim in part on a July 30, 2014, news story in the Dallas Morning News stating that not long after the chairman of the board of the Baylor Health Care System, which owns the Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign, Abbott weighed in on federal lawsuits against the hospital where a neurosurgeon allegedly had done damage to patients. News report and interview of donor We confirmed from Abbott’s campaign finance filings with the state and an interview with the board chairman and donor, Temple businessman Drayton McLane, that McLane donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign in January 2014. That donation, the News story said, came after McLane gave the campaign $100,000 in 2013. Before the six-figure contributions, the story said, McLane’s biggest donation to Abbott had been $25,000. Abbott’s campaign recorded the $250,000 donation as arriving Jan. 23, 2014 -- the very date one of the relevant federal lawsuits were filed against the hospital. Then again, we realized with a nudge from Petkanas after this article initially appeared, one of the several lawsuits was filed Dec. 27, 2013, weeks prior to McLane's contribution. His $250,000 check, a photo of which McLane’s office emailed to us, was dated Jan. 21, 2014. The News story said Abbott and McLane had each told the paper the two had not discussed the lawsuits. McLane also said he didn’t know about the case before contributing the $250,000, the paper said, and he stressed he had no personal financial interest in the nonprofit hospital system; the chairman’s post is unpaid. By phone, McLane told us he’s known Abbott since before Abbott, originally a Houston lawyer, won election as a Harris County state district judge in 1992 and gave the $250,000 after Abbott asked him for a large contribution. McLane said he hadn’t spoken with the Republican nominee since. Asked what he expected for the eye-catching contribution, McLane said: ""I’m not expecting to get anything back. I believe in strong good government. Unfortunately, on both sides, there are heavy contributions."" On top of not knowing about the lawsuits described by Davis before making his donation, McLane said, he hadn’t long been chairman of Baylor Scott & White Health, which owns the Plano facility, having become chairman when healthcare systems merged in October 2013; McLane previously chaired Scott & White Healthcare. Abbott in court As noted in the News, the federal suits against the Baylor system and Plano hospital challenge the constitutionality of a state law requiring the plaintiffs to prove Baylor acted with actual intent to harm patients -- which the suing plaintiffs/families call an impossibly stiff burden. Petkanas of Davis’ campaign provided copies of several lawsuits filed on behalf of patients and families, each one alleging a neurosurgeon, Christopher Duntsch, was permitted by the Plano hospital to perform surgeries under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol, causing harm. Those suits also challenge action by state lawmakers in 2003, while overhauling laws regulating lawsuits seeking damages, to delete a definition of ""malice"" in the law, hence ""eliminating a common-law right arbitrarily in light of the purposes of the statute leaving only an impossible condition before liability will attach,"" the lawsuits say. A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, Lauren Bean, emailed us the state’s nearly identical March 24, 2014, filings in three plaintiff challenges to the law. In the filings, the state said it has a statutory right to intervene in a case when the constitutionality of a state law is at issue. On March 31, 2014, a week after the state filed its request, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis granted the request to intervene ""for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of Texas law,"" Solis wrote. His order said no parties to the litigation objected. It’s undisputed an attorney general may seek to get involved in a federal suit to defend a state law, but some lawyers told us it’s up to the official to do so -- or not. Attorney Kay Van Wey, who represents some plaintiffs in the suits against the hospital, said by email Abbott’s move was unusual and unreasonable, though she didn’t object, she said, because there is no legal way to do so; we didn’t divine what she meant by that. Van Wey further said Abbott ""is defending a law that essentially gives immunity to hospitals for credentialing dangerous physicians. The law, as it now stands, denies access to the courts for good, taxpaying Texas citizens, who through no fault of their own, were butchered by a highly dangerous surgeon. ""Even if we prove the hospitals were grossly negligent in hiring and retaining a dangerous surgeon,"" Van Wey said, ""...it isn't enough under the current state of the law. In Texas, we have to prove ‘malice,’ meaning we have to prove the hospital had a subjective intent to harm the patient. That is considered to be an impossible standard. It is clearly an erroneous and completely unfair law. He didn't have to intervene in our lawsuits. He chose to."" The News story quoted Bean saying McLane’s contributions played no role in his decision to intervene in the suits. Besides, Bean said, the ""state is not defending the hospital or the doctor in this case — or their alleged conduct. If the hospital or doctor have violated the law, then they will be held accountable, and nothing in the state’s court filings opposes the plaintiffs,"" patients and families, ""on that front,"" she said. Bean gave us the agency’s full response sent to the News. In it, Bean said the state ""will not be putting on any defense of any action by the hospital or any doctor. The state will not put on any evidence or make any argument whether the hospital’s actions or the doctor’s actions violate the law. The state does not condone, support or defend the actions of the hospital or doctor. The only thing the state will argue is that the law is not unconstitutional."" Outside lawyers An Austin lawyer who helped write the 2003 change told us he believes the attorney general was bound to defend the revised law as Abbott is doing. Michael Hull emailed: ""The AG intervention is consistent with federal and state law. The AG is defending the constitutionality of a statute. His office has not taken a position on the facts alleged in the petition nor has the AG chosen to defend the hospital or the doctor."" Hull later said such constitutional challenges are rare, ""but when challenges do occur, it is common for the AG to defend the constitutionality of the statute."" Hull and Michael Guajardo, the Dallas president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, each pointed out any litigant is required to notify the state of a federal challenge to a state law’s constitutionality We asked if that formal notice touched off Abbott’s intervention. Not so, Bean said, adding the attorney general’s office has no record of receiving the notice, which court filings say was sent by certified mail. Instead, Bean said, Jonathan Mitchell, the state solicitor general, learned of the suits from a March 10, 2014, news story in the Texas Lawyer magazine. Petkanas, told we hadn’t uncovered proof the McLane donation prompted Abbott to enter the lawsuits, said by email the ad didn’t assert a cause and effect -- only that McLane gave his campaign donation before Abbott intervened. Our ruling Davis said that weeks ""after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon. Davis’ statement needs clarification – that Abbott’s intervention was limited to defending the constitutionality of Texas’ tort-reform laws. That makes this statement . – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
10741	Scientist optimistic about obesity vaccine	This TV news segment discussed a different type of intervention being studied as a possible means to help people manage obesity. It is about the potential for a vaccine against a protein called ghrelin to treat or prevent obesity. While being clear about the experimental nature of the vaccine being studied, the story did not contain much in the way of information about how the vaccine might be effective, how it might be used clinically, or potential side effects that could occur when priming the immune system to react against a hormone normally produced by the body. While illustrating that scientists are exploring a variety of means to help people combat excess weight, the story did little to help the viewer think about strategies that might be applicable for weight management. This story should have focused more on the uncharted waters of vaccination against normal physiologic processes in the body. The potential for unwanted side effects is huge.	mixture		There was no estimate for the costs that might be associated with a vaccine for weight management. The story did mention that the vaccine currently being tested in humans might require regular inoculation to be effective in contrast to the vaccine in the rats which might only require a single injection early in life. That could introduce a significant cost factor. The story failed to mention whether the difference in weight between the treated and untreated groups was significant, how long the difference in weight lasted, whether there were any gender differences in the effect, whether the age at which the animals were treated made a difference, whether this was equally effective in different genotypes, and whether the particular strain of rats studied had a propensity for diet-induced weight gain. These were important omissions. Typical vaccines work to boost immunity and help the body fend off infections by organisms that are foreign to our bodies. In this case, scientists are working on a vaccine that will promote the immune system to attack a hormone that is normally produced in the gut to control appetite. It would seem that there would be at least some risk of triggering unwanted side effects in the gut. There was absolutely no mention of possible harms that might be associated with developing an immune reaction to a hormone normally produced by the body. This story is about animal research on a vaccine, with brief mention of a study in a small group of people in Switzerland. The evidence reported on is from an early release of a research paper to be published in the Journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The story was clear that this was early animal research that required a lot more work. The graphics that go along with this story committed disease mongering by immediately mixing statistics about how many Americans are overweight and “clinically obese.” There is a difference in the two categories. Does the story mean to convey that this vaccine would be for all people in either category or maybe for all people concerned about weight? That certainly is the implication from the line: “Well what if someday in the future you could get a shot that protected you from obesity?” The principal investigator of the rat research on the vaccine for obesity was interviewed for this story. A clinician, expert in the field of obesity treatment, was also interviewed for this story. The story mentioned diet and exercise as tools for weight loss, as well as the $33 billion a year spent on weight loss products. The story was about work in rats, and mentioned a test in human subjects in Switzerland. At several points in the story, there was mention that in terms of a therapy for people, it is still too early in the process to know whether it will have an effect in people. Still, the sensational lead-in swung the other way when it said: “Get one shot and suddenly you have less appetite? There could be one on the way.” This story is about a vaccination against the hormone ghrelin as a means of managing weight. Targeting a normal human process with a vaccine as a means of treating a condition is a novel approach. The interviews for this story demonstrate that a press release was not the sole source of information.
38923	Monsanto plans to replace honeybees that are wiped out by pesticides with genetically modified ants.	Monsanto Says Genetically Modified Ants Could Replace Honey Bees	false	Insects	There aren’t any plans to replace honeybees with genetically modified ants. That claim surfaced on the fake news website World News Daily Report and quickly went viral on social media sites. Taken out of context, many believed that fake news report was real: A team of researchers at Monsanto believe they might be on the verge of finding a solution to the mysterious drop in honey-bee populations all over the planet, a threat that endangers the world’s food supply as a whole. The $3 million dollar grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has led the team of researchers at Monsanto to develop alternative strategies to “survive” an eventual honey bee Colony collapse disorder (CCD), a phenomenon that has been increasing in the past decade and that occurs when the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear, a situation that could “dramatically impact the world’s food supply”, admit experts. “Latest studies have found a link between neonicotinoid pesticides that are vastly used in GE corn crops. As GE farming has become an essential part of agriculture in today’s modern world, we had to develop ways to promote both the continuity of GE farming and the survival of the honey bees, a fascinating challenge” admits John Leere, head biochemist of the project. The team of researchers has developed a genetically modified ant that could “possibly save the world’s food supply.” But World News Daily Report’s disclaimer states that it assumes “all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content.” Many readers didn’t read the disclaimer and sounded off on Monsanto’s fictional plans to produce genetically modified ants: Protect the ‘natural’ species we have. Stop the use of indiscriminate pesticides. We are killing them off, lets stop and infest the huge amount of money monsanto are chucking about. To make this a world we actually ‘share.’ Stop with the genetics we’ve destroyed enough wildlife already! But it’s true that bee populations have been dropping due to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). That happens when adult worker bees are killed off and a queen bee is left alone in a hive with immature bees, according to USDA’s Agriculture Research Service: Bee pollination is responsible for more than $15 billion in increased crop value each year. About one mouthful in three in our diet directly or indirectly benefits from honeybee pollination. Commercial production of many specialty crops like almonds and other tree nuts, berries, fruits and vegetables depend on pollination by honeybees. These are the foods that give our diet diversity, flavor, and nutrition. Experts have scrambled to understand what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder, and pesticides have been investigated as a cause. Researchers in England actually developed genetically modified olive flies in an effort to solve the problem — but they are intended to replace some pesticides, not honeybees: The idea is to release a large number of GM olive flies that will be used to kill off wild pests that damage the crop. The company responsible for their manufacture and release is Oxitec. They plan to release GM male olive flies that would naturally mate with the females, ultimately resulting in the death of female offspring at the larvae or maggot stage. The thought is that this would lead to a reduction in the olive fly population, which would allow the trees to produce fruit without the need for chemical sprays. So, in the end, reports that Monsanto is developing genetically modified ants to replace honeybees are false. Comments
2837	U.S. FDA approves Medtronic heart valve system early.	Medtronic Inc’s minimally invasive system for replacing diseased heart valves won U.S. approval for use in patients deemed too frail to endure traditional open heart surgery, the U.S. medical device maker said on Friday.	true	Health News	The Food and Drug Administration approved Medtronic’s CoreValve system based on U.S. clinical trials in which it was shown to be safe and effective while demonstrating low rates of stroke and valve leakage, the company said. Medtronic and Wall Street analysts had not expected the approval decision until April, giving the company a head start on efforts to seize market share from a similar rival product sold by Edwards Lifesciences Corp. News of the early CoreValve approval sent Edwards shares down nearly 5 percent. More than 100,000 people in the U.S. have severe aortic stenosis with about one-third too ill or frail for open-heart valve replacement surgery, making them candidates for CoreValve or the rival Edwards Sapien system. The systems, in which the replacement valve is threaded into place through an artery using a catheter - known as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, or TAVR - spares patient’s chest-cracking surgery, cutting down on recovery time. CoreValve has been available since 2007 in Europe, where it is not uncommon for medical devices to win approval several years ahead of the United States. “We estimate the U.S. TAVR market will be approximately $450 million in 2014,” said Glenn Novarro, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “With approval earlier than expected, share loss for Edwards will likely occur sooner than expected,” added Novarro, who sees Medtronic grabbing 20 percent of the U.S. TAVR market this year, rising to more than 30 percent by 2016. But CoreValve’s U.S. sales prospects may hinge on further legal proceedings after a U.S. jury earlier this week found that the Medtronic system infringes a patent held by Edwards and awarded Edwards more than $390 million in damages. Medtronic vowed to appeal the decision and oppose any request for an injunction. Edwards, meanwhile, said the patent infringement ruling entitled it to seek increased damages of up to three times the value of the award. The FDA approved CoreValve without first requiring an expert advisory panel to review the device and make recommendations to the agency. “The low rates of stroke and valve leakage with the CoreValve System - two of the most concerning complications of valve replacement because they increase the risk of death and have a dramatic impact on quality of life - set a new standard for transcatheter valves,” Dr. Jeffrey Popma, director of Interventional Cardiology at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and one of the lead investigators of the pivotal clinical trial, said in a statement. The CoreValve uses a smaller catheter than the currently approved Sapien, giving it a potential but temporary competitive edge. Edwards is awaiting U.S. approval of a next generation Sapien with a similarly smaller catheter. Both companies are also testing their systems in less high risk patients in hopes of broadening the potential patient population and market for the devices. Medtronic shares were up 18 cents at $59.29 in afternoon trading, while Edwards shares were off $3.49, or 4.8 percent, at $69.18, both on the New York Stock Exchange.
39696	Posts on social media sites warn that White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillars are poisonous and can cause skin irritation or more serious health complications when touched by humans.	White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillars Are Poisonous	true	Warnings	Experts say that White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillars are both poisonous and allergenic, but most people who encounter them experience mild symptoms, like itchy skin or a rash. The White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillar’s longer white lashes are connected to poison glands inside the caterpillar’s body. These hollow lashes enable a chemical to be piped into a “poker” that makes touching them an itchy experience, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee reports. Those who experience skin irritation after touching a White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillar should wash the sting with soap and water and dab the area with ammonia or calamine lotion. More serious side effects from the toxic chemical can result in swelling and nausea. Researchers speculate that White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillars either ingest toxic chemicals from the leaves they eat, or create the chemical “in house,” or in their own body. In general, it’s a good idea to stay away from animals or insects that have bright colors or assume “look at me postures” because it often indicates they’re poisonous, according to UW-Milwaukee. The University of Maine adds another unpleasant tidbit to the White Hickory Tussock Moth Caterpillar’s repertoire: its white hairs are “very allergenic.” Painful irritation and itchy rashes may occur from touching a dead caterpillar, or one of their cocoons. Posted 10/08/14 Comments
6675	More vaping illnesses reported, many involving marijuana.	Health officials are recommending people who vape consider avoiding e-cigarettes while they investigate more cases of a breathing ailment linked to the devices.	true	AP Top News, Alex Azar, Health, General News, Marijuana, U.S. News	While the cause remains unclear, officials said Friday that many reports involve e-cigarette products that contain THC, the mind-altering substance in marijuana. Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said they are looking at 215 possible cases across 25 states. All the cases involve teens or adults who have used e-cigarettes or other vaping devices. Symptoms of the disease include coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. The CDC and Food and Drug Administration warned the public not to buy vaping products off the street. And officials recommended people concerned about the health risks “consider refraining from using e-cigarette products.” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement the government is “using every tool we have to get to the bottom of this deeply concerning outbreak.” E-cigarettes generally heat a flavored nicotine solution into an inhalable aerosol. The products have been used in the U.S. for more than a decade and are generally considered safer than traditional cigarettes because they don’t create all the cancer-causing byproducts of burning tobacco. But some vaping products have been found to contain other potentially harmful substances, including flavoring chemicals and oils used for vaping marijuana, experts say. The mysterious illness underscores the complicated nature of the vaping market, which includes both government-regulated nicotine products and THC-based vape pens, which are considered illegal under federal law. Eleven states and the District of Columbia allow marijuana for recreational use. THC-based products in these regulated markets are generally inspected for quality and safety, but there is a largely unregulated gray market. On Thursday, top health officials in the Trump administration reiterated warnings against marijuana use by adolescents and pregnant women, emphasizing the increasing potency of the drug. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
199	Inside drugmakers' strategy to boost cancer medicines with 'Lazarus effect'.	In the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Center, the drug Vitrakvi is known for having a “Lazarus effect” in some patients because it can reverse late-stage cancer that has defied all other treatment options.	true	Health News	Developed by Eli Lilly and Co’s (LLY.N) Loxo Oncology and marketed by German drugmaker Bayer (BAYGn.DE), it fights a rare genetic mutation that appears in less than 1% of solid tumors, regardless of where they appear in the body. Finding those patients will require widespread adoption of sophisticated tests that look for multiple genetic alterations that could be driving the cancer. So far, progress has been slow. Adoption of so-called next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests has been stalled by lack of reimbursement from insurers over concerns that the evidence is not there yet to support widescale use, according to more than a dozen interviews with oncologists and pharmaceutical and diagnostic industry executives. As a result, pharma companies from small biotech Blueprint Medicines Corp (BPMC.O) to larger rivals Lilly and Roche Holding AG (ROG.S) are taking matters into their own hands, bulking up staff to increase patient and physician awareness about testing and building up a gene testing infrastructure that for many community hospitals still does not exist. Bayer executives told Reuters it plans to spend $70 million to increase patient and physician awareness of testing for rare mutations and to encourage regulatory approval of more tests. They expect that budget to expand as Vitrakvi continues to win approval in other countries. Lilly told Reuters the company has signed an agreement with Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO.N) to develop a companion diagnostic test for its experimental drug, LOXO-292. The deal adds RET mutations - the target of both Lilly’s and Blueprint’s drugs - to Thermo’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which local pathology labs can use to identify multiple genes linked with non-small cell lung cancer. The agreement is aimed to help identify more lung and thyroid cancer patients who may benefit from the Lilly or Blueprint therapies. The Thermo test is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration - a key standard for Medicare coverage, the companies said. According to Dr. Brian Alexander, chief medical officer of Roche’s gene testing company Foundation Medicine, only about 15% of U.S. patients with advanced cancers get comprehensive genomic profiling. Another 25% get single-gene testing, he said, and a large proportion “are not getting any testing at all.” At MD Anderson, which sees 100,000 new cancer patients a year, only around 10,000 eventually have their tumors sequenced. For a rare few, the tests are lifesaving. Xin Zheng, 47, a mother of three in Michigan who was referred to Reuters by Blueprint, was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in 2016. After failing several treatments, she was out of options. Her husband, Zhigang Wei, asked for genetic sequencing, and the test turned up a RET mutation. After contacting multiple lung cancer experts, Zhigang found an early-stage clinical trial treating patients with Blueprint’s experimental drug, BLU-677. Now, Xin is nearly back to normal. “My wife is lucky,” he said, adding her quality of life is much better and she has hope for the future. Finding patients with such rare mutations is like “looking for the needle in the haystack,” said Stefan Oelrich, head of pharmaceuticals at Bayer. Dr. David Hyman of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who tested Vitrakvi in clinical trials, said making these tests the norm for advanced cancer patients will require a huge shift in the way oncology is practiced. “It’s painful to know there are patients out there with these alterations who are dying without knowing about it and without getting any treatments,” he said. For Bayer’s Vitrakvi and Roche’s Rozlytrek, along with similar drugs in development, genomic testing is critical to finding patients who can benefit from them. Cancer patients and drug companies alike got a boost last year when the federal Medicare health program for the elderly and disabled said it would cover FDA-approved tests for advanced cancer patients that can identify hundreds of genetic mutations at once. A Medicare endorsement is generally followed by widespread coverage decisions by private insurers. But the final regulations dropped a requirement that testmakers prove the tests are cost-effective and improve patient care. That created an “evidence gap” that has allowed some insurers, also known as third-party payers, to withhold coverage or demand more proof that they benefit patients, said Jeff Schreier of Diaceutics PLC (DXRX.L), a data analytics company that works with drugmakers to improve diagnostic testing. “More payers are coming around, but it’s slow,” he said. The most recent coverage policy from CVS Health Corp’s (CVS.N) Aetna approves many single-gene tests for specific cancers, but still largely considers multi-gene tests experimental. Anthem Inc’s (ANTM.N) policy limits testing to “medically necessary” use and states there’s “insufficient published evidence” to support widespread testing. And while Foundation Medicine’s and Thermo Fisher’s tests are getting reimbursed from Medicare, many hospitals such as MD Anderson, which have developed their own tests, are not guaranteed payment. “Reimbursement is still a driving force,” MD Anderson’s Kenna Shaw said of genomic testing, which costs an average of $5,000 per patient globally. Lilly bought Loxo in January for $8 billion to profit from its targeted drugs in early-stage development. Bayer secured the rights to Loxo’s two leading compounds in a 2017 alliance. Dr. Anthony Sireci, Loxo’s senior medical director, said the company has been working to “democratize” testing in the United States by increasing its use in local pathology labs, where most cancer testing has traditionally been done. The Thermo Fisher agreement will support those goals and expand patients’ access to “high-quality genomic testing,” he said. Bayer has hired diagnostic experts to help its medical and sales staff assess the barriers to genomic testing and ensure that local pathology labs are including the genetic alterations targeted by its drugs when they profile tumors, the company’s oncology strategic business chief Robert LaCaze said in an interview. Bayer also launched a public awareness campaign called “Test Your Cancer” that urges patients to ask their doctors about genomic cancer testing. The company is working with testing providers to ensure test reports are easy to understand. Blueprint, which has six genomically-targeted drugs in development, told Reuters it plans to hire six diagnostics experts to increase awareness of the mutations their drugs target, especially in community medical practices, where 70% of cancers are treated. Bayer sees signs of progress. Based on internal data, the company estimates average sequencing rates across tumors neared 30% last year, and the company saw a two-fold increase in the number of labs offering tests that carry the mutation targeted by Vitrakvi. Bayer has not released sales figures for Vitrakvi. Asked for an update in the most recent earnings call in July, Bayer’s Oelrich said uptake is going “according to plan,” but declined to say how many patients are using the drug. LaCaze said with very rare cancers like the ones Vitrakvi targets, sales growth is “something that will build over time.”
10981	Doubts on Ovarian Cancer Relapse Test	"CA-125 is the only existing blood test or tumor marker that is used for ovarian cancer follow-up. It measures a microscopic substance which is produced by the tumor and breaks off, circulating in the bloodstream. It is not elevated in every patient with ovarian cancer, and can be falsely elevated in people who have no diagnosis of cancer. That is why it is not very good for ovarian cancer screening. This story reports on new results showing that women who got regular CA-125 testing after treatment for ovarian cancer did not have better survival than women who got no testing. These results further call into question the utility of CA-125 for monitoring recurrent ovarian cancer. This story accurately describes the novelty, availability and harms of CA-125. It does not engage in disease mongering and does a good job of describing the current study and how it relates to current clinical thinking. The story could have been improved by describing the costs of CA-125 testing. This study – and this story about it – adds to the ""more is not always better"" knowledgebase that is growing in health care. Kudos to the NYT and to this reporter for doing a good job with it."	true		The story does not describe the cost of CA-125. The story adequately quantifies the survival benefit with CA-125 compared to no testing. The story adequately describes the major harm of CA-125 testing, which is that it could lead to unnecessary treatment in women who would not benefit from it. The story does a good job of describing the current study and placing the results in context with current clinical thinking. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of Ovarian Cancer. The story quotes several experts who are not involved in the story, providing valuable perspective on the results. Clearly no testing is the alternative to CA-125. The story could have also mentioned regular imaging tests as a way to monitor for recurrent cancer. Clearly CA-125 is available. Clearly CA-125 testing for recurrent Ovarian Cancer is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
4079	Oregon officials confirm 2nd case of vaping-related illness.	State officials say a second Oregon resident has received medical treatment for severe lung disease linked to vaping.	true	Health, Marijuana, Oregon, Lung disease	The Oregonian/OregonLive reports the person did not die from their illness, according to the Oregon Health Authority, which provided no other details about the person or where they were treated. The reported case comes a week after state health officials announced that a middle-age Oregonian died from a respiratory illness tied to vaping cannabis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there have been roughly 450 cases of the lung disease reported in at least 33 states so far, and as many as five people with the illness have died. Oregon health investigators believe the person in the state’s fatal case purchased cannabis oil from two marijuana retail shops. They are trying to find leftover product to analyze.
7436	Hampton Beach guidelines passed, back-to-school talk starts.	A task force approved guidance for reopening Hampton Beach on Thursday and another group started fall back-to-school discussions.	true	New Hampshire, General News, Virus Outbreak, Public health	Coronavirus-related developments in New Hampshire: BEACHES Guidance on walking, swimming and other activities at Hampton Beach were approved Thursday by a task force on reopening New Hampshire during the coronavirus pandemic. The guidance initially had a June 1 starting date, but the Governor’s Economic Reopening Task Force omitted that for now. Instead, members decided they would submit separate correspondence about a specific timeline to public health officials and to Gov. Chris Sununu, who would make the final decision. The plan, which also was discussed and approved by Hampton officials, calls for closing a portion of the main road parallel to the beach to vehicle traffic and cutting available parking in half. Sunbathing and congregating in small groups on the beach would eventually be allowed. Sununu said earlier this week he wanted to wait and see what neighboring states planned for their beaches before making a decision. ____ SCHOOL PLANS New Hampshire Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut kicked off a task force on school recommendations Thursday by suggesting any proposals will have to be flexible, prioritize safety and consider the possibility that districts won’t have access to their school buildings in the fall. Edelbut said any plans must consider that schools would open in full, partially open or not at all. He also said proposals must factor in the possibility that schools could reopen and then be forced to close again in October or November, should there be a new surge in coronavirus cases. Edelbut also said this process is an opportunity to “raise the quality of education across the board.” He acknowledged that the remote learning has worked for most, but not all, students in New Hampshire. As a result, the commissioner said he is hopeful that there could be the creation of “common learning platforms” that would ensure all district can succeed. ___ VOTING-POLITICAL PARTIES New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has issued an emergency order allowing voters who want to change their political party affiliation in time for the Sept. 8 state primary elections to mail in or drop off an application to their town or city clerk’s office, rather than apply in person. Applications will be accepted through June 2. Voters who submitted an application but aren’t listed as a member of the party in which they thought they were registered may complete an affidavit on Sept. 8. ___ CLOSED MOUNTAIN HUTS The Appalachian Mountain Club closed its high huts in New Hampshire’s White Mountains for the rest of the year because of the coronavirus, the first time all eight of them have been closed, a spokesperson said. About 50 staff members work in the hut system during the summer. ____ UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS Nearly 9,500 initial unemployment claims were filed in New Hampshire last week, down nearly 3,000 from the previous week, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Thursday. The latest number covers new claims through May 9. The number of new claims in a week peaked at 39,000 in early April and has since been declining. New Hampshire has paid out $400 million in claims in the last two months, “more than we paid out at the highest benefit year during the Great Recession,” Richard Lavers of the Department of Employment Security told WMUR-TV. ___ THE NUMBERS As of Thursday, nearly 3,382 had tested positive for the virus, an increase of about 80 from the previous day. One new death was announced, for a total of 151. For most people, the virus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and the infirm, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, or death.
20265	Ellen Rosenblum Says Dwight Holton has never set foot in an Oregon courtroom.	Has Dwight Holton 'never set foot' in an Oregon courtroom?	false	Oregon, Candidate Biography, Message Machine 2012, Ellen Rosenblum,	"There are two narratives in the race between two Democrats for Oregon attorney general. Dwight Holton paints himself as an exciting advocate and opponent Ellen Rosenblum as a boring government lawyer. Rosenblum describes herself as the home-grown -- double Duck! -- candidate and Holton as not from around here. ""When you’ve joined the Oregon State Bar in 2009 and you've never set foot in an Oregon courtroom, I'm not sure that qualifies you to be Attorney General,"" Rosenblum said of Holton in a news story published in The Oregonian. The average person is likely to think that Rosenblum means Holton has never been in a courtroom physically located in the state of Oregon. That, on its face, is a ludicrous claim. Holton started work in the U.S. attorney’s office in Portland in 2004 before resigning in January to run for attorney general. However, we understand Rosenblum is making the case that the attorney general is a state position, and Holton has spent his career in Oregon working in federal court. Rosenblum’s spokeswoman, Cynara Lilly, said as much in defense of the statement. ""Federal Court is referred to as 'U.S. Court,' state courts as 'Oregon Court.' It has nothing to do with the physical state the court is in, it is the type of court. So yes, our campaign stands by the statement that Dwight has never set foot in an Oregon State Courtroom,"" Lilly writes. ""If you search the Oregon Courts online under his name and/or his bar number you will find no record of him trying any cases in Oregon Court."" Jillian Schoene, a spokeswoman for Holton, confirms the candidate has not tried a case in a state courtroom. But she raises a number of points we think add important context to the claim. Holton has lived in Oregon since 2002, when he moved here with his wife. During his time in the U.S. attorney’s office, he worked with local law enforcement to address prescription painkiller abuse and to keep illegal guns away from domestic abusers. He reached out to Muslims living in Oregon. It’s not as if Holton was sitting in his nice federal office keeping away from public safety issues important to this state. As interim U.S. attorney, he supervised the lawyers who represented the federal government in state courts in Oregon. And we’re not inclined to repeat endorsement sound bites, but it means something that most of the state’s 36 district attorneys -- all in the state system, last time we checked -- have endorsed him. Certainly Rosenblum has deeper experience with state courts. She was a state judge for 22 years. We gave Holton a Half True for saying that Rosenblum said 80 percent of the attorney general’s job is being the state’s lawyer. She said it -- and even denied saying it -- but she said other things about the job, as well. Here we find that her attempt to paint Holton as an Oregon outsider, just because he personally hasn’t argued in state court, is misleading. The statement contains a bit of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rule Rosenblum’s statement ."
11116	Extra servings of veggies fail to prevent cancer	"Ostensibly reporting on a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, this story, although labeled as ""In Depth,"" actually gave little time to the results of the study or its ramifications. The majority of the air time went to various pieces of information about breast cancer prevention without any substantiation. The story jumped around in a confusing manner. It initially informed us that ""it’s true that adding fruits and vegetables to a women’s diet can help prevent cancer from recurring."" Then it disclosed that the most recent study indicated that eating more fruits and vegetables didn’t reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. It ended with a conclusion that cancer diagnosis is a matter of fate and even though everyone wants to do everything in their favor, that ""for the individual – there are no guarantees."" For something to be labeled ""In Depth,"" we would have appreciated more clear explanation of what the new findings were, how or why experts differ with their findings about the impact of fruits and vegetables in this context, and what steps viewers could take to learn more. Although technically the story addressed many of our criteria, the final ratings score may give the impression that the story was more complete than we actually think it was."	true		"There was no discussion about the cost of increasing fruit and vegetable content in the diet, but it’s safe to assume that most people know the costs from their grocery shopping. The story mentioned that the study it was reporting on found no reduction in breast cancer recurrence for individuals that reported eating more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. The researcher said ""We didn’t find any harm in going over (a threshold of fruits and vegetables)."" This story presented a mosaic of information without any indication of the relation between the pieces. It opens with a statement that ""While it’s true that adding fruits and vegetables to a woman’s diet can help prevent cancer from recurring…."". A nutritionist follows with some guidance to breast cancer patients sharing her advice about choice of fruits on the basis of color; and that the food ""you eat matters tremendously"". It then provides ""data"" from a previous study, though the percentage reported is not consistent with the study results. Finally, the story goes on to discuss the results of the most recent study which were cast as showing that eating more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables doesn’t provide any benefit or additional harm. But then they go back and talk about other dietary advice regarding meat, alcohol, and tofu without any indication of what the source is for this information nor that it is independent of the newly-highlighted study. Lastly there is a discussion between the anchor and medical correspondent where the anchor suggests that cancer risk is due to genetics and the medical correspondent agrees that ""fate is a big part of it"". However – genetics and fate are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably. There was no overt disease-mongering – that is, exaggeration of the prevalence of breast cancer or recurrence. However, one weakness in the story is that it contained no information about prevalence. In the study highlighted in this report, 16.7 and 16.9% of the women (in the intervention vs. control groups) experienced a recurrence of breast cancer. Providing this information allows the viewer to have a sense of how often the event they hope to prevent actually occurs. The story sought independent perspectives. However, here are two suggested improvements: When the lead author of the highlighted study was interviewed, he was not identified as such; the nutritionist was identified by her work place without indicating that she was not involved in the highlighted study. The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence stragies (avoiding weight gain, medications, etc.) This story illustrated availability of fresh fruits and vegetables with a walk-through of a grocery store. That said, the study reported on involved an intervention designed to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, but not limited to fresh produce. It’s clear that the study finding is new. However the story could have been much more clear on the context of other related research. The story sought independent perspectives."
26284	States like New York, Illinois and California have been vocal in their demands for funding to bail out their pension systems, which were failing long before the COVID-19 outbreak, and other programs that aren’t related to this crisis.	New York's pension system is one of the best-funded in the nation and has not asked for federal funds. Illinois' pension fund is one of the worst-funded in the nation, while California is about average. Economic shutdowns related to the pandemic have severely diminished tax revenues, which pay for many state services.	false	Arizona, State Budget, New York, Coronavirus, Andy Biggs,	"Some conservative federal lawmakers continue to oppose sending more money to New York and other states hard-hit by the new coronavirus. The chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and some of his colleagues sent a letter to President Donald Trump. More federal funding for states forces citizens of one state ""to pay for the poor decisions made in another state,"" Biggs wrote, according to a story about the letter in The Hill. ""States like New York, Illinois and California have been vocal in their demands for funding to bail out their pension systems, which were failing long before the COVID-19 outbreak, and other programs that aren’t related to this crisis. While these states in particular prove the negative impacts of poor budgeting, bloated spending, and high taxes, the federal government should not be further backfilling the budget of any state or local government,"" Biggs wrote, according to The Hill. Biggs shared the story on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. Like Biggs, other Republican politicians, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, criticized requests for help from states with high rates of infection. We wondered if Biggs was correct in saying that New York has been demanding federal funding to ""bail out"" its pension system, which was ""failing long before the COVID-19 outbreak, and other programs that aren’t related to this crisis."" The National Governors Association, a bipartisan organization, is calling for $500 billion in federal funding for states, and New York supports that request, said Freeman Klopott, press officer for the state Division of the Budget. Biggs said New York’s pension system was ""failing long before the COVID-19 outbreak."" An analysis of the pension systems in all 50 states in 2017 by the nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trusts, released in June, found that New York was one of only eight states that had at least 90% of its pension obligations funded. New York had assets to cover 94.5% of its pension obligations. E.J. McMahon, who analyzes state finances at the conservative Empire Center for Public Policy, said no bailout is needed for New York’s pension system, ""which by public-sector standards is among the best-funded in the nation."" New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the pension fund, has called the fund ""well-funded and strong,"" despite the economic disruptions related to the pandemic. DiNapoli said in a statement that a bailout is not needed and has not been requested. The pension systems in other states Biggs mentioned, Illinois and California, have different situations. Illinois has one of the three worst-funded systems, at 38.4% funded, and officials there have asked for a bailout of the pension fund. California's is close to being funded at the average ratio of all the states, at 68.9%, according to Pew, but it has since suffered. Biggs' home state of Arizona trails New York and California, at 62.2%, according to Pew. We were also interested in the second part of Biggs’ claim, regarding ""other programs not related to this crisis,"" because of reports that New York’s finances were precarious before the pandemic. According to the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission, before the coronavirus, New York faced a $7 billion budget gap. The subsequent economic downturn has worsened the state’s finances. ""The shortfalls the state is experiencing in the current year are caused by tax revenue shortfalls attributable to the current crisis,"" said Dave Friedfel, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission. Friedfel, however, criticized some of the state’s budget priorities, which pre-date the pandemic, including state aid to wealthy school districts, ""ineffective economic development programs,"" and spending more on Medicaid than the budget authorized. Before the pandemic, the state was expecting a 7% increase in revenue, but now it is expecting a 14% decline in revenue, said Klopott of the state Division of Budget. A state estimate on April 25 puts the loss of revenues at $13.3 billion this year and $61 billion over the next four years. ""In the absence of federal funding to offset that loss, we’re preparing a plan to reduce state spending by $10.1 billion, which will reduce support for hospitals, police, firefighters, teachers, and the not-for-profits that provide services to the most vulnerable New Yorkers, including the elderly, children, and the homeless,"" Klopott said. In an op-ed for the New York Daily News, DiNapoli pleaded for billions in unrestricted aid for New York, writing that lost state revenue as a result of the state’s weakened economy ""stands to trigger significant reductions to schools, hospitals and a broad range of other vital services — cuts that would add to the human and economic damage brought on by COVID-19."" Other experts we consulted said that states' financial struggles are attributable to the current crisis. Lucy Dadayan, who leads the nonpartisan State Tax and Economic Review Project at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said that all states, regardless of the affiliations of their political leadership, will need federal funds, because all states are affected by lost tax revenue due to closed businesses. Richard Auxier, also with the Urban Institute-Tax Policy Center, said state and federal governments turned off the economy, cutting revenues to pay for everything that states pay for, such as public health, education, police protection, and roads and bridges. We reached out to Biggs’ spokesperson to ask for evidence to support this claim three times through email and left a telephone message with his office. We did not receive a response. Biggs said that New York was one of several states demanding federal funds to bail out pension funds. He also claimed that New York and other states want federal funds to pay for programs not related to the pandemic. New York’s pension fund was one of the strongest in the country, according to a nonpartisan, nationwide analysis published in 2019, before the crisis hit state budgets. The New York state comptroller said that the pension system has not requested federal funds. The other part of Biggs’ statement – that the funding will pay for programs not related to the pandemic – is correct but misleading. The tax receipts that fund the full range of state governments have been sharply reduced by the pandemic. The federal funding sought by states would partly offset those pandemic losses."
8703	UK scientists to make a million potential COVID-19 vaccines before proof.	A million doses of a potential COVID-19 vaccine being developed by British scientists are already being manufactured and will be available by September, even before trials prove whether the shot is effective, the team said on Friday.	true	Health News	The Oxford University team’s experimental product, called “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19”, is a type known as a recombinant viral vector vaccine and is one of at least 70 potential COVID-19 candidate shots under development by biotech and research teams around the world. At least five of those are in preliminary testing in people. The Oxford scientists said on Friday they were recruiting volunteers for early stage - Phase 1 - human trials of their shot, and large-scale production capacity was being put in place “at risk”. This means the shots will be produced in large numbers at risk of being useless if trials show they do not work. “We have started at risk manufacturing of this vaccine not just on a smallish scale ... but with a network of manufacturers in as many as seven different places around the world,” Adrian Hill, a professor and director of the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, told reporters in an online briefing. “The aim is to have at least a million doses by around about September, when we also hope to have efficacy (trial) results.” He said three of the manufacturing partners were in Britain, two in Europe, one in India and one in China. The scientists said initial manufacturing costs would be in “tens of millions” of pounds and acknowledged the investment risk of pressing ahead with production before verification. They did not give details of their financing. More than 2.14 million people have been reported to be infected by the novel coronavirus globally and 143,744 have died, according to a Reuters tally. Hill’s team said they plan to start safety and then mid-stage efficacy trials of their potential COVID-19 vaccine in adults aged between 18 and 55 within weeks. They then plan to expand the trial group to older age groups later, and hope to run a final phase trial with around 5,000 volunteers in the late summer. Hill and his co-researchers - including Sarah Gilbert, an Oxford professor of vaccinology - said they have “a high degree of confidence” that human trials of the ChAdOx1 shot will show positive results in protecting against COVID-19 infection. They acknowledged that many other research teams worldwide were also working on potential vaccines, with only a proportion likely to be fully successful. “We can never be certain these things are going to work,” Gilbert told the briefing. “My view is that I think this one has a very strong chance of working.” Asked when the shot - if proven to work - might be able to be made widely available to the public, Hill said the best case scenario would be for regulators to grant it “emergency use approval” - something that could be achieved within six weeks beyond the point at which data show whether it is effective. That, he said, could mean around six weeks from September, when the team hopes to have positive trial data.
28776	The Clinton Foundation rates higher than the Red Cross in charity rankings.	"What's true: The charity ranking site CharityWatch grades the Clinton Foundation as an ""A"" and the Red Cross as an ""A-."" What's false: The larger and more highly regarded Charity Navigator stopped evaluating the Clinton Foundation after an early 2015 dispute over bad press and allegations of a lack of transparency, then on 1 September 2016 reinstated the Foundation's rating."	mixture	Politics, charity navigator, charitywatch, clinton foundation	On 28 August 2016, a popular tweet initiated a rumor that as a charity, the Clinton Foundation scored higher in efficiency than the well-known aid-providing Red Cross organization: today’s fun fact: CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation a higher rating (A) than it gives the Red Cross (A-). #discuss — Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) August 28, 2016 As seen in the example field above, the claim caused some skepticism among social media among users who were unable to independently corroborate the claim. That phenomenon likely stemmed from confusion “CharityWatch” and “Charity Navigator,” two similarly-named charity evaluation services. The former ranked the Clinton Foundation (A) slightly higher than the Red Cross (A-), while the latter doesn’t rank the Clinton Foundation at all. How much credence one should afford these rankings is debatable, however. Charity Navigator is the much larger and more highly regarded site, while the smaller CharityWatch‘s Wikipedia entry shows that organization to employ a ranking methodology that has generated a large “Criticism” section. A 2011 ranking of charity watchdogs contrasted the two sites: Charity Navigator (charitynavigator.org): Evaluates about 5,500 nonprofits with starred reviews and helpful, graphic-heavy reports that now include evaluations of transparency and links to similar charities. Reports are based largely on self-reported data. In coming years, Charity Navigator aims to add information on charitable program results. People interested in specific categories can find several Top 10 lists of the best and worst charities. Some aspects of the site are free to all users, while others require registration. The site is supported through charitable donations from large donors and individual users. CharityWatch (charityWatch.org): Formerly called the American Institute of Philanthropy, this 20-year-old organization performs in-depth analysis of about 550 charities. Questions addressed include possible fraudulent valuation of donations, inappropriate categorizations of program expenses and legitimate reasons for seeming financial inefficiency. Lists of top-rated charities can be viewed free, but the group’s full thrice-yearly reports — which feature updates and investigations into wrongdoing in the industry — require a $3 payment for the first sample and then a $40 to $200 yearly membership fee after that. CharityWatch’s work is supported by individual donations. With respect to the original tweet, it was true that CharityWatch gave the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation an “A” rating by CharityWatch in April 2016, while by contrast they assigned an “A-” grade to the American Red Cross of August 2016. While the Red Cross achieved a higher “Program Percentage” (share of monies allocated to services) than the Clinton Foundation at 90% percent vs. 88%, the Red Cross was less efficient because they spent more money to raise money ($30 per $100) than the Clinton Foundation ($3 per $100) did, according to CharityWatch. However, the comparison arguably constitutes cherry picking, in that CharityWatch is a far smaller, atypical arbiter of charity ratings. Most news outlets turn to Charity Navigator when seeking out figures for any one charity organization’s effectiveness, but no such claim was proffered about the comparative rankings of the American Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation by Charity Navigator. That’s likely because while the American Red Cross has achieved an overall Charity Navigator rating of 85% (80% for financial organization and 93% for accountability & transparency), Charity Navigator maintains no rating for the Clinton Foundation at all. The page for the Clinton Foundation on the Charity Navigator site includes a brief explanation stating that the Clinton Foundation was at one time evaluated and included in Charity Navigator rankings, but that Charity Navigator subsequently determined the Clinton Foundation didn’t meet their rating criteria: Why isn’t this organization rated? We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model. What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator includes extensive clips and links to news coverage of the Clinton Foundation on their page, adding that: In accordance with our policy for removing charities from the CN Watchlist, Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2015 because the charity provided publicly accessible information regarding their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. This information, along with the public memorandum submitted addressing the other issues raised in the Watchlist entry, meets our requirements for removal. On 10 May 2015, the Daily Intelligencer published an in-depth article about the Clinton Foundation’s dispute with Charity Navigator and the Foundation’s attempts to reinstate their standing in early 2015: The Clinton Foundation scandal cycle is already spinning off new complications. A case in point: After being the subject of a spate of negative newspaper accounts about potential conflicts of interest and management dysfunction this winter — long before Clinton Cash — the Clinton Foundation wound up on a “watch list” maintained by the Charity Navigator, the New Jersey–based nonprofit watchdog. The Navigator, dubbed the “most prominent” nonprofit watchdog by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is a powerful and feared player in the nonprofit world. Founded in 2002, it ranks more than 8,000 charities and is known for its independence. For a while, the Clinton Foundation was happy to promote Charity Navigator’s work (back when they were awarded its highest ranking). In September 2014, in fact, the Navigator’s then-CEO, Ken Berger, was invited to speak at the Clinton Global Initiative. Of course that was before the Foundation was placed on a list with scandal-plagued charities like Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and the Red Cross. Since March, the Foundation has embarked on an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to get removed from the list. Clinton Foundation officials accuse the Navigator of unfairly targeting them, lacking credible evidence of wrongdoing, and blowing off numerous requests for a meeting to present their case. “They’re not only punishing us for being transparent but are not being transparent themselves,” Maura Pally, the Foundation’s acting CEO, told me by phone from Morocco. “Charity Navigator doesn’t disclose its donors, but we do and yet that means we’re suffering the consequences.” Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. “They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that,” says Berger. The feud is a microcosm of all that is exhausting about the Clintons’ endless public battles. Generally, it goes like this: bad press about their lack of transparency sparks some real-world consequence or censure, the Clintons complain that they’re being held to an unfair standard while their critics contend that they expect to be able to write their own rules, and the resulting flare-up leads to more bad press. The trouble with Navigator started on Wednesday morning, March 11. Foundation officials became alarmed when they received an anonymous email from the watchdog’s Donor Advisory committee informing them they would be added to the list on Friday, March 13, unless they could provide answers to questions raised in newspaper accounts. Among the press controversies the Navigator cited: A Wall Street Journal report that noted “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.” Politico, meanwhile, revealed that the Foundation failed to report to the State Department a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government, a violation of the ethics agreement the Clintons had arranged with the Obama White House. Politico also reported that the Foundation’s former CEO, Eric Braverman, quit after a “power struggle” with “the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades.” With the publication of Clinton Cash on the horizon, Clintonworld surely knew landing on the Navigator’s watch list would be a public-relations debacle. By early March, Clinton campaign officials were holding regular war-room meetings to orchestrate their defense against the book. Over the next few days, Foundation officials desperately attempted to contact Navigator executives to rebut their claims but, inexplicably, couldn’t get through to anyone on the phone. On the evening of Friday, March 13, Pally sent a detailed email rebuttal. “All of the other organizations on your watch list have had substantiated allegations of financial, fiscal or other impropriety,” she wrote, according to an email the Foundation provided to New York. “The stories you cite about the Clinton Foundation merely point to donations, or gossip around our operations, none of which constitute any wrongdoing.” It didn’t work. During a tense phone conversation on the afternoon of March 17, Pally and Berger argued over the merits of the media’s claims about the Foundation. Pally said they were without substance; Berger insisted that since the newspapers published the articles, they were relevant. “Our whole thing is, if major media outlets say there’s something here that you should be aware of, we’re not going to be judge and jury on what the media says,” Berger later told me. “We felt there had been enough questions.” As a matter of practice, the Navigator doesn’t conduct its own investigations. On its website, they state: “Charity Navigator … takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist.” The Navigator invited the Foundation to respond publicly on their website. Instead, Pally asked Berger to meet and review confidential copies of the Foundation’s handbook, “Global Code of Conduct,” and board bylaws. Berger declined, feeling it was another effort of backroom dealing and spin. “We were not opposed to having a sit-down meeting. The point was, what is it that we’re going to cover? We’ve already been around the block. What’s the value of this?” Last week, after I contacted the Foundation about being on the watch list, Pally rekindled talks with the Navigator. “I remain at a loss as to what information we can provide to address Charity Navigator’s concerns and be removed from the Watchlist,” she wrote Tim Gamory, the Navigator’s acting CEO. (Berger left the group last month to start his own consulting business.) Unfortunately for Hillary’s campaign, the Navigator’s policy is that charities that land on the list stay there for a minimum of six months. Sandra Miniutti, the Navigator’s spokesperson, told me that, in order to get off the list, the Clintons need to publicly address each of the controversies raised by the media with a convincing response. Although it is true that the Clinton Foundation earned an “A” versus the Red Cross’ “A-” in CharityWatch’s rankings, that claim elides the former organization’s documented and acrimonious feud with the standard bearer of charity ranking organizations, Charity Navigator. The Clinton Foundation’s “atypical” management prompted Charity Navigator to remove that organization from their list of ranked charities in March 2015. UPDATE: On 1 September 2016, Charity Navigator responded to “unprecedented demand” by reinstating the Clinton Foundation’s rating: A charity watchdog with an ongoing relationship with the Clinton Foundation gave the former first family’s nonprofit high marks Thursday, after an evaluation prompted by the heightened interest in the organization. The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars — the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity’s finances. The rating is based on annual federal tax documents. It was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family’s foundation at appropriate arm’s length or provided favored access as secretary of state … Charity Navigator’s president, Michael Thatcher, told The Associated Press that the Clinton campaign did not influence the rating. The four-star badge comes at a time when the Clinton Foundation is under intense scrutiny about whether Clinton granted donors access at the State Department. An AP analysis found that of 154 people outside government with private interests who met or spoke to Clinton by phone, 85 had contributed either personally or through their organizations to the foundation. The Clinton campaign said Clinton would have met with the donors, anyway, in her role as secretary of state. The watchdog had previously rated the Clinton Foundation with four stars in 2007, and in 2012 downgraded it to three stars due to changes in its methodology. Its original four-star rating was based on the foundation’s financial health and performance. In 2012, it also evaluated the charity on accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator requires five independent board members, but the foundation had only three during the 2009 fiscal year, Thatcher said. The downgrade came the same year that Charity Navigator was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton Global Initiative waived its membership fees for Charity Navigator, as it does for nonprofits, nongovernment organizations and social entrepreneurs. Charity Navigator treated the $20,000 waiver as an in-kind donation. Thatcher said his group joined Clinton’s to mingle with world leaders and promote its ratings. He said the new rating was unrelated to Charity Navigator’s relationship with the foundation. “The numbers speak for themselves,” he said. According to its 2014 consolidated tax report, the Clinton Foundation spends about 12 percent of its budget on running the foundation. Another charity watchdog, Charity Watch, previously gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating on a scale of A-F. Charity Watch has no connection to the Clinton Foundation, said its president, Daniel Borochoff. “We don’t want money from charities we rate, because we believe in being an independent charity watchdog,” he said. Charity Navigator stopped rating the Clinton Foundation entirely in 2014 because it said changes in the foundation’s business structure were incompatible with the way Charity Navigator calculates its ratings. After what Thatcher described as “unprecedented demand” for a rating for the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator asked the foundation to consolidate its tax forms in a way the watchdog could evaluate it. That led to Thursday’s four-star rating.
28536	"The NFL gave Donald Trump a ""lifetime ban"" after he was involved in a disastrous lawsuit against the league."	"What's true: As owner of the New Jersey Generals USFL team in the 1980s, Trump was a driving force behind an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL that was successful but won only $3.76 in damages, effectively putting an end to the upstart league. What's false: Trump did not sue the NFL in a personal capacity, nor did the NFL levy a ""lifetime ban"" against him for his part in the lawsuit."	mixture	Politics, donald trump, football, nfl	In the midst of an ongoing public debate about national anthem protests by NFL players that grew to involve even President Donald Trump in September 2017, Internet users were reminded of an infamous 1980s lawsuit involving the now-defunct United States Football League and the NFL in which Trump had played a key role: Trump repeatedly called for the upstart league to go head-to-head with the NFL by switching its playing season to the fall and winter, once saying: “My attitude has always been [that] the spring was a wasteland, and I came into this league on the basis [of], and predicated on the fact, that I thought the league would move to the fall.” On this point, Trump faced opposition from others within the USFL, in particular John Bassett, the influential owner of the Tampa Bay Bandits. Ultimately, Trump’s view won out, and in 1984 the USFL announced that their 1986 season would begin in the fall. Trump later described himself as the “leading catalyst” for the decision to move to the USFL season to the fall, although in 1987 the USFL’s former director of communications, Jim Byrne, presented an account of the spring/fall schism within the league that emphasized the role of Harry Usher, who had become USFL commissioner in 1985. However, the planned change in seasons did not work out so well in practice, as the USFL faced severe difficulties in obtaining contracts with major television networks (a key source of revenue), among other problems, which brings us to the lawsuit now so frequently connected with Donald Trump. The source provided for the meme displayed above was a 25 September 2017 Business Insider article that extensively quoted business journalist Joe Nocera, who offered his recollections about the USFL’s scheduling problems and their response to them: At the beginning of the third season [of the United States Football, the league actually decided that for the fourth season they would go to the fall. The networks were furious, the players knew it wasn’t going to work out, the losses really started to mount, the owners were getting incredibly upset. Trump had a solution, however. His solution was, “We’re gonna sue. We’re going to sue the NFL for being monopolists.” The large part of the argument was, “We can’t get a network contract because they have all three networks locked up so they must be a monopolist.” The jury did, in fact, rule that the NFL was a monopolist that had harmed the USFL. They had asked for $1.2 billion in damages, and the jury said, “We’re going to give you $1.” And in antitrust cases that’s tripled so that’s $3. Add interest [and] that’s $3.76. According to a 30 July 1986 report from the New York Times, the jury ruled that the NFL had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by retaining a monopoly power “to control prices or exclude competition” in the country’s professional football market. But jurors awarded such low damages because Judge Peter Leisure had told them they should do so if they were not able to say definitively that the losses suffered by the USFL were caused by the NFL’s control of the market, as opposed to the USFL’s own poor management. Trump hailed the verdict as a “great moral victory,” and the USFL launched a series of motions and appeals that culminated in 1990. But on the playing field, the 1986 USFL was postponed just days after the trial concluded, and the USFL never staged another game. Donald Trump was not a plaintiff in the USFL lawsuit in a personal capacity, but the team he owned, the New Jersey Generals, was one of the plaintiffs. Moreover, Trump’s long-time personal lawyer, Roy Cohn, was one of the attorneys for the USFL, and both Trump and Cohn gave press conferences and interviews about the case, criticizing the NFL and supporting the USFL’s arguments. And Trump himself testified during the trial. So while Donald Trump may not have been a plaintiff in the ultimately disastrous lawsuit against the NFL, a team he owned was, and it would be entirely reasonable to say he was a driving force behind the litigation. The final component of the meme, that the NFL levied a “lifetime ban” against Donald Trump for his role in the USFL lawsuit, is difficult to rate. Presumably it refers to Trump’s efforts to obtain an NFL franchise, something then-commissioner Pete Rozelle stated he would never allow, according to Leslie Schupak, senior managing partner at KCSA Worldwide, the USFL’s marketing and public relations firm: [A] meeting [between Trump and Rozelle], held in March 1984, concerned Trump’s desire to possess an NFL franchise. Although he owned the Generals and spoke publicly of his love for the USFL, Trump (according to many people who knew him) anxiously wanted to ditch the upstart for the money and fame of the bigger league. Hence, said Schupak, Trump invited Rozelle (a man he knew casually through scattered social encounters) to meet, and had Schupak — with whom he had bonded — tag along. Schupak remembered it well. “They arrive, and even before Pete can stop talking on a casual basis, Donald starts his diatribe on how great he (Trump) would be for the NFL, and what it would mean to the NFL to have him as a franchise owner,” he said. “Donald is going on in his typical style, telling Pete Rozelle what he believes in, why he would be wonderful. It was typical Donald, in that Rozelle couldn’t get a word in.” According to Schupak, Rozelle seemed to be under the impression Trump extended the invite to discuss relations between the two leagues. When he realized what Trump was after, he turned cold and blunt. “Mr. Trump,” Rozelle told him, according to Schupak, “as long as I or any of my heirs are involved in the NFL, you will never be a franchise owner in the league.” The meeting ended shortly thereafter. Not surprisingly, Trump remembered the meeting very differently, in testimony he gave in 1984 during the USFL’s antitrust case against the NFL. Trump told jurors that Rozelle promised him an NFL franchise. He did not get one. Donald Trump was never a franchise owner in the NFL. So, this aspect boils down to a second-hand account (which was contradicted by one of the participants) of former NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle’s supposedly telling Trump in private that he would never allow Trump to own an NFL franchise. However, any such personal feelings that Rozelle (who died in 1996) may have held along those lines is not codified or enforceable as an NFL rule today. Moreover, Rozelle reportedly formed his opinion of Trump’s undesirability as an owner back in 1984, two years prior to the USFL’s filing their anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, so that litigation could not have been the motivation behind Rozelle’s purported “lifetime ban” of Trump from the NFL. On the whole, there are elements of this meme that are accurate: the existence of the lawsuit, the amount of damages, the involvement of Donald Trump. But the meme also fails to make it clear that Trump did not sue the NFL in a personal capacity, and the claim about the NFL’s giving the future president a “lifetime ban” is questionable.
21529	Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage and nearly 30 percent lived below the poverty line. Today, thanks to Medicare ... nearly all seniors have coverage and 75 percent fewer struggle in poverty.	"U.S. Rep. Ron Kind says that ""thanks to Medicare,"" 75% fewer seniors are in poverty, and most have health coverage"	mixture	Medicare, Poverty, Wisconsin, Ron Kind,	"Democrats marked the 45th anniversary of Medicare by accusing Republicans of renewing hostilities against the popular program. A partisan scrap over Medicare and the elderly? That’s nothing new. But there was one aspect of the rhetoric during the summer of 2011 that caught our attention. Democrats reminded audiences of life before and after Medicare -- the health insurance program funded by employer and worker taxes that passed in 1965 after years of debate. The comments from U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., partly echoed points made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats: ""Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage and nearly 30 percent lived below the poverty line,"" Kind wrote on his website. ""Today, thanks to Medicare, things are drastically different. Nearly all seniors have coverage and 75 percent fewer struggle in poverty. We wondered if the situation for seniors had improved as much as described -- and whether Medicare was the main reason why. In the early 1960s, both the elderly population and hospital care costs were surging. Private insurers repeatedly were forced to increase premium rates. ""Old people were long considered ‘bad risks’ by commercial insurers, and unions had not made much headway in obtaining coverage for retired workers through employer-sponsored plans,"" notes an official government history of Medicare on the Social Security website. Over the objections of the American Medical Association, Congress approved Medicare by wide bipartisan margins, with President Lyndon Johnson signing the measure in July 1965. Medicare took effect in 1966. At what rate were seniors insured at that time? Kind points to a 2000 government report that said ""in 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance."" We found wide agreement on this point among a half-dozen government and academic reports -- a range from 50 percent to 56 percent uninsured seniors in the early to mid-1960s. One report broke it down further: 54 percent had hospital coverage, and 46 percent had surgical coverage, according to survey statistics cited by the National Health Statistics Reports. It’s also true virtually all seniors have coverage today. ""The folks left out are those not eligible for Social Security (either as a worker or dependent or survivor),"" said Marilyn Moon, a Medicare expert at the American Institutes for Research, an independent policy group. ""This is mostly legal immigrants who do not have enough earnings years to qualify. It has traditionally been about 2 percent."" That covers the question of who had coverage. But what about the poverty part of it? Kind said that, thanks to Medicare, ""75 percent fewer struggle in poverty."" Pelosi did not use that number in her own release on this. Kind pointed us to a chart in a federal report showing a 30 percent poverty rate for seniors in the mid-1960s, and he compares it to a number Pelosi used (7.5 percent) for ""today."" That would get you to a 75 percent drop. But the figure didn’t reach 30 until 1967 (29.5 percent). And the 7.5 percent was off; Pelosi’s office reviewed it after we asked and will be changing her website. So we did our own check. We turned to census reports, which show 8.9 percent of seniors in poverty in 2009, the latest year available. The closest pre-Medicare census report on elderly poverty we found was 1959, when 35.2 percent of the elderly officially were considered poor. Compared to 2009, this is a 75 percent drop. (Census figures for elderly poverty were not kept for 1960-1965). So, Kind is right on the 75 percent. But his statement is aimed at a larger point -- that the poverty reduction is due to Medicare. In the Great Depression, at least half of all seniors were living in poverty, but that started to fall after the 1935 act creating Social Security. Experts agree that much of the drop in more recent decades is due not to Medicare, but to improvements in Social Security benefits, especially in the 1970s. ""The poverty measures are based on cash income and do not reflect the contribution that Medicare has made to the quality of life of seniors. Almost all the decline in poverty is attributed to Social Security,"" said Virginia Reno, a Medicare expert at the National Academy of Social Insurance. Think of it this way: Social Security payments help determine a senior’s income. Medicare coverage impacts their health care coverage and costs, but isn’t factored into total income, which is how the poverty rate is defined. As Reno wrote in a 2010 report: ""Poverty among older Americans declined in the 1960s and 1970s for the same reasons as their median incomes rose: more of them had worked long enough in covered jobs to qualify for Social Security benefits, and the level of these benefits was increased by Congress."" Moon, of American Institutes for Research, added: ""What can be said is that without Medicare, many of those both below and above poverty would not be able to afford health care."" Kind spokeswoman Leah Hunter said the congressman did not mean to suggest Medicare was the sole reason for the poverty-line change. Let’s bring this home. Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason."
14680	I have never supported cap and trade.	Sanofi SA said on Friday it would recall popular heartburn medicine Zantac in the United States and Canada, after the medicines were linked with a probable cancer-causing impurity.	true	Candidate Biography, Cap and Trade, Florida, Marco Rubio,	The French drugmaker said it was working with health authorities to determine the level and extent of the recall, which it called a precautionary measure being taken due to possible contamination with a substance called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Sanofi has sold over-the-counter Zantac in the U.S. and Canada since 2017. It is pulling the drug off shelves after previous recalls by some manufacturers of generic versions of the drug. Sanofi reported Zantac sales of 127 million euros in 2018 69 million euros over the first half of 2019. U.S. and European health regulators said last month they were reviewing the safety of ranitidine, which is commonly sold as Zantac and its generic alternatives, after an online pharmacy called Valisure notified them that it had found impurities in the drugs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said earlier this month it found unacceptable levels of NDMA in drugs containing ranitidine. The regulator asked ranitidine makers to conduct their own testing to assess levels of the impurity and to send samples of their products for testing by the agency. Canada has requested drugmakers halt distribution of the drug while it gathers more information. Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, speaking at a press conference in Framingham, Mass., earlier this week, downplayed concerns about the drug. “We don’t believe there’s a risk,” Hudson said on Tuesday. “But we have to - and are appropriately duty bound to - satisfy the regulators, which we will do, and we’ll move on from there.” Other drugmakers including GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis have recalled or halted distribution of their versions of the drug. Retailers and pharmacy chains including Walmart Inc CVS Health Corp, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc and Rite Aid Corp have suspended the sale of drugs containing ranitidine. The FDA has said it does not have enough scientific evidence yet to determine how long NDMA has been present in ranitidine. But Valisure - the online pharmacy that flagged the issue to regulators - believes the problem is inherent to the drug itself and NDMA may have been present as long as its been on the market. Ranitidine is the latest drug in which cancer-causing impurities have been found. Regulators have been recalling some blood pressure and heart failure medicines since last year.
643	California governor says broad power shutdown to prevent fires 'unacceptable'.	California Governor Gavin Newsom called a widespread electricity shutdown triggered by a power company to prevent wildfires “unacceptable”, as gale-force winds and dry weather posed a critical fire threat to the north of the state.	true	Environment	Pacific Gas and Electric Co (PG&E) has imposed unprecedented shut-offs that left more than 730,000 homes and workplaces in northern California without power on the second day of planned outages. But as of late Thursday, power was restored to more than half of those who had lost it, PG&E officials said in a release. About 312,000 electric customers remained without power as of 10 p.m. officials said. Some of the state’s most devastating wildfires were sparked in recent years by damage to electrical transmission lines from high winds, with flames then spreading through tinder-dry vegetation to populated areas. Newsom, a Democrat, told a news conference on Thursday he did not fault the utility for shutting off electricity as a safety measure, but he described the outage as too broad and said it resulted from years of mismanagement by the utility. “We’re seeing a scale and scope of something that no state in the 21st century should experience,” Newsom said. “What’s happened is unacceptable and it’s happened because of neglect.” The remarks were the most pointed comments Newsom has directed at PG&E since the outages began early on Wednesday. Among the questions he raised was whether the utility was too large, with a service area covering more than 40 counties. He also faulted PG&E for putting what he called “greed” ahead of investments in its infrastructure to protect the electrical grid from dangerous winds. PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January 2019, citing potential civil liabilities in excess of $30 billion from major wildfires linked to its transmission wires and other equipment. PG&E Chief Executive Bill Johnson acknowledged that his company had left “millions of people” without a “fundamental service” they expect and deserve. “This is not how we want to serve you,” he told a media briefing in San Francisco, adding that PG&E “was not adequately prepared” for such a large power outage. As high winds moved south, a similar cut-off was under way by neighboring utility Southern California Edison, which warned that more than 173,000 customers could lose power in parts of eight counties, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Ventura. Residents, business owners and even public officials expressed frustration about the blackouts, which the utility began on a much smaller scale last year during times of high fire risk. “Northern California is not a Third World country,” the San Jose Mercury Statesman said in an editorial. “It’s unacceptable that the region is being forced to endure this level of disruption as the long-term strategy for dealing with the threat of wildfires.” PG&E, California’s biggest investor-owned utility, said power would be restored to areas once up to 77 mph (124 kph) winds die down and 2,500 miles (4,025 km) of transmission lines could be inspected. “We faced a choice between hardship or safety, and we chose safety,” Michael Lewis, PG&E’s senior vice president of electric operations, said in a statement. The National Weather Service said the hot gusty winds that usually hit northern California in October, sometimes called the “Diablo Winds”, would continue into Friday morning. Much of northern California, from San Francisco to the Oregon border, remains under a state “red flag” fire alert, although no major blazes have been reported. “As soon as the weather passes, PG&E will begin safety inspections with 6,300 field personnel and 45 helicopters standing at the ready once we get the all clear,” the utility said in a tweet on Thursday. Oakland supermarkets brought in refrigeration trucks to save food. Michael Wara of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment estimated the economic cost of the shutdown could reach $2.5 billion, with small businesses hit hardest as they typically lacked back-up generators. In Santa Rosa, a California wine country town where entire subdivisions were destroyed by a deadly 2017 wildfire, restaurateurs Mark and Terri Stark said they had to close one of their six restaurants after it lost power. “This is preventative medicine and medicine sometimes is not good to take,” said Mark Stark, 60, who lost one restaurant in the 2017 blaze. The fires in that region killed 46 people. “Those fires and what they caused are still very real for people in our ‘hood,” he said.
8392	Adherence to social distancing spurs dip in projected U.S. coronavirus deaths.	Better-than-expected social distancing practices have led an influential research model to lower its projected U.S. coronavirus death toll by 12%, while predicting some states may be able to safely begin easing restrictions as early as May 4.	true	Health News	The University of Washington’s predictive model, regularly updated and often cited by state public health authorities and White House officials, projected on Friday that the virus will take 60,308 U.S. lives by Aug. 4, down from 68,841 deaths forecast earlier in the week. Strict adherence to stay-at-home orders and business closures imposed by governors in 42 of the 50 U.S. states over the past four weeks to curb the spread of the virus was cited as a key factor in the improved outlook. “We are seeing the numbers decline because some state and local governments, and, equally important, individuals around the country, have stepped up to protect their families, their neighbors, and friends and co-workers by reducing physical contact,” said Christopher Murray, director of the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). The institute said states with low death rates, including Vermont, West Virginia, Montana and Hawaii, could safely relax some restrictions on May 4, so long as they continued to limit social gatherings. States moving to ease stay-at-home measures also are urged to institute widespread testing for infections and to isolate anyone testing positive, while tracing their close contacts and quarantining them. Other largely rural or sparsely populated states, including Iowa, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, may need to wait until late June or early July, the institute said. It also recommended that states reopen only if they have infection rates of less than one in 1 million people. The model’s latest forecast for the first time incorporated cell phone data that suggested people began having less contact with one another earlier than was previously assumed, especially in the South, as a growing number of states imposed social distancing and stay-home orders. The model’s earlier assumptions were based on state policies without considering the public’s reaction to them. The latest update of the University of Washington model came as the number of known coronavirus infections in the United States surpassed 700,000, the most of any country. At the same time, the tally of deaths from COVID-19, the lung disease caused by the virus, has soared to well over 35,000. New York state accounts for nearly half those deaths. Friday marked the fourth consecutive day that the number of COVID-19 deaths nationwide grew by more than 2,000 in a 24-hour period.
16801	"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ""received zero complaints"" about the Washington Redskins name."	"Conservative blog posts smell a scandal in the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark, pointing out that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ""received zero complaints"" about it before an administrative law court ruled in June. The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face. But even that aside, the post is misleading in suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process when they are not. When people have a problem with patents and trademarks and want them removed, they file formal complaints, prove their standing in the case, pay a fee, and provide evidence to support their case. In other words, they do exactly what the five plaintiffs in this case did here."	false	Sports, PunditFact, Bloggers,	"There’s new hysteria surrounding the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark registration, and it goes like this: The government’s decision was much ado about nothing. After reading our fact-check about the Obama administration’s (lack of) direct involvement in the decision, a reader asked us to look into a claim from a conservative blog that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark without public outcry to do so. One would think that the public outcry against such an ""offensive, inflammatory"" name must’ve been huge to gain the attention of a senator. People must have been writing tons of letters complaining about how racist the name was in order to get President Obama to weigh in on the issue. The number of complaints the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received about the Redskins name was astounding, but not because there were so many. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The agency received zero complaints about the team’s name. Zero. The post by the Conservative Tribune deems this evidence of a left-wing scheme to win voters and open ""the door for repealing the First Amendment."" We checked it out and did not exactly find a scandal. Most notably, the post fails to mention why the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office considered canceling the trademarks in the first place: People complained about it. The Conservative Tribune blog post links to a story at Weasel Zippers, which links back to a story that first appeared in the conservative Washington Times newspaper. On June 18, 2014, a panel of three administrative law judges known as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled the team’s trademark registrations on the grounds that it disparages American Indians. As expected, the team is appealing the decision, just as it did when it challenged the same panel’s decision in 1999 in a related complaint and won. (The football team can keep the rights to its trademark as it goes through the appeals process.) Two weeks after the decision, the Washington Times ran a story about how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could not produce any records that showed members of the public wrote in to express their opinions about the team’s name before the most recent ruling. The newspaper’s public records request for correspondence about the logo turned up 13 pages of records, half of which came from a Texas man who wrote a ""meandering"" letter by hand after the ruling. The other pages came from a person congratulating the appeals board and from staffers seeking background information about the case for Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting member of Congress from Washington, D.C. (and an opponent of the team’s name). Is it the ""bombshell"" as described by the Conservative Tribune website? Not really. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not solicit public comment like other government agencies as they consider new rules and regulations. It’s not built that way. Its process prescribed by the U.S. Code works similar to a legal trial, in which only the parties involved can submit evidence. There could be one letter or 1,000, but it’s not going to make a difference in whether a trademark is granted or canceled. Put another way, it’s not part of the process in the way that the Environmental Protection Agency or Federal Trade Commission reviews public input before considering a new rule or regulation. In this case, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acts more like the Supreme Court, in that the court wouldn’t solicit or consider your opinion of the health care law before it issued a ruling. ""The presence or absence of letters of complaint in a case like this really does not have any bearing on whether or not a trademark is going to be canceled,"" said Elizabeth Rowe, University of Florida College of Law professor and director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law. ""If you want a trademark to be canceled, you have to do what the plaintiffs did here."" The Redskins case deals with existing trademark registrations, which require investment on the part of people who seek to have the trademark canceled under federal code. In this case, five young people with American Indian heritage petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office in 2006 to cancel the registrations, arguing that it is disparaging. There is a brief period to allow for opposition to pending trademark applications, but a simple letter of complaint would not do much there either, Rowe said. That window is usually used by rival companies to assert whether a logo is too close to their own and confusing for consumers, and objections involve filing an objection, evidence to support it and having a hearing. ""It’s really neither here nor there to say that they were letters of complaint or how many were there,"" Rowe said. The Washington Times article that called the missing public comment into question even echoes these points, quoting the plaintiffs’ attorney and a Georgetown University professor as saying public correspondence isn’t built into the process for hearing individual cases. For what it's worth, there are petitions at websites like Change.org and MoveOn.org in favor of changing the name or ditching it, and some have thousands of signatures. But the aim is to rally people about the issue and exert pressure on team ownership, not to influence the decisions of administrative law judges. Our ruling Conservative blog posts smell a scandal in the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark, pointing out that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ""received zero complaints"" about it before an administrative law court ruled in June. The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face. But even that aside, the post is misleading in suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process when they are not. When people have a problem with patents and trademarks and want them removed, they file formal complaints, prove their standing in the case, pay a fee, and provide evidence to support their case. In other words, they do exactly what the five plaintiffs in this case did here."
8980	Sugar improves memory in over-60s, helping them work smarter	This news release highlights findings of a small, short-term trial that suggests glucose (a form of sugar) enhances performance on memory tests in older adults. The release touts benefits in performance, motivation, and mood while taking these tests, but fails to include any data. Nor does it mention how these outcomes were defined or measured. Two other inclusions would have helped this news release considerably. First, make it clear to the readers that this study looked at the short-term impact of consuming sugar on memory tests in a lab. It couldn’t tell us whether sugar improves participants’ functioning in their everyday lives. Second, make at least some mention of the potential harms of consuming too much sugar. With a headline and subheading that promise older adults improvements in memory, performance, and mood you’d better back your claims with data. You also owe it to your readers to make it very clear what the limitations of the study at hand are. Because, at the very least, you are going to get the attention of the tens of millions of Americans (or their caregivers) suffering with dementia and depression, and run the very real risk that they will now see sugar as a benign panacea when it likely has more chance to cause harm than be helpful.	false	dementia,University of Warwick	The intervention used in this research was 25 grams of glucose (aka dextrose) dissolved in water. Glucose is a major source of energy, in particular, for our brain. Most of the glucose found in our blood comes from the breakdown of carbohydrates in our diet, but if you wanted to buy pure glucose, 50 tablets would cost you about $4. Not including the cost in the news release seems reasonable. The news release states that sugar has these benefits in older people: No data are provided to support these touted benefits. The potential harms of glucose supplementation are not mentioned in the news release. Of note, 25 grams of processed sugar (which is sucrose, a disaccharide made up of glucose + fructose) is about 6 teaspoons, and is actually the maximum daily amount recommended for women by the American Heart Association. Given that some people may take the headline as a shortcut to better memory (or help them “work smarter”) it would have been prudent to warn readers that excessive sugar intake can increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and related bad health outcomes. The news release doesn’t provide any data. Nor does it mention how memory, performance, motivation, or mood were measured. It doesn’t even mention the sample size, which was relatively small: 53 young adults (ages 18-27) and 58 older adults (ages 65-82), with each group randomized to receive either glucose or placebo. The only cautionary note proffered in the release is this: More research is needed to disentangle these factors in order to fully understand how energy availability affects cognitive engagement, and to develop clear dietary guidelines for older adults. There is no overt disease-mongering here, but the wording used in this news release seems to imply that older adults need to improve their memory, performance, mood, and work smarter. The release would’ve been improved with some background as to the normal declines in cognitive function that occur with aging and the impact they may have on older adults. We’ll rate this not applicable, since the release didn’t really provide enough context to be considered satisfactory. Funding sources are not mentioned. The journal publishing this research — Psychology and Aging — gives the major source of funding as a scholarship for the lead author, a PhD candidate. Neither the journal article nor the release provide information about potential conflicts of interest for the authors. There is a vast range of scholarship addressing interventions to improve memory, motivation, and task engagement and performance. Most of it is behavioral, some of it pharmaceutical or dietary, but suffice to say, none of these alternatives were mentioned. Not really applicable here since glucose is ubiquitous in most diets, and also widely available as a supplement. The role of various sugars on cognitive abilities and mood has been studied for decades; ironically, much of this research showing a negative impact on these abilities. This context was not provided in the news release. There is too much vague language in this news release, starting with a headline that says sugar helps older adults “work smarter.” What does that even mean? And what does it mean to say that participants “try harder” and are “happier” after consuming sugar? The news release needed to define some of these terms in order to meet our standard.
6071	Maine officials investigate Legionnaires’ disease cluster.	The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating a cluster of six Legionnaires’ disease cases in the Bangor area.	true	Health, Legionnaires disease, Bangor, Maine	The CDC said Friday health care providers have diagnosed about one case in each month since last November, and officials are trying to determine if they’re related. The CDC said all six individuals were hospitalized and that one died, although it’s unclear if the Legionella bacteria was to blame. Legionnaires’ disease is a severe form of pneumonia caused by inhaling water droplets containing the bacteria. The bacteria is common in streams and ponds, but it can also spread in buildings through air conditioning systems, hot tubs and fountains. Last year, there were 33 cases in Maine. The exact number is uncertain because healthy people generally don’t produce symptoms.
9827	Spinal Manipulation, Home Exercise May Ease Neck Pain	When researchers randomized 272 neck pain patients to receive either spinal manipulation, medication, or instructions on home exercises, they found some differences that were statistically significant. But the big picture is that all the patients tended to get better and those who got manipulation or home exercise instructions fared about the same. And that the bottom line message that readers get from the news story. The story didn’t mention costs and it could have provided more details about potential harms, but overall it gives readers a fair overview of the research and the broader background of neck pain treatment. News reports should always distinguish between study results that really mean something to people dealing with illnesses and those that are merely statistically significant, but clinically underwhelming. This story reports key findings about measured differences, but also helps readers to see the main message; that those differences didn’t make a dramatic difference to how patients felt… and that important questions remain. The study raises some interesting questions. It’s difficult to know if similar results would be seen for patients coming for care in usual practice settings, rather than in response to newspaper and radio ads recruiting subjects. It’s also worth looking at effective care versus efficient care. If two group instructional sessions are as good as 15 individual chiropractic sessions on average, one could surmise that home exercise might provide more bank for the buck. The story could have done a better job driving this point home. AS	true	exercise,pain	It’s too bad this story didn’t mention costs. Considering that the trial found only small differences in the effectiveness of the treatments, it seems that cost might be a key deciding factor for many people with neck pain. It’s notable that two educational sessions about home exercise were as effective as 15 chiropractic sessions. The story includes both some of the specific results reported by researchers as well as more conversational descriptions of the overall experiences of people in this trial. Readers get the message that people with neck pain tend to feel better as time passes no matter which treatment option they used and that none of the treatments is clearly superior or can deliver sure-fire pain relief. This rating is a close call. The story does warn readers that spinal manipulation can pose “rare, but serious risks.” Also, none of the trial participants reported a serious adverse event. But the story could have been more specific and reported that, as the editorial accompanying the research article pointed out, “neck manipulation has a rare but potentially catastrophic risk for vertebral artery stroke.” Also, the story should have at least briefly mentioned some of the harms that can be caused by the pain medications (including acetaminophen, narcotics and muscle relaxants) that were prescribed to some participants. This story gives readers the important highlights of the study design and how the researchers measured effectiveness. It also includes a comment from an independent source that the trial would have been better if it had included a no-treatment group (in order to look for improvements that were due simply to the passage of time or a placebo effect). The story could have pointed out that unlike major drug trials that use placebo pills there was no way to prevent patients from knowing which treatment they received, which means the researchers can’t be sure that the reports from patients weren’t partially influenced by their beliefs about how effective a treatment might be. For instance, it could be that people who got spinal manipulation from a professional (and paid for it) might tend to believe that the treatment was more effective than a set of exercises that they did themselves at home. The story accurately reports that neck pain is common. It also includes cautionary statements about the uncertainty that exists about what sort of treatment works best, thus helping readers keep expectations in line with reality. The story includes quotes from multiple independent sources. It reports that funding for this trial was provided by “U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.” It might have been helpful to point out that the center is part of the National Institutes of Health, so that it would be clear to readers that it is a public institution. Although the story does not report on any potential conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers, the article authors did not disclose any conflicts in their journal article. The trial was set up as a direct comparison of popular treatments for neck pain, and that is just how the story presents it. It even includes a comment from an independent source that this sort of neck pain tends to improve on its own. As mentioned above, the story could have provided more details about the potential harms of the various treatment options. It is clear that all of the treatments included in this trial are widely available. The story points out that this trial was designed to address the lack of solid evidence comparing common treatments for back pain, while also noting that this trial doesn’t answer all of the questions. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
29614	"Statistics demonstrate that ""Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic realities and begin reproducing again."	Statistics demonstrate that 'Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic realities and begin reproducing again'?	false	Uncategorized, muslim demographics, viral videos	Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] I have just received the following youtube on Muslim Demographics. Can you verify the accuracy of this message? Origins: The notion that “Christendom” (primarily western Europe, but also North America) is in danger of being overwhelmed within a few generations by Muslim immigrants with comparatively high birth rates (while the natives of the countries they are emigrating to are reproducing at or below mere replacement level) has been a common topic of western press articles in the last several years. However, such articles (and examples like the video linked above) often suffer from flaws that tip them more towards being alarmist rather than accurate and sober analyses: They cherry pick and exaggerate a few gloomy-sounding statistics without presenting them within a larger context, they assume that current demographic trends will remain static even in the face of future political, economic or social changes, and they don’t acknowledge that fertility rates are influenced by a number of complex, interrelated, and volatile factors. For starters, much of the information presented in the video is incorrect, unsubstantiated, or misrepresented: It’s true that in recent years population growth in EU countries has been primarily driven by immigration, which, for example, accounted for almost 85% of the population growth in EU countries in 2005. However, that statistic includes all immigrants to EU countries, not just Muslims. We can’t make out what source the video is citing as the basis of this statistic, but the BBC noted that: The French government doesn’t collect statistics by religion, so it is impossible to say what the precise fertility rates among different religious groups in France are.But no country on earth has such a high fertility rate, and in Algeria and Morocco, the two nations which send the largest numbers of Muslim immigrants to France, the fertility rate is 2.38, according to the UN’s 2008 figures. The 2001 UK census tallied about 1.6 million Muslims in England and Wales, and that number may have grown to something approaching 2.5 million in the years since then (although 2008 estimates put the figure at only about 2 million). However, the 82,000 figure used as the starting point for this projection is questionable since the 1981 census did not survey respondents’ religious beliefs — some believe that the number of Muslims in the population of England and Wales thirty years ago was significantly higher than the 82,000 estimate given here, and thus the true rate of growth in that segment of the population is much less than the “30-fold increase” cited in the video. The upcoming 2011 census should provide a clearer picture. As of 2004, Muslims comprised about 5.8% of the population of the Netherlands. In order for this small percentage of the population to account for “50% of all newborns,” Muslim women in the Netherlands would have to be giving birth, on average, to about 14 to 16 times as many babies each as non-Muslim women. Muslims are the second-largest religious group in Belgium, but they still only account for about 4%-5% of the population. And, as noted above, for that small a segment of the population to be accounting for “50% of all newborns” in the country, Muslim women would have to be giving birth to incredibly large numbers of children each. The quoted statement was made by Walter Radermacher, the vice-president of the Germany’s Federal Statistical Office. However, he was speaking only of German population trends in general; the final sentence (about Germany’s becoming a “Muslim state”) is someone else’s words, as he affirmed to the BBC: The quotation which reads as if the German government believed that Germany will become a Muslim state is simply not true. There is no source which can be quoted that the German government has published such an expression or opinion. The 52 million figure is a reasonable estimate for the number of Muslims in Europe. However, as the last part (about the Muslim population’s doubling in the next two decades), Walter Radermacher said: That is not true. The German government does not believe that the Muslim population will double in [even] the next 40 or 50 years. There are no reliable sources that give a proof for that assumption. As we observed above, the assumption that current demographic trends will remain static — even in the face of future political, economic or social changes — is an especially important (and precarious) one, as even small changes in fertility rates can have a significant impact on the future size and nature of populations. Or, as Martin Walker noted a Spring 2009 Wilson Quarterly on the subject, “the detailed work of demographers tends to seep out to the general public in crude form, and sensationalist headlines so become common wisdom.” Particularly, Walker wrote, as the result of this seepage of crude information is that “three deeply misleading assumptions about demographic trends have become lodged in the public mind”: The first is that mass migration into Europe, legal and illegal, combined with an eroding native population base, is transforming the ethnic, cultural, and religious identity of the continent. The second assumption, which is related to the first, is that Europe’s native population is in steady and serious decline from a falling birthrate … The third is that population growth in the developing world will continue at a high rate. In regards to specific claims about Muslim immigrants supplanting native-born populations in Europe due to the former’s much higher fertility rates, Walker observed: One fact that gets lost among distractions … is that the birthrates of Muslim women in Europe — and around the world — have been falling significantly for some time. [S]harp reductions in fertility among Muslim immigrants reflect important cultural shifts, which include universal female education, rising living standards, the inculcation of local mores, and widespread availability of contraception. Broadly speaking, birthrates among immigrants tend to rise or fall to the local statistical norm within two generations. The decline of Muslim birthrates is a global phenomenon. Most analysts have focused on the remarkably high proportion of people under age 25 in the Arab countries, which has inspired some crude forecasts about what this implies for the future. Yet recent UN data suggest that Arab birthrates are falling fast, and that the number of births among women under the age of 20 is dropping even more sharply. The falling fertility rates in large segments of the Islamic world have been matched by another significant shift: Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies … Immigrant mothers account for part of the fertility increase throughout Europe, but only part. And, significantly, many of the immigrants are arrivals from elsewhere in Europe, especially the eastern European countries admitted to the European Union in recent years. In short, the best demographers can do is make broad guesses about population trends based on current conditions and assumptions about how (and how much) those trends might be influenced by societal changes. Or, as summarized by Walker: The human habit is simply to project current trends into the future. Demographic realities are seldom kind to the predictions that result. The decision to have a child depends on innumerable personal considerations and large, unaccountable societal factors that are in constant flux. Yet even knowing this, demographers themselves are often flummoxed. Projections of birthrates and population totals are often embarrassingly at odds with eventual reality.
10552	There are alternatives to hysterectomies	"The question of whether hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) is overused or appropriately performed for benign conditions such as fibroids or abnormal uterine bleeding is controversial and hotly debated. What is clear is that, regardless of treatment choice, women should be informed about the availability and appropriateness of the many available, safe, and effective alternatives to hysterectomy. Furthermore, it should always be the case that women are actively making the treatment decisions along with their doctor. How bothered a woman is by her symptoms, how she feels about the risks and recovery involved in the different treatments, her desire for future childbearing, among others, should all factor into the decision-making process. This story does a nice job of describing the controversy over the potential overuse of hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. It appropriately describes how fibroids do not need to be treated unless they are causing a lot of bothersome symptoms. It also describes the available alternatives to hysterectomy, although it could have done more to discuss the availability of some of the newer options such as myolysis and uterine artery embolization. The story fails to discuss costs of hysterectomy and the alternatives. Other than to describe hysterectomy as ""invasive"" and requiring a hospital stay and recovery time, the story does not discuss the harms of hysterectomy or the alternatives. Finally, although the story mentions a ""90 percent success"" rate of the alternative procedures, this is not sufficient quantification of benefits. Not only is it not clear how ""success"" is defined, but also for which procedure and compared to what."	mixture		"The story does not mention costs of hysterectomy or of the available alternatives. Although the story mentions a ""90 percent success"" rate of the alternative procedures, this is not sufficient quantification of benefits. Not only is it not clear how ""success"" is defined, but also for which procedure and compared to what. Other than to describe hysterectomy as ""invasive"" and requiring a hospital stay and recovery time, the story does not discuss the drawbacks of hysterectomy. Nor does the story describe the drawbacks of the newer procedures. The story does not adequately address the strength of the available evidence. One particular problem is that the article presents arguments against hysterectomies, but does not give details on the ""failure rates"" of some of the newer procedures. For example, if a women has an embolization procedure, how likely is she to have total relief of symptoms, versus a need for repeat procedure or eventual hysterectomy? The story accurately represents the seriousness and prevalence of fibroids. The story does a great job of explaining that fibroids do not need to be treated unless the woman is bothered by the symptoms. Several physician/experts are quoted in the story. The story does a good job of laying out the alternatives to hysterectomy as well as the different types of hysterectomy that are available. The story clearly states that hysterectomy is available. What is not clear, however, is how widely available are some of the new alternatives, such as myolysis and uterine artery embolization. The story clearly states that hysterectomy is not a new idea. However, the story could have provided more information about the novelty of some of the newer alternatives, such as myolysis, which is very new and has not been extensively evaluated. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
37684	A lengthy email represented as lies told by Senator Barack Obama.	Obama Lies?	mixture	Obama, Politics, Terrorism	This is a list of alleged “lies” by presidential candidate Barack Obama that circulated during the 2008 presidential primary season. There were several different versions, the first having only about 25 criticisms of Obama and instead of calling him a “liar” it ended each claim with the phrase “Not quite.” Then it was 46 questions and a version circulated that added four more to make it 50 lies. It was a very difficult and tedious process to research this. Whoever put it together did not document where Obama made these statements and many of them could not be found. In response to email rumors that have circulated about Obama, his campaign has created a page to respond to the rumors. CLICK HERE for the “Fight the Smears” page. (CLICK HERE for a list of other related stories about Barack Obama) Let’s deal with them one at a time. LIE # 1.) Selma Got Me Born – LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 – Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google ‘Obama Selma’ for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.) This refers to a speech Obama gave and when he did get the dates of his birth and the events at Selma backwards. It was in 2007 at a celebration of the famous Selma-to- Montgomery Voting Rights March in Alabama that took place in March, 1965. At one point in the speech, Obama described how that was the environment in which his father came to the United States and met his mother. Then he said, “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.” The Selma Voting Rights March was in March, 1965. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 so he was not born in the shadow of what happened in Selma. 2.) Father Was A Goat Herder – LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government It is true that Obama’s father became well-educated and had the advantage in his early life of having learned to read and write. It is also true, however, that he herded goats. In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama describes that his father herded goats for his own father, who was a farmer. As a youth, Obama’s father was sent to a missionary school to be educated. When he returned, according to family members, he could find little work except goat herding in his village of Nyangoma Kogela in Western Kenya. 3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter – LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had We could not find this claim that Obama represented his father as a “proud freedom fighter.” 4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom – LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades Again, we could not find where Obama said that his family has strong ties to African Freedom. Raila Odinga is a well-known politician in Kenya who ran for president in 2007 and challenged the election results when he lost. The resulting violence killed hundreds and left thousands homeless. Odinga has claimed to be Obama’s cousin but Obama has never acknowledged that and no proof of the connection has been offered. 5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian – LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man We could not find a time when Obama claimed that his grandmother had always been a Christian. If he did, the writer of this email described a Moslem woman, which would be Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side. In a speech in 2007, Obama described his maternal grandparents as “nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists.” 6.) My Name is African Swahili – LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama There has been a lot of discussion about this one with some people connecting the name to Arabic words, others to Hebrew, and others to Swahili. Regardless, the name “Barack” or “Barak” is found among Africans and “Barak” is a Swahili word meaning blessing or prosperity. There are also related Arabic words such as “baaraka,” which relates to blessing and most agree that the name is derived from Arabic. Obama has cited both origins of the name. In his book Dreams From My Father, Obama describes the name in this way: ““It means ‘Blessed.’ In Arabic. My grandfather was a Muslim.” He has also described his first name as Swahili. Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). From….and for more….go to…..http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African There is no evidence that any of this is true. The link provided for documentation is from a user forum on a game site, hardly a reliable source. Obama’s father’s family is overwhelmingly African. According to an overview of published genealogies of Barack Obama: His father was Barack Obama. His grandfather was Onyango Obama, a Kenyen who converted to Islam. His great grandfather was simply known as Obama of Kendu Bay, Kenya. His second great grandfather was named Obiyo. His third great grandfather was named Okoth. His fourth great grandfather was named Obongo. His fifth great grandfather was named Otondi. His sixth great grandfather was named Ogelo. His seventh great grandfather was named Ogelo. 7.) I Never Practiced Islam – LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office As a child, Obama attended both Islamic and Christian schools. In the Islamic school there was education about Islam faith and practice as there was in the Christian school. There is no evidence that as an adult Obama has ever practiced Islam. We have dealt with this in detail in a story about Obama’s faith. CLICK HERE for that story. 8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian – LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book) In his book Dreams From My Father, Obama tells of attending both the Islamic and the Christian schools in Indonesia during his childhood. He does describe that one of the teachers from the Islamic school “wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.” The Associated Press reported on 1/24/08 that when his family moved to Indonesia when he was a child, “At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.” 9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian – LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language We’ve not found any record of Obama claiming to be fluent in any Indonesian language. He is said to speak a little Bahasa, the national language of Indonesia. 10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience – LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons Again, we have not found any occasion when Obama claimed that his childhood in Indonesia qualified him as having “more foreign experience.” 11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs – LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies As a presidential candidate, Obama certainly argues that he is qualified to deal with foreign policy, but whether that is true or not depends on the observer and is a matter of opinion. His travels have included more than Africa and the Middle East, however. He was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and served on several subcommittees. He was described by his critics as the most traveled freshman Senator. His travels have included Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan in Asia, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Palestinian Territories, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa. 12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion – LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify – your classmates said you were just fine-Partly Truth! Obama’s autobiography deals extensively with his experience growing up as an African-American and the issues that presented him. His drug use, he says, was “…something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.” In October, 2006, he told a New York Times reporter that his drug use was “…reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy. Teenage boys are frequently confused.” 13. )An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office – LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist We have not found any reference in either of his books of an Ebony article that influenced Obama’s decision to run for office. 14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life – LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist In Dreams From My Father, Obama tells of seeing a picture in Life Magazine of a black man who tried to peel off his skin. It happened at a time when he was being told by his mother about bigotry and when he was looking at himself in the mirror and wondering if there was something wrong with him. “I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation,” he wrote. “I know that seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack.” We have not found documentation that “Life has yet to find the article.” 15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ’08 – LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first After his Senate victory in 2004 he ruled out a national run owing to his lack of experience. Click for the YouTube video 16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois – LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES This is with reference to criticism of Obama for having voted “present” 130 times during his service in the Illinois legislature instead of “yes” or “no.” The “present” vote is, in fact, common in the Illinois state legislature and is sometimes at the request of the legislative leaders. When legislators vote, they use buttons on their desks that register their choices electronically. A red button is for “no,” a green button is for “yes,” and a yellow button is for “present.” 17.) Oops, I Misvoted – LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote. We’re not sure what this was regarding. 18.) I Was A Professor Of Law – LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE The University of Chicago Law School has issued a statement on this: “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.” 19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer – LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE We didn’t find this as a claim of Obama’s but if he did, he may have been referring to his time as a Civil Rights lawyer in Chicago. 20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill – LIAR, you didn’t write it, introduce it, change it, or create it It depends on what the writer of this email was referring to. We haven’t found a quote that said “Without me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama did help pass a major ethics reform bill. The 110th U.S. Congress passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability act, which drew from provisions in a bill that Senators Obama and Feingold had originally introduced. 21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass – LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish. We could not find when he said this. 22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill – LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation – mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came Obama has talked of nuclear legislation he pushed in the Illinois legislature. At a presidential campaign appearance in Iowa in December, 2007, the New York Times quoted him as having said it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” In reality, the bill never did pass. It died in the Illinois Senate. According to the New York Times, at issue was the concern of citizens about unreported low-level radioactive leaks at nuclear plants. On the other side was Exelon, the largest nuclear plant operator in the nation and one of the largest campaign contributors to Obama. 23.) I Have Released My State Records – LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within We haven’t found the quote “I have released my state records.” On November 14, 2007, an Associated Press article quoted Obama as saying, “I don’t have — I don’t maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn’t have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records.” Records of state bills and the votes of senators, however, are available from the Illinois state legislature. 24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess – LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books In his book, Obama goes into detail about his work as a community organizer and the role that he played in the troubled Altgeld Gardens housing project in Chicago. It was home for 5,300 African Americans who lived with concerns that they felt the city had not been responsive to. Among them were a nearby landfill and a sewage treatment plant. One of the goals was to get the city to remove asbestos from the apartments. Obama does focus on his role as the organizer. 25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America – LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill. We’re not sure what this is referring to or what bill included 111 Obama economic policies. Also, we have not been able to find this exact quote from Obama. 26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois – LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part. We have not found this exact quote from Obama and the conclusion calls for opinion. 27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year – LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office We haven’t found the quote “I passed 26 of my own bills in one year.” It is true that he passed 26 bills in his final year as a state senator. It is also true that he was handed those bills by senate majority leader Emil Jones, Jr., a veteran Democrat who was black, who represented Chicago’s south side, and is credited with having thrust Obama into prominence. 28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA – LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them This arises from an issue in the primary campaign that became known as “NAFTA-Gate” and included a volley of charges between the campaigns of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama. During a debate in Cleveland, Ohio in February, 2008, Obama said that he would renegotiate the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico or else opt out of it. The next day after the debate, the Canadian Television Network (CTV) ran a story that said that an Obama staff member called Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. to alert him about what Obama was going to say and to not take it seriously. The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy both issued statements denying that any such phone call had taken place. Then CTV reported that the conversation about NAFTA may have taken place in a Chicago meeting with Canadian officials that included Austan Goolsbee, the senior economic adviser to the Obama campaign and an economics professor at the University of Chicago. On 3/3/08 The Associated Press reported on a memo that it said had been “widely distributed” in the Canadian government that described the meeting as having taken place in February. The memo said that Goolsbee “was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy. On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested, according to the report, that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core’ principles of the agreement.” In the same Associated Press article Goolsbee said the memo “misquoted” him. In a later AP article Goolsbee said, “In no possible way was I inferring that he [Obama] was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting.” On March 3 the Canadian embassy in Washington said it “deeply regrets” the affair, and that “there was no intention to convey, in any way” that Obama was being inconsistent about NAFTA: 29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism – LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel In September, 2007, there was a vote in the U.S. Senate on an amendment that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It was sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl (Republican, Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (independent, Connecticut). Obama was on the campaign trail and was not present for the vote. Hillary Clinton was and voted in favor of it. In November, 2007, Obama introduced a Senate resolution that said that President Bush did not have authority to use military force against Iran. 30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet – LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially. We have not found the “I Am Not Acting As President Yet” quote. This is referring to the 3/1/08 death of FARC warlord Raul Reyes after a strike by the Colombian army. His laptop computer was seized and among the documents from the computer that were released by the Colombian government was a 2/28/08 letter from Reyes to his inner circle. The letter said, “two gringos” assured him that “the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support ‘Plan Colombia’ nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement).” It has not been revealed who Reyes had spoken with or whether they had the authority to speak for Obama. 31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida – LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks – and you still lost. In 2006 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) decided that only four states would be allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. The Florida legislature, however, moved both the Republican and Democratic primaries to a week earlier, January 29. The DNC voted that Florida was in violation of its rules. The four states that were allowed the early primaries asked presidential candidates to pledge not to campaign in Florida and both Clinton and Obama agreed not to even though both of their names were still on the Florida ballot. In January, 2008, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of violating the promise to avoid campaigning in Florida because of television ads that were running on both CNN and MSNBC. The Obama campaign replied that they were not violating the pledge because they were not targeting Florida. They were airing national advertisements that they had asked be blacked out in Florida but that the networks had said could not be done. Obama’s campaign also said that at that time the only one of the four approved states that had not yet held it primary was South Carolina. The Obama campaign said that it had consulted with Carol Fowler the chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party who said that she did not regard the national ads to be a violation of the pledge to the early states. 32.) I Won Michigan – LIAR, no you didn’t Obama never seriously claimed to have won in Michigan, where his name wasn’t even on the ballot. During a March 8, 2008 interview on the Today show, he did accidentally include Michigan in a short list of states in which he had won. Supporters said it was a gaffe from a tired candidate. 33.) I won Nevada – LIAR, no you did not The delegate count from Nevada was a matter of calculation and was a bit complicated. As a result, both Clinton and Obama made early claims to have won the majority of the delegates. In the end, Obama did end up with 13 delegates to Clinton’s 12. 34.) I Want All Votes To Count – LIAR, you said let the delegates decide. We have not found that Obama advocated letting all delegates decide a candidate for president. The uncommitted Democratic delegates can make their own decision whom to support. In Florida, though, if the Democrats were to allow the primary vote to count, each candidate would receive delegates based on what percentage of the votes were cast for him or her. 35.) I Want Americans To Decide – LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time. We have not found evidence that Obama prefers caucuses but he had no influence on what each state decides about whether to hold elections or caucuses. 36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate – LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself Obama has never claimed passage of 900 bills in the Illinois state senate. 37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend – LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this. Not sure what this is referring to. 38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics – LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you Alice Palmer held the Illinois senate seat that Obama won in his first election in 1995. During her final year in office she decided to run for the U.S. Congress, but lost. She then hastily worked on qualifying for the ballot to retain her spot in the senate and some of her supporters even asked Obama to step aside in her favor. Obama pressed forward, however, and one if his tactics was to challenge hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions for Alice Palmer and three other candidates. The result was that none of them had enough qualifying signatures and Obama was alone on the ballot. Obama said he was operating by the rules and that if the candidates couldn’t get enough valid signatures, they might not be effective legislators. Critics, including some Democrats, criticized Obama for playing hardball in an election in which he had said he wanted to “empower disenfranchised citizens.” 39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money – LIAR, you take loads of it According to FactCheck.org Obama has not received any money from Political Actions Committees (PAC) in the 2007-2008 presidential campaign. There were some Clinton ads that accused him of taking PAC money but according to FactCheck.org they referred to funds he received during previous campaigns for the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate and before he had made the pledge not to take PAC money. 40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists – LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting-Partly Truth! According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama had raised more than $115,000 from “lobbyists” as of March 20, 2008. FactCheck.org quotes Obama’s campaign as saying this money is all from former lobbyists, not ones that are currently active. “Obama does not accept funds from registered federal lobbyists but does accept money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists,” according to FactCheck.org. 41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad – LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon A campaign controversy erupted in March, 2007 when a video appeared on YouTube that attacked Hillary Clinton. Hundreds of thousands of viewers saw it on YouTube and as a flap developed about where it came from, the Obama campaign denied that it had anything to do with it. The creator of the video, Phil de Vellis, finally revealed his identity in an article he wrote for The Huffington Post. It turned out that he was an employee of Blue Stage Digital, an Internet strategy firm being used by the Obama campaign. In his article, de Vellis said that nobody in his company or in the Obama campaign knew that he had made it. He did it alone on his Mac computer and uploaded it to YouTube. He resigned from Blue Stage Digital. 42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace – LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients In 2004 a paralegal from California named Joe Anthony set up a MySpace page in tribute to Barack Obama. It was unofficial and he volunteered his time to build the page. After Obama started campaigning for president, Anthony’s page became a vehicle for the Obama campaign, largely because of the large following it had built. The campaign started working with Anthony on the page and eventually even had the password so it could make direct improvements. When MySpace set up a channel to focus on the presidential candidates, the Obama campaign elected to use Anthony’s page instead of setting up one of its own. The site became so successful and attracted so many MySpace friends that the Obama campaign felt it should have more control. That’s when a dispute arose over what the next step should be. Anthony said he’d hand the page over to the campaign if he could get compensated for it. He proposed a payment of $39,000. The campaign wasn’t responsive to that proposal. MySpace eventually gave control of the page over to the campaign but Anthony was allowed to retain the online network of friends he had assembled for a new unofficial Obama page. 43.) I Inspire People With My Words – LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words We have not found this quote from Obama, but it is probably referring to a flap that developed during the primary campaign when Obama was accused of having borrowed words from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick during a speech without attributing them. In an address in Wisconsin on February 16, 2008, Obama said, ”Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’— just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?” Patrick, during his 2006 campaign for governor, said of his opponent, “but her dismissive point and I hear it a lot from her staff is that all I have to offer is words, just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ just words? Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear itself.’ Just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’– just words?” Patrick, who supported Obama’s candidacy, issued a statement that said “Senator Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language.” 44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate – LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate – for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities Again, this is not a direct quote that we can find, but Obama has introduced or cosponsored several bills that have passed in the senate. The first federal bill passed with Obama as the primary sponsor was the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act. He cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, added three amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, which passed in the senate but not the house, cosponsored the Obama, McCaskill bill to provide a safety net for families of wounded military personnel, and several other pieces of legislation. 45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq – LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date – AGAIN. Obama has consistently opposed the war in Iraq and as a presidential candidate has issued proposals on how he would end the war. In 2007 he did vote in favor of funding for the war saying that he felt that the troops who are there needed it. 46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care – LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it. This is a confusing statement. Obama is in favor of universal health care. He’s not a liar for saying so. The eRumor criticizes how such care will be paid for, but does not deny that Obama supports it. updated 09/16/08
34555	JFK smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to treat various medical ailments.	I’m not seeing anything that confirms this assertion. I’ve never actually seen the medical records from his Personal Papers, but am relying on accounts of biographers, Dallek and O’Brien, who have both viewed the papers with physicians and wrote about their findings. While they list a number of drugs and various treatments used, the use of cannabis is not among them. As you know there is a good deal written about Max Jacobsen’s unofficial treatments using amphetamines, but once again, no mention of cannabis being something President Kennedy used on the side, too.	unproven	Fauxtography, cannabis, history, john f. kennedy	A long-circulating image seen often on social media claims that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) habitually smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to alleviate back pain and the symptoms of Addison’s Disease. References to the rumor appeared in the New York Daily News in 1991 and the New York Times in 1984 (the latter in a letter to the editor about questionable biographical accounts of JFK’s life). So prolific has the claim been that a strain of cannabis was informally named in Kennedy’s honor. The rumor appeared to originate with information about Kennedy’s health uncovered by biographers long after JFK’s 1963 assassination. In 2002, a number of outlets reported on newly unveiled information about Kennedy’s declining health in the years prior to his assassination: The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy’s medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described. As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison’s disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function. But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy’s life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek’s, in part because of his “tremendous reputation,” said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president’s special counsel. Mr. Dallek is writing a biography, “An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,” to be published by Little, Brown. He was allowed to examine the records over two days last spring in the company of a physician, Jeffrey A. Kelman, and to make notes but not photocopies. Their findings appear in the December issue of The Atlantic, and they discussed them in interviews with The New York Times. The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is a remarkable example of a phenomenon that has been seen many times, notably in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet for all of Kennedy’s suffering, the ailments did not incapacitate him, Mr. Dallek concluded. In fact, he said, while Kennedy sometimes complained of grogginess, detailed transcripts of tape-recorded conversations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and other times show the president as lucid and in firm command. The most widely referenced account of Kennedy’s supposed marijuana use was not primarily linked with his health or with medical treatment. Rather, it was an anecdotal account of JFK’s supposedly being introduced to recreational pot use by one of his mistresses that was published in the National Enquirer tabloid in 1976 and referenced in the 1984 book The Kennedys: An American Drama by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. That latter work drew the following criticism in the aforementioned New York Times letter to the editor: The allegation by Mr. Collier and Mr. Horowitz that President John F. Kennedy had an affair with Mary Meyer is not new. But their charge that Mrs. Meyer introduced him to marijuana in the White House bedroom and ‘joked with him about being high when it was time to push the nuclear button,’ if true, makes President Reagan’s remark about bombing the Russians appear an act of diplomacy. Newsweek and New Times are cited as the sources for this quotation. Those periodicals, however, merely repeated the allegation as it originally appeared in an interview in the March 2, 1976, National Enquirer. Moreover, the man making the charge had previously been adjudged mentally ill and a court had appointed a conservator to handle his affairs. The authors responded to that criticism by defending the provenance of their account of Kennedy’s marijuana use: One the matter of President Kennedy’s relationship wth Mary Meyer … Newsweek and New Times, cited in our footnotes, did indeed report on their relationship and their use of drugs. The primary source for this information, according to the respected historian Herbert Parmet in his book ‘JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy,’ was one of Mrs. Meyer’s confidants, a former Washington Post editor named James Truitt. Mr. Truitt actually took the subject of the drug use farther than we did in our book. He said that one one occasion after J.F.K. and Mrs. Meyer had smoked marijuana, President Kennedy remarked that its effect was different from that of cocaine, which he had apparently tried and which he offered to bring to a future tryst. According to Mr. Truitt, “They smoked three of the joints before he (J.F.K.) told her: ‘No more. Suppose the Russians did something now. '” Accounts that came to light in 2002 appeared to have merged with the brief and oft-repeated anecdote involving Meyer, which was both anecdotal and did not match the assertion Kennedy had used marijuana as a medicinal purposes in treating back pain or Addison’s Disease. We contacted the John F. Kennedy Library to inquire as to whether any firm information in their extensive archives substantiated the long-held rumor that JFK had medicated his largely secret medical problems with marijuana. An archivist noted that documentation supported the use of off-label or possibly illicit medications for his ailments, but that marijuana was not among those treatments:
27607	A 12-year-old girl livestreamed her suicide by hanging.	National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255	true	Uncategorized, death, suicide, video	A disturbing video that has gone viral and apparently shows a young girl hanging herself has turned into a criminal investigation by police. While we made numerous unsuccessful attempts to reach Polk County police in an effort to verify the video, Chief Kenny Dodd told local reporters the video is authentic. Dodd told Fox5: I’m just shocked that a child that young would not only think to end her life in that manner but would also think to put it live on a livestream. The girl, who died of self-inflicted wounds on Dec. 30, streamed her death online, Polk County Police Chief Kenny Dodd said. It has since been posted and reposted on various sites across the internet. Investigators are looking into allegations of abuse and attempted rape the girl posted in an online diary on Dec. 27, Dodd said. In an online blog linked to Davis, she talks about depression but also about being physically and psychologically abused by a male family member who she says attempted to rape her. The Polk County Standard Journal reported Davis’ body was found on 30 December 2016 with “self-inflicted wounds” outside her home. She was taken to a nearby hospital, where emergency department staff were unable to revive her. An obituary for the girl says she is survived by her parents, sister and brother. A funeral service will be held on 6 January 2017. In the video connected to the incident, Davis could be seen setting up a camera, then making a noose and tying it to a tree before tearfully apologizing to a number of people and talking about feeling inadequate and unable to deal with depression. The video (which has since been removed from YouTube) appeared to show her hanging for a number of hours as the sunlight faded. It is unclear how many people were watching her stream, and whether any of them called for help. Polk County Police Det. Kristen Hearn told the Standard Journal that investigators were working on obtaining search warrants for Davis’ phone, Facebook account and a third, unnamed social media site.
32173	"An Alabama man suspected of creating a ""real life human centipede"" remains at large."	Around the same time the Alabama Observer popped up to spread fabrications, the Baltimore Gazette and Boston Tribune web sites were set up to spread false clickbait stories by camouflaging themselves as mainstream metro-area news outlets.	false	Junk News, alabama observer	On 7 October 2016, the Alabama Observer web site reported that authorities were seeking a suspect believed to be involved in the creation of a “real life human centipede”: Residents in Alabama’s Pullman County have been urged to be on the lookout for a suspect, described as a Caucasian male between the ages of 50-60, who is wanted for questioning over a shocking discovery inside a local warehouse. According to sources familiar with the investigation, the gruesome find was made after authorities responded to an anonymous tip-off from a member of the public. Once inside the warehouse, investigators were appalled by the scene that confronted them. “After a career of thirty years, dealing with some of the most heinous crimes you could imagine, this was by far the worst,” said one investigator. “As we entered the building, we saw a group of three women crawling on the floor on their hands and knees in obvious distress. It wasn’t until we approached them that we saw the full extent of their situation.” Investigators have made not yet made an official statement to the media regarding the nature of the women’s injuries, but one source who declined to speak on the record has told of how two of the women ‘had their mouths crudely sewn to the anus of another woman in the group’, apparently mirroring the plot of the horror film ‘The Human Centipede’. “The women are currently receiving expert medical care, and are all expected to make full recoveries, although the psychological impact of their ordeal will be severe.” It is believed that the male suspect wanted for questioning had lured the women to the property by posting job advertisements online. Once they arrived, he allegedly incapacitated them with a sedative-laced drink, and when they woke up some hours later they found that they’d already been ‘surgically attached’ to the other women. “It is highly likely that the perpetrator of this crime is a current or former surgeon, possibly a doctor who has been fired for breaches of medical ethics.” No other news outlets reported on this unquestionably newsworthy incident. Likely because the Alabama Observer is a fake news site created on the same date the outlandish story was published: The “real life human centipede” tale, originating with what appeared to be the online arm of a credible newspaper, was just one of several new fake news reports coming from out-of-the-woodwork newspaper impostor sites.
31748	President Trump filed for re-election early, which means non-profits can't criticize him without losing their tax-exempt status.	Mayer also pointed out that pro-President Trump nonprofits are under the same laws as all the others, which casts further doubt on his early re-election filing being about anything other than getting a fundraising advantage.	false	Politics, campaign, donald trump, fake outrage	On 29 January 2017, a community member at the Daily Kos posted in a string of tweets by “The Resisterhood” account, which claimed that because President Donald Trump had filed early for re-election, it means that nonprofit organizations cannot oppose him without risking their nonprofit status. The story, which was widely shared, was created in a portion of the site that allows Daily Kos community members to create their own posts: The Twitter user then cited the IRS code that prohibits nonprofits from election activities: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. It is true that President Trump filed a letter on Inauguration Day, 20 January 2017, notifying the Federal Elections Commission that he has met the legal threshold for filing for reelection in 2020 (though the letter says that it is not a formal candidate announcement). The move appears to be geared toward getting a fundraising head start, as legal experts agree that Trump becoming a de facto candidate for 2020 on his first day in office will have no effect on the activities of charities. In the era of perpetual campaigning, tax laws have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service to mean that charities are free to criticize or praise public office holders so long as they avoid electioneering — which they are prohibited from doing anyway, said Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents nonprofit organizations: Even though Trump is a candidate for the 2020 election now that he’s registered, that really should not stop any charity from commenting on how he’s doing as president of the United States now as long as they don’t put in in the context of the 2020 election… The reality is that as long as they don’t mention the election, which they shouldn’t be doing anyway as charities, they’re going to be fine. He added the caveat: “That’s assuming Trump obeys the law.” The Lawyers Alliance for New York later sent out a notice addressing the rumor: False Rumor: Nonprofit organizations cannot criticize President Trump because he filed a “Statement of Candidacy” form with the Federal Election Commission regarding the 2020 election. True: Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot take a position on who should win an election, such as the 2020 Presidential election. But all public charities can: • criticize or praise sitting public officials, including the President, for actions that they take while in office. • take a position on issues, such as environment, refugees, or school reform. • take a position on specific government actions, including Executive Orders, and proposed laws and regulations. Taking such a position may count towards a public charity’s limit on lobbying activity, and if the charity spends more than a minimal amount of money on this activity it may be required to register as a lobbyist, but only if it asks a public official to act or asks members of the public to contact a public official. Notre Dame law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer agreed, saying in the modern era, most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning, whether they are formally declared as candidates or not: Charities can praise or criticize [for example] representatives as long as they do it in a way that’s about them being in the House. The views [of the IRS] has always been obviously you can praise or criticize someone because they’re a public official, as a public official, even if they’re running. Loyola law professor Ellen Aprill concurred, noting that Trump himself had advocated for lifting the prohibition on charities and campaigning: It seems inconsistent with the intent behind the campaign intervention prohibition for a president to prevent 501(c)(3)’s from criticizing his policies and actions by declaring a candidacy so far in advance. Moreover, Trump is on record as wanting to eliminate the campaign intervention prohibition, although we have not seen anything on that since he became President. Nonprofits can address current topics like the environment, President Trump’s proposal to build a new U.S.-Mexico border wall, or his recent executive order restricting refugee entry into the United States. They are also free to litigate on causes, as the American Civil Liberties Union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have done in recent high-profile cases. The fact that he has filed campaign paperwork with the FEC early does not mean any of these organizations are suddenly muzzled.
36152	Flint, Michigan still does not have clean water as of September 2019.	‘Another Teenager with an Important Message’ (About the Flint Water Crisis)	mixture	Fact Checks, Viral Content	As Greta Thunberg made news (and fake news) on September 24 2019, a Reddit post featuring “another teenager with an important message” about Flint, Michigan’s purported lack of clean water quickly moved to the top of r/all:Here’s another teenager with an important message from picsA red tag added to the post (presumably by subreddit moderators) labeled it “misleading.” The post consisted of an image of a girl in black attire, holding a letterboard which read:FLINT MI HAS BEEN WITHOUT CLEAN WATER SINCE APRIL 24TH 2014 @LITTLEMISSFLINTOn September 23 2019, Valerie Complex shared the image above side-by-side with a photograph of Thunberg on Twitter, imploring fellow users to give “Little Miss Flint … the same energy” afforded Thunberg in her climate change advocacy:I hope the same energy given to Greta Thunberg is the same energy you give to Little Miss Flint because Flint still without clean water.Both deserve attention yet I’m seeing the distinction. #climatechange #FlintWaterCrisis pic.twitter.com/t2iO74xpmm— 🔥🖼Valerie Complex🖼🔥 (@ValerieComplex) September 23, 2019In April 2019, we examined a claim that Flint, Michigan had been without clean water since April 25 2014 — one day after the letterboard’s provided date of April 24 2014. Semantically, that aspect of the letterboard checked out, as the day before the start of the Flint water crisis the one on the sign — the last day that Flint had untainted water.Of note is that in April 2019, we rated the claim — although efforts had been made to supply Flint with clean water, the problem was not eradicated as of then:As of March 2019, Pacific Standard reported that the effort to replace pipes in Flint remained unfinished. And on April 11 2019, MichiganLive published an article about the ongoing work there[. ]So the question in that context was whether Flint had been supplied with potable water between April and September 2019.At the top of the Reddit thread, a user maintained they “thought it got fixed,” and another replied “yup,” linking to an article. The source was a month-old Michigan Public Radio piece about the state of Flint’s water, titled “Does Flint have clean water? Yes, but it’s complicated.” Despite being relatively recent at the time the Reddit thread was active, there was a note at the top suggesting changes:This post has been updated with new information about the testing of Flint’s water.The article reported in part:At this point [in August 2019], Flint’s lead levels are better than some other Michigan cities. Over the last two years, Benton Harbor, Romulus, Hamtramck, Parchment, Houghton and the villages of Lawrence and Beverly Hills each exceeded the EPA action level for lead in drinking water, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.Michigan also now has the toughest drinking water standards in the country, and requires vigourous testing.That doesn’t mean there still aren’t problems in Flint.The city switched back to the Detroit water system in 2015. But the damage had already been done, and the city’s lead service lines continued to leach lead into residents’ drinking water.MPR’s reporting also included new information not available at the time our most recent fact check was published:In August 2019, the state of Michigan warned city officials that Flint was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act because it failed to test water at enough homes with lead service lines or lead plumbing fixtures. A spokeswoman for the city told MLive that Flint officials say that is because the state “did not provide the city with the final approved sampling methods” in time.Flint was required to test water from a minimum of 60 high-risk homes from January to July 2019. But as the city works to replace lead service lines, there are fewer and fewer homes that meet that standard.The city submitted 35 valid tests, and 30 invalid sample results. But those tests were invalid because the samples were either taken after a home’s lead service line had been replaced, or before excavation showed the service line to be copper.If anything, the headline’s characterization of the water situation in Flint was apt by describing it as “complicated.” On the same day the Reddit post was published, Michigan outlet MLive.com reported about conflicting claims about the safety of Flint’s water. Mark Edwards, a professor who was involved in helping expose the initial crisis in Flint, argued that the water was cleaner than some advocates claimed:Edwards said in an email to MLive-The Flint Journal that the false narrative about Flint water started in 2016 when the organization Water Defense used what he calls “unscientific sampling methods, raising fears about dangerous exposures to (total trihalomethanes) in showers.“Hearing that Hurley doctors are attempting to minimize damages when it comes to the lives of residents concerns me,” [Mayor Karen] Weaver said. “That kind of behavior is disrespectful to our community and unbelievably insensitive to what we have endured over the past four years …“That was resolved after I coordinated second, third and fourth party sampling that showed completely normal levels of THMs, and when Mr. Scott Smith bravely corrected the record last year,” the email says. […]Edwards has most recently taken issue with the Public Broadcasting Service program “Frontline” for its reporting on the subject of faucet filter testing in Flint.Frontline reported recently on testing of a limited number of faucet filters in Flint by a team led by Dr. Shawn McElmurry of Wayne State University.Weaver and Edwards have long debated their respective viewpoints about Flint’s water, dating back to at least May 2018. On September 10 2019, PBS Frontline coverage quoted Weaver in from the previous June about claims about the safety of Flint’s water. In a piece with the headline, “The EPA Says Flint’s Water is Safe — Scientists Aren’t So Sure,” Weaver stood by her comments as of September 2019:This past June [2019], EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler declared that Flint’s water was “safe to drink.” [In September 2019], an EPA spokesperson reaffirmed that to FRONTLINE, saying that the drinking water “currently meets all health-based standards.”But Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver, has dismissed such declarations as “premature.”“Nobody wants to say that Flint water is safe to drink more than myself and the residents of Flint, but, before we say it, we want to be absolutely sure it is true,” she said in June [2019] in response to Wheeler’s comments. A spokesperson for the mayor told FRONTLINE that Weaver stands by her stance.Though Flint’s water, which once tested dangerously high for lead, is now within federal safety standards, microbiologists, infectious disease experts and officials including Weaver worry that harmful elements may still remain — and that state and federal regulators aren’t actively testing for them.On August 29 2019, WDET reported Jassmine McBride, 30, died of Legionnaire’s disease linked to the Flint Water Crisis earlier that year. McBride was diagnosed in 2014, and died on February 12 2019.Although the Reddit post titled “Here’s another teenager with an important message” was tagged “misleading,” its claims about the Flint water crisis were not far off the mark. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others have repeatedly declared Flint’s water safe, and scientists and officials have repeatedly disputed those claims. By all accounts, not all slated work to fix the initial problem had been carried out in 2019. Social media users appeared to recall reading that the problem had been largely or partly corrected, but Flint did not appear to be out of the woods entirely when it came to the safety of its water supply for all residents.In other words, even if the water is free of lead, there is no evidence that it is free of other contaminants and growing evidence that it remains contaminated — but it is difficult to say for certain, as officials are not actively testing for other harmful organisms or elements.
15129	Eighty-three law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year. Twenty-four of them were shot and killed in cold blood.	Cagle right on law enforcement death count	true	Georgia, Criminal Justice, Crime, Public Safety, Public Service, Guns, Casey Cagle,	"Years have passed, but not the collective chill that comes when our minds are drawn back to Sept. 11, 2001. In the days leading up to this year’s 14th anniversary of the terrorists’ attacks, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle issued a press release, urging Georgians to stop to reflect on the critical role that law enforcement officers play in our communities. ""Eighty-three law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year,"" Cagle said in the statement issued Sept. 8, ""Twenty-four of them were shot and killed in cold blood."" Those are sobering national statistics, the sort that have been replayed more lately -- the result of angry displays and discourse that have escalated since the August 2014 killing of a black teenager by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. But are the stats accurate? PolitiFact decided to check. We contacted Ben Fry, Cagle’s chief of staff, who said the numbers came from the Officer Down Memorial Page, a resource that he said was recommended by the Georgia Sheriffs Association. The privately run website is dedicated to memorializing police officers who die in the line of duty and is constantly updated. It showed a 2015 death count of 92 by Sunday, Sept. 20, that included seven Georgia law enforcement officers. The causes of death varied. Twenty-eight died from gunfire, two accidentally. Auto and motorcycle accidents claimed 24 lives. Vehicle pursuits killed four, and vehicle assaults three. Heart attacks accounted for 15 deaths, and a fall caused one death. Five law enforcement officers died in 2015 of illnesses related to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to the website. Texas and Louisiana have had the most officers die this year, 10 and 9, respectively. The website numbers track those in Cagle’s statement; they’re more current and so higher. We decided to spot check the website’s data against information gathered for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, as well media reports. The names of officers who die in the line of duty are etched in marble each spring, in conjunction with National Police Week, at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington D.C. That group keeps up-to-date data on law enforcement deaths and reported 92 on Sunday (identical to what the Officer Down Memorial Page was reporting that day.) We also used Google to verify all seven of the officer deaths in Georgia noted on the Officer Down Memorial Page. This included DeKalb County Police Officer Kevin Toatley, who was killed Saturday night when his patrol car was struck head on by a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction on South Fulton Parkway. The Officer Down Memorial Page, which has data that appears spot on, says that with the count of 92 deaths as of Sept. 20, all law enforcement deaths for 2015 are down 1 percent this year, compared to 2014. Gunfire deaths are down 26 percent; and auto-related deaths, at 36, are up 13 percent. (In May of this year. the FBI released its preliminary stats for 2014 law enforcement deaths in the line of duty. It showed 51 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed, meaning they were killed with ""criminal intent, as opposed to by accident), an increase of almost 89 percent from 2013 when the death count was 27. Between 1980 and 2014, an average of 64 law enforcement officers died this way each year. The 2013 death count was the lowest in this 35-year period.) With all the conversation about relations between the police and the communities they serve, that’s valuable information to know, especially when a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports.com suggests that all those discussions may be influencing public thinking. The telephone survey showed that 58 percent of likely U.S. voters believe there’s a war on police in America today. Our conclusion: In the days leading up to the 9/11 anniversary, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle issued a press release, urging Georgians to stop to reflect on the critical role that law enforcement officers play in our communities. ""Eighty-three law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year. Twenty-four of them were shot and killed in cold blood,"" he said. His numbers come from a group that works to diligently track data and pay tribute to law enforcement officers who die in the line of duty."
3780	US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.	Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.	true	Medication, Health, General News, Legislation, Politics, Prescription drug costs, Prescription drugs, Prices	Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation’s health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor’s offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare’s prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It’s unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday’s report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions — nearly 79%. The government’s findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP’s findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs.
3381	Legionnaires’ cases may be linked to Chicago-area hospital.	State health officials are investigating whether three cases of Legionnaires’ disease are linked to a suburban Chicago hospital.	true	Chicago, Health, General News, Legionnaires disease, Illinois, Public health	The Illinois Department of Public Health said Friday the three people were all patients at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital in Winfield, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Chicago. One person was an inpatient, while the other two had outpatient visits. IDPH said the three patients also had other possible sources of exposure in the 10 days before their symptoms began, so the hospital may not be the source. The department says it’s working with the hospital to further investigate the cases and will be conducting more tests of facility’s water. IDPH says the hospital is providing information to patents and employees who may have been affected. Most healthy people don’t get Legionnaires’ disease after being exposed to Legionella bacteria, which occurs naturally in the environment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends public health officials conduct investigations into the source of Legionella whenever two or more cases are possibly associated with a health care facility within 12 months of each other.
5711	Medical pot use won’t put Missouri patients’ welfare at risk.	Missouri patients with medical marijuana cards won’t be at risk of losing welfare if they test positive for pot under a revamped state policy.	true	Michael Brown, General News, Social services, Marijuana, Medical marijuana	The change comes after Missouri voters in 2018 said patients with cancer, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and other illnesses may use cannabis with doctor approval. But legalizing medical marijuana put those patients at odds with another Missouri law that requires Temporary Assistance for Needy Families applicants to be screened for drug use. Under that law, participants risk losing welfare benefits for three years if they are asked to take a drug test and either fail or don’t show up. Department of Social Services spokeswoman Rebecca Woelfel said in an email that the agency now exempts recipients with medical marijuana cards. Missouri Medical Cannabis Trade Association spokesman Jack Cardetti in a statement applauded the agency “for a humane and sensible decision that protects these patients and doesn’t needlessly intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship.” Roughly 9,400 families and 22,000 individuals received cash assistance in Missouri in August, according to Social Services data. Woelfel told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the agency’s new welfare policy still will require some applicants to take drug tests. Woelfel said participants can refuse to take a drug test, but they would then be required to enter a substance misuse treatment program. “If an individual fails a drug test, testing positive for marijuana only, and does not have a medical marijuana card, they can receive TANF benefits only if they get substance abuse treatment approved by the MO Department of Mental Health,” Woelfel said.
9208	Natural tooth repair method, using Alzheimer's drug, could revolutionize dental treatments	One of the most basic elements of any news release about a lab study with implications for humans is to make it clear that the study is still at the animal or — in this case — animal cell stage. This release not only skips any mention of mice, it also makes the leap that because the drug in question has “previously been used in clinical trials to treat neurological disorders including Alzheimer’s disease” that it would speed the pathway for a new dental treatment. The mixing in of references to an experimental Alzheimer’s drug in the headline of this release and the text are confusing and misleading to say the least. (It suggests an Alzheimer’s drug can repair dental cavities by activating dental pulp stem cells.) But the release has so many other problems that just fixing that still would not have provided readers with the information they deserved. We rarely give 0 “stars” for reviews but this is one situation where we had to. Even with flouride treatment and routine dental care, teeth get cavities. Each time a filling is replaced, a larger area is involved until eventually teeth crack, break or need to be removed. A topical treatment that naturally repaired teeth would be wonderful. However, this research is far from ready for prime time.	false	dental treatment,King's College London,mice studies	There is no discussion of costs in the release. Tideglusib, the drug they refer to, is listed by one chemical supplier (in the US it appears only to be available from research lab suppliers) as going for $80 for 10mg to $280 for 50 mg. This is not exactly inexpensive and it is unclear how much needs to be used, especially as mice teeth are so much smaller than human teeth. There is no quantification of benefits in the release. Another thing not mentioned is that this is not an immediate fix the way fillings are. It is unclear how long the sponge has to stay in place or whether one can eat once it is applied. With the study taking place in a lab on teeth but not on actual eating animals no doubt an answer would be based on conjecture. There is no mention of potential harms from the drug in question. This is the most egregious flaw in the release. Everything in the news release is centered around human cavities and how they are so often filled with “man made” cements or other fillings. Then the release talks about emerging natural dental treatments. And it goes on to say, “Using biodegradable collagen sponges to deliver the treatment, the team applied low doses of small molecule glycogen synthase kinase (GSK-3) to the tooth. They found that the sponge degraded over time and that new dentine replaced it, leading to complete, natural repair. Collagen sponges are commercially-available and clinically-approved, again adding to the potential of the treatment’s swift pick-up and use in dental clinics.” Nowhere does it mention that these collagen sponges were used to apply the treatment to tooth cells from mice, tooth cells that had been specially prepared in a lab setting to allow for the experiment, far from real world conditions. Most of us have cavities that have been filled at some point. Some of us have fillings that have had to be replaced. The release presents the current methods not only as flawed but also potentially bad for our health, saying, “The novel, biological approach could see teeth use their natural ability to repair large cavities rather than using cements or fillings, which are prone to infections and often need replacing a number of times. Indeed when fillings fail or infection occurs, dentists have to remove and fill an area that is larger than what is affected, and after multiple treatments the tooth may eventually need to be extracted.” The release doesn’t tell us who sponsored the research or whether there are any conflicting financial interests. The published study, however, states that the research was supported by the Medical Research Council, the NIHR GSTFT/KCL Biomedical Research Centre and the CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and that there were no conflicts of interest. We encourage all news releases to mention funders and list potential financial conflicts if there are any. The release does make reference to standard dental treatments but does not provide a fair comparison. The release really colors the truth when it comes to availability, saying that because the sponges used in the experiment are frequently used in labs and, because one of the treatments being tested has been used in clinical trials for an entirely different purpose, that the treatment could lead to a rapid road to use in humans. The release does not establish novelty, even though it uses the phrase “novel, biological approach.” The lede reads, “A new method of stimulating the renewal of living stem cells in tooth pulp using an Alzheimer’s drug has been discovered by a team of researchers at King’s College London.” While this seemingly addresses novelty, it’s not clear that the researchers are talking about mice teeth. The release has repeated uses of unjustifiable language. It says that, “As this new method encourages natural tooth repair, it could eliminate all of these issues, providing a more natural solution for patients.” It also says twice that it could be fast tracked into clinical practice. That’s an over-the-top statement for a molecular treatment being tested in the cells of mice teeth.
35814	"Under the ""COVID Act,"" school officials in the U.S. can quarantine children with COVID-19 symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent."	Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults.	false	Politics Legal, COVID-19	In August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians. The post, which typically began “For all the caring parents out there” and often warned “THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!” consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough) Parent: Right so where is my child? HT [Head teacher]: I’m sorry I can’t disclose that information P [Parent]: Is my child ok? HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 days P: No I’m coming to get my child now HT: I’m sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises. P: is this a joke? that is my child HT: I’m sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms. P: So when will I see my child next HT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!! Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term “head teacher” (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of “testing centre.” The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the “COVID Act,” claiming that the law authorized school authorities to “remove” children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19. A “Coronavirus Act” was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the “COVID act” were also false in that context. The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the “Coronavirus Act” or the “COVID Act” or “COVID-19 Act,” so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents’ or guardians’ consent. As a result, the “COVID Act” Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post’s claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents’ consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: “Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference […]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency.” Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual’s fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness — like COVID-19 — is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the “state police powers doctrine,” which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere.
34849	Insect repellent companies hired a Ugandan man whose flatulence was deadly to mosquitoes.	Multiple news websites from around the world were taken in by a crude hoax in December 2019.	false	Junk News	We received multiple reader inquiries in December 2019 about news reports that claimed a man in Kampala, Uganda, had been hired by mosquito repellent companies because, according to him, they were interested in studying how his flatulence purportedly kills mosquitoes. On Dec. 10, the U.K. tabloid newspaper The Sun published an article with the headline “Man Whose Deadly Farts ‘Can Kill Mosquitoes Hired to Create Mosquito Repellent Made From His Intestinal Gas. '” The article reported that: “A man whose farts kill mosquitoes claims to have been signed up by insect repellent companies probing the secret of his killer gas. Joe Rwamirama, 48, from Kampala, Uganda says boffins have launched a study into the chemical properties of his unique trouser toxin. The odd job man says no one in his home village has ever contracted malaria because his powers knock out insects over a six mile radius. If true, that would make his fallout zone larger than that of the atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.” The Sun’s article also included purported quotations from a “local barber” and a “local chief”: “Local barber James Yoweri said: ‘He is known all over the city as the man who can kill mosquitoes with his farts. When Joe is around we all know that mosquitoes will vanish. He is respectful of people around him and will only fart when there are mosquitoes around which bring malaria. His farts gets rid of this disease.’ “A Local chief who knew Joe, when he was growing up as a child, said he took him in to live with him during the malaria season and claimed no one nearby caught the disease. The chief said: ‘I heard about Joe’s gift and I took him in to help mop out the mosquitoes infesting our surroundings. He respectfully drops these bloomers and it helped eradicate the insects. He does his thing and they drop – like flies. '” Similar stories were published by other U.K. tabloids the Daily Mirror and Daily Star, and in several countries around the world, including Denmark, Germany, Croatia, Ecuador, and India. BBC Somali and the New Zealand Herald also published stories on “Joe Rwamirama’s” legendary flatulence, as did the U.S.-based websites Barstool Sports and RedState. However, the entire episode was a hoax. The Rwamirama story first emerged on Dec. 9 on the website Ihlayanews. The site’s header contains the disclaimer “nuusparodie waarvan jy hou,” which is “news parody you like,” in the Afrikaans language. We have previously examined several articles labeled as satire, which emerged from the same website. The Ihlayanews Facebook page carries the following disclaimer, clearly labeling Ihlayanews.com “a news parody and satire website”: “Posts on this page and ihlayanews.com website may contain traces of truth. We do all we can to make sure the articles are complete fiction. All articles in our website are meant for mature audience with a dark sense of humour. If you feel offended in any way by our articles and you want to fight, please send us a place and time. Ihlayanews.com is a news parody and satire website.” The Rwamirama hoax was picked up by the Nigerian websites Newsbreak and Talk of NAIJA, and from there, spread among more mainstream websites in the U.K., Europe, India and New Zealand. Many of the reports mentioned in this fact check, including the original Ihlayanews piece, used the same image, giving readers the clear impression that it showed Rwamirama: In reality, that photograph was taken by the photographer Olivia Acland in the Democratic Republic of Congo and published by Reuters news agency in July 2019. The photograph’s original caption read: “A health worker checks the temperature of a man as part of the ebola screening upon entering the General Hospital in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo, July 15, 2019.”
32228	The wife of famous golfer blurted out on the air that she kisses her husband's balls for luck.	Old broadcast legend holds that the wife of a famous golfer blurted out on the air that she kisses her husband's balls for luck.	false	Entertainment, arnold palmer, Radio & TV, Television	The word “balls” has long been used as the basis for double entendre jokes. Because it is widely recognized as a slang term for a portion of the male genitalia (the testicles) but also has some very common and innocuous meanings (e.g., spherical objects used in sports and games; formal social dance gatherings), risqué puns that play on the word can be slipped into contexts where jokes featuring more direct sexual references would be considered inappropriate and unacceptable. (A well-traveled joke-cum-urban legend involving a traffic cop keys on the dual meaning of “balls,” for example.) Broadcast history includes a number of legends involving broadcasters who supposedly sneaked onto the air bawdy puns utilizing the duality of the phrase “kissing balls.” One of the more well-known examples was commonly attributed to comic Bob Hope during his days as a radio personality: Like Howard Stern, Hope was much discussed and quoted morning after each Tuesday night’s show, sandwiched between the Fibber McGee and Molly and Red Skelton shows. The next day, junior-high boys’ rooms across the nation were thick with cigarette smoke and delicious tales of what lascivious lines Hope had allegedly gotten off the night before to “sweater girls” like Jane Russell, Terry Moore, Marie (“The Body”) MacDonald, Anita Ekberg, or Jayne Mansfield. He wisely did nothing to discourage the stories, which turned up in all the columns, fueled by his secret womanizing and bad-boy penchant, as in this exchange (swiftly drowned out by organ music) with Dorothy Lamour when Lamour said, “I’ll meet you in front of the pawnshop,” and Hope, after replying, “Okay,” added, “… and then you can kiss me under the balls.” A similar legend has been attributed to a variety of baseball play-by-play announcers, most notably former Cardinals pitcher Dizzy Dean: Myth has it that during a camera shot of lovers smooching in the bleachers, the late CBS baseball broadcaster Dizzy Dean remarked to partner Pee Wee Reese, “Look at that, Pee Wee, he kisses her on the strikes, and she kisses him on the balls.” The version of this gag with a punchline about “kissing balls for luck” has been associated with a number of professional golf and tennis stars (e.g., Jack Nicklaus, Rod Laver) and put in the mouths of the athletes themselves, their wives, or hapless sports announcers. The most pervasive form of this legend has either golfer Arnold Palmer or his wife innocently blurting out the punchline to Johnny Carson during a Tonight Show appearance in the mid-1960s, prompting a ribald response from the talk show host: The story goes that during a Tonight Show appearance, Arnold Palmer was asked by Johnny Carson if he had any good-luck rituals. The golfer replied, “Yes, my wife kisses my balls.” To which Carson supposedly quipped, “I’ll bet that flutters your putter.”2 Certainly Arnold Palmer’s wife never proclaimed on the Tonight Show that she kissed her husband’s balls for luck: the wife of a pro golfer, not herself a celebrity, simply wasn’t the type of guest Johnny Carson invited to appear on his highly-rated talk show. (Indeed, Arnold Palmer’s representative confirmed to us that Mrs. Palmer was never a guest on that program.) As for Arnold Palmer himself, comedian Jay Leno asked him about the legend in 1994, a few years after taking over as permanent host of the Tonight Show following Carson’s retirement in 1992, and Palmer indicated to him that the story was based on nothing more than a joke deliberately told by Carson: Leno: … apparently Johnny said, “Is there anything your wife does to bring you good luck?” Palmer: No, Johnny said, “Does your wife kiss your balls before you go to play?” and I said, “I don’t even go to bed without pajamas.” Leno: I thought that was a tactful way … but thanks for getting right to the point. So we cleared that up. That’s like a famous one, like Jack Benny’s, “Your money or your life … I’m thinking it over.” I wanted to find out … so it is true? Palmer: There you’ve got it. And I don’t want to hear about it any more. Anecdotal evidence indicates this specific form of the legend was around well before Johnny Carson took over the Tonight Show desk in 1962, as author Ben Alba attributes it to an incident featuring the wife of golfer Sam Snead and occurring during Steve Allen’s tenure as the original Tonight Show host in the mid-1950s: On another night, after interviewing others in the audience, Allen eventually came to a lady and announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is Mrs. Sammy Snead, the wife of the famous golfer.” Everybody applauded very respectfully. Allen asked her, “Did Sammy have any superstitions when he plays golf?” She answered, “Yes, before each game I kiss his balls.” The camera went on Allen. “He just didn’t change the expression on his face,” recalled Steve Lawrence. “And the longer he stayed with it, the longer [director] Dwight [Hemion] stayed on him, and the audience got hysterical. Tears were coming out of [Dwight’s] eyes. The audience got hysterical laughing, and of course, they didn’t stop for about two minutes. And Mrs. Snead realized what she said and blurted, ‘I mean his golf balls!’ Which made it even worse. It was one of the funniest deadpans that I’ve ever seen on live television.” This version is a little more plausible in that it doesn’t require the non-celebrity wife to be herself a guest on a talk show, merely a coincidental audience member. However, an excerpt from a July 1954 newspaper column by journalist Walter Winchell suggests the “kiss his balls” joke was a known broadcast gag even before Steve Allen’s debut as a network TV talk show host: Mrs. Sammy Snead’s dead-pan fo-pah while interviewed by J. Tillman (on the air) still has locals in stitches. Tillman’s comment made it hilariously worse! Presumably the “J. Tillman” mentioned here was John Tillman, then a newscaster and “man of all trades” affiliated with WPIX, Consolidated Edison’s television station in New York, but it isn’t possible to discern from this brief snippet whether Winchell himself actually witnessed the interview he described (or was merely told about it by someone else), whether it was actually aired on television (or was filmed but edited out before broadcast), or whether it even took place at all. (Plenty of reporters over the years published apocryphal broadcast stories that were relayed to them by someone else as genuine news items.) Since nearly all the kinescopes, videotapes, and films of the Tonight Show (both the Steve Allen and Johnny Carson versions) made prior to 1972 were subsequently destroyed, and much of what was broadcast live on television in the 1950s was either never recorded or similarly destroyed afterwards, whether this humorous faux pas ever played out in real life is unlikely to be definitively proved or disproved. But, as with many tales of this nature, the yarn was likely once just a colorful joke until someone once decided to spice it up by presenting it as a true story. For maximum effect and embarrassment, the set-up of the gag requires that the inadvertently-uttered punchline be witnessed by an audience, so setting the anecdote within the framework of a television interview nicely fit the bill.
32269	Eleven states are introducing a truck curfew from 11PM until 6AM.	The “truck curfew” story was one of several fake news items in a subset targeting specific populations on social media, among whom the stories would be heavily shared (and by which the sites involved would rake in traffic and revenue). Along with the motorcycle curfew claim, a similar outlet reported fabricated motorcycle speed bans in August 2016, a FDA e-juice ban in mid-2016, a “two pet maximum” ordinance (suggesting households would be forced to rehome beloved dogs and cats), and a religious content ban on Facebook. Best Source Of Videos was among fake news sites which did not include a disclaimer warning readers about fabricated content.	false	Junk News, associated media coverage, best source of videos	On 13 September 2016 the web site Best Source of Videos published an article reporting that the U.S Department of Transportation is working with eleven states to keep trucks off the road between 11PM and 6AM: 11 states working in conjunction with the U.S Department of Transportation (U.D.O.T) have agreed to implement an ordinance requiring Trucks to adhere to a mandatory curfew between the hours of 11:00 PM – 6:00 AM. The U.S Department of Transportation who admittedly placed pressure on state representatives to implement the ordinance within their respective states are hopeful that representatives across the country will take notice and agree to implement and enforce the curfew within their states by late 2016. According to U.S Department Transportation representative Donald McCarthy, the ordinance was born out of a necessity. According to statistics published on the U.D.O.T website, approximately 7,342 Truck Driver fatalities occurred across the country throughout 2015. This is an almost 20% increase to the 6,120 fatalities reported in 2015. The statistics found on the U.D.O.T website indicate that roughly 47% of Truck Drivers fatalities in both 2014 and 2015 reportedly occurred during the hours of 10:30 PM – 4:45 AM. Representatives from the 11 states that have agreed to the ordinance (South Dakota, Florida, Washington, Arkansas, California, New Hampshire, Indiana, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, & Kentucky), have said that their states will be implementing the ordinance as soon as early [as September 2016] and expect all Trucks Drivers to be in compliance immediately upon implementation. All states have agreed to implement the ordinance by December 3rd 2016. A separate page listed purported fines for truckers not in compliance with the curfew, adding to reader anxiety about the rumor: First Offense: $100 Penalty Second Offense: $250 Penalty & Vehicle Impounded Third Offense: $500 Penalty, Vehicle Impounded, 90-day License Suspension. Fourth Offense: $1,000 Penalty, Vehicle Impounded, 182-day License Suspension The U.S Department of Transportation is hopeful that the ordinance will drastically reduce the amount of fatalities in 2016, however the ordinance is seen as an inconvenience to many owners. The most common concern voiced by drivers within the impacted states is simple- they are responsible citizens who practice Truck safety and they don’t want the government to dictate their transportation decisions. Additional concerns include citizens who rely upon a truck as their primary means of transportation to and from work within the hours of 11:00 PM – 6:00 AM and the multiple rallies that will be impacted. Many drivers that attend popular Truck rallies are traveling via Truck for upwards of several days to attend their destination. Additionally – rally attendees commonly need to travel on their during the mandatory curfew hours. The false claim (riddled with grammar and spelling errors) was just a minor variation of an earlier fake news story about a purported motorcycle curfew that was published in March 2016. No other media outlets reported on what would have been fairly major news for all long-haul truckers, given their multi-state routes.
29293	The National Football League enjoys tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization.	What's true: The NFL League Office used to be a tax-exempt entity. What's false: The NFL's tax exemption applied only to the league office and not to the teams themselves, and the office has since given up its non-profit status.	false	Politics Business, nfl	In September 2014, amid controversy over the National Football League’s (NFL) handling of domestic abuse cases involving some of its players, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced a bill that sought to accomplish what other members of Congress had previously attempted to do: disallow professional sports leagues, including the NFL, from claiming status as tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. This news prompted many of our readers to inquire, “Huh, is the NFL really tax-exempt? How is that?”: The National Football League, like other sports leagues, is a major money-maker. Every year, the NFL pulls in somewhere close to $10 BILLION. The League’s goal is to make $25 BILLION a year by 2027. Here’s the thing: The NFL doesn’t pay Federal taxes. That’s because it is technically classified as a non-profit corporation. It was true that the NFL, a sports league that generates an estimated $9.5 billion in revenue each year, enjoyed the status of being a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, a status that had also applied to the National Hockey League, the PGA Tour, and Major League Baseball (until 2007). But the key to understanding that exemption is realizing that it did not apply to the dozens of individual teams who are football’s primary money-makers, but only to a small part of the NFL, the NFL League Office: Every dollar of income that is earned in the National Football League — from game tickets, television rights fees, jersey sales and national sponsorships — is subject to tax. None of this income is shielded in a tax-exempt entity. Instead, the NFL’s 32 clubs pay tax on all of these revenues. Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs. The league office acts as a trade association for the NFL clubs. In the same way that other trade associations support companies in other lines of business, it establishes rules and standard practices for its members, develops programs to help them run their operations more efficiently and profitably, and promotes the business in the broader community. Trade associations are nonprofit organizations. They don;t engage in any business activity. As a result, they are exempt from being taxed under section 501(c)(6) of the federal tax code. (Charities are exempt under section 501(c)(3); the NFL League Office has never claimed to be a charity.) Because the league office does not receive income from game tickets, television contracts and the like, its tax exemption does not apply to any of the profits earned in the NFL overall. All the money-making activity is conducted by the for-profit, taxable teams. The NFL was first bestowed with its tax-exempt status in 1942, when the league was struggling financially amidst the entry of the U.S. into World War II and (successfully) filed an application for tax-exempt, non-profit status with the IRS. Exactly what the NFL claimed its “nonprofit mission” was back then remains something of a mystery, as the NFL maintained it lost the copy of the application it filed with the IRS in 1942, and the IRS likewise said it was unable to find a copy of the NFL’s original application. Some critics have maintained that the NFL (and the NFL alone, not other sports leagues) was tax-exempt due to a special “loophole” inserted into the tax code in 1966, referencing Section 501(c)(6) of the IRS code, a section that specifically includes “Professional football leagues” along with “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade” as tax-exempt organizations. However, the NFL had been afforded tax-exempt status well before that modification was enacted — the code change was undertaken solely to allow the merger of the NFL and AFL (American Football League) to go forward without fear of an antitrust challenge under either the Clayton Antitrust Act or the Federal Trade Commissions Act: Some have suggested that the league office’s tax-exempt status is the result of a “loophole” in the tax code. This is incorrect. While section 501(c)(6) does mention professional football leagues as exempt organizations, the NFL League Office and other professional sports leagues were exempt from taxes long before this provision was enacted. This provision was inserted in the tax code when the NFL and the AFL merged, simply to ensure that professional football players could continue to receive their pensions from the newly merged league without jeopardizing its existing tax status. Still, some critics maintained that the NFL should never have been granted tax-exempt status in the first place, much less have been allowed to maintain it for so long, as the league was neither an “open” industry nor one that worked towards the greater good of its industry or the public at large: Letting the NFL operate tax-free makes a mockery of the entire concept behind nonprofits, which is that we should give a special break to organizations that do the useful, unprofitable work normal corporations won’t. The problem is that the NFL should never have been considered a trade association in the first place. Love or hate the lobbying they do in Washington, trade groups are supposed to work for the benefit of entire industries, and be open to any business in that industry that would like to join. If you own a butter-making factory, then by God, you can pay dues and become a member of the American Butter Institute. The NFL, in contrast, operates a legally sanctioned sports cartel. It’s not in the league’s interest to let in more teams, because that could hurt the value of existing franchises. If NFL executives were out lobbying on behalf of college football teams or arena football, we might have a different story. But they’re not. The league office is the enforcement wing and rule-making body of a profit-making operation. The same goes for leagues like the NHL, which exist for the express purpose of excluding competition. The deeper issue at play here is that nonprofits exist to do things for the public good — things that for-profit companies generally don’t do. That’s why we give nonprofits a break from the IRS. And it’s why the government should be stingy about which kinds of organizations count and which don’t. We know that sports leagues won’t suddenly disappear if we treat them like normal corporations and ask them to pay, at most, a few million dollars to the government. Major League Baseball certainly hasn’t gone anywhere. The NFL won’t either. In April 2015, the NFL announced the league office would be giving up its status as a tax-exempt organization during the 2015 fiscal year: The National Football League announced it will end its decades-old tax-exempt status, which it said had become a “distraction.” In a letter to team owners, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the move addresses a misunderstanding about the tax status of the $10 billion-a-year organization. The central league office, which coordinates and manages the league’s affairs, is listed as a nonprofit organization, but the NFL’s 32 teams already pay taxes on their profits, as well as on player salaries and merchandise sales. “The effects of the tax-exempt status of the league office have been mischaracterized repeatedly in recent years,” Mr. Goodell said in the letter. “The fact is that the business of the NFL has never been tax-exempt.” Mr. Goodell said that the league office and its management council will file returns as taxable entities for the 2015 fiscal year, adding that the change won’t affect “in any way” the function or operation of the league. However, by forgoing its tax-exempt status, the NFL will no longer be required to disclose the salaries of its commissioner and other top executives. Mr. Goodell received $35 million in salary and bonuses in 2013.
3663	Deal will let more companies make an overdose antidote spray.	More companies could begin making an easy-to-use version of an opioid overdose antidote under a deal announced Thursday by New York’s attorney general.	true	Opioids, Technology, General News, Health, Business, U.S. News	Under the agreement, Emergent BioSolutions will no longer enforce a contract that had allowed it to be the only company to develop a nasal spray version of the drug nalmefene for use as an antidote in a nasal spray. The attorney general’s office said the new agreement came after it found that Adapt Pharma, which has since been bought by Rockville, Maryland-based Emergent, had the exclusive rights to sell the drug using Aptar Pharma’s nasal spray technology. The drug is still in the pipeline and is not on the market, though. “Given the tragic, devastating effects of the opioid crisis, and the urgent need for additional drugs for the emergency treatment of opioid overdoses, my office will do whatever possible to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to the development of additional life-saving opioid overdose reversal drugs,” Attorney General Letitia James said in a written statement. The agreement with James’s office does not affect Narcan, a spray version of the drug naloxone now sold by Emergent. That from is popular for police, firefighters and others to use to try to revive people who are overdosing. It is not subject to an exclusivity agreement on the spray technology. Narcan retails for about $140 for two doses, but the company sells that amount to first responders for $75. More than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000 have been linked to opioids, a class of drugs that includes heroin, fentanyl, and prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and OxyContin. Companies would still need Food and Drug Administration approval before their products could be on the market. There is at least one effort to introduce a generic version of a naloxone nasal spray. Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, announced a grant in 2018 for a nonprofit drug company to develop one. ___ This story has been updated to correct that the drug at the center of the agreement is a spray version of nalmefene that is under development, not naloxone. It also clarifies that Narcan is sold to first responders for a lower-than-retail price.
31487	A man in Florida cut off his own genitals and fed them to an alligator while high on methamphetamine.	Although both sites pose as legitimate news sources and neither carries an open disclaimer identifying their content as satirical, both have published false information in the past. The Florida Sun Post ran a story very similar to this one asserting that a woman had died while taking an “alligator selfie.” Boston Leader posted a story in 2016, again very similar to the present one, about a scuba diver who lost his testicles while attempting to fill his scuba tank with pot smoke.	false	Junk News, alligator, boston leader, fake news	On 14 April 2017, the untrustworthy web site the Florida Sun Post published an article reporting that a man was rushed to the hospital with a highly unusual self-inflicted injury: A 52-year-old man from Florida’s Nassau County is tonight in intensive care after he was seriously injured during what has been described by investigators as a five-day binge on methamphetamine. According to reports by local media, the victim, Mr Nigel Canfield, was found by neighbors ‘writhing on the ground in pain’ outside his property. As his neighbors approached Mr Canfield, they could see he was ‘clutching his groin region’, which seemed to be soaked in blood. “I asked him what he’d done,” commented one of Mr Canfield’s neighbors, who was not named in the article. “He told me he’d hurt himself badly and asked me to call for help”. … Investigators now knew the cause of Mr Canfield’s gruesome injuries, but did not know what had happened to his severed genitals. A team of searchers combed the area and CCTV footage from a number of properties was collected, which ultimately revealed a shocking twist. “In the footage, we can see Mr Canfield alongside the canal that runs behind his property,” said an investigator to a local journalist. “In his hand he’s holding his genitals, we believe. At this point, he spots an alligator on the opposite side of the canal, and he flings his genitals in that direction.” Although the article attributes the information to “reports by local media,” we were unable to locate any reports in Nassau County newspapers describing such an incident or mentioning a “Nigel Canfield” by name. What we found, on the contrary, was that the article had been copied word-for-word from one that appeared on another disreputable web site, Boston Leader, in September 2016. The two sites may be related, though we were unable to establish that with certainty because the domain registrations of both are private.
16270	Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist (for surgeon general).	"Cruz said, ""President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist."" Murthy has a long list of credentials showing he is a health professional, including his position as an attending physician at a leading hospital. Murthy runs a health care reform organization that has pushed for gun control measures, and he has expressed personal support for gun control. But enacting gun control is not Murthy’s main cause and not part of his public surgeon general platform. It’s no secret that Murthy is a political ally for Obama and backs his positions on gun control. But it's inaccurate to say he's an anti-gun activist but not a health care professional."	false	National, Congress, Corrections and Updates, Ebola, Guns, Health Care, Public Health, Ted Cruz,	"The lack of a surgeon general -- the federal government’s top public health spokesperson -- has become a point of contention as the public panics about Ebola. Sen. Ted Cruz said President Barack Obama is to blame for the fact that the position hasn’t been filled. ""Look, of course we should have a surgeon general in place,"" Cruz, R-Texas, said on CNN’s State of the Union Oct. 19. ""And we don’t have one because President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist."" Obama nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy in November 2013, but Senate Republicans blocked his confirmation the following spring because of alleged anti-gun leanings. The National Rifle Association, which scores policymakers’ records on gun rights, announced that it would ding senators who voted for Murthy. CNN’s Candy Crowley pushed back on Cruz’s assertion, noting that Murthy is a doctor. Cruz acknowledged that, but repeated his original point: ""He is a doctor, but where he’s made his name is as a crusader against Second Amendment rights."" It’s up for debate how much of an impact the surgeon general would have in the current Ebola situation. But it’s bogus for Cruz to imply that Murthy -- a graduate of Yale School of Medicine -- is not primarily a health professional. It’s also a bit of a stretch to call Murthy an ""anti-gun activist."" A career in public health Here are some of Murthy’s credentials as a health professional: Received his doctor of medicine degree in 2003 from the Yale School of Medicine; Is a physician and Harvard Medical School instructor at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, one of the best hospitals in the country; Has contributed to vaccine development and cancer research published in several medical journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute; Co-founded TrialNetworks, which provides medical researchers with information technology systems for managing clinical trials; Member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on Prevention, Health Promotion and Integrative and Public Health. Also of note: As a student, Murthy co-founded two India-based public health projects, one while as an undergraduate at Harvard University and the other while at Yale. The first focused on AIDS prevention, and the latter trained women in rural areas to address community health issues. Political leanings Where Murthy starts to get in hot water with Republicans is with Doctors for America, which he founded and currently heads. Doctors for America is a pro-Affordable Care Act health care reform advocacy group. They started out in 2008 as Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama presidential campaign. Doctors for America’s primary cause is health care reform and expanding access to medical services. However, the group also considers gun violence a public health problem, and they have pushed gun control legislation. At a 2013 conference, they held a reducing gun violence workshop. Of particular concern for the NRA is a letter Doctors for America sent to Congress Jan. 14, 2013, following the Sandy Hook school shooting. Murthy’s signature is on the letter. The letter lays out several policy suggestions, including a ban on assault weapon sales, instituting universal background checks and removing laws that prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own a gun -- similar to other Doctors for America proposals. These policy proposals are relatively mainstream and expected from someone who is a political ally to the president. They are also similar to policies supported by other medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the NRA has painted the Doctors for America policy proposals as radical. The NRA and Senate Republicans also made hay with Murthy’s Twitter. In 2012 and 2013, he tweeted occasionally about gun violence -- expressing plainly that he believes in more gun control and that he considers it a health care issue. But does this mean he’d be an advocate for gun control as surgeon general? When we asked Cruz's office for comment, spokesperson Catherine Frazier told us this: ""It is wrong to cherry-pick one line out of context from the argument that Sen. Cruz was making, which is that the president’s nominee is no mere health professional, he is a liberal activist that has indicated he would use his position to further a gun control agenda. Both Republicans and Democrats have voiced concern over the nomination."" In Murthy’s opening statement at his surgeon general confirmation hearing, though, he listed other public health issues as priorities -- including obesity (his stated primary cause), vaccine-preventable diseases and tobacco use. He did not mention gun control. Later in the hearing, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., read aloud one of Murthy’s tweets. In response, Murthy said he would not use the surgeon general role as a ""bully pulpit for gun control."" He added: ""The role is not to be a legislator or a judge. The role is to be a public health educator and to bring the country together around our most pressing health care challenges, and I believe at this point that obesity is the defining public health challenge of our time. That is where I intend to put my primary focus."" Our ruling Cruz said, ""President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist."" Murthy has a long list of credentials showing he is a health professional, including his position as an attending physician at a leading hospital. Murthy runs a health care reform organization that has pushed for gun control measures, and he has expressed personal support for gun control. But enacting gun control is not Murthy’s main cause and not part of his public surgeon general platform. It’s no secret that Murthy is a political ally for Obama and backs his positions on gun control. But it's inaccurate to say he's an anti-gun activist but not a health care professional. Update, Oct. 24, 2014: After we published this item, Frazier, Cruz’s spokeswoman, wrote us to say that we didn’t note in our original report that Cruz acknowledged Murthy was a medical doctor. We have added to the story additional context from the interview with Crowley to make that clear. Still, we continue to believe that Cruz was inaccurate to minimize Murthy’s substantial record as a medical professional -- in ways unrelated to gun policy -- and caricature him as primarily an advocate. Our rating remains the same."
29537	New York voters will be turned away from the polls if they wear shirts endorsing specific candidates, and polling hours have been deliberately shortened to suppress primary votes.	What's true: New York election law prohibits wearing candidate shirts or hats within 100 feet of polling places; primary voting in some counties has historically been shorter than for general election voting. What's false: Voters wearing shirts endorsing any candidates will be denied the right to vote; poll hours were cut anywhere in the state.	false	Politics Ballot Box, 2016 primary, bernie sanders, electioneering	New York’s 2016 primary election was rife with rumors, due in part because New York’s primaries are closed, and also because an early change-of-party deadline had already created a good deal of confusion in an already complicated system. One claim that emerged from the rumors warned Bernie Sanders voters not to wear shirts or hats with his name on them to polling places: Anybody voting for Bernie in New York, please google the phrase “passive electioneering.” New York is one of six states that has laws against passive electioneering. While it’s not always enforced, wearing Bernie pins/stickers/hats/shirts will give you trouble once you go to vote. At best, you’ll just be asked to remove the item, but at worst you could be barred from entering your polling place. Wear literally ANYTHING ELSE. It is true that New York State voting laws contain a provision concerning “passive electioneering“, and rumors about voter suppression due to such laws circulated in 2008 as well. However, there is no reason that enforcement of it would affect only those who were casting ballots for any particular candidate. At the same time, New York State’s Board of Elections was inundated with calls from worried voters about being turned away on a technicality. In a 2008 article, spokesman Bob Brehm was one of several parties who spoke to the Huffington Post about rumors concerning that law: “No one will be thrown in jail over a shirt at the polls,” said state Board of Elections spokesman Bob Brehm, whose office has been bombarded by calls and emails from worried voters. But Brehm noted that anyone wearing a campaign button or T-shirt will be asked to remove the item. Jason Weingartner, executive director of the New York Republican County Committee, said the law is a good one – as long as it’s consistently applied. “It doesn’t put undue pressure on individual voters who are exercising their constitutional rights,” he said. City Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn) agreed, but added that in his experience the law “isn’t as strictly enforced as it should be.” Palyn Hung, a NYCLU staff attorney, said her group is including warnings about the law on its voters’ rights cards. “We’re not saying you’re absolutely prohibited (from wearing campaign paraphernalia), but we’re advising people that they might not be allowed to go in” to the polls, she said. By law, no form of electioneering (passive or otherwise) can occur within 100 feet of a polling place: While the polls are open no person shall do any electioneering within the polling place, or in any public street, within a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances designated by the inspectors of election, to such polling place or within such distance in any place in a public manner; and no political banner, button, poster or placard shall be allowed in or upon the polling place or within such one hundred foot radial. We contacted the Suffolk County Board of Elections to ask whether voters would be denied the right to participate in the state’s primary if they wore a shirt supporting any particular candidate. They told us that in a worst-case scenario, the voter would be asked to turn the shirt inside out, but would still be able to vote without interruption otherwise. We asked about another rumor, specifically whether it was true that in some districts, polls would be opening at noon rather than 6 in the morning (which would prevent many from casting ballots before work). The Board of Elections worker said that the rumor was false for all of Long Island, and that all polling places in Nassau and Suffolk Counties were opening at 6am. It is true, however, that polling hours are shorter for primaries than general elections in some regions of the state: It is a certainty of Primary Day, just as some dejected voters will call their elections boards demanding to know why their polling station hours were changed only to be told that, in fact, they weren’t. Unlike for general elections, when polls are open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. everywhere in New York, state law cuts short voting times in primary elections by six hours in upstate, central and much of western New York, where polls are open from 12 to 9 p.m. Exceptions are New York City, and the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Erie, where polls open at 6 a.m. and close at 9 p.m. like they do for all elections everywhere. Despite rumors to the contrary, the shorter hours were not a new attempt at suppressing votes. This particular primary election clause has been in place in New York state for decades [PDF]: Polls shall be open for voting during the following hours: a primary election from twelve o’clock noon until nine o’clock in the evening, except in the city of New York and the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Erie, and in such city or county from six o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock in the evening; the general election from six o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock in the evening; a special election called by the governor pursuant to the public officers law, and, except as otherwise provided by law, every other election, from six o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock in the evening. According to that law, the noon provision was in effect as early as 1976. A challenge to the law in 1982 was initially successful, but overturned on appeal. There were grains of truth to the rumors circulating among voters ahead of New York’s primaries. Voters were not allowed to engage in “passive electioneering” via shirts, hats, or buttons within 100 feet of a polling place on election Day. However, no one would lose the right to vote, and the law was typically described as “rarely enforced.” A voter might be asked to turn their shirt inside out or leave a hat in the car, but would not be denied at the voting booth. Also, it was false that any counties had primary hours cut; the law dictating a shorter voting window throughout the state of New York was in effect before 1982, and had nothing to do with the 2016 primaries.
7905	Dead meat: Industry faces 'ruin' if slow on adapting to climate change.	The world’s meat industry must adapt to the challenges posed by climate change and growing demand for plant-based alternatives or face ruin, according to a group of investors managing $20 trillion in assets.	true	Environment	Policymakers and investors are turning up the heat on companies across sectors in the run up to global climate talks in Glasgow in November, demanding they assess the risks and put plans in place to mitigate them. Incoming United Nations climate envoy Mark Carney is pushing all companies to use a risk-assessment framework devised by the G20-backed Financial Stability Board’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). As a leading contributor to global carbon emissions, through deforestation and the methane produced by livestock, the meat sector faced a particularly acute risk, but has yet to act in a meaningful way, the FAIRR Initiative investor group said. “Investors can see the inescapable truth for the meat sector is that it must adapt to climate change or face ruin in the years ahead,” said Jeremy Coller, Founder of FAIRR and Chief Investment Officer at Coller Capital. “Conversely, there is also an appetizing prospect of enormous upside if the world’s meat companies shift their protein mix to align with a climate-friendly path.” Of 43 listed meat companies assessed, only two had publicly disclosed a climate-related scenario analysis, FAIRR said. The group, which includes Allianz Global Investors and Aberdeen Standard Investments, said it had created an online scenario analysis model, based on the TCFD framework, that investors could use to assess the risk to their portfolios. A ‘climate progressive’ pathway would see companies grow alternative proteins faster, and shift feed and livestock mix towards less climate-influenced crops and species, while a ‘climate regressive’ pathway would keep things as they are. Following the second pathway would lead combined annual earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization at five of the leading assessed companies to be $8 billion lower by 2050 than if they follow the first pathway, FAIRR said. Among the risks factored into the model are the potential hit to profits of higher electricity costs due to carbon pricing; higher costs of feed due to poor crop yields; and increased livestock mortality due to heat stress. In addition, by 2050 alternative proteins such as plant-based burgers will account for at least 16% of the current meat market, FAIRR’s model forecasts, rising to 62% depending on factors such as technology adoption rates, consumer trends and the potential imposition of a carbon tax on meat.
5964	Lowest US birth rate in 3 decades could pose risk to economy.	Women in the United States gave birth last year at the lowest rate in 30 years, a trend that could weigh on economic growth in the coming decades.	true	United States, Health, Health statistics, Birth rates, North America, Business, Economic growth, U.S. News, Generations, Economy	The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics said Thursday that the number of U.S. babies born last year fell 2 percent from 2016 to 3.85 million, also a 30-year low. Births have fallen for three straight years. The fertility rate dropped 3 percent last year to 60.2 births per 1,000 women ages 15 through 44. An aging society has already weighed on economic growth in the United States in the past decade, with the vast baby boom generation retiring and fewer young people replacing them. Thursday’s data suggests that the trend is likely to continue. Economic growth is generally driven by population growth and worker efficiency, both of which have slowed in the past decade in the United States. Kathy Bostjancic, an economist at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, said that roughly 10 years ago, the number of Americans working or looking for work was growing about 1 percent annually. With birthrates declining, that figure has since fallen to about a 0.3 percent growth rate. That essentially acts as a 0.7 percentage point drag on the United States’ long-run growth. “Demographics have a really powerful impact on the economy,” Bostjancic said. The U.S. economy has grown at a 3 percent average annual rate since World War II. Yet it hasn’t reached that pace for a full calendar year since 2005. The baby boomers first reached retirement age in 2008. The Federal Reserve in March upgraded its short-term economic growth forecast to about 2.7 percent for this year and 2.4 percent in 2019, partly because of the Trump administration’s tax cuts. But the Fed kept its longer-run annual growth forecast at just 1.8 percent, reflecting the demographic headwinds. Aside from fewer workers, an aging society can hold back growth because fewer people are buying homes, cars and other costly purchases. Savings generally rise as people age and prepare for retirement. And as elderly people live longer, they also slow their spending while in retirement, Bostjancic noted. Most economists attribute the low interest rates and low inflation of the past decade, in the United States, Europe and Japan, at least in part to aging. In Japan, where adult diapers outsell those for children, the impact of fewer births has kept growth nearly nonexistent for more than two decades. The economy has picked up recently and enjoyed two straight years of growth, the longest such streak since the late 1980s, before contracting again in the first three months of this year. The U.S. accepts many more immigrants than does Japan, and that influx has boosted population growth. The Labor Department released separate data Thursday showing that last year, there were 27.4 million foreign-born workers in the United States, the most since records began in 2005. Immigrants now make up 17.1 percent of the U.S. workforce. Economic research earlier this year found that U.S. fertility fell sharply roughly nine months before the past three recessions. That suggests that such declines could signal economic downturns. But Kasey Buckles, an economics professor at Notre Dame who conducted the research with two colleagues, said that recent such declines aren’t sharp enough to point to a recession. Instead, she noted that fertility declines over the past three years have occurred mostly among women under 30. Birth rates among older women have risen or held steady. That suggests that the fertility declines largely reflect a drop in unwanted pregnancies since the 2008-2009 recession. Fertility among women of all ages fell sharply in 2008 and 2009, Buckles said, but rebounded quickly for women 30 and over. Separate data from the Guttmacher Institute, a policy organization that tracks reproductive health, shows that unwanted pregnancies have fallen since the Great Recession, Buckles said. “It’s possible that the Great Recession may have been something of a triggering event that caused people to be more intentional about their fertility,” she said. ___ Contact Chris Rugaber on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/ChrisRugaber .
10697	Fish Oil Study Finds Little Benefit for Pregnant Women	Some important questions the story didn’t address: how did researchers measure development/intelligence at 18 months? What effect size were they hoping for? In a few small but significant ways, this story used language that explained the findings more clearly than the competing New York Times story. But both stories whiffed on some important questions. Read both full reviews to learn more.	true		"There was no discussion of costs and we always think there should be – even if inconsequential. Overall, we would have wished for more specificity on the data that was reported. There were glimpses of specifity, as when the story reported: ""The latest study does suggest that some subgroups of women might benefit from fish-oil supplements. For instance, those with a history of clinical depression—and thus are at higher risk of post-partum depression—who took 800 milligrams of fish oil daily lowered their risk of getting depressed after the birth by about 4% compared with those who didn’t take fish oil. However, the difference wasn’t statistically significant because of the small number of women in the study who had been previously depressed, said Dr. Makrides, who is also a professor of human nutrition at the University of Adelaide."" But we were disappointed that the story didn’t disclose how much preterm birth risk was reduced – an issue of vital concern to many readers. A preemie and an induction (covered as a harm but also without any numbers provided) aren’t necessarily equal. On balance, we just didn’t get enough data on benefits. There was no broad discussion of safety or side effects. But one issue was raised that was not in the NYT story: ""Women in the fish-oil group had lower rates of pre-term births, particularly births earlier than 34 weeks of gestation. But, there was a trade-off: More women who took the supplement needed their labor to be induced or had caesarean sections because the babies stayed in the womb longer, said Dr. Makrides."" Because it at least nodded in the direction of a specific potential harm issue, this story gets a satisfactory score on this criterion. Satisfactory job and in little ways superior to the NYT story we reviewed on the same study. For example, the language in this story was much more clear and helpful: ""Several previous studies have shown that eating fish during pregnancy helped in the baby’s brain development and in reducing the risk of post-partum depression. That research, however, typically didn’t involve randomized, controlled studies. Instead, women were asked whether or not they chose to eat fish during pregnancy. It could be the case that eating fish is better than taking fish-oil supplements or that women who opt to eat fish are generally healthier and engage in other health-promoting behaviors, Dr. Oken said. The few trials conducted that separated participants, into a group taking fish-oil supplements and another that didn’t, weren’t well done, because the women often knew if they were getting the supplement, and in some cases there wasn’t a comparison group at all, she said."" There was no disease-mongering in this story. Barely adequate – in that the story at least cited the views of an editorial writer in addition to those of one of the study authors. Again, barely adequate in that the story at least discussed a bit about both DHA supplements and fish consumption – but wrapped this into broader healthy alternatives such as ""all pregnant women should strive for balance and eat a variety of foods, including fish."" The story makes it clear that fish oil is widely available and has been widely used for the described uses. However, it would have been helpful for readers/consumers if the story had discussed the challenge of assessing product purity, quality control, etc. – that it’s not just a simple matter of ""just take fish oil."" Past research on this topic is covered quite clearly. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release."
7227	Davenport gym offers workouts for people with Down syndrome.	The parking lot is packed on a recent weeknight at CrossFit OC3 in Davenport, which looks like a typical warehouse gym from the outside.	true	Iowa, Down syndrome, Health, Lifestyle, Davenport	On this night, however, there’s a 90-minute class being offered unlike any other in the Quad-Cities. A small group of teens, 20- and 30-somethings with Down syndrome is clapping and cheering for each other as they jump on boxes, toss medicine balls and walk on their hands and feet, also known here as a bear crawl. The Quad-City Times reports that gym owners Jessie and Colin Cartee, who partner with GiGi’s Playhouse Quad-Cities to offer this monthly workout, are co-teaching. “They’re miracle workers because they can get them to do things that their parents can’t get them to do,” said Jenn Parsons, program manager at the Down syndrome achievement center in Moline. The couple knows how to keep them engaged. “The biggest thing is just treating them like normal,” said Jessie, 29, a full-time physical therapist. “They know what’s going on; they’re smart.” CrossFit is a fitness regimen that mixes bodyweight exercises, weightlifting and cardiovascular and high-intensity interval training. Since the sport’s inception in 2000, more than 13,000 CrossFit gyms have popped up across the nation, according to crossfit.com. While they modify exercises for participants with Down syndrome, who usually have low muscle tone and decreased strength, the Cartees still set high expectations. If someone is struggling during a certain activity, for example, they won’t be asked to just sit out that part, said Becky Takemoto, who accompanied her 35-year-old daughter, Lisa, to the class. Instead, that person will get a different challenge, “and they’re better for it,” Takemoto said. Plus, they learn by doing, Parsons said, so it helps to keep them moving. Colin, 27, was scared before launching the program because he didn’t know what to expect, but his fear since has disappeared. He now finds the experience very rewarding. “One of our missions is to change the way the world views Down syndrome,” Parsons said. “People are always very impressed by what they can do.” Similar to how he runs any other CrossFit class, Colin keeps the sessions lighthearted. “I want to show it’s for everybody,” he said. During a break in the action last class, Colin transitioned to nutrition and asked each attendee what they ate for breakfast that day. Between meetings, they’re supposed to keep track of meals, water consumption, exercise and general feelings in a journal. Chris Morley, whose son Michael, 27, attends the classes, said the exercise gives him and his friends “something else to talk about.” “It makes him feel like he’s part of something,” she said, noting the limited amount of organized activities for adults with Down syndrome. Drenched in sweat after completing his fair share of squats, burpees and clean and jerks, a pumped Luke Frutiger, 17, of Moline, exchanged high-fives and hugs with anyone in sight. “I made it!” he said to his mom, Julie. “It was hard.” Currently, about eight people from GiGi’s are signed up for CrossFit, but Parsons expects that number to grow. The local chapter of the global organization, which serves about 200 families in the area, received a grant to cover the costs of workout gear. Everything else, including the space and hands-on instruction, is free. “There’s no way we could afford to do CrossFit classes,” Parsons said. “This truly is an amazing community we’ve been let into.” ___ Information from: Quad-City Times, http://www.qctimes.com
39328	An antifreeze-like ingredient in the Swiffer Wetjet kills pets and cause liver failure in children.	Antifreeze in Swiffer Wet Jet Kills Pets, Children	false	Animals, Household, Warnings	Emails warning that antifreeze in the Swiffer Wetjet cleaning solution kills pets and can cause liver or kidney failure in young children have been circulating since the early 2000s — but they’re not based on credible threats. One of the earliest occurrences of the Swiffer Wetjet warning was an email that circulated in 2004. An unknown author writes that someone they know had to put down an adult German shepherd suffering from liver failure after licking Swiffer Wetjet cleaning solution. Baffled after the pet’s death, the owner then supposedly read the label: …He noticed, in very fine print, a warning which stated “may be harmful to small children and animals.” He called the company to ask what the contents of the cleaning agent are and was astounded to find out that antifreeze is one of the ingredients (actually he was told it’s a compound that’s one molecule away from antifreeze). The warning has understandably created quite a bit of panic among pet owners of the years. Much of that worry is not based in reality, but it’s true that Swiffer Wetjet solution can have some adverse health impacts on pets and young children. Manufacturer Procter & Gamble states in a material safety data sheet: Ingestion of moistened sheet by a young child or household pet may lead to impaction of the gastrointestinal tract. A physician or veterinarian should be consulted.” The phrase “impaction of the gastrointestinal tract” is another word for constipation. And, while constipation can create significant adverse health impacts if left untreated, it’s not on-par with liver or kidney failure (as the email warning claims). So, that portion of the rumor is “fiction.” And the claim that Swiffer Wetjet solution contains antifreeze, or a compound that’s “one molecule away” from it is very misleading. The ingredient in question is propylene glycol. And, while propylene glycol is sometimes used as an antifreeze in food and drinks — it’s not the same “antifreeze” as the neon green chemical that’s added to cars. In fact, the CDC explains that propylene glycol is safe for use in food and drinks at limited levels: “Propylene glycol has been approved for use at certain levels in food, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products,” the CDC said. “If you eat food products, use cosmetics or take medications that contain it, you will be exposed to propylene glycol, but these amounts are not considered harmful.” Given all that, we’re calling claims that the Swiffer WetJet kills pets or causes liver and kidney failure “fiction.” Comments
13170	"Hillary Clinton Says Donald Trump ""says organized crime runs wild on reservations."	"Clinton said Trump ""says organized crime runs wild on reservations."" Trump did say that at least twice -- but that was 23 years ago. He later implied such a connection in 2000. But there’s no indication he said that publicly in the past 16 years, including during the 2016 campaign. So Clinton’s use of the present tense -- ""says"" -- and her decision to cite it in the same breath as Trump's ""Pocahantas"" insult, which did occur during the 2016 campaign, is inaccurate."	mixture	National, Gambling, Crime, Race and Ethnicity, Hillary Clinton,	"Speaking in Arizona -- the battleground state with the largest population of Native Americans -- Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of speaking ill of Native Americans. ""Imagine a president who insults Native Americans, says organized crime runs rampant on reservations, and mocks Sen. Elizabeth Warren by calling her Pocahontas again and again,"" Clinton said at a rally in Tempe. (See it here, around 21:25.) We know that Trump does call Warren ""Pocahontas."" We wondered whether Clinton is correct to say that Trump ""says organized crime runs rampant on reservations."" When we searched through Google and Nexis, we found that Trump did make that particular charge in a radio interview, and when he testified to Congress about Indian casinos in 1993. Seven years later during another fight with Indian casinos, Trump was linked to an advertising campaign that warned that drugs and crime would follow the expansion of Indian gaming. But we can’t find any more recent examples -- including during the current campaign -- of Trump saying that organized crime is pervasive on reservations. This calls into question Clinton’s use of ""says"" in the present tense. The Imus interview In the early 1990s, Trump’s business was heavily dependent on his portfolio of Atlantic City casinos. He apparently feared losing business if Indian reservations opened casinos throughout nearby states. So he actively opposed loosening laws that governed where Indian casinos could operate. Part of his argument had to do with stopping the spread of organized crime. Appearing on Don Imus’ radio show on June 18, 1993, Trump said that ""a lot of the reservations are being, in some people's opinion, at least to a certain extent, run by organized crime and organized crime elements, as you can imagine."" At another point in the program, Trump referred to Indian tribes as ""all chiefs and no Indians,"" and mocked tribal citizenship by suggesting that he ""would perhaps become Indian myself."" (Imus, for his part, referred to native Americans as ""drunken injuns."") The comments led the National Indian Gaming Association and the Association on American Indian Affairs to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission. The congressional testimony A few months later, Trump traveled to Washington to testify before the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Indian Affairs on Oct. 5, 1993. At the time, Congress was considering rewriting the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. ""Organized crime is rampant on the Indian reservations,"" he testified. ""If this continues as a threat, it's my opinion that it will ... blow sky-high and it's going to destroy an industry, a legitimate industry."" He added, ""That an Indian chief is going to tell Joe Killer to please get off his reservation is almost unbelievable to me. I think it's obvious that organized crime is rampant -- and I don't mean a little bit -- on Indian reservations."" Then-Rep. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., asked Trump to corroborate his claim. ""I have many incidents,"" Trump said. ""You folks know that."" ""This will be the biggest crime problem in the nation's history,"" Trump also testified. ""I believe you folks have created a monster."" At another point in his testimony, Trump said some Indians seeking casino licenses ""don't look like Indians to me and they don't look like Indians to Indians."" Then-Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., responded, ""Thank God that's not the test of whether or not people have rights in this country, whether or not they have passed your look test."" Miller added, ""I don't believe I've ever heard more irresponsible testimony than I've heard from this panel."" Then-Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., sided with Trump, pointing to ""22 serious allegations"" of wrongdoing in Indian gaming operations, some involving ties to organized crime, that he had culled from published accounts, the Associated Press reported. ""We are close to breaking the back of organized crime, but this is like tossing them a lifeline just as they are drowning,"" Torricelli said. But Jim E. Moody, the FBI’s organized crime and drug operations section chief, dismissed the idea that organized crime had deep tentacles in Indian gaming. He said the agency had found only one case in which ""organized crime forces have been convicted for attempting to control"" Indian gaming. The 2000 advertisements So Trump is on record twice -- once on Imus’ show, once before a House subcommittee -- explicitly saying Indian reservations were tainted by organized crime. And in one additional instance, he implied that drug dealing would follow the expansion of casinos on Indian land. That was in 2000, when Trump’s casino holdings were facing the renewed prospect of competition from Indian casinos. That year, New York state was considering allowing Indian casinos in the Catskill mountains. But TV, newspaper and radio ads sponsored by the opaquely named New York Institute for Law and Safety accused the Mohawk tribe of having mob ties. The Los Angeles Times reported that the institute ""was the brainchild of Trump’s longtime lobbyist and consultant, Roger Stone, and Trump himself was hands-on — not just paying the bills, but signing off on ad copy or radio scripts depicting the tribe as violent criminals and drug dealers. When Stone hired private investigators to dig up dirt on the Mohawks, Trump secretly paid the bills. ‘Roger – This could be good!’ Trump scrawled across one ad that included a picture of hypodermic needles and lines of powder."" The 2016 campaign So Trump explicitly linked Indian reservations and organized crime in 1993, and implied something similar as late as 2000. That’s either 23 years ago or 16 years ago. We couldn’t find any more recent examples in our searches, and when we checked with the Clinton campaign, they did not provide any more recent example, either. Trump has repeatedly called Warren, one of his most outspoken critics, ""Pocahontas"" for once claiming that she had Indian blood. Family lore held that she had Indian ancestry, but later research cast doubt on that conclusion. The Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trump ""says organized crime runs wild on reservations."" Trump did say that at least twice -- but that was 23 years ago. He later implied such a connection in 2000. But there’s no indication he said that publicly in the past 16 years, including during the 2016 campaign. So Clinton’s use of the present tense -- ""says"" -- and her decision to cite it in the same breath as Trump's ""Pocahantas"" insult, which did occur during the 2016 campaign, is inaccurate."
42184	US Surgeon, Who Exposed Clinton Foundation Corruption In Haiti, Found Dead	Q: Did the late surgeon Dean Lorich expose “Clinton Foundation corruption in Haiti”?A: No. Lorich co-authored an article criticizing the medical response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, not the Clinton Foundation.	false	earthquakes,	Q: Did the late surgeon Dean Lorich expose “Clinton Foundation corruption in Haiti”? A: No. Lorich co-authored an article criticizing the medical response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, not the Clinton Foundation. FULL QUESTIONIs this true or not? THANK YOU!!! !FULL ANSWERFor years, conspiracy theories have abounded tying Bill and Hillary Clinton to various deaths.One of the latest examples in that flow of wild tales is a story about a surgeon found dead in New York City who — a slew of questionable websites have falsely claimed — “exposed Clinton Foundation corruption in Haiti.”An article repeating that assertion appeared April 24 on dailypresser.com, leading our readers to ask us about its veracity. Facebook users also rightfully flagged the claim as potentially false.That story originally appeared in December 2017 on yournewswire.com, a website known to distribute fictitious reports. It has been recycled numerous times, as conspiracy theories often are. (It’s worth noting that the website also featured another story, which PolitiFact debunked, claiming that a Haitian official who died was set to “expose the extent of Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice.”)Beneath its bogus headline, the story begins with an accurate detail: Dean Lorich, a 54-year-old respected surgeon, was found dead in his apartment — in December, not in late April, which the date on the dailypresser.com post implies. He was discovered with a knife in his torso, as was widely reported at the time. Lorich’s death was ruled a suicide, the New York City Police Department confirmed in an email to FactCheck.org.But the bogus article goes on to falsely claim that Lorich wrote “an article published by CNN, accusing the Clinton Foundation of widespread corruption and malpractice in Haiti that cost the lives of thousands of children.”Lorich did co-author a Jan. 25, 2010, opinion piece for CNN that offered a grim view of the medical response in Haiti immediately following the devastating earthquake. The natural disaster on Jan. 12, 2010, left hundreds of thousands of people dead and many more injured and homeless in the already impoverished country.The CNN piece describes how David L. Helfet, a doctor and one of the three co-authors, assembled a 13-member squad of medical professionals to travel to Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, on a private plane within 24 hours of the earthquake. But the team encountered delays flying into the capital and, when it finally did get to Haiti, the doctors found the medical effort on the ground was ill-equipped, understaffed and poorly coordinated. The doctors’ article refers to the Clintons once and only in passing.“The difficulties in getting in — despite the intelligence we had from people on the ground and Dr. Helfet’s connections with Partners in Health and Bill and Hillary Clinton — only hinted at the difficulties we would have once we arrived,” they wrote.At no point did the doctors accuse the Clintons of wrongdoing, corruption, or of being the reason for the response’s shortcomings. Nor did they do so in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that they wrote that same month. In the Wall Street Journal, the doctors did call the U.S. response an “embarrassment” and said they received “virtually no support from any branch of the U.S. government, including the State Department.” Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time. But Helfet told us by phone that their writings were not targeted at the Clinton Foundation or at anyone in particular. “It was against the whole (response) organization and the waste of resources and the lack of organization in Haiti,” said Helfet, director emeritus of the Orthopedic Trauma Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York and a longtime friend of Lorich.Lorich was a fellow under Helfet at the Hospital for Special Surgery between 1995 and 1996, Helfet said. In 2002, Lorich returned to the hospital and became the associate director of the Orthopedic Trauma Service, where he worked until his death. Helfet, who called the conspiracy theory “ludicrous,” said he and Lorich talked nearly every day and that they hadn’t discussed the issues they faced in Haiti in years. He also said Lorich wasn’t political.“He was totally apolitical,” Helfet said. “He took care of a lot of people across the political spectrum that were injured in New York and he would get invited to political events — that was the extent of his political involvement.”The false story about Lorich also said the doctor voiced “his concerns to Hillary Clinton directly.”An email released by the State Department and published on WikiLeaks does show that Lorich expressed his concerns about the medical response in an email that was forwarded several times, eventually to Clinton. But what he wrote there is similar to the doctors’ published accounts; it likewise makes no mention of the Clintons or their foundation or corruption.The Clintons were involved in the response and recovery following the earthquake, in a variety of ways. In addition to Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state, Bill Clinton was the United Nations special envoy for Haiti and co-chaired the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission.The Clinton Foundation also spent millions in Haiti for efforts such as opening a cholera treatment center, assisting farmers and improving schools. But over the years, the Clintons’ work received mixed reviews in Haiti. Some Haitians lamented that Clinton-backed projects did not yield the number of jobs expected and that luxury hotels built seemed to mostly benefit foreign investors and the wealthy. Supporters pointed to other Clinton-associated projects, such as one that energized the peanut-farming industry, as indicators of progress.Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false stories flagged by readers on the social media network.Eachempati, Soumitra R., et al. “Haiti: Obama’s Katrina.” The Wall Street Journal. 27 Jan 2010.Grimpel, John. Lieutenant, New York City Police Department. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 17 May 2018.Helfet, David L. Director emeritus, the Orthopedic Trauma Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 17 May 2018.Lorich, Dean. Associate director of the Orthopedic Trauma Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery and New York Presbyterian Hospital. Email sent to Christopher Born, Chief of Orthopedic Trauma at Brown University. 22 Jan 2010.Lorich, Dean, et al. “Doctors: Haiti medical situation shameful.” CNN.com. 25 Jan 2010.Pallardy, Richard. “Haiti earthquake of 2010.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed 16 May 2018.Sullivan, Kevin and Rosalind S. Helderman. “How the Clintons’ Haiti development plans succeed — and disappoint.” The Washington Post. 20 Mar 2015.“US Surgeon, Who Exposed Clinton Foundation Corruption In Haiti, Found Dead.” Dailypresser.com. 24 Apr 2018.
7897	Rattled world 'at war' with coronavirus as deaths surge in Italy, France.	Hundreds of millions of people faced a world turned upside down on Wednesday by unprecedented emergency measures against the coronavirus pandemic that is killing the old and vulnerable and threatening prolonged economic misery.	true	Health News	“This is a once-in-a-hundred-year type event,” said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, warning the crisis could last six months as his nation became the latest to restrict gatherings and overseas travel. The fast-spreading disease that jumped from animals to humans in China has now infected over 212,000 people and caused 8,700 deaths in 164 nations, triggering emergency lockdowns and injections of cash unseen since World War Two. “We have never lived through anything like this,” Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told a parliament chamber nearly empty with more than 90% of lawmakers staying away and a masked and gloved cleaner wiping handrails between speeches. “And our society, which had grown used to changes that expand our possibilities of knowledge, health and life, now finds itself at war to defend all we have taken for granted.” There was particular alarm in Italy, which has experienced an unusually high death rate - nearly 3,000 from 35,713 cases. It has called on student and retired doctors to help an overwhelmed health service. On Wednesday Italy reported 475 new deaths, the biggest increase since the outbreak started and the highest one-day total posted by any nation. France also reported a spike in deaths - rising by 89, or 51%, to a total of 264 in 24 hours. Around the world, rich and poor alike saw lives turned upside down as events were cancelled, shops stripped, workplaces emptied, streets deserted, schools shut and travel minimized. “Cleanliness is important, but here it’s not easy,” said Marcelle Diatta, a 41-year-old mother of four in Senegal, where announcements rang from loudspeakers urging people to wash hands but water was often cut off in her suburb. The crisis has created a wave of solidarity in some countries, with neighbours, families and colleagues coming together to look after the most needy, including dropping supplies at the doors of those forced to stay inside. Around Spain, applause and the banging of pots ring out in evenings at 8 p.m. as self-isolating neighbours express gratitude to health services. In several countries, stores began reserving special times for elderly shoppers to help keep the most vulnerable away from those who might infect them. The United States, which closed its border with Canada except for essential travel, was sending its two military hospital ships - Comfort and Mercy - to New York’s harbor and the West Coast, while the Swedish military is setting up a field hospital near Stockholm. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the country was on wartime footing and invoked special powers through the Defense Production Act to rapidly expand manufacturing of masks and protective equipment in short supply. Spooked by a seemingly inevitable global recession, rich nations are unleashing billions of dollars in stimulus to bolster economies, aid health services, provide loans to tottering businesses and help individuals with mortgages and other routine payments. Extra cash from governments and central banks failed to calm markets: Stocks and oil prices reeled again, with European shares down nearly 5% to approach seven-year lows and major U.S. indexes off by 9% and down 30% from highs reached last month. Taking their cue from the waning of the coronavirus in China, where it emerged late last year, optimists predict a bounce back once the epidemic also passes its peak elsewhere - hoped to be within months. Pessimists are factoring in the possibility of recurring outbreaks and years of pain, some even whispering comparisons with the Great Depression of the 1930s. On the ground, millions of workers fear for their jobs. In the airline industry, tens of thousands have already been laid off or put on unpaid leave. The U.S. state of Nevada, home to the casinos of Las Vegas, effectively shut its entire leisure industry overnight. The sector employs 355,000 people - a quarter of all jobs in the state. In China, the world’s second-biggest economy after the United States, the jobless rate rose to 6.2% in February, the highest since records began, and up from 5.2% in December. The majority of Chinese businesses and factories – apart from the original epicentre in Hubei province – have reopened, but it is unclear how many workers and staff have actually returned. The crisis has exacerbated some long-running geopolitical frictions. A European Union document accused Russian media of stoking panic in the West via misinformation over the disease, while China withdrew credentials of American journalists at three U.S. newspapers in a row in part over coverage of the coronavirus. Among the latest cultural events to be cancelled was the 50th anniversary of Britain’s Glastonbury music festival. With most major sports events now cancelled, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was under increasing pressure to reconsider the summer Games in Japan. Several athletes, including reigning Olympic pole vault champion Katerina Stefanidi, said athletes’ health was at risk as they juggled training with coronavirus shutdowns. “We all want Tokyo to happen but what is the Plan B if it does not happen?” Stefanidi told Reuters. ($1 = 0.9125 euros)
35132	Using a hair dryer to breathe in hot air can cure COVID-19 and stop its spread.	A viral video that claims breathing hot air from a hair dryer could cure COVID-19 demonstrates a basic and dangerous lack of understanding about science.	false	Junk News, COVID-19	Viral misinformation about the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic was rampant in mid-March 2020. One example was a video created by “futurologist” Dän Lee Dimke who claimed that sticking a blow dryer in your face or sitting in a sauna and breathing in hot air would kill the coronavirus. The information given by Dimke in the video is not just false, but potentially dangerous. If you believe you’re infected with the virus, you should isolate yourself from other people and contact a medical professional. We asked Google, which owns YouTube, what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of misinformation during the ongoing pandemic. We received no response in time for publication, but the link to the video we sent was removed. That said, copies of the video, or videos that repeat the false claim, remain live on the platform as of this writing. Many of the videos contain the logo of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), potentially giving the false impression that the information was sourced from the government agency on the front lines of battling the disease.
9835	Magnet Therapy May Help Stroke Survivors Recover	Low-hanging fruit this story could have snatched include: With that being said, we thought the story overall offered an informative account of the study and excelled at providing context. We wish more stories about new treatments made the effort to quote four independent experts. Brain damage caused by stroke affects millions of patients and their caregivers. These people need accurate, unbiased information when making decisions about care and rehabilitation. Journalists can help provide that information by carefully vetting studies about new treatment approaches and seeking out the opinions of multiple independent experts–like this story did.	true	Stroke,WebMD	The story notes that TMS equipment is expensive and requires specialized training. However, this story didn’t put a dollar figure on the cost of the machine as Reuters did. And neither this story nor its Reuters counterpart attempted to quantify the costs of treatment for patients and insurers. The story tells us that patients receiving TMS improved “16.3% immediately following treatment and by 22.6% two weeks later.” Fair enough. But it didn’t tell us whether that type of improvement represents a meaningful change in patients’ ability to function and care for themselves. Reuters, by contrast, cautioned that “it’s not clear what the amount of improvement they observed would mean for patients in their daily lives.” We were also confused by this story’s use of the word “neglect” without defining what the term means clinically. Better to leave it out entirely or give a complete explanation of the meaning, as Reuters did. Although TMS used for depression is associated with a low rate of adverse effects (mostly headache), we don’t know if other problems might emerge when using it on patients who’ve had a stroke. The story didn’t discuss the potential for adverse effects or mention whether any adverse effects were seen in this study. Any new treatment – however theoretically safe – may cause unexpected harms in such a clinically fragile population. That is one of the limitations of a study of such a small number of highly selected individuals. We would’ve appreciated some stronger cautions about the very small size of this study (only 20 patients) and the danger of drawing firm conclusions from such a tiny sample. Overall, however, we were impressed with the expert comments that generally sought to restrain expectations for the technology. Examples: The story didn’t exaggerate the challenges faced by individuals who’ve had a stroke, but it would have been helpful to know how many stroke sufferers experience the “neglect” symptoms discussed in the story. The Reuters piece helpfully explains that about half of stroke sufferers experience these symptoms. The story had excellent sourcing and included comments from four different experts. The story says that “neglect” symptoms after stroke are usually treated with cognitive and physical therapy, but that this is “often not enough to make a meaningful improvement.” Later, however, it quotes an expert who says that this kind of rehab alone “could and should be enough to treat this kind of stroke.” Well, which one is it? We’ll give the story credit for addressing this criterion, but wish there had been a bit more clarity on the effectiveness of standard rehab. The study is described as “preliminary” and the treatment is called “not ready for prime time.” We think readers get the idea that this treatment is not available for stroke rehabilitation outside of a research setting. The story quotes an expert who calls TMS “a very novel treatment” for stroke, which is accurate. However, the story could have given more details about TMS’s more established use as a treatment for depression. The story alludes to this use, but doesn’t convey that depression is what TMS was originally designed to treat and where it is most frequently employed. This story was not based solely or largely on a press release.
13106	"Donald Trump Says he ""won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."	"Trump tweeted that he ""won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."" Neither Trump nor his allies have presented any evidence of widespread illegal voting. In reality, studies have consistently shown that voter fraud is nowhere near common enough to call into question millions and millions of votes. Indeed, the ability to carry off such a far-reaching conspiracy — potentially involving millions of people over the course of several months and without being noticed by election administration officials, many of them in states controlled by Republicans — is ridiculously illogical."	false	Immigration, National, Elections, Donald Trump,	"President-elect Donald Trump provoked a firestorm on social media with a series of tweets on Nov. 27 that questioned the integrity of the balloting that elected him president. In one tweet, Trump wrote, ""In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."" In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally He later tweeted, ""Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!"" These tweets offer a cornucopia of assertions we’ve already debunked, including the notion that Trump won the Electoral College in a ""landslide"" (False), that he won the popular vote (), and that 3 million votes were cast by illegal aliens (False). We found zero evidence for Trump’s charge that he ""won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,"" and a lot of reasons to conclude that it didn’t happen. The current status of the vote Almost three weeks after Election Day, the ballots are mostly — but not entirely — counted. The most comprehensive vote-tracking analysis is published by David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. As of noon on Nov. 28, according to Wasserman’s calculations, Hillary Clinton led Trump by roughly 2.24 million votes -- specifically, 64,654,483 for Clinton, 62,418,820 for Trump, and 7,192,036 for other candidates. Late ballot tabulations in some states are still trickling in -- many of them states, such as California, where Clinton fared overwhelmingly well. For this reason, Wasserman tweeted on Nov. 26 that Clinton seems to be on track to win the popular vote by 2.5 million to 2.7 million votes, or a margin of about 2 percentage points over Trump. So to erase Trump’s popular-vote deficit, there would need to be almost 3 million votes for Clinton that were cast illegally. And that assumes that all 3 million of these ""illegal votes"" went to Clinton and not a single one went to Trump. That’s a really big number. For a sense of scale, 3 million votes is more than were cast for any presidential candidate in 36 states plus the District of Columbia. And 3 million people is more than a quarter of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States — a group that InfoWars specifically singled out as the source of 3 million illegal votes. A lack of evidence As we’ve previously noted, conspiracy-minded websites — notably Alex Jones’ InfoWars — have posted articles claiming that 3 million votes in the presidential election were ""cast by illegal aliens."". As evidence of its claim, InfoWars’ headline referred to a report from VoteFraud.org and tweets from Gregg Phillips, whose Twitter profile says he’s the founder of VoteStand, a voter fraud reporting app. However, there is no report from VoteFraud.org, and Phillips told PolitiFact he is not affiliated with that website. Tweets by Phillips on Nov. 11 and Nov. 13 said that ""we have verified more than 3 million votes cast by non-citizens"" and that Phillips had ""completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations. Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team."" Phillips has not responded to PolitiFact’s queries for additional information. He told us previously that he has chosen not to release more information because he is still working on analyzing the data and verifying its accuracy. Phillips would not say what the data is or where it came from, or what methodology he used. He said he would release the information publicly once he is finished. On a Nov. 28 conference call with reporters, Trump spokesman Jason Miller mentioned two pieces of evidence that Trump had also cited earlier in the campaign. One was a 2012 Pew Center on the States study whose author denies that it found any evidence of voter fraud. The other was a 2014 article posted on the Monkey Cage blog hosted by the Washington Post; it prompted multiple articles by other political scientists casting doubt on its accuracy. In any case, neither study offers analysis of the 2016 electoral returns. True the Vote, a group that has argued that election fraud is widespread, gave Trump’s comment rhetorical support but did not provide specific evidence. Backing from elected Republicans was scarce. One GOP senator, James Lankford of Oklahoma, said on CNN's New Day, ""I don't know what (Trump) was talking about on that one."" He added that while there may be irregularity ""on the edges,"" he has ""not seen any voter irregularity in the millions."" Voter fraud uncommon Other research suggests that voter fraud is not widespread. • News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011. • A report by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that most cases of noncitizens voting were accidental. ""Although there are a few recorded examples in which noncitizens have apparently registered or voted, investigators have concluded that they were likely not aware that doing so was improper,"" reads the 2007 report. • In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration started an effort trying to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the rolls. Meanwhile, ProPublica, an investigative journalism project, tweeted that ""we had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was ‘rigged’ "" and ""no evidence that undocumented immigrants voted illegally."" Experts unconvinced Experts dismissed the substance of Trump’s tweet. ""This is patently false,"" said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political scientist. ""There would need to be a massive national conspiracy and coordination effort to do this, and illegal aliens would need to be on the voter rolls in states across the country months earlier to be eligible to vote. It is also very convenient the estimated fraudulent vote is just enough to give Trump the popular vote. Not likely a coincidence."" Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz added, ""If Mr. Trump seriously believes that there was significant vote fraud in any state, he should file a formal protest and ask for an investigation. He does not — he is simply repeating baseless claims."" And University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket said the claim is short on basic logic. ""It’s bizarre to claim that Clinton had the ability to generate millions of illegal voters but not use them to help her win the Electoral College,"" Masket said. Our ruling Trump tweeted that he ""won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."" Neither Trump nor his allies have presented any evidence of widespread illegal voting. In reality, studies have consistently shown that voter fraud is nowhere near common enough to call into question millions and millions of votes. Indeed, the ability to carry off such a far-reaching conspiracy — potentially involving millions of people over the course of several months and without being noticed by election administration officials, many of them in states controlled by Republicans — is ridiculously illogical. Editor's note, Nov. 28, 5:00 p.m.: This post has been updated to include references to Miller's conference call. The rating remains unchanged.
7757	Poland's wild boar cull prompts protests.	Hunters and activists have united against the Polish government’s decision to cull most of Poland’s wild boar population in an effort to curtail health risks related to African swine fever (ASF).	true	Environment	“There is no scientific basis for this, it is barbarism,” said Katarzyna Karpa-Swiderek, a spokeswoman for animal rights organization World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Poland. “We broadly do not protest against hunting wild boars, but in our opinion the scope of the proposed cull is excessive.” Estimates of Poland’s wild boar population vary widely and range from at least 200,000 to one million. In December, the government called on all licensed hunters to kill most of the wild boar population in order to prevent the further spread of African swine fever. ASF is a highly contagious disease that affects pigs and wild boar and has spread in Eastern Europe in recent years. It does not affect humans. The European Commission said on Thursday that a wild boar cull is the only appropriate way of dealing with the spread of African swine fever, Polish state news agency PAP reported on Friday. Hunters, however, branded this an excessive measure. “It is not possible to call it anything other than an animal slaughter. A significant number of hunters do not approve of these activities (the wild boar cull),” said hunter Wojciech Metler. Thousands of opponents of the cull have shown their support by changing their Facebook profile photos to ones that feature an image of a wild boar. Poland’s veterinary officials approved a plan to kill 185,000 wild boars in the 2018/2019 hunting season. In 2018 the Supreme Audit Office concluded most farms did not implement sufficient preventive measures to stem the spread of the disease, such as installing disinfection mats.
13666	"Donald Trump Says the U.S. election system is ""rigged."	Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. election system is rigged. He has cited examples of voter fraud, which is extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election. While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election.	false	National, Elections, Donald Trump,	"Donald Trump preemptively challenged the results of the November presidential election, claiming in media appearances and rallies that the entire system is ""rigged."" Trump’s charges of election fraud are not new to his campaign. He’s tweeted about dead voters delivering President Barack Obama’s victory in 2012, floated charges about multiple voting in the primaries, and suggested that undocumented immigrants ""just walk in and vote"" in some polling places. Trump revived these theories as he fell behind Hillary Clinton in the polls (which, according to his surrogates, are ""skewed""). ""Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,"" he said at an Aug. 1 rally in Columbus, Ohio. ""People are going to walk in and they're going to vote 10 times, maybe, who knows?"" ""I know last time, you had precincts where there were practically nobody voting for the Republican (Mitt Romney),"" he said to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that same night. ""I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we better be careful because that election is going to be rigged and I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us."" This is a serious allegation that challenges the integrity of the election, so we asked the Trump campaign to elaborate. We didn’t hear back. When Trump has offered specifics — people voting though they’re ineligible, people voting multiple times, people impersonating dead voters — he’s actually talking about voter fraud, committed by individuals and committed very rarely. Stolen 2012 election? To sow doubts about the 2016 election, Trump pointed to alleged rigging in 2012. While some precincts in Philadelphia exclusively voted for Obama in 2012, it’s grasping for straws to claim this is evidence for election rigging. Defending Trump, Fox’s Sean Hannity pointed to a Philadelphia Inquirer article that showed 59 precincts in inner-city Philadelphia in which ""Mitt Romney did not get a single vote, not one."" But Hannity leaves out that the same article also stated that ""such results may not be so startling after all."" The Inquirer wrote that 75 to 80 percent of voters in big cities like Philadelphia identify as Democrats, and 93 percent of African-Americans voted for Obama. When the paper sought out the few registered Republicans living in the 59 districts, it found that several had moved, others didn’t realize they were registered with the party, and others confirmed that they had voted for Obama despite their political identification. Election inspector Ryan Godfrey, an independent who was a Republican in 2012, called Hannity’s claims ""absurd and personally insulting."" After all, Godfrey argued, there’s a paper trail for the ballots in Philly and no evidence that he and the other election officials had risked prosecution to collude against Romney. Plus, CNN’s Brian Stelter countered, ""a Google search would show that there are also precincts in other states, like in Utah, where Obama did not get a single vote."" Trumped up charges of voter fraud Trump’s claims of voter fraud, which echo arguments for voter ID laws, are also not reflective of reality. While the U.S. Government Accountability Office has acknowledged that it’s difficult to estimate how often voter fraud happens based on reported incidents, the evidence for rampant fraud is lacking. News 21 found just 150 alleged cases of double voting, 56 cases of noncitizens voting, and 10 cases of voter impersonation across all elections from 2000 to 2011. Many of these never led to charges, while others were acquitted or dismissed. Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on voter fraud, found an even smaller number: 31 credible incidents out of more than 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014. Put it in another way: You’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to find voter fraud. When voter fraud does occur, it’s not always intentional. Multiple studies have traced known cases not to willful deception but to clerical errors or confusion. For example, one case of a dead person voting (Alan J. Mandell) happened because a poll worker accidentally marked his name instead of the man who actually cast the ballot, Alan J. Mandel. Similarly, in one of just five cases of a noncitizen voting between 2000 and 2004, a permanent resident was told he was eligible and given a voter registration form by a DMV clerk when renewing his license. So, given the rarity of occurrence, the lack of intent, and a federal penalty of a $10,000 fine or up to five years in prison, experts say it would be extremely difficult to rig an election through the ways Trump has suggested. ""I'd like to see him try to vote 10 times on Election Day. It would be virtually impossible and a knuckle-headed way to try to corrupt an election,"" said Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Rutgers University who wrote The Myth of Voter Fraud. To sway an election, an army of voters would have to visit multiple polling locations each, know the names and addresses of the people they were impersonating and produce fake ID’s or forge their signatures — plus be willing to commit perjury the entire time. ""Campaigns don’t pay people to pretend to be people they’re not. That’s too stupid,"" said Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and author of Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, a book about electoral fraud. How to rig an election From New York’s Tammany Hall to the motto of ""vote early and often"" popularized in Chicago, election fraud is certainly part of U.S. political history. But election rigging today is constrained to local elections, as implementing a national election heist would be extremely difficult. ""Given the decentralized nature of our elections, there would be no single way to throw the results,"" said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. ""Instead you’d have to target enough states to make a difference in the Electoral College."" The first way is through buying votes, especially absentee ballots. Berry’s Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, which refers to the prize a Louisiana woman received for her vote, documents several cases of local campaigns and political machines purchasing votes, often from nursing homes and poor communities, in exchange for cash, whiskey or a paved driveway. This is possible on a small scale because of a ""corrupt deal"" between local election officials and ""family fiefdoms"" with deep roots in municipal politics, Berry said. Presidential elections, on the other hand, are under much more scrutiny than sheriff races and subject to federal prosecution. For that reason, and given how complicated organizing the conspiracy across different communities would be, Berry says it’s not probable that a national campaign or outside group would take the risk to buy a few votes. The second way of rigging elections is through tampering with voting machines (looking at you, Olivia Pope of Scandal). Trump suggested this in 2012 when he warned that machines were switching Romney votes to Obama. ""That’s not an indication of the system being rigged. That’s an indication that it’s lost its calibration,"" said Pamela Smith of Verified Voting, which monitors technological issues in elections. She added that Trump likely was referring to voter reports of this common issue of overuse, while election rigging ""would require you not noticing."" (Smith couldn’t think of any examples of machines being tampered with and said, from her research, issues usually result from programming errors.) Ballots cast on some electronic voting systems, however, don’t have a paper trail, meaning the votes are not verifiable. Hackers could theoretically alter the results. But this would also require a potential wrongdoer to physically access the machines on Election Day and serious coordination to circumvent all the security and auditing measures in place before, during and after voting, said Smith, adding, ""There are very few paths in the present scenario to flip something off the radar."" There’s the added security of Pennsylvania law, which mandates post-election vote audits of randomly selected precincts. The majority of precincts in Virginia rely on paper ballots. And Florida, where use of electronic machines is fairly limited to providing accessibility for voters with disabilities, has a Republican governor (Gov. Rick Scott, a Trump supporter) and secretary of state (who oversees elections). ""Technological rigging or the more classic stuffing of the ballot box are not the kind of things that could be easily done or on the kind of scale that could affect an election,"" Hasen said. ""Trump’s unsupported allegations are dangerous and fantasy."" Our ruling Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. election system is rigged. He has cited examples of voter fraud, which is extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election. While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election."
11098	Actelion Sleep Aid Does Well In Midstage Clinical Trial	This is a short story about a possible new drug treatment for insomnia. The most helpful information in the story is that the drug has a novel mechanism, and is currently being tested. While of interest, the story failed to provide sufficient information for readers because it is lacking in independent expert opinions about the value (to patients) of the new drug, discussion of potential harms, as well as failure to mention behavioral treatment for insomnia. The details about the benefit from the use of this drug come from a single small study of selected individuals and the information is derived from company sources. (See our primer on some of the pitfalls of reporting news from scientific meetings.) Having some individuals knowledgable about the problem of insomnia comment about the some of the strengths and weakness of this potential medication would have greatly improved this story.	true		"Costs were not discussed but this drug is still in development. The story reported the benefit (increased time spent sleeping compared with a placebo) as ‘significant’, though the only statistically significant result contained in the company presentation about this product was something termed ""increased sleep efficiency"". Although the data on total sleep time was greater for those taking the 200 and 400 milligram dose of this drug than placebo, it is not clear from the way the information was presented that it represented a statistically significant increase. The story mentioned that ‘few side effects were reported’. While it is true that ‘few’ is a subjective term, it would have been useful for readers to know that ~13% of those taking the 200 milligram dose experienced side effects; further – in order to have some idea about how to value the side effects, it would have been helpful to list that the side effects included fatigue, dry mouth, headache, and drowsiness. The story reports on a randomized clincial trial, states that it was performed by the drug company, gives the number treated and the main result. It is worth noting that the data on the main result differs from the information available at the company website. The results presented in the story: ""people taking a 200 milligram dose of almorexant slept 59 minutes longer than those on placebo""; the increased sleep efficiency reported on the website for those taking the 200 milligram dose was 31.4 minutes. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story did not appear to make use of any independent sources of information regarding the clinical efficacy of this drug. While the story mentioned one other category of drug used in the treatment of insomnia, it did not mention that a range of treatment options exist including lifestyle changes that may be of benefit. While the story did not explicitly state that this drug is not yet available, the first sentence makes it quite clear this drug is still in development and in the process of undergoing clincial trials. This story appropriately reported that the drug described was a new drug with a novel mechanism. The story is about what appears to be a corporate-sponsored presentation at the World Sleep Congress. While this is not technically a news release, readers should know that it is somewhat comparable. Until more work is done and peer-reviewed, they may not be getting the entire picture. See our primer on some of the pitfalls of reporting news from scientific meetings."
24086	"Frederica Wilson Says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing."	Frederica Wilson says she banned dirty dancing	true	Candidate Biography, Children, Education, Pop Culture, Florida, Frederica Wilson,	"State Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Gardens Democrat running for the congressional seat now held by Kendrick Meek, is making an unusual boast about her accomplishments as a school board member: She says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing. ""Here is what she says on her campaign Web site: ""As a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board, Senator Wilson introduced reading labs and an African-American history curriculum into our schools, as well as a dirty-dancing ban in our community. ""She reiterated that claim in a March 9, 2009 press release announcing her campaign and on her Facebook page -- so there's no doubt she's against kids engaging in nasty booty moves. Pelvic thrusts aren't usually mentioned in congressional campaigns, so we jumped at the chance to explore whether she truly had introduced a ban. First, some background on dirty dancing. To many, the phrase conjurs up memories of the 1987 movie starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Remember the story? Grey plays a good girl nicknamed ""Baby"" who is on a family vacation at a Catskills resort. She stumbles upon a room where the working-class crew -- including Johnny, a beer-swigging-shirt-unbuttoned dance instructor played by Swayze -- are grinding their scantily clad bodies wrapped around each other in Do You Love Me. Johnny teaches Baby to dance -- among other, ahem, lessons -- and they fall in love. She learns some choreographed dance moves that are more of the gaze-into-each-other's-eyes variety than the make-your-grandma-blush type. In one famous scene, he lifts her by her hips as she is dripping wet in a lake. A decade later, the Miami-Dade school board took up the topic. There was no mention of the movie in the articles we found about the mid 1990s discussions, but there was plenty of harrumphing about kids dancing in sexually suggestive ways. ""I've seen it in little tiny elementary school children. I couldn't take it, "" Wilson said in a Nov. 19, 1995, Miami Herald article which stated that she asked school administrators to hold a meeting on the topic. ""I don't think it sets a good standard for our district. We cannot allow (the dancing kids) to degrade the school district or themselves."" In a 1997 op-ed, school board member Wilson said she was considering introducing a ban. ""It has been called 'dirty dancing,' but it's really nothing more than simulated sexual intercourse. Outrageously, too many folks involved with Dade County's public schools -- including teachers, administrators, and parents who ought to know better -- call it 'cheerleading,' 'marching,' or other types of school-sponsored student performance. Whatever it's called, it's vulgar and degrading. It has no place in our schools, on our playgrounds, or in our students' lives. So, imagine my disgust and dismay when I marched in Dade's Martin Luther King Day Parade earlier this year and saw Dade high school cheerleaders bumping and grinding their way down Martin Luther King Boulevard."" In a July 1997 news article, she was quoted saying, ""I've seen horrendous behavior. I saw a band member bend over and a female majorette come from behind and simulate actual intercourse. I almost passed out, but people in the stands were applauding. ""Rather than calling it a ""dirty dancing ban,"" it was known as ""Guideline 25B: Student dance performances and/or productions: Procedures for promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment. ""The board's explanation of the rule said that cheerleading, dance and band performances at events, performances or educational settings ""are essential to the establishment and maintenance of an atmosphere that fosters cultural and artistic exchanges. However the board recognizes that certain modes of dance are inappropriate, unsuited for immature audiences and may offend the community's sense of propriety rather than foster appropriate conduct that is consistent with school board rules and state statutes."" School board documents said the rule prohibited performances that depicted ""actual or simulated sexual intercourse (normal or deviate), masturbation, excretory functions and actual lewd exhibition of genitalia."" It's clear from news coverage and school board minutes that Wilson was the driving force behind the ban. School board minutes for the July 9, 1997, meeting state that Wilson proposed the rulemaking. The motion passed unanimously. On Aug. 27, 1997, the school board voted again in favor of the proposal. But there's still a bit of exaggeration in her statement: Wilson described this as a ban ""in our community"" when it strictly related to school-related groups or performances. She told us that was a reasonable description because ""the dirty dancing ban was on school bands and majorettes in the community. We have a lot of parades -- the MLK parade, different half time shows at football games in the community. I witnessed it -- a lot of forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone."" Clearly Wilson introduced the dirty dancing ban approved by the school board in 1997 and we don't doubt that school activities now have less forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone. But her claim that the ban would apply ""in our community"" is a little misleading. Some people might think her ban applied to the entire county, not just the schools."
13916	More people now die in Wisconsin from drug overdoses than car crashes.	Schimel said more people now die in Wisconsin from drug overdoses than car crashes. The most recent data available from 2014 supports his statement -- 2009 was the first year when more people died from drug overdoses than in car crashes.	true	Drugs, Wisconsin, Brad Schimel,	"More than a month after Prince died at the age of 57, toxicology tests determined the visionary musician’s cause of death: fentanyl, a synthetic opiate up to 50 times more potent than heroin. On June 6, 2016, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel penned a guest column in the Wisconsin State Journal connecting Prince’s overdose to the state’s opiate epidemic. He sought to end to the stigma around drug addiction — and urged people to lock up prescription painkillers in their homes. Painkillers are often the starting point for people who develop opiate addictions. ""We must alter our view of opiates,"" Schimel wrote. ""More people now die in Wisconsin from drug overdoses than car crashes."" Is Schimel right that drug overdoses have not always outnumbered car accident fatalities in Wisconsin but do now? If accurate, it would strengthen his case that drug addiction has become an increasingly urgent issue. We decided to look at the numbers. Checking the figures In support of Schimel’s statement, state Department of Justice spokesman Johnny Koremenos provided a report issued in September 2015 by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. ""Deaths from drug poisoning, also called ‘overdose,’ have doubled since 2004 and surpassed motor vehicle traffic deaths in 2008,"" the report said. The sentence doesn’t refer to the total number of deaths, but to age-adjusted death rates. That approach is used to better make comparisons across years, when the age structure of a population changes. An accompanying age-adjusted chart showed that 4 out of every 100,000 people died from a drug overdose in 1999 while 16 out of 100,000 did by 2013. The death rate from car crashes moderately declined during the same period, from around 13 out of 100,000 people to 9. Beginning in 2008, the death rate from drug overdoses surpassed the death rate from car crashes in the chart. We asked the Department of Health Services what the unadjusted numbers show. According to Jennifer Miller, spokeswoman for the Department of Health Services, 2009 was the first time that deaths from drug overdoses outnumbered deaths from car crashes in Wisconsin. And overdose deaths have outnumbered car crash deaths every year since. In 2014, the most recent year available, 843 people in Wisconsin died of drug overdoses while 558 died in car crashes. So both age-adjusted and raw numbers show that beginning in 2008 or 2009 (depending on which numbers you use) more people in Wisconsin died from drug use than from car crashes. Nationally, the total number of drug-related deaths surpassed the number of motor vehicle deaths in 2008 -- about the same time the numbers flipped in Wisconsin. Our rating Schimel said more people now die in Wisconsin from drug overdoses than car crashes. The most recent data available from 2014 supports his statement -- 2009 was the first year when more people died from drug overdoses than in car crashes."
10799	The shallow waters of dolphin therapy claims	Another strong entry in this regular Healthy Skeptic column by the LA Times, this story provides readers with nearly everything they need to know about dolphin therapy treatment centers. We especially liked how the story showed that different claims are being made by different centers and all of the claims lack support. People with hard-to-treat conditions or people who have children with autism or other disorders want badly to find something to improve their lives. Getting a chance to swim with dolphins, as this story points out, has a romantic, fantasy-like appeal that may, in fact, make people feel temporarily better. The trouble with claiming actual long-term benefits from playing with dolphins is that it gives people false hope, and it also allows the dolphin organizations to charge people a lot of money to go swimming.	true	Los Angeles Times	The story notes the costs of several of the therapy sessions offered. “A five-day program costs $2,200 and includes about 20 minutes of dolphin time each day.” The story only makes reference to one specific claim of quantified benefits. “The website for the Living From the Heart Dolphin Experience says that 95% of autistic children who receive dolphin therapy enjoy benefits that last up to two years. Those benefits are said to include longer attention spans, better emotional control and improved communication skills.” The story debunks this and other more vague claims in the story by saying, “There are a few dolphin studies out there, but they don’t add up to much, says Lori Marino, a neuroscience and behavioral biology researcher at Emory University in Atlanta.” The story does not quantify the potential harms from dolphin therapy. We think the reporter may have had a hard time finding this information in the literature, but we would have liked to at least have seen a little more discussion of how money and effort wasted on an uNPRoven therapy might actually be detrimental for people who have serious illnesses that could benefit from other, more proven courses of treatment. The story does not spend a lot of time with the studies that have been touted as supporting dolphin therapy, but it doesn’t have to. There are very few studies that have even examined the topic, and none of them have examined a substantial number of people. Instead, the story brings in strong independent analysis to help readers understand both the reasons why some are claiming a thereaputic benefit and the paucity of the evidence supporting those claims. The executive director of one of the dolphin centers “agrees that there’s no real research to support dolphin therapy, but she sees that shortcoming in a positive light: “If there’s no science behind it, how can you say that it doesn’t work?” This is a classic argument, and one that the column handles adroitly. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It also doesn’t make light of the people who are seeking help at these centers. It says, for example, “The dolphins also work with some adults, including veterans who have lost limbs.” We think it is often too easy to take cheap shots when it comes to far-fetched sounding treatments, even though some of the people who have sought these treatments may believe whole heartedly that they benefited. The story uses a wide variety of sources and allows many of the centers operators to speak for themselves. We would have liked to have heard from at least one of the researchers examining the issue. There were no comparisons with alternatives, and this goes back to potential harms. The story mentions that “Through mechanisms that aren’t completely clear, there are also reports that dolphins have relieved chest pain and restored faulty vision.” Anyone seeking to relieve chest pain through dolphin therapy may be ignoring serious warning signs about heart problems. This is just one of many ways that people could be sidetracked by an uNPRoven therapy like this. The story does a great job showing where these centers operate, even saying, with a mind toward its regional audience, that there are no such centers in California. The story makes it clear that there is nothing novel about dolphin therapy. The story does not rely on a news release.
41715	The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients.	In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients.	mixture	health	There will be 50,000 more nurses going into the NHS. The government has committed to do this by 2024/25. Not all of these nurses will be ‘new’. The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients. In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients. The government will build 40 new hospitals. Six hospitals in England are getting the money to upgrade their buildings within the next five years. Up to 38 hospitals are getting money to develop plans for their hospitals between 2025 and 2030, but not to actually begin any building work. The government is putting 20,000 more police on the streets. The government has committed to do this. If this happens it will take the number of police in England and Wales to almost, but not quite the same level as it was at in 2010. The government gave the police much more use of Tasers to help deal with street crime. The Home Office announced police in England and Wales can bid for part of a fund to equip their force with more Tasers. Final funding allocations will be announced in February. The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to £8.72, and it will go up to £10.50. The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to £8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year’s Conservative party conference that it would rise to £10.50 within the next five years. Claim 1 of 7

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.