copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2023-09-19): Bernie: Thank you so much for having me. [...] Adam: Bernie, you had a very long and very successful career. But you've pivoted to another career that's been incredibly successful as well. You've married your passion for music, your passion for baseball, your passion for philanthropy. They've all intertwined through your involvement in Tune In To Lung Health, where you have been raising awareness for interstitial lung disease, and the importance of early diagnosis. Why is this something that you are personally so passionate about? And what can anyone do to pay it forward? Bernie: Well, I'm so glad you asked that question, because this is one of the things that is near and dear to my heart. And I am doing it because, as a professional athlete, we have this platform to talk about a lot of things. Looking back into my career, to my life, my dad was probably one of the biggest influences in my life growing up, and he was our Superman, our superhero. He was a guy that showed me how to play my first couple of notes on my guitar. He was a guy that took me out with my brother and played on a baseball field right after middle school every day, and he was just a very inspirational person to look up to. And when he passed away in 2001, from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which is one of the most common forms of interstitial lung disease, it devastated us. It hit us in a very profound way.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2016-01-11): "Who isn’t impressed with Sanders’s fundraising?" he said. "He has more or less kept pace with Clinton, and in a key way—small gifts, which have a lot more punch in politics—Sanders has exceeded her by a mile." In those last three months, Sanders raised just 4 million dollars less than Hillary Clinton, despite having zero staff dedicated to fundraising. And according to the site p2016, which tracks campaign staff hires, Clinton has upwards of 30 finance team staffers. [...] "Last month, we told you about how much money Bernie Sanders’ campaign was raising," Mook wrote. "Now, the other shoe has dropped: I just found out that he’s outspending us on TV advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire."
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2018-07-11): Why I want you to help raise $200,000 for Rachael Rollins to be elected the next District Attorney of Boston. [...] So let’s do this! Every dollar you raise goes directly to her campaign. Time is running out and I’m hoping to raise $200,000 for her campaign in the next 10 days! That’s a lot, but together I know we can do it!
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2023-09-21): BERNIE SANDERS: Look, what's going on and what has gone on in this country over the last 50 years - five-zero years - is really extraordinary. Today, the weekly wages of the average American worker, despite an explosion of technology over the last 50 years, is lower, lower than it was 50 years ago. Meanwhile, almost all of the new wealth and income that we have seen over that period has gone to the top 1%. So today, unbelievably, you've got three people in America owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, and you have 60% of our workers living paycheck to paycheck. [...] SANDERS: Well, you know, when I was growing up, way back in the '50s and the '60s, you always had the people on top making more money than workers. Nothing new about that. But you know what it was in the '60s, if I'm not mistaken? That split was, like, 20 to 1, 30 to 1. But now you have had in recent years just incredible greed. And while workers' salaries have been stagnant or actually declining, these guys on average in America now make 400 times more. That is outrageous. No one begrudges or is shocked that somebody on top makes more than the worker, but 400 times is obscene. [...] SANDERS: Thank you very much.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2016-03-02): Bernie Sanders, I would say at this point, you’re hard-pressed to find a path forward for him numerically. Very much on the other side, like a Marco Rubio, he is very much fighting the math at this point. He did win four key states. He has raised and continues to raise more money than Hillary Clinton, which is fascinating – $40 million last month, which is quite impressive. But he has stalled because he hasn’t been able to make it – make a name for himself or pick up delegates and support outside of the Northeast. He hasn’t been able to pick up delegates or support in nonwhite states or states with a large nonwhite population. And that’s something that continues to be difficult for him.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2020-05-05): The biggest one is getting people to take me seriously. When you're young and inexperienced, you're treated like you're not a serious candidate, even if you have more money, more volunteers and more support than other candidates. [...] You’re refusing to take contributions from corporate interests, instead entirely funding your campaign through grassroots donations. What is your fundraising strategy and where have you found success? I decided to completely swear off corporate PAC money and to not try and appease wealthy donors. We've actually raised over $200,000, which is currently more money than all other people in our race. With well over $200,000 I think that's enough to be viable when you have the actual grassroots support on top of that. We’ve shown that you don't actually need to take corporate PAC money to be a well-funded campaign. That’s allowed us to pay every single member of our staff a living wage of $21 per hour.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2022-07-15): Clark Grant: It’s fine Bernie. [...] So I called him up. I said, ‘Hey Tommy, I hear you would like to build the gym for central.’ He said, ‘Yeah I would Bernie.’ So we met with him, me and Donnie. So we met with him and he says, ‘Hey, I’ve made enough money in construction. I know how to build things. I know where to buy toilets. I know how to do this thing right. And I don’t wanna make any money.’ And he says, ‘I’ll give you $200,000 right off the start.’ And he did. He gave us $200,000. And we had all the guys on the committee, 30 guys, make their pledge. And pretty soon, we had like $750,000 and we were like, wow, we can make this thing happen. [...] Grant: Well maybe on a more positive note - I just have a couple more questions Bernie - you know, the KC project. You’ve demonstrated such perseverance there. What keeps you going on that?
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2022-03-11): Look, I’m a capitalist. This isn’t about punishing anybody. I love Bernie, and I really do. He’s a great friend. But I — I’m not Bernie.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2024-09-18): I admire Bernie’s clear point of view on the issues. Bernie asked me some hard questions about how much wealth I thought would be enough. We agreed that wealthy people should be taxed more. I asked him if he had any legislation ready to go to help make that a reality. It was a great discussion.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2020-12-03): The way you clean up such a mess is you go to the "net winners"—people that took out more than they put in. If someone put in $5,000 and took out $15,000, you try to recover the $10,000 they took out, over and above their contribution, to be redistributed among those who lost money. Of course, many of the net winners are deceased, have spent the money, etc., etc. But you try to recover what you can. [...] I start a lot of my classes with a discussion of Bernie Madoff and other Ponzi schemes, because they take advantage of people making a key accounting mistake. Think about what Madoff did. He raised money from a bunch of people, he paid some of that money to other people, and raised more money from yet other people. He redistributed value; he did not create any value. This is a fundamental accounting problem that every society has at a very deep level. Who is producing value? What kinds of activities produce value? How do you distinguish things that produce value from things that are consuming more than they’re producing? If we could measure value, we could answer these questions exactly—that is why the measurement perspective on accounting has such an attraction. But in the real world, we just have to do the best we can, sometimes with only vague notions of what we mean.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2020-01-01): Briahna Joy Gray: ... of this campaign. But I want to ask you, since your everyday job is to make this kind of a pitch, you know, what is your kind of go-to best Bernie pitch? [...] Briahna Joy Gray: Or, or you can an- answer it personally if you prefer, you know, why are, why did, have you chosen Bernie. [...] Bernie is counting on all of us to continue fighting for our progressive agenda. There is only one way we will transform this country – and that is together.
Claim: “You’ve raised a lot more money than I have, Bernie.” (Joe Biden, 2020-03-05)
Evidence (2022-05-25): Yeah, that’s right, and that’s an important point. A lot of people tend to think about this as a categorical difference, but I really think of it as much more of a continuum.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2024-06-24): There’s no evidence showing that remdesivir, the first treatment approved for COVID-19, killed patients taking the drug. The antiviral drug is still approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat the coronavirus that causes the disease. The FDA said it based its approval of the drug on three randomized controlled clinical trials. Remdesivir was one of four drugs used in a 2018 clinical trial against Ebola virus in Africa. It was found to be far less effective than two experimental drugs, but the trial did not show remdesivir killed patients.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2022-05-21): Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses - PMID: 35512728 - PMCID: PMC9060606 - DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00519-0 [...] Findings: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30).
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2022-05-04): This appears to be a change from findings reported in February 2021, when preliminary trial data suggested that remdesivir "had little or no effect on patients admitted to hospital with covid-19."2 [...] The updated results, published in the Lancet, reported that overall 14.5% (602 of 4146) of patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 15.6% (643 of 4129) assigned to the control group (mortality rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02, P=0.12). Looking at patients who were already ventilated, 42.1% (151 of 359) assigned to remdesivir died compared with 38.6% (134 of 347) assigned to control (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.42, P=0.32). For those who were not already ventilated, however, 11.9% in the remdesivir group, compared with 13.5% in the control group, died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98, P=0.02), while 14.1% v 15.7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00, P=0.04).
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2020-05-11): The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has described to STAT in new detail how it made its fateful decision: to start giving remdesivir to patients who had been assigned to receive a placebo in the study, essentially limiting researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives — something the study, called ACTT-1, suggests but does not prove. In the trial, 8% of the participants given remdesivir died, compared with 11.6% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant. [...] Steven Nissen, a veteran trialist and cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, disagreed that giving placebo patients remdesivir was the right call. "I believe it is in society’s best interest to determine whether remdesivir can reduce mortality, and with the release of this information doing a placebo-controlled trial to determine if there is a mortality benefit will be very difficult," he said. "The question is: Was there a route, or is there a route, to determine if the drug can prevent death?" The decision is "a lost opportunity," he said. [...] Steven Joffe, an ethics expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said he believes the NIAID likely took the right steps in making its decision to give remdesivir to the placebo patients. But he worries about deciding to use time to improvement, not death, as the measure of success, in the first place.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2019-12-18): ZMapp, Mab114, and REGN-EB3 are all monoclonal antibody products. Monoclonal antibodies are derived from immune system molecules that bind to a specific substance, such as an invading virus. Remdesivir is a type of antiviral drug. [...] After results from the first 499 participants had been reviewed, the trial’s safety monitors recommended that two drugs—ZMapp and remdesivir—be dropped from the remainder of the trial. These two drugs were much less effective at preventing death. Overall, about 50% of people who received either Zmapp or remdesivir died during the trial. In contrast, only about 35% of people who received either Mab114 or REGN-EB3 died. Three participants died of side effects thought to be related to treatment—two in the ZMapp group and one in the remdesivir group.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2022-01-25): No, hospitalized COVID-19 patients weren’t killed by remdesivir [...] At a panel discussion hosted by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a nurse claimed that remdesivir, an intravenous antiviral drug used to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19, is actually killing patients. [...] Sirotek claimed that remdesivir is responsible for killing patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2021-09-17): Why Remdesivir Failed: Preclinical Assumptions Overestimate the Clinical Efficacy of Remdesivir for COVID-19 and Ebola - PMID: 34252308 - PMCID: PMC8448091 - DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01117-21 Why Remdesivir Failed: Preclinical Assumptions Overestimate the Clinical Efficacy of Remdesivir for COVID-19 and Ebola Remdesivir is a nucleoside monophosphoramidate prodrug that has been FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains contentious, as several trials have not found statistically significant differences in either time to clinical improvement or mortality between remdesivir-treated and control groups. Similarly, the inability of remdesivir to provide a clinically significant benefit above other investigational agents in patients with Ebola contrasts with strong, curative preclinical data generated in rhesus macaque models. For both COVID-19 and Ebola, significant discordance between the robust preclinical data and remdesivir's lackluster clinical performance have left many puzzled. Here, we critically evaluate the assumptions of the models underlying remdesivir's promising preclinical data and show that such assumptions overpredict efficacy and minimize toxicity of remdesivir in humans. Had the limitations of in vitro drug efficacy testing and species differences in drug metabolism been considered, the underwhelming clinical performance of remdesivir for both COVID-19 and Ebola would have been fully anticipated.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2022-12-01): In this large US-based retrospective cohort study with nearly 25 000 remdesivir-exposed hospitalized patients identified between May 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021, remdesivir treatment was associated with an overall significantly reduced inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with PS-matched control patients. Our findings support the results of the ACTT-1 trial, which noted numerically lower inpatient mortality by day 29 in the remdesivir-treated group, a result that was not statistically significant as the trial was not powered for this secondary outcome (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.52-1.03]).9 Similar inpatient mortality results were noted among hospitalized adults receiving remdesivir vs the local standard of care in the World Health Organization Solidarity open-label trial, which observed a statistically significant 13% reduction in the mortality rate among patients in the subgroup who required oxygen but not mechanical ventilation.11 These results among inpatients are bolstered by recent RCT findings noting that outpatient use of remdesivir was associated with an 87% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among high-risk patients.7
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2022-02-07): For starters, remdesivir is a drug infusion that must be given intravenously, in a clinical setting. Compared with other outpatient options, the drug takes more space and staff to infuse, says Dr. Cameron Wolfe, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at Duke University. [...] For these reasons, health care providers consider remdesivir to be low on the list of treatment options — available if necessary, but hard to implement. Fox says her health system in Utah has treated only about 15 early COVID-19 patients with remdesivir so far. A larger-than-expected shipment of monoclonal antibody treatments received last month, provided free by the U.S. government, puts remdesivir on the back burner for now. "We have it, we want to use it, but we're kind of turning it on and off depending on how much sotrovimab we're getting," Fox says.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2024-06-24): The video showed a speaker who said that in 2018, remdesivir was "too unethical" to use in Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a "53% kill rate." [...] Martin, in the Instagram video, also distorted what a 2018-19 Ebola clinical trial said about remdesivir. The 53% "kill rate" he mentions refers to the mortality rate of Ebola patients taking remdesivir in the trial, not that it caused the deaths of 53% of patients who took the drug. [...] An Instagram post’s claim that hospitals killed COVID-19 patients with remdesivir is baseless and its claim that the drug had a 53% kill rate in Ebola trials distorts what those trials showed. Both claims are False.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2020-04-30): However the World Health Organization said it’s too early to comment on the remdesivir trial results released Wednesday. [...] Remdesivir drug maker says it has enough supply to treat at least 140,000 patients [...] On Wednesday, top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci announced early results from that trial showing that remdesivir effectively shortened the duration of Covid-19. After Fauci’s announcement, the New York Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration is planning to issue an emergency-use authorization for the drug.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2020-08-05): The Moph: The Remdesivir has been Added to the Hospitalization Bill
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2020-04-29): The results suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group, according to a statement from the National Institutes of Health released later Wednesday. [...] Gilead also released preliminary results from its own study, showing at least 50% of the patients treated with a five-day dosage of remdesivir improved. The clinical trial involved 397 patients with severe cases of Covid-19. The severe study is "single-arm," meaning it did not evaluate the drug against a control group of patients who didn't receive the drug. [...] Remdesivir has shown some promise in treating SARS and MERS, which are also caused by coronaviruses. Some health authorities in the U.S., China and other parts of the world have been using remdesivir, which was tested as a possible treatment for the Ebola outbreak, in hopes that the drug can reduce the duration of Covid-19 in patients.
Claim: "Hospitals murdered patients” with remdesivir, a drug banned from Ebola trials because of “53% kill rate.” (Instagram post, 2024-06-24)
Evidence (2021-06-16): A nucleotide analogue, Remdesivir drug, is viewed as the most potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2infection. A notable study reported the improvement in patients after remdesivir therapy. Totally, 53 patients were treated with remde remdesivir. The patients were administered single dosage per day (200 mg). Among the treated, 36 reported improvement in the health condition (Grein 2020). [...] Grein J et al (2020) Compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016