copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2015-12-28): The impact of climate change on a particular species can ripple through a food web and affect a wide range of other organisms. For example, the figure below shows the complex nature of the food web for polar bears. Not only is the decline of sea ice impairing polar bear populations by reducing the extent of their primary habitat, it is also negatively impacting them via food web effects. Declines in the duration and extent of sea ice in the Arctic leads to declines in the abundance of ice algae, which thrive in nutrient-rich pockets in the ice. These algae are eaten by zooplankton, which are in turn eaten by Arctic cod, an important food source for many marine mammals, including seals. Seals are eaten by polar bears. Hence, declines in ice algae can contribute to declines in polar bear populations.[2][6][7] [...] Even within a single ecosystem, there can be winners and losers from climate change. The Adélie and Chinstrap penguins in Antarctica provide a good example. The two species depend on different habitats for survival: Adélies inhabit the winter ice pack, whereas Chinstraps remain close to open water. During the past 50 years, a 7–9°F increase in midwinter temperatures on the western Antarctic Peninsula has led to a loss of sea ice. Over the past 25 years, the population of Adélie penguins decreased by 22%, while the population of Chinstrap penguin increased by an estimated 400%.[13]
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2020-05-18): The polar bear data are contradictory: contrary to predictions, several polar bear subpopulations (at least four of them) are indeed thriving despite much reduced summer sea ice. I have chosen to emphasis that good news, while Stirling and Derocher choose to emphasize the data that seem to fit their predictions. This is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science but presents no proof that I’m wrong or that the PragerU video is inherently ‘false’. [...] In short, it is indeed true that ‘Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing.’ See also my 2018 opinion piece on the National Geographic ‘starving’ polar bear video in the Financial Post here. Climate Feedback reviewed that piece with statements by Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher, which I countered here, here, and here. [...] In addition to the thriving condition of Barents Sea bears discussed above (Aars 2018; Aars et al. 2017; Lippold et al. 2019), Chukchi Sea polar bears are also doing much better than they were in the 1980s despite much reduced summer sea ice. These results are documented in a number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic (ACSWG 2018; Regehr et al. 2018; Rode and Regehr 2010; Rode et al. 2013, 2014, 2018). Ringed and bearded seals are similarly thriving despite less summer ice (Crawford et al. 2015).
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2022-05-16): In Davis Strait, for example, both the extent and thickness of the sea ice have been declining dramatically. In theory, this should be trouble for the local bears, which, like polar bears everywhere else, rely on solid sea ice as a hunting platform. Yet this population is an eye-popping 233 percent bigger than it was four decades ago. It’s tempting to simply declare victory and walk away. And yet this new-found abundance is entirely the result of local management practices that originally had nothing to do with bears. Specifically, in 1983, the European Economic Community banned the importation of the hides of whitecoat harp seal pups. In most places, the polar bear diet consists primarily of ringed or bearded seals. But polar bears aren’t picky eaters; when harp seal populations exploded, polar bears gorged. On the other hand, one theory holds that the loss of sea ice could encourage killer whales to move into polar bear habitat, snatching up all the seals and becoming the new dominant marine mammal.
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2022-04-25): The Barents Sea is home to one of the world’s 19 recognized polar bear populations. But in recent decades, sea ice has been diminishing more quickly here than anywhere else in the Arctic. As Jon Aars explains, it hasn’t yet led to population declines, but it is affecting the bears’ lives in several ways. [...] So far, the Svalbard bears are not in poor condition, and they are still reproducing. The question is: why do they seem to be thriving despite having access to less sea ice? There are a few possible answers. It could be that the density of bears is still low compared to what it was before people started to hunt. That would mean less competition for food resources. Another relevant factor is that polar bears are good at adapting and using every resource they can find. [...] It will be interesting to see how the local Svalbard bears do in future years as the sea ice continues to diminish. Unlike polar bears in some other Arctic areas, they have few competitors (such as brown bears, wolves or wolverines). But the fact that polar bears depend on sea ice in all the areas they occupy suggests there will be a threshold for this population too. They have proven resilient in the face of challenges so far, but to continue to thrive, they will need access to sea ice to hunt seals for at least a period in spring and early summer.
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2022-01-28): While rapid loss of sea ice is the primary threat to the polar bear’s long-term survival, other challenges include pollution, increased commercial and industrial activity in the Arctic, overharvest, disease, and inadequate habitat protection (denning and seasonal resting areas). [...] We have never had firm numbers on the global population of polar bears. We do know that some polar bear populations, like those that I studied in Alaska for 30 years, were known to have grown after excessive hunting was controlled in the early 1970s. But we only recently have developed estimates of several populations and still have no estimates for others. Regardless of how many bears may have been around at times past, however, as long as temperatures warm and sea ice habitat continues to decline, polar bears ultimately can only decline. Wild polar bears will become extinct unless we take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [...] Polar bears rely on sea ice to efficiently catch their main prey, ice seals. Although seals can out-swim polar bears underwater, bears have the edge on top of the ice—using it to sneak up on and stalk their next meal. Ice seals, and related ice-dependent species like the walrus, rely on sea ice for survival, too. They use it to rest on and as a platform for giving birth to and raising their pups.
Claim: The polar bear population has been growing. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. (Anonymous, 2020-05-05)
Evidence (2016-08-16): Since the start of the continuous satellite record in 1979, Arctic sea ice has declined in all seasons, particularly in summer. However, sea ice has not declined the same way in all places, and polar bear populations have experienced different fates in different parts of the Arctic. In October 2019, the International Union for Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission-Polar Bear Specialist Group (IUCN/SSC-PBSG) released an assessment of 19 polar bear subpopulations across the Arctic. The subpopulations are divided based on management needs and what biologists know about the movement and genetics of the bears. Although the researchers could not determine population health everywhere, they found declines in four subpopulations, stability in five, and an increase in two. Although the study found a relationship between sea ice conditions and polar bear health, that relationship was not necessarily straightforward. In Hudson Bay, for example, female bear survival correlated strongly with sea ice conditions, but male survival correlated primarily with subsistence-hunting pressure from humans. Other factors could complicate the ice-bear relationship, such as the width of the continental shelf, the preferred habitat of seals (polar bears' main food source). In places where the continental shelf is narrow, such as the Beaufort Sea, poor sea ice conditions could exacerbate polar bears' difficulties in catching prey. Still, the study found greater population declines in areas with a higher number of reduced-ice days, such as the Beaufort Sea.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-22): Ivermectin is approved for treating parasitic infections in people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some promoted ivermectin as an effective drug to treat COVID-19. Some physicians also prescribed the drug “off-label” for COVID-19. However, there is a lack of reliable scientific evidence to support using ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Ivermectin isn’t approved or authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating COVID-19.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-22): The FDA agreed to delete certain social media posts and webpage updates that urged people to stop using ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19. The agency agreed to a settlement on Thursday with three Texas doctors who sued the Food and Drug Administration, alleging it provided unlawful medical advice about the off-label use of ivermectin to treat or prevent the disease. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in September 2023 ruled the FDA "has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine" or to otherwise give medical advice, in "tweet-sized doses."
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-01): NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans and it has been championed by some conservatives as a treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because studies have not proven it is effective. [...] Friday's ruling from a panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans focused on various aspects of an FDA campaign against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-08-09): A gov't attorney likened FDA’s warnings against treating COVID with ivermectin to advice not to eat chicken cooked in NyQuil Counsel for three doctors who prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19 told the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday that the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority with a public information campaign against taking the drug. [...] It published an advisory titled "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19," and sent letters to the Federation of State Medical Boards and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy directing them to read the missive.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-05): "Tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond" the Food and Drug Administration’s statutory authority, the Fifth Circuit ruled as to the agency’s social media posts that discouraged using ivermectin to treat Covid-19. A lower court must decide whether the case from three ivermectin-prescribing doctors has "any other jurisdictional" or standing issues that would prevent it from moving forward so remand was appropriate, the appeals court also said. "Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19," the FDA told its audience on X, formerly known as Twitter, as part of a viral engagement strategy ...
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-26): The FDA’s goal was to advise individuals against taking ivermectin, a medication used to treat parasitic infections in livestock, to treat COVID-19. "Stop it with the #ivermectin," the agency advised on Instagram. "It’s not authorized for treating #COVID." [...] More generally, the lawsuit overlooks the fact that the FDA has no power to discipline doctors for prescribing a medication that the agency has licensed, even when the prescription is for "off-label" use — that is, a purpose for which it has not specifically been approved. That’s the case with ivermectin, which the FDA has approved as a treatment for parasitic diseases, but not for COVID. COVID is not caused by parasites. [...] The appellate judges described the agency’s advisories about invermectin as a COVID treatment as more than "factual statements and information." The online posts, the judges said, "contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example ... ‘Stop it with the #ivermectin’)." The title of its consumer advisory, the judges observed, is "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin" for COVID. (Emphasis in the judges’ ruling.)
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-10-06): In the United States, the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 is championed by an organization led by Kory called Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC),[42] which promotes "the global movement to move #Ivermectin into the mainstream".[85] The effort went viral on social media, where it was adopted by COVID deniers, anti-vaccination proponents, and conspiracy theorists.[85] A review article by FLCCC members on the efficacy of ivermectin, which had been provisionally accepted by a Frontiers in Pharmacology, was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher called "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".[100] David Gorski wrote that the narrative of ivermectin as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19 is a "metastasized" version of a similar conspiracy theory around the drug hydroxychloroquine, in which unspecified powers are thought to be suppressing news of the drug's effectiveness for their own profit.[101] [...] - ^ "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19". United States Food and Drug Administration. Consumer Updates. Silver Spring, Maryland: Food and Drug Administration. 10 December 2021. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-28): Misleading: The lawsuit has no bearing on whether ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Well-performed clinical trials didn’t find that ivermectin produces meaningful benefits in COVID-19 patients. Ivermectin remains unapproved and unauthorized by the FDA for treating COVID-19. [...] Notably, the complaint clarified that "[t]his case is not about whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. It’s about who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process". This piece of information becomes relevant later on, as we will see. [...] Claims that a court found the FDA broke the law with its ivermectin advisory or that it lost the case are inaccurate and misrepresent the outcome of the case. Furthermore, the outcome also has no bearing on whether ivermectin is effective for COVID-19. Multiple clinical trials have detected no meaningful benefit from treating COVID-19 with ivermectin.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-05): In response to a civil suit, lawyers for the Food and Drug Administration described the agency’s warnings about the unapproved use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as "recommendations." Although that description doesn’t reveal new information, some conservative outlets have falsely claimed it’s an "outrageous" revelation and a change in the FDA’s position. [...] The FDA’s website still explains why people shouldn’t use ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and the National Institutes of Health recommends against its use for the disease, except for clinical trials. [...] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19." 5 Mar 2021.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-01): NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans and it has been championed by some conservatives as a treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because studies have not proven it is effective. [...] Friday’s ruling from a panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans focused on various aspects of an FDA campaign against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-27): The three judges hearing this appeal — two appointed by George W. Bush and one (the opinion’s author) by Donald Trump — found that the FDA had exceeded its authority in advising against the use of ivermectin against COVID. "The FDA can inform," the court said, "but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine." (Emphasis in the original.) [...] "You are not a horse," the agency tweeted. "Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID." The agency also issued a general warning headlined "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19," explaining that the drug has not been shown to be effective for the purpose and is dangerous in high doses. [...] In any event, there’s no case to be made that the FDA warnings caused the doctors’ professional troubles. Several professional organizations have warned of the ineffectiveness of ivermectin for COVID, including the American Medical Assn. No medical board needed the FDA to tell it that doctors prescribing this modern snake oil deserved scrutiny.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2023-09-06): A panel of conservative judges has revived a lawsuit over the Food and Drug Administration's statements about the anti-parasitic and de-worming drug ivermectin—statements meant to clarify that the drug is not effective against COVID-19 and that formulations for animals, including livestock, are not safe for use in humans. [...] The lawsuit over the posts comes from three doctors, all of whom have faced charges and/or discipline from their respective state medical boards and employers over their ivermectin prescribing. The disgraced trio argues that the FDA's statements interfered with their ability to prescribe the antiparasitic drug to COVID-19 patients—including some patients the doctors had never actually examined, according to allegations by state medical boards. [...] In an attempt to overcome the FDA's immunity, the doctors argued that the agency's ivermectin-related statements (including a consumer update and social media posts) were outside the agency's authority—and even the legal standard of a "colorable basis for authority." Specifically, they argued that while the FDA's posts seemed targeted to people trying to use the animal versions of ivermectin for COVID-19, the information also advised against using human versions, which are approved for some conditions, though not COVID-19. Thus, use of the human version for COVID-19 would be an off-label use—and off-label use of an approved human drug is common and generally at a doctor's discretion. The lawsuit argued that the FDA doesn't have express authority to advise against using an approved drug for off-label uses, and therefore, it exceeded its authority.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-28): Factually inaccurate: The lawsuit, alleging an FDA advisory warning against taking ivermectin for COVID-19 illegally interfered with physicians’ practice of medicine, was dismissed following a settlement between the FDA and plaintiffs. The court didn’t find that the FDA broke the law. Misleading: The lawsuit has no bearing on whether ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Well-performed clinical trials didn’t find that ivermectin produces meaningful benefits in COVID-19 patients. Ivermectin remains unapproved and unauthorized by the FDA for treating COVID-19. [...] Claims that a court found the FDA broke the law with its ivermectin advisory or that it lost the case are inaccurate and misrepresent the outcome of the case. Furthermore, the outcome also has no bearing on whether ivermectin is effective for COVID-19. Multiple clinical trials have detected no meaningful benefit from treating COVID-19 with ivermectin.