copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2022-05-20): Bones are composed of protein, collagen and calcium. In healthy bones, these elements combine to ensure that the bones have a strong structure. In people with osteoporosis, however, the density of the bones decreases. This causes the structure of the bones to weaken in a process which can worsen over time. [...] Lacking sufficient levels of calcium and vitamin D is a primary risk factor for developing osteoporosis. The body cannot make calcium on its own, and the production of sufficient levels of vitamin D (which the body needs in order to absorb calcium from food) requires exposure to plenty of sun. It is vital that one’s diet contains sufficient sources of both nutrients. People with osteoporosis are often advised to take supplements of both vitamin D and calcium in order to replenish the body’s levels of these substances and prevent further bone damage.
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2024-08-05): In July 2024, a snippet of a presentation by naturopath Barbara O’Neill circulated on Facebook where she advocated against using calcium supplements to treat osteoporosis. O’Neill justified her statement by claiming that bones "are not made of calcium". Instead, she recommended the use of "Anna’s wild yam cream", which would allegedly "lift the progesterone levels" and foster new bone formation. [...] O’Neill also asserted that a product called Anna’s Wild Yam Cream could treat osteoporosis by increasing progesterone levels. She claimed that progesterone stimulates osteoblasts, and that osteoporosis results from elevated estrogen levels that reduce the progesterone levels. [...] O’Neill provided an inaccurate explanation of how bones are formed and maintained throughout life. Contrary to her claim, calcium is an essential component of bones. Not consuming enough calcium is one of the risk factors that can jeopardize bone formation and lead to osteoporosis. Contrary to O’Neill’s claim, adopting a diet with more calcium is one of the first steps someone can take to prevent or slow down osteoporosis. Wild yam isn’t a proven treatment for osteoporosis, and there is no evidence that it can cause an increase in progesterone.
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2024-07-08): If you’ve been searching for natural remedies to ease menopause symptoms, it’s likely you’ve run across the mention of wild yam. A quick search will turn up plenty of available extracts and tinctures, but research shows wild yam extract — though while not harmful — has little effect on menopause symptoms.
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2001-03-15): Family physicians will frequently encounter patients with osteoporosis, a condition that is often asymptomatic until a fracture occurs. Treatment of the fracture can be initiated without further diagnostic testing. Thereafter, treatment of osteoporosis includes (1) prevention of further bone loss through weight-bearing exercise, tobacco and alcohol avoidance, hormone replacement therapy in women, and raloxifene and calcium supplementation; (2) treatment of fracture-related pain with analgesics and calcitonin; (3) building bone mass when feasible with alendronate; and (4) modifying behaviors that increase the risk of falls. Patients without fracture who are at risk for osteoporosis can also benefit from these preventive measures. Furthermore, women of all ages should be encouraged to maintain a daily calcium intake of 1,000 to 1,500 mg and to participate in weight-bearing exercise for 30 minutes three times weekly to reduce their risk of falls and fractures. Persons at risk should avoid medications known to compromise bone density, such as glucocorticoids, thyroid hormones and chronic heparin therapy. [...] A topical form of natural progesterone derived from diosgenin in soybeans and Mexican wild yam has been promoted as a treatment for osteoporosis, hot flushes and premenstrual syndrome, and as a prophylactic against breast cancer. However, humans cannot convert diosgenin into progesterone, so eating or applying wild yam extract or diosgenin does not result in increased progesterone levels.37
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2019-07-20): - Wild yam (Dioscorea villosa) is an herb sometimes used for menstrual problems as well as menopausal symptoms. It contains plant progesterone. However, like black cohosh, there is no evidence that the human body can convert this substance into a hormone. Be aware that some commercial herbal wild yam products contain prescription progesterone.
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2023-05-17): Yang, Y. et al. Targeting ferroptosis suppresses osteocyte glucolipotoxicity and alleviates diabetic osteoporosis. Bone Res.10, 26 (2022). [...] Yang, Y.-S. et al. Bone-targeting AAV-mediated silencing of Schnurri-3 prevents bone loss in osteoporosis. Nat. Commun.10, 2958 (2019). [...] Cui, Y. et al. A bone-targeted engineered exosome platform delivering siRNA to treat osteoporosis. Bioact. Mater.10, 207–221 (2022).
Claim: Bones “are not made of calcium”; wild yam is a treatment for osteoporosis (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-08)
Evidence (2020-01-01): Aumsuwan P, Khan SI, Khan IA, et al. Evaluation of wild yam (Dioscorea villosa) root extract as a potential epigenetic agent in breast cancer cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 2015;51(1):59-71. View abstract. [...] Komesaroff PA, Black CV, Cable V, et al. Effects of wild yam extract on menopausal symptoms, lipids and sex hormones in healthy menopausal women. Climacteric 2001;4:144-50.. View abstract.
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2020-07-03): Every year in the U.S. is an election year, if taking into account state and Congressional elections as well as presidential elections. Since disease outbreaks have not occurred every year, it follows that not every election year has been associated with a disease outbreak as implied by the claim. In addition, the transmissibility of the coronavirus, represented by the “basic reproduction number”, is still under study. Currently, the basic reproduction numbers reported for the virus causing COVID-19 range between around 2 to more than 6.
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2020-03-13): As coronavirus misinformation spreads like wildfire, there have been conspiratorial attempts to connect the disease to election year politics. Many tweets and Facebook posts are making the false claim that there is a trend of disease outbreaks matched to elections. "Every election year has a disease," reads one. [...] A post on social media says "Every election year has a disease" ... SARS in 2004; avian flu in 2008; swine flu in 2010; MERS in 2012; Ebola in 2014 and 2018; Zika in 2016 and the coronavirus in 2020.
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2022-08-31): "Every election year has a disease," the speech bubble has the woman saying. It then lists the acronyms and names of seven major infectious diseases, linking their outbreak to years:
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2020-03-18): The image, which appears in numerous Facebook posts, shows a handwritten sign that reads, in part, "Every election year has a disease." It then lists: "SARS-2004 Avian-2008 Swine-2010 MERS-2012 Ebola-2014 Zika-2016 Ebola-2018 Corona-2020" [...] The posts also claim the novel coronavirus "has a contagion factor of 2." This refers to the number of people to which an infected person can transmit the disease, also known as the R0 number. The WHO estimates this number to be 1.4 to 2.5 for COVID-19, but estimates vary because the disease is so new. The posts use upper-range estimates for the contagion factor of the other diseases. It says that SARS has an R0 of 4. According to the WHO, SARS has an R0 in the range of 2 to 4. The posts also claim that the R0 for measles is 18. Measles is most often cited as having an R0 range of 12 to 18, and studies have found that estimates could vary more widely.
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2020-08-21): The claim: Every election year has a disease. [...] This meme understates the transmissibility of COVID-19. The number of new cases an average carrier might infect is between 2.5-3.5. This is called the reproduction number, not the "contagion factor." [...] - PolitiFact, Feb. 28, "Every election year has a disease..."
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2024-05-23): COVID-19 is a contagious respiratory illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that can infect your nose, throat, and lungs. Anyone sick with COVID-19 can have a wide range of symptoms, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Signs of being sick may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. Possible symptoms include:
Claim: Every election year has a disease; coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2 (Facebook users, 2020-07-03)
Evidence (2020-03-07): The claim that "every election year has a disease" is inaccurate and imprecise. The images shared on Facebook do not specify which elections they are referring to, but if one counts elections at both the state and federal levels, every year@ is an election year in the U.S. Since disease outbreaks have not occurred every year, it follows that not every election year has been associated with a disease outbreak as implied by the claim. [...] The images also contain the claim that the "coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2". The term "contagion factor" is not part of the scientific vocabulary, but it appears to refer to the reproduction number (R0)—a measure of how quickly an infection could spread through a community. Joseph Eisenberg, professor and chair of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, explains the concept of R0 in this article published in The Conversation: [...] The transmissibility of COVID-19 is still being studied by scientists. A review published on 13 February 2020 shows that the basic reproduction number currently ranges from approximately 2 to 6.5[1]. The number indicates the number of individuals in a susceptible population expected to become infected by a single infected individual. Therefore the claim that "coronavirus has a contagion factor of 2" gives a false and misleading impression that the transmissibility of the new coronavirus has already been confirmed.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2019-04-22): The general statement that electric vehicles result in greater CO2 emissions than diesel vehicles is not accurate, but there are specific situations where some diesel vehicles result in less emissions than some electric vehicles.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2021-07-21): A new study lays to rest the tired argument that electric vehicles aren’t much cleaner than internal combustion vehicles. Over the life cycle of an EV — from digging up the materials needed to build it to eventually laying the car to rest — it will release fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gas-powered car, the research found. That holds true globally, whether an EV plugs into a grid in Europe with a larger share of renewables, or a grid in India that still relies heavily on coal. [...] Actually building an EV is still a little more carbon-intensive than building a traditional vehicle. Recycling EV batteries could eventually bring that carbon intensity down. But for now, EV drivers start to reap the climate benefits after driving their car for a year or so, according to Bieker. That’s when the car passes the threshold when the emissions that it saves by running on cleaner electricity make it a better option for the climate than a traditional car. [...] Bieker hopes the ICCT’s findings will help policymakers make more informed decisions about the future of transportation. Climate experts are rushing to bring global greenhouse gas emissions down to near zero by the middle of the century to avoid the worst effects of global warming. Electric vehicles are necessary to make those cuts happen, and even hybrid-electric vehicles aren’t clean enough to meet that goal. The report recommends against allowing any new internal combustion vehicles on the road by the 2030s.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-01-17): Other recent studies of electric cars in Germany have reached the opposite conclusion. One study found that emissions from EVs have emissions up to 43% lower than diesel vehicles. Another detailed that "in all cases examined, electric cars have lower lifetime climate impacts than those with internal combustion engines". [...] The general premise that EVs are not currently a panacea for climate change and that the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electric vehicles can be similar to or even greater than the most efficient gasoline or diesel vehicles is supported by other research, including the work of my group over the past decade. But it’s important to note that which technology comes out on top depends on a lot of things, especially: [...] Studies that compare EVs (which are mostly smaller cars) to an average gasoline or diesel vehicle (much larger) and assign the average grid mix in an area to the electric vehicle tend to have favorable findings for EVs. Studies that compare EVs to comparable gasoline or diesel vehicles and examine the consequential emissions (how the grid will change in response to buying an EV vs. a gasoline/diesel vehicle) tend to have findings that are more mixed. I would put more weight on the second type of study and put more weight on peer-reviewed academic studies than on studies by advocacy groups or consulting groups that are not fully transparent.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-03-26): "Electric vehicles are better for the environment. Full stop," Austin Brown, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Office, told us in a phone interview. "There are tons of complexity underneath that, but … in every metric that we use to measure environmental impact, that we know how to really quantify, electric vehicles are better for the environment now, and they will continue to improve." [...] But more to the point, requiring "more rock to be mined" doesn’t mean that EVs are worse for the environment, David Manley, lead economic analyst at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, a nonprofit that works with several countries on managing natural resources and sustainable development, told us in an email. The post uses "false reasoning," he said, because it ignores the environmental costs of fossil fuel extraction. [...] Ritchie, Hannah. "Electric cars are better for the climate than petrol or diesel." Sustainability by numbers. 26 Jan 2023.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2021-10-12): Make electric vehicles lighter to maximize climate and safety benefits [...] As time goes on, cleaner grids will strengthen the case for electric vehicles. Some countries with lots of clean electricity sources, such as Norway, are already at a point at which electrifying a truck has more climate benefits than safety costs. Others, including the United States, must keep on the path to net-zero electricity systems (see ‘Cost–benefit calculus’). Yet without addressing the weight issue, the benefits for society of going electric will be smaller than they could be in the next decade. Here’s what we think researchers, policymakers and manufacturers need to do to address the issue. [...] Ultimately, to manage climate change, the world needs to stop emitting greenhouse gases from vehicles and power plants. Electric vehicles powered from a clean grid are an essential step in the right direction. A focus on driving lighter, safer, cleaner and less can ensure a better future for everyone.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2021-12-22): How electric vehicles offered hope as climate challenges grew [...] EVs on their own are nowhere near enough to forestall the worst effects of climate change. But it won’t be possible to slow global warming without them. And in a year with a lot of grim climate news — both devastating extreme events and maddeningly stalled political action — EVs offered one glimmer of hope.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-10-06): A pair of psychologists and an economist at the University of Turku, in Finland, have found that because the average electric vehicle (EV) owner is wealthier than the average person, they still have a bigger than average carbon footprint. [...] The vast majority of cars and trucks on the road today are still powered by burning gasoline—a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. In response, car makers have been developing and selling EVs, which produce no greenhouse gas emissions while they are driven. [...] The researchers found that people who purchase EVs tend to be wealthier than average. They are also more highly educated and drive more miles per year on average. The researchers also found that despite buying and driving an EV, the average purchaser of an EV still had a higher carbon footprint than people who did not buy such vehicles.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2023-05-31): Vehicle electrification is widely perceived as an indispensable solution to climate change. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), electric vehicles (EVs), including both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, enabled a net reduction of 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) on a well-to-wheel basis in 20211. Although assessments vary across studies due to different system boundaries and underlying assumptions, EVs’ overall long-term climate benefits relative to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) in the context of electricity generation decarbonization dominate the mainstream view2,3,4,5 (see more literature in Supplementary Table 1). For this reason, the world has experienced a rapid expansion of the EV market. In 2021, the EV stock reached 16.5 million worldwide, triple the amount in 20181. A growing number of countries and regions have announced ambitious vehicle electrification targets for the coming decades6,7,8,9. On August 5, 2021, the White House announced a target of 50% electric for all new vehicles sold in 20308. On July 14, 2021, the European Commission announced a ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, beginning in 20357.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-05-26): Are electric cars better for the environment than fuel-powered cars? Here's the verdict Whether you drive an electric car or are considering making the switch, you've probably been drawn into a discussion about whether they are really better for the climate. [...] You can see emissions for the petrol car rise while the electric car's life-cycle emissions curve is flattening. That's because the composition of our electricity grid is rapidly changing and more renewables are coming online.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2021-03-22): Are EVs really better for the environment, though? A close look at all the factors shows they are—but it’s a complex answer with some asterisks.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2020-03-23): Fears that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions are a damaging myth, new research shows. [...] The new research from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen - in The Netherlands - and Cambridge shows that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the climate than a petrol car. [...] The researchers say average "lifetime" emissions from electric cars are up to 70% lower than petrol cars in countries like Sweden and France (where most electricity comes from renewables and nuclear), and around 30% lower in the UK.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-03-12): CLIMATEWIRE | The production of battery-powered vehicles creates more carbon dioxide than making those that run on gasoline, a new report says. But EVs overcome the emissions difference relatively quickly. [...] After that, electric vehicles emit significantly less CO2 than internal combustion vehicles, particularly when considering how long a typical car stays in service. And the advantage likely will increase as electric generation becomes cleaner, the paper said. [...] The payback period is slightly higher than the last time BNEF calculated the emissions from EVs, but that’s due in part to changes in methodology. The new version of the study is based on the larger batteries that are common in the U.S., for instance, and it assumes that batteries are produced in China rather than the United States.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2024-03-06): Electric vehicles may release more pollution than gas-powered vehicles, according to a report that has recently resurfaced… It found that EVs are 30 percent heavier on average than gas-powered vehicles, which causes the brakes and tire treads to wear out faster than standard cars and releases tiny, often toxic particles into the atmosphere. "If you’ve got electric cars in Pittsburgh that are being plugged in at night and leading nearby coal plants to burn more coal to charge them, then the climate benefits won’t be as great, and you can even get more air pollution." The Daily Mail resurfaces a quote Jeremy Michalek, engineering, provided the New York Times last year regarding California officials who claimed EVs produce zero emissions. A study by Emissions Analytics looked at EV emissions and was recently cited in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that accused California of trying to conceal the fact EVs can release more emissions than gas-powered vehicles.
Claim: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars (Anonymous, 2019-04-22)
Evidence (2022-10-13): Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? [...] "We shouldn't claim victory that with this switch to electric cars, problem solved, we are going to have zero emissions," he says. "No, that's not the case. But electric cars are actually much, much better in terms of the impact on the climate in comparison to internal combustion vehicles. And in time, that comparative advantage of electric cars is going to grow." [...] In fact, Paltsev says, it’s difficult to find a comparison in which EVs fare worse than internal combustion. If electric vehicles had a shorter lifespan than gas cars, that would hurt their numbers because they would have fewer low-emissions miles on the road to make up for the carbon-intensive manufacture of their batteries. Yet when the MIT study calculated a comparison in which EVs lasted only 90,000 miles on the road rather than 180,000 miles, they remained 15 percent better than a hybrid and far better than a gas car.