UN says Ebola in Congo still qualifies as global emergency.

Explanation: The World Health Organization says the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Congo still warrants being classified as a global emergency, even though the number of confirmed cases has slowed in recent weeks.

Health, Ebola virus, Africa, Epidemics, United Nations, Europe, General News, International News

The U.N. health agency first declared the epidemic, the second-deadliest Ebola outbreak in history, to be an international emergency in July. On Friday, it convened its expert committee to reconsider whether the designation is still valid and decide if other measures are necessary. WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the situation remains “complex and dangerous” and that officials must continue to treat every case like it’s the first. “Every case has the potential to spark a new and bigger outbreak,” he told reporters. To date, there have been 3,113 confirmed cases and more than 2,150 people have died since the epidemic was first declared last August. While only 15 new Ebola cases were confirmed last week, WHO noted the vast majority were not in people previously identified as contacts of others infected, suggesting health officials still have difficulty tracking where the virus is spreading. Dr. Michael Ryan, who heads WHO’s Ebola response, said that some of the most recent cases have been detected in a remote area where there is both legal and illegal mining and is difficult for health officials to reach. “We still don’t have a full picture of where the virus may be, but we don’t believe we’re dealing with a catastrophic situation,” he said, adding it may be another week or two before officials have a better understanding. WHO also said nearly a third of people are dying outside of Ebola treatment centers, potentially exposing families and loved ones to the disease. “When your new cases are not coming off your contact list, that means you don’t have things under control,” said Dr. Armand Sprecher, an Ebola specialist at Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF. Sprecher lamented that attempts to build trust among the wary local population are still failing. “We have not communicated very well over the last year, so can we really do this now? I don’t know.” Efforts to curb the outbreak have been hampered by violence against health workers — some have been killed — and some local residents suspect international responders of transmitting Ebola rather than stopping it. Misunderstandings have been high in communities that had never experienced the disease before. In June, the virus spilled into Uganda when a Congolese family, including some already infected, crossed into the country. Two later died of Ebola and the others were sent back to Congo for treatment. The outbreak currently is contained in Congo. The declaration of this outbreak as an international emergency was expected to bring increased funding and attention to combat the disease. This week, WHO reported that of the $287 million it estimates is needed until December, it has received only about $69 million, although additional funds have been pledged. This is the first Ebola outbreak to unfold in what has been called a war zone. Eastern Congo is home to numerous armed groups, and their attacks have halted response efforts many times, interrupting efforts to vaccinate people and monitor suspected cases. This outbreak is second only to the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa that left more than 11,300 people dead. Also on Friday, the European Medicines Agency recommended that the Ebola vaccine being used in this outbreak be licensed. More than 270,000 people have received it. The use of experimental Ebola vaccines in the past year has been a welcome development in fighting one of the world’s most notorious diseases. Last month, MSF called for an independent committee to oversee Ebola vaccination efforts after alleging WHO was unjustifiably restricting use of the Merck-made vaccine. MSF said the fact that so many people have been vaccinated — and yet the outbreak continues to spread — was a damning assessment of response efforts. Officials are testing a number of Ebola treatments but none is yet licensed.


A news reporter in Florida was diagnosed with cancer after a viewer spotted a lump in her throat during a broadcast.

Explanation: A handful of television personalities have been diagnosed with cancer after receiving a tip from viewers.

An investigative reporter with WFLA News Channel 8 in Tampa, Florida, was diagnosed with cancer after a viewer contacted her to point out a noticeable lump in her throat. Snopes spoke with Victoria Price, who confirmed in an email that this claim is true. The broadcast journalist also shared her story in a Twitter post on July 23, 2020, that read: As a journalist, it’s been full throttle since the pandemic began. Never-ending shifts in a never-ending news cycle. Adjusting to remote workflows and in my case, taking on a new investigative role. We were covering the most important health story in a century, but my own health was the farthest thing from my mind. Until a viewer emailed me last month. She saw a lump on my neck. Said it reminded her of her own. Hers was cancer. Turns out, mine is too. Price went on to say that COVID-19 responses created some “diagnostic delays,” but that she will have undergone surgery by mid-July 2020 to remove the tumor, thyroid, and a couple of nearby lymph nodes. Price’s doctor told her that the cancer is spreading, but “not too much,” and they are both hopeful that this will be the journalist’s “first and last procedure.” “Had I never received that email, I never would have called my doctor. The cancer would have continued to spread. It’s a scary and humbling thought,” wrote Price. The situation began when Price received an email from a concerned viewer, who asked the reporter to have her thyroid checked:


Explanation: This article discusses a once-a-day HIV treatment that may be available at some unknown time in the future. The treatment has been submitted to the FDA for approval. While the companies may be genuinely pleased with the studies they have done to demonstrate that the drugs in combination work as well as they do separately, those results still need to be evaluated by the FDA. This is an article on a re-packaging of a combination of medications currently used for the treatment of AIDS. The story fails to discuss issues that such re-formulation may cause that could be of concern to consumers. In several ways the story reads like it came from a drug company news release, although there is no direct evidence of that. The story would have been helped by interviews with independent experts who could address the evidence. There was really no evidence discussed in this story at all.

There was no cost of treatment information; how would this once-a-day pill compare to the two pill once-a-day combination? There was no quantification of benefits of treatment. While it is easy to forget to take medications that are taken several times during the day, it is also easy to forget to take a medication once-a-day. There were no data to indicate how compliance compared. No harms of treatment or side effects were mentioned. Does the frequency of side effects differ when medication is taken once or more than once a day? This article does not contain evidence. It appears to have been stimulated by “forward-looking” statements from one of the drug manufacturers involved in this partnership. It contains the view of one patient describing how difficult it is to remember to take daily prescription medications. This is a hurdle faced by many people with a variety of conditions other than HIV. The article did not contain evidence that compliance with taking medication once a day is actually better than dosing strategies that rely on medication taken multiple times a day. In addition, the article failed to provide information about how effective the once-a-day regiment is as compared to other dosing schemes. No evidence of disease mongering. While there were several people interviewed for the story, an independent source with expertise on the subject should have been asked to comment on the therapeutic claims. One patient provides a single patient perspective; two individuals working for AIDS advocacy groups are also quoted. However no expert was quoted on any clinical evidence demonstrating effectiveness of the proposed treatment. While not mentioning all the approaches to HIV treatment, the article does include mention of a combination of pills that could be taken once a day and gave an example of one patient who had to take only 3 pills twice a day. The story reports that the FDA is expected to approve the drug this year. But the timing of FDA approval is highly uNPRedictable and in some recent cases the FDA has rejected the advice of expert panels. This medication has only just been submitted for FDA approval. The pill described would represent the first combination therapy for the treatment of HIV that necessitates taking medication only once a day. It is, however, a re-packaging of two existing treatments. So, if the story is going to let someone call this “a breakthrough,” it should at least explore what is novel and what isn’t. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.


Ireland to clarify abortion rules after woman's death.

Explanation: Ireland’s government pledged on Thursday to clarify its abortion laws after an Indian woman who was refused a termination died from blood poisoning in an Irish hospital.

Thousands took to the streets to protest on Wednesday after news broke of the death of Savita Halappanavar of septicemia following a miscarriage 17 weeks into her pregnancy. Activists in the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country, which has some of the world’s most restrictive laws on abortion, say the refusal by doctors to terminate the pregnancy earlier may have contributed to her death. “I was deeply disturbed yesterday by what Savita’s husband said. I don’t think as a country we should allow a situation where women’s rights are put at risk in this way,” Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore told parliament on Thursday. “There is no question of equivocation. We need to bring legal clarity to this issue and that is what we are going to do.”  Irish law does not specify under what circumstances the threat to the life or health of the mother is high enough to justify a termination, leaving doctors to decide. Critics say this means doctors’ personal beliefs can play a role. Halappanavar was admitted to hospital in severe pain on October 21 and asked for a termination after doctors told her the baby would not survive, according to her husband Praveen. The foetus was surgically removed when its heartbeat stopped days later, but her family believes the delay contributed to the blood poisoning that killed Halappanavar on October 28. Praveen said he would wait for the results of an investigation before deciding whether to sue, but that Ireland’s Roman Catholic tradition appeared to have been a factor in the decision to deny a termination. “I am still in shock. It is hard to believe that religion can mean somebody’s life,” Praveen Halappanavar told Reuters. He said he planned to return to Ireland from India, where he traveled with his wife’s body. The Irish health authority (HSE) has launched an inquiry which the health minister said must “stand up to the scrutiny of the world.” Irish media said Praveen would be interviewed. The Indian couple were resident and working in Ireland, he as an engineer and she as a dentist. Despite a dramatic waning of the influence of the Catholic Church, which dominated politics in Ireland until the 1980s, successive governments have been loath to legislate on an issue they fear could alienate conservative voters. Fine Gael, the senior partner in Ireland’s ruling coalition, told supporters before a recent election that it would not introduce new laws allowing abortion during its five-year term, despite pressure from its junior partner Labour to act. The government said it had received long-delayed recommendations from an expert panel on introducing new rules on abortion, and would report before the end of the month. Four out of five Irish voters support a change in the law to permit abortion in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, according to a recent opinion poll. But a vocal anti-abortion minority has dominated the debate on abortion in Ireland in the past, with campaigners arguing that the adoption of legislation or guidelines for medical terminations would bring in abortion through the back door. In 1992, when challenged in the “X-case” involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted when the woman’s life was at risk, including from suicide. A European Court of Human Rights in 2010 ruled that Ireland must clarify what this means in practice. “This is exactly what the (European) court was complaining about ... The court has not said Ireland must or must not have abortion, they said they have to clarify circumstances,” said Ronan McCrea, a barrister and lecturer in law at University College London. “The vagueness ... gives excessive scope to doctors to follow their own personal views or it means even if they want to give the treatment, they’ll fall foul of the law,” he said. Halappanavar’s death has dominated debate in Ireland’s parliament since news of it broke on Wednesday. Her photograph was spread across front pages of all Ireland’s major newspapers on Thursday, while editorials demanded action from politicians. The fact that she is a foreign national has heightened the government’s embarrassment. The story was on the front of several large Indian newspapers and family members were featured on national television. The Indian government said on Thursday it deeply regretted Halappanavar’s death. “The death of an Indian national in such circumstances is a matter of concern,” a spokesman said.


Explanation: Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday defended President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, saying his January decision to restrict travel from China was “ahead of the curve.”    Santorum’s comments came one day after Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that earlier implementation of social-distancing and stay-at-home orders could have saved lives lost to the coronavirus. Really, Trump wasn’t “ahead of the curve,” as Santorum said. He was following the advice of experts in his own administration – and the actions of the industry directly affected by the move. And about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States.

National, Coronavirus, Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum,

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday defended President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak in an interview with CNN anchor John King. "The president looks like he was ahead of the curve – as you know, he talks about this all the time – on shutting down travel from China," said Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania who lost his bid for a third term in 2006. Santorum’s comments came one day after Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that earlier implementation of social-distancing and stay-at-home orders could have saved lives lost to the coronavirus. Santorum called Fauci’s remarks "Monday morning quarterbacking" and sought to redirect attention to other coronavirus mitigation strategies he believes the Trump administration embraced early on. Fauci, later on Monday, said his remarks were hypothetical. We wondered whether Trump’s decision to restrict travel from China was as prescient as Santorum described. The administration announced the restrictions on Jan. 31 and they took effect two days later. The policy prohibited non-U.S. citizens who had traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the country. Trump has repeatedly said he acted to restrict travel – first from China, then from Iran and finally from Europe – despite objections from experts. "But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that," Trump said on March 4. Later that same day, Trump spoke about the rationale behind his decision, telling Fox anchor Sean Hannity, "Everybody said, it’s too early, it’s too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don’t do it." Trump repeated the claim again at the Scranton town hall he held on March 5, saying he imposed the travel restrictions "against the advice of almost everybody." The World Health Organization did caution against the overuse of travel restrictions around the time the one imposed by the U.S. first took effect, but public health officials in this country and many airlines themselves agreed on the policy’s importance. Several airlines voluntarily halted flights between the U.S. and China a few days before the administration’s travel restrictions took effect. And Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said experts in his department all agreed that restricting travel from countries with coronavirus outbreaks was the right call. "The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental," Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. "These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS." What was the rest of the world thinking at the same time? We consulted Think Global Health, an initiative of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations that is tracking travel restrictions on China due to COVID-19. By the group’s count, about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. That number covers variations of travel restrictions in effect up to and including Feb. 1. Think Global Health’s tracker includes partial or total land border closures, suspension of flights to and from China, visa restrictions, such as a pause on visa-on-arrival programs, and entry restrictions (similar to what the United States implemented). "While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others," said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did." Santorum said, "The president looks like he was ahead of the curve – as you know, he talks about this all the time – on shutting down travel from China." Trump wasn’t "ahead of the curve," as Santorum said. He was following the advice of experts in his own administration – and the actions of the industry directly affected by the move. And about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. PolitiFact’s Miriam Valverde contributed to this report.


Fourth Canadian farm hit by pig killing virus: Ontario official.

Explanation: The piglet killing Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus has spread to a fourth farm in the Canadian province of Ontario, the provincial government said on Wednesday, despite the hog industry’s efforts to stop it by disinfecting delivery trucks and clothing used on farms.

The virus has killed more than 1 million piglets in the United States but it has so far been contained within Canada to southern Ontario farms. The fourth case has been confirmed in Norfolk County along the north shore of Lake Erie, said Mark Cripps, a spokesman for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. The other confirmed cases are farms further west in Middlesex County and near Chatham-Kent. “Given the virulent nature of this virus, it is disappointing, but not unexpected that PED would be found in Canada and it is likely that more cases will be identified in the coming days and weeks,” Cripps said in an email. Ontario confirmed the first Canadian case last week. PEDv - which causes diarrhea, vomiting and severe dehydration in hogs - has turned up in 23 of the 50 states since its discovery in the United States last April. The virus, which is already established in Europe and Asia, poses no threat to humans and is not a food safety risk.


Doctors and nurses suffered as Iran ignored virus concerns .

Explanation: They are regarded as heroes, their fallen colleagues as martyrs. But for doctors and nurses still dealing with Iran’s growing number of coronavirus infections, such praise rings hollow.

AP Top News, Iran, International News, Cairo, Middle East, Health, Virus Outbreak, General News

While crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. government left the country ill-equipped to deal with the fast-moving virus, some medical professionals say government and religious leaders bear the brunt of the blame for allowing the virus to spread -- and for hiding how much it had spread. Those medical workers say they were defenseless to handle the contagion. And as a result, doctors and nurses in Iran have been hard hit by the virus. During the first 90 days of the virus outbreak alone, about one medical staffer died each day and dozens became infected. “We are heading fast toward a disaster,” said a young Isfahan doctor who has been working tirelessly, checking dozens of suspected coronavirus patients before referring them to hospitals. It is no secret that Iran has been hit hard by the coronavirus. Official government figures show that around 100,000 people were infected by the virus and around 6,500 have died. But a report by the research arm of Iran’s parliament said the number of cases could be eight to 10 times higher, making it among the hardest hit countries in the world. The report said the number of deaths could be 80% higher than officials numbers from the Health Ministry, about 11,700. The Iranian government is currently reporting a decline in the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths in many areas, even though local authorities are expanding cemeteries in places like Tehran where the municipal council said it had to add 10,000 new graves to its largest cemetery, Behesht e-Zahra. Interviews with more than 30 medical professionals and a review of communications by doctors on messaging apps and other documents by an Associated Press reporter in Cairo revealed many previously unreported details. The reporting paints a fuller picture of the roots and extent of the country’s disjointed response as the deadly virus spread throughout the population. In the beginning, medical staffers faced the outbreak with very limited equipment. Some washed their own gowns and masks or sterilized them in regular ovens. Others wrapped their bodies in plastic bags they bought at the supermarket. The makeshift equipment didn’t help. Further complicating the situation, the Health Ministry said millions of pieces of protective gear ordered by the agency were stolen and diverted to the black market. The result: Dozens of medical professionals without adequate protection died along with their patients. Iran’s leaders, several medical professionals said, delayed telling the public about the virus for weeks, even as hospitals were filling up with people suffering from symptoms linked to the virus. And even as doctors and other experts were warning the Iranian president to take radical action, the government resisted, fearing the impact on elections, national anniversaries, and the economy. “They wanted to send people to the streets,” said a Mazandaran-based nurse and activist. One doctor interviewed by The Associated Press — who, like all medical workers interviewed for this story, spoke only on the condition that they not be named for fear of persecution — said he and his colleagues were even discouraged from using protective equipment. He said government officials claimed wearing masks would cause panic. The country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed on March 10 that the doctors, nurses, and medical staffers who died in the fight against the coronavirus in Iran were “martyrs.” Pictures of deceased doctors have been placed alongside those of soldiers who were killed in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, which claimed the lives of a million Iranians and Iraqis. “They are normalizing death,” a Tehran-based health consultant said. A list compiled by a group of Iranian doctors found that a total of 126 medical staffers have died since the virus was first reported, mostly in the provinces of Gilan and Tehran, while over 2,070 contracted the virus. The AP verified 100 of the deaths by piecing together scattered news reports in local media outlets, statements from health institutions and social media messages of condolences. Health Ministry spokesman Kianoush Jahanpour acknowledged the deadly toll of COVID-19 on the medical profession in Iran, telling the AP the total number of deaths is 107. Jahanpour said 470 had tested positive for the virus. But he placed the blame on the U.S. “Remember this is a country under sanctions,” he said. Iran has maintained throughout the crisis that its own industries made enough protective material to fight the virus. Iran reported its first two cases on Feb. 19 in the city of Qom — 140 kilometers (88 miles) south of Tehran and home of highly revered Shiite shrines. It would become the epicenter of the outbreak. The announcement apparently was made under some duress. A doctor there named Mohammed Molei filmed himself next to his bedridden brother, insisting that his brother be tested for the virus. That coincided with a visit by a Health Ministry delegation to the city. But doctors interviewed by the AP say that before the official announcement, they started to see cases with the same symptoms as the novel coronavirus and warned the national Health Ministry that it needed to take action. Some doctors shared with the AP letters sent to the ministry. The doctors at first said they attributed the respiratory problems among patients and deaths to the H1N1 flu. Days later, they started to call for testing for H1N1 and other diseases to rule them out; the rate of infections and deaths seemed unusually high. Through channels on the Telegram messaging service, they exchanged data. They reached out to the Health Ministry and proposed a set of recommendations and actions. At the top of the list: a quarantine and restricting travel and flights with China. But it would be another two weeks before the government took action. “We gave a lot of information to the government through letters and communication channels,” said a Mazandaran-based activist and doctor. He said he and other medical professionals were ignored by government officials. Two days after announcing the first cases, Iran held its parliamentary elections where thousands lined up to vote. That same day, doctors in Gilan — one of the worst hit areas in Iran — appealed to the governor for help, saying their hospitals were flooded with patients amid a shortage of masks and other protection equipment. “The health personnel of the province are exposed to a huge threat,” a letter sent by the doctors read. But government officials played down the danger of the virus, calling the physicians’ plea for a quarantine “medieval” and floating unfounded conspiracy theories that the U.S. created the coronavirus to promote a fear-mongering campaign. The feared paramilitary Revolutionary Guard kept health facilities under tight control and medical statistics were treated as top secret, the medical staffers said. Death certificates were not recording the coronavirus as the cause of deaths — either because not all severe cases were tested or just for the sake of keeping the numbers down. Thousands of unaccounted deaths were attributed to secondary causes like “heart attack” or “respiratory distress.”  And a doctor in Tehran said the Health Ministry gave orders not to refer critical cases to hospitals to be tested for the virus — to keep the numbers low, she said. “We suppose they (want to) say they’re doing good,” she said. A Tehran-based radiologist said that he had access to medical files of patients at different Tehran hospitals. The reports include CT scans and blood tests that pointed to the coronavirus. But tests were not done. “These are 40% of the cases,” he said, “It’s just difficult to prove.”  “The number of real patients with COVID-19 in Iran, from the beginning ... until today is much more than what has been reported,” he said, echoing similar sentiments by most medical workers interviewed by the AP. He estimated that the numbers are three to four times higher than the figures released by the government. “The authorities believe they are doing great and they try to keep things out of spotlight,” a medical scholar said. Clinics and hospitals became hubs of infection, even as parliamentary elections and national celebrations went on:  — In Khorasan, the head of the medical science school which oversees hospitals receiving corona patients, Ali Asghar, told a local news agency that a total of 600 people died between Feb. 19 and April 4. The government number through March 22 was 42. — In Golestan, AbdolReza Fazel, a top health official, told local media that 230 had died though April 2, while the government recorded just 10 cases. — In Isfahan, Tahereh Changiz, the head of the medical school, told the IMNA news agency that the total number of deaths reached 400; the official figure was just 87. — According to one health official and two doctors, the total deaths in Gilan have surpassed 1,300 so far. The last breakdown provided by the government on March 22 said the total did not exceed 200. “Gilan wasn’t ready at all,” said one physician there. “It was a catastrophe.” Said another doctor: “The first weeks, the system has collapsed,” with patients sleeping in the corridors and doctors forced to make painful choices. A nurse at Shafa Hospital in the provincial capital of Rasht said ventilators were removed from dying patients to let others live. “Death certificates were written before they died,” the nurse said with a hoarse voice. On the death certificates, the doctor scribbled, “heart attack” or “respiratory distress” as a cause of death. “It was my worst day in my life when they cut the oxygen. After work, when I went back home, I could do nothing but crying,” she said. A psychologist in Tehran told the AP that many medical staffers were traumatized. Images of the dying patients left them with a deep sense of guilt, suicide thoughts, and panic attacks, he said. He recalled one nurse who had a recurring nightmare of burying her parents alone. Another said she dreamed she was looking into a telescope, anticipating with horror a meteor strike. ICU doctor Gol Rezayee appeared in a March 29 video that went viral on social media as he tried, but failed to revive a dying patient’s heart. On Telegram, he wrote the last words he exchanged with the victim. “Doctor, if I die, tell my husband to take care of the kids,” he recalled the woman saying. “He is careless and naughty.”  Rezayee said he responded: “It’s just like a cold. You will live 120 years.” Hours later, the woman was dead. Medical professionals also watched as their own colleagues succumbed to the virus. As the outbreak in Rasht unfolded during the last week of February, patients packed the clinic of the city’s most popular physician, Mohammad Bakhshalizadeh, who often treated the poor for free, set up the first association for physicians in the province and volunteered during the war with Iraq. As the virus spread, the 66-year-old doctor examined an average of 70 patients each day, largely without protective gear. A week after Iran officially announced the first two official cases in Qom, Bakhshalizadeh developed a fever and had trouble breathing. Initial tests for coronavirus were inconclusive. Another test showed that his lungs were turning white. He later drove himself to several hospitals until he found one with an empty bed. Days later, on March 10, he died.


Toking up while working out: Pair plan gym allowing pot use.

Explanation: A former pro football star and an advocate for athlete marijuana use have teamed up to open a gym in San Francisco that they say will be one of the first in the world to allow members to smoke pot while working out.

San Francisco, Ricky Williams, California, Medical marijuana, Lifestyle, Novato, Football

Former running back Ricky Williams, who played for the Saints, Dolphins and Ravens, and Jim McAlpine, a snowboard company executive, said Power Plant Fitness also will offer edibles and topical gels for those who don’t like smoking the plant. They say using pot while exercising can help them focus or relax. Members of the gym, which plans to open this year, will need a medical marijuana prescription to join, but that could change if California voters legalize recreational pot in November. “I personally use it for focus. It’s not about getting high. It’s about keeping my mind engaged in the activity I’m in,” said McAlpine, who organizes the 420 games, athletic events aiming to stop the stigma against pot use. Carla Lowe, founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, a political action committee based in Sacramento, said it’s not clear how the drug affects the body but “there’s zero evidence that marijuana helps you focus. There is evidence that it makes you dopey.” Her group is working to defeat the ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in California, saying it “does not bode well for the future of our country.” But Williams, who was suspended several times by the NFL for marijuana use, said he wants to dispel the stigma. “I think a lot of people buy into the stoner stereotype where guys just sit on the couch, smoke and don’t do anything, and they’re not very motivated,” said Williams, who retired from the NFL after the 2011 season. “I found when I was playing football that using cannabis helped me relax physically, relax mentally and even spiritually.” Any potential benefits of marijuana on exercise have not been studied thoroughly. But one doctor who works with marijuana-smoking patients says the drug can help manage post-workout pain. “To use cannabis in that sense for pain relief instead of the usual things you’re able to use now, like opioids, is hands down why you would use it,” said Dr. Perry Solomon, chief medical officer for HelloMD, a digital health care platform for the cannabis industry.


New schizophrenia drugs no better, Dutch team find.

Explanation: Costly new antipsychotic drugs are not significantly better than cheaper older ones at treating a first episode of schizophrenia, Dutch researchers said on Friday.

The finding adds to controversy about the benefits of second-generation products like AstraZeneca Plc’s Seroquel and Eli Lilly and Co’s Zyprexa, which were introduced in the 1990s and are now multibillion-dollar sellers. Such so-called atypical antipsychotics today account for the lion’s share of prescriptions and are purported to be more effective and less likely to cause side-effects, such as stiffness and tremors. But Rene Kahn of the University Medical Centre in Utrecht and colleagues said they were not necessarily better. To compare the medicines they did an open randomized trial involving 498 patients aged 18 to 40 years. The participants were given either the old drug haloperidol or one of four higher-dose new drugs — Seroquel, Zyprexa, Pfizer Inc’s Geodon or Sanofi-Aventis SA’s Solian. Over the following 12 months, 63 patients on haloperidol stopped treatment compared to 51 on Seroquel, 32 on Solian, 31 on Geodon and 30 on Zyprexa. The reductions in all symptoms, however, were about the same for all groups, at around 60 percent, and there were no significant differences between the drugs according to sex, tendencies towards suicide and substance abuse. The higher continuation rate seen with the newer drugs was encouraging but Kahn, writing in the Lancet medical journal, said “it cannot be concluded that second-generation antipsychotic drugs are more efficacious”. The new report follows earlier critical research, including a U.S. study in December 2006 that found another first-generation antipsychotic drug, perphenazine, was as effective as newer medications. Robert Rosenheck of the VA Connecticut Health Care System in the United States said in an accompanying Lancet commentary there was “much less, if any, ground for enthusiasm about these costly drugs now than in 2002”. The latest Dutch study received funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Sanofi.


Key moments in lead in water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Explanation: A judge in Flint, Michigan on Monday ruled that there is enough evidence for the head of Michigan’s health department, Nick Lyon, to stand trial on charges of involuntary manslaughter related to the city’s lead-contaminated water crisis. He’s accused of not providing timely notification to the public about a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in the Flint area in 2014 and 2015.

Health, Trials, Michigan, Legionnaires disease, Detroit, Flint, Disease outbreaks

A look back at key moments in the crisis. ___ April 2014: In an effort to save money, Flint begins drawing water from the Flint River for its 100,000 residents. The move is considered temporary while the city waits to connect to a new regional water system. Residents immediately complain about the smell, taste and appearance of the water, and raise health concerns, reporting rashes, hair loss and other problems. January 2015: Detroit offers to reconnect Flint to its water system, but Flint leaders insist the water is safe. Sept. 24, 2015: A group of doctors urges Flint to stop using the Flint River for water after finding high levels of lead in the blood of children. State regulators insist the water is safe. Sept. 29, 2015: Gov. Rick Snyder pledges to take action in response to the lead levels — the first acknowledgment by the state that lead is a problem. October 2015: Snyder announces that the state will spend $1 million to buy water filters and test water in Flint public schools, and days later calls for Flint to go back to using water from Detroit’s system. Dec. 29, 2015: Snyder accepts the resignation of Department of Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant and apologizes for what occurred in Flint. Jan. 5, 2016: Snyder declares a state of emergency in Flint, the same day federal officials confirm that they are investigating. A week later, the Michigan National Guard begins helping to distribute bottled water and filters, while Snyder asks the federal government for help. Jan. 14, 2016: Snyder asks the Obama administration for major disaster declaration and more federal aid. The White House provides federal aid and an emergency declaration on Jan. 16, but not the disaster declaration. Jan. 15, 2016: Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette begins an “independent review” into the Flint crisis. Mid-March. 2016: State officials testify before Congress, including Snyder and the state-appointed emergency manager who oversaw Flint when the water source was switched to the river. March 23, 2016: A governor-appointed panel concludes that the state of Michigan is “fundamentally accountable” for the crisis because of decisions made by environmental regulators. April 20, 2016: Two state officials and a local official are charged with evidence tampering and other crimes in the Michigan attorney general’s investigation — the first to be levied in the probe. Aug. 14, 2016: A federal emergency declaration over Flint’s lead-tainted water crisis ends, but state officials say work continues to fix the drinking water system and provide services to city residents. Dec. 10, 2016: Congress approves a wide-ranging bill to authorize water projects across the country, including $170 million to address lead in Flint’s drinking water. Dec. 16, 2016: Congressional Republicans quietly close a yearlong investigation into Flint’s crisis, faulting both state officials and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 20, 2016: Schuette charges former emergency managers Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose with multiple 20-year felonies for their failure to protect the residents of Flint from health hazards caused by contaminated drinking water. He also charges Earley, Ambrose and two Flint city employees with felony counts of false pretenses and conspiracy to commit false pretenses in the issuance of bonds to pay for a portion of the water project that led to the crisis. Feb. 17, 2017: The Michigan Civil Rights Commission issues a report that finds “systemic racism” going back decades is at the core of problems that caused the water crisis in the majority black city of Flint. March 16, 2017: Snyder announces that his administration will enact the country’s toughest lead limit for water in the wake of the lead contamination in Flint. March 28, 2017: Water lines in homes at Flint will be replaced under a landmark deal approved by a judge, marking a milestone in the effort to overcome the disastrous decision in 2014 to draw water from the Flint River without treating it to prevent lead contamination. June 14, 2017: Michigan Health and Human Services Director Nick Lyon is accused of failing to alert the public about an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in the Flint area that some experts believe resulted from poorly treated water. He and four others are charged with involuntary manslaughter. The state’s chief medical officer, Dr. Eden Wells, is charged with obstruction of justice and lying to an investigator. April 2018: Snyder ends Flint water distribution, saying the city’s water quality had significantly improved. July 19: A federal watchdog calls on the Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen its oversight of state drinking water systems nationally and respond more quickly to public health emergencies such as the lead-in-the water crisis in Flint. The EPA says it agrees with the inspector general’s recommendations and is adopting them “expeditiously.” Aug. 20: A judge orders Lyon to stand trial on involuntary manslaughter charges in the deaths of two men linked to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in the Flint area. Some experts have blamed Legionnaires’ on Flint’s water.


J&J recalls 33,000 bottles of baby powder as FDA finds asbestos in sample.

Explanation: Johnson & Johnson said on Friday it is recalling around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after U.S. health regulators found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online.

J&J shares fell more than 6% to close at $127.70. The move marks the first time the company has recalled its iconic baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma. The recall is the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old U.S. healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal. A jury last week ordered the company to pay $8 billion to a plaintiff in a case claiming J&J downplayed the risks of Risperdal. That award is not expected to stand, the company and legal experts have said. J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, caused their cancer. On a conference call with reporters on Friday, Dr. Susan Nicholson, head of Women’s Health in the company’s medical safety organization, called the asbestos finding “extremely unusual,” adding that it was “inconsistent with our testing to date.”  The voluntary recall announced on Friday is limited to one lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said. J&J in a news release said that testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as recently as a month ago found no asbestos in their talc. The FDA said in a statement that the latest sampling took place during its testing for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics that it began reporting this year. A second Johnson’s Baby Powder sample from a different lot tested negative for asbestos, the agency said. The FDA said it stands by the quality of its testing and results and recommended consumers stop using the product if it comes from the affected lot. J&J said on the conference call that it received a report from the FDA on Oct. 17 alerting the company about the asbestos finding. It said it has started an investigation and is reviewing manufacturing records and collecting data on the distribution of the lot to determine where the product was shipped. J&J added that it is working with the FDA to determine the integrity of the tested sample as well as the validity of test results. The type of asbestos discovered by FDA testing has not been found in the mine where the company sources its talc, J&J’s Nicholson said. She described it as an environmental contaminant most commonly found in building materials and industrial applications. J&J said it was too early to confirm whether cross-contamination of the sample had caused a false positive, whether the sample was taken from a bottle with an intact seal or whether the it was prepared in a controlled environment. It added that it could not confirm whether the tested product was authentic or counterfeit. “It is so critical that we perform a thorough investigation of the sample to determine the source of contamination,” Nicholson said. Since 2003, talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United States has come from China through supplier Imerys Talc America, a unit of Paris-based Imerys SA and a co-defendant in much of the talc litigation. Imerys and J&J said the Chinese talc is safe. J&J has known for decades that asbestos lurked in its talc, Reuters reported last year. Internal company records, trial testimony and other evidence show that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos. Company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it, while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public, Reuters found. J&J has repeatedly said that its talc products are safe, and that decades of studies have shown them to be asbestos-free and that they do not cause cancer. The FDA test indicated the presence of no greater than 0.00002% of chrysotile asbestos in the tested sample, J&J said. The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later. Thousands of the lawsuits against J&J have been consolidated before a New Jersey federal judge, who is currently weighing company motions to disqualify plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including the head of an asbestos testing lab who has testified in earlier trials that he found the contaminant in J&J powders. Leigh O’Dell, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys, on Friday said the recall “vindicates the position we’ve been taking for months.”  Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen said in a research note that the recall could encourage additional lawsuits and prompt the company to pursue a broader settlement. Jefferies healthcare strategist Jared Holz said J&J has already lost close to $10 billion in market value due to the talc issue over the past year. He said further downside to J&J stock is likely to be limited because legal concerns over talc are well known and have already taken a toll on the share price. “This is one single bottle within one lot with barely a trace here,” he said. J&J said in February that it had received subpoenas from the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for documents related to the asbestos contamination allegations. A Bloomberg report, which Reuters has confirmed, said those inquiries include a criminal grand jury investigation into how forthright J&J has been in its statements about the safety of its powders. While talc products make up less than 1% of J&J sales expected by analysts to reach $82 billion in 2019, the New Jersey-based healthcare-products maker considers its Baby Powder to be an essential facet of a carefully tended image as a caring company.


Explanation: This story is chock full of testimonials praising an asthma treatment that uses radio waves to zap troublesome lung tissue. Readers would never guess that the editorial author who commented on the key trial of the device wrote that “The overall net effect of bronchial thermoplasty in the AIR2 trial is somewhat disappointing.” Indeed, based on the only double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of the device, almost all of the improvement reported by patients could be explained by a placebo effect, something the story doesn’t mention. The story does a commendable job on many of our criteria, but then it stumbles on the fundamental question of how much of an advance the new treatment really is. It also fails to alert readers to financial ties between researchers and the company now marketing a bronchial thermoplasty device. When someone says a new treatment is better, it is imperative to ask, “Better than what?” By failing to tell readers that most of the people in the control group also improved during the key test of this asthma treatment device, this story paints an overly rosy view. By our calculation, the number needed to treat with this approach is 7 – you’d need to treat 7 people in order for one to benefit. Wouldn’t that have been helpful information?

The story is concise but thorough. In three sentences it reports that few insurers cover the procedure because it is new, that the cost ranges from $12-18,000 and also that some patients with severe asthma may spend a similar amount on standard care (including hospitalizations.) As noted in the comments on the quality of the evidence, this story left out essential information about the key published trial data of bronchial thermoplasty. While the story includes several patients telling how much better they feel after treatment, it fails to tell readers that most of the patients in the control group also reported feeling much better after undergoing sham treatment. As the editorial accompanying the journal article on the trial noted, it is crucial to include a comparison with a control group when assessing the overall benefit of this sort of intervention. The story fails to give readers that important context. The story reports that the treated patients were less likely than control group participants to have an asthma attack, go to an ER, or lose work or school days. But not only does the story leave out the absolute improvements, it fails to inform readers that when adverse events related to the treatment itself are included, there was no net benefit seen over the first year. Oddly, the story leaves out any mention of the primary outcome measure of the key trial: what the patients reported on a standard questionnaire about their asthma-related quality of life. The story should have pointed out that while about four out of five people treated with bronchial thermoplasty reported clinically significant improvement, almost two out of three people given the sham treatment reported similar improvement. Based on the results reported by researchers, about seven asthma patients would have to be treated in order to get one additional person who says he or she has a significantly better quality of life. The story includes only glowing reports from treated patients and thus gives readers a flawed view of the potential benefits. The story does warn of risks. However, it doesn’t tell readers how common they are. In fact, the researchers reported that 85 percent of patients reported at least one adverse event and that problems (including hospitalizations) occurred often enough in the first few weeks after treatment that it was only when researchers disregarded those treatment-related problems that they saw a net benefit during the first year. The researchers say their longer-term follow-up indicates patients report ongoing benefits according to some of the research measurements, but the story should have pointed out that the potential gains come only after enduring several weeks of recovery and elevated risk. This is where the story gets tripped up. When the trial results were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, an accompanying editorial not only called the results “somewhat disappointing,” it questioned the lack of information about biological basis for the treatment effect. The editorial also highlighted an important trial result that was left out of this story: most of the participants in the control group reported feeling better after receiving sham treatment. The story should have alerted readers to the powerful placebo effect, which makes the anecdotal reports in the story highly suspect. Indeed, if the reporter had interviewed people who got the sham treatment, most of them would have also reported that they were faring much better a year after their “treatment.” References: Effectiveness and Safety of Bronchial Thermoplasty in the Treatment of Severe Asthma. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2010 Jan 15;181(2):116-24. Epub 2009 Oct 8. Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815809 Full text: http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/181/2/116 (subscription may be required) Editorial: Bronchial Thermoplasty: Has the Promise Been Met? American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 181. pp. 101-102, (2010) Elisabeth H. Bel, M.D., Ph.D. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/181/2/101  (subscription may be required)  The story includes an estimate from the device manufacturer that about 10 percent of people with asthma might be candidates for this procedure – those who have problems controlling their asthma despite trying all standard treatments. It also specifically says that bronchial thermoplasty is not for people with mild, occasional asthma. However, the story closes with a quote saying that doctors will start using the treatment on more patients once they have more experience with it. Will that expanded use be based on evidence or anecdote? Journalists should keep an eye out for practitioners and marketing that encourage people with milder cases of asthma to have this treatment and check to see if there are new clinical trial results to justify the broader use. It’s hard to tell whether an independent source is included. There is no doubt that the story fails to inform readers about the financial ties between most of the quoted experts and the company that funded their research and is now marketing the bronchial thermoplasty device. The conflict of interest statement included with the journal article on the key trial is more than a thousand words long, detailing payments from companies, including Asthmatix, the maker of this device (now part of Boston Scientific), to the lead researchers. The story does disclose that the company provided the contact information for all of the patients quoted in the story. It does not say whether any of the control group participants who got the sham treatment were contacted. The story does refer to standard treatments; however, it portrays standard treatment as often inadequate for the type of patient featured in the story. The editorial accompanying the key research article on this treatment says that the fact that most of the control group participants in the trial reported doing better while they were in the trial may indicate that they had not been getting optimal standard treatment beforehand. The editorial author says bronchial thermoplasty should not be considered unless a patient has first been “submitted to a rigorous treatment protocol.” In other words, when people with asthma say that standard treatment isn’t working, the real problem may be that they haven’t actually been treated properly. The story notes that the FDA approved this asthma treatment earlier this year and that it is available at about 30 medical centers in the U.S. Bronchial thermoplasty is indeed a relatively new approach to treating asthma. However, almost all of the trial results reported in this story were announced more than a year ago. The news is that the researchers recently presented results from the second year of follow-up at a medical meeting. However, the new information was barely mentioned in the story. The story does not appear to be based on a news release. However, all of the patients quoted in the story were provided by the device manufacturer. Technically, we must give the story a satisfactory score on this criterion since there is no evidence it relied solely or largely on a news release, even though it violates the spirit of the criterion.


Definitive tests for irritable bowel syndrome developed at Cedars-Sinai: New blood tests will speed up diagnosis for the most common GI disorder

Explanation: Image from ibschek.com The release states that two “simple” new blood tests can be used to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) by detecting antibodies that signal the presence of toxins that can cause IBS. This diagnosis, in turn, would allow patients to receive treatment more quickly. But the release has many problems that start with the headline, which claims there is now a “definitive” test for IBS. That’s an exaggeration, as the findings need further validation and they apply only to a subset of patients with diarrhea as their main symptom — something the release never explains. The release also glosses over some significant points — such as the fact that there were only 43 control patients (too small a group to draw “definitive” conclusions), and that there’s no evidence that treating patients based on these test results will actually improve their outcomes. The cost of the test and its potential harms — e.g. false-positive results that lead to unnecessary or misguided treatment — also aren’t explored in any way. [Editor’s note: We’ve also published a review of a CBS News story about the test that shares many of the same shortcomings as this release.] While it’s not clear how many people suffer from IBS, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD) reports that IBS affects at least 3 percent of the adult population — and probably closer to 10 or 15 percent of the adult population. The term “IBS” refers to a range of bowel symptoms including pain, constipation, and/or diarrhea. IBS is not meant to represent a single underlying cause, but in fact may represent a number of different conditions that result in functional bowel symptoms. This news release refers to an attempt to develop a test to better categorize certain patients with IBS. Though the news release implies the test is for all patients with IBS, in fact it evaluated two tests for individuals with IBS who had diarrhea as the predominant symptom. The implication that these tests may provide a diagnosis for IBS more broadly is not correct. Whether these tests hold up as being accurate when applied more broadly to patients with IBS and other related bowel conditions remains to be proven. It would also be important to see how common the test is positive in individuals without chronic bowel symptoms. Finally, even if these tests are specific for individuals with diarrhea-predominant IBS, it’s unclear if it would make any difference in their treatment or lead to a reduction in the severity of symptoms. That’s a premise that still needs to be tested.

Cedars-Sinai,irritable bowel syndrome,news release spin

The story does not address the cost of the IBS diagnostic tests at all. A consumer website for the tests, which are sold by Commonwealth Laboratories Inc., also did not include information about the cost of the tests. The benefits of these tests would be a clear and early diagnosis, allowing patients to receive relevant treatment earlier. But the release’s statement that the blood tests identify these antibodies with 90% certainty is at best misleading. The story never points out that only 33% to 44% of patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS tested positive — suggesting that most people with IBS will test negative (even though they do, in fact, have IBS). Any release about a new test should explain both the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Moreover, the release doesn’t tell readers that there is no cure for IBS. Instead, as the NIDDKD notes on its site, doctors “can manage the [IBS] symptoms with a combination of diet, medicines, probiotics, and therapies for mental health problems. You may have to try a few treatments to see what works best for you.” Or, as the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “treatment focuses on the relief of symptoms so that you can live as normally as possible.” Even without a confirmed diagnosis of IBS, patients would be able to share symptoms with their doctors. As a result, the physical health benefit here may be negligible. No test is 100% accurate. A wrong test result may lead doctors to causes that may not actually be the problem. As such it may lead to inappropriate treatments. That’s a harm that should have been mentioned. While the release does note the overall size (“nearly 3,000 people”) and general outlines of the study, it’s characterization of the evidence is misleading. First, this isn’t a test for IBS in general. It is a test for patients with chronic diarrhea – or IBS with diarrhea as the primary component. The release is simply wrong to use the general term “IBS” to describe this subgroup of IBS patients. Second, the release doesn’t describe that while the IBS population is large, there were only 43 control patients. It is hard to know how specific the test is without testing in more controls. In addition, the study reported (but the release didn’t mention) that the test wasn’t as good for differentiating IBS from celiac disease, and that 10-15% of inflammatory bowel disease patients (especially Crohn’s disease) also have IBS, so there’s no perfect test for these patients. Finally, such a study needs to be repeated in a new population. Tests and their thresholds are never quite as good when applied to new populations — something that wasn’t done here. The release says IBS affects “nearly 40 million people” in the U.S., and “an estimated 10 percent of the world’s population.” But this isn’t a test for IBS — it’s a test for those with the diarrhea predominant version. It’s not clear how many people we’re talking about, but according to this study, less than half of the people with IBS meet the criteria for the diarrhea-predominant version. The release exaggerates the potential impact of the test in a way that promotes a commercial interest, so we’ll flag it for disease mongering. We give the release credit here. It clearly notes that the lead author receives consulting fees from Commonwealth Laboratories — which is the company marketing these tests. And that Cedars-Sinai has a license agreement with the company for patent applications covering the blood tests, The release says that IBS has been “nearly impossible to diagnose until now.” But the release also says IBS “is the most common gastroenterological disorder in the United States.” There’s a clear disconnect between these two statements. IBS may not be easy to diagnose, but it is diagnosed. Often, an IBS diagnosis is reached after other conditions have been ruled out. A diagnosis may also come after extensive additional testing. In other words, the new blood tests would be a significantly quicker and easier way to reach diagnosis. But the release should have simply said that. The release clearly states that the tests are already on the market. These are the first blood tests for diagnosing IBS caused by food poisoning, and the release says so. This is a big one. The headline of the release states that “Definitive tests for irritable bowel syndrome developed…”. However, it would be far more accurate to say that “Reasonably accurate tests for diagnosing diarrhea-predominant IBS caused by food poisoning developed…”. The tests are a significant advance, but are still far from foolproof — after all, “more than 90 percent accurate” is also “almost 10 percent inaccurate.” Further, it’s not clear how many cases of IBS are caused by food poisoning, or whether identifying such patients with this test will improve their outcomes. All in all, not nearly as “simple” as the release suggests.


Donald Trump was not accused of sexual assault until he ran for President in 2016.

Explanation: President Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by nearly 20 women. Although the majority of those accusations were made public after the start of his 2016 presidential campaign, at least two of those accusations were made long before Trump had a career in politics.

Junk News, donald trump, sexual assault, sexual harassment

On 7 October 2016, The Washington Post released audio of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump having a lewd conversation with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush in 2005. In it, Trump can be heard making several comments, such as “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything” and “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” Many interpreted these comments to be admissions of sexual assault. More than a dozen women came forward in the aftermath of the tape’s release with stories of the presidential candidate sexually assaulting them. Among his accusers were  a contestant in a pageant he runs and a former contestant on his reality show. One prominent accusation during that time came from a woman who sued saying when she was 13 Trump allegedly solicited her for sex acts at a sex party in 1994. In an apparent attempt to discredit these women and their stories, the Facebook page “Capitalists” posted a meme in November 2016 claiming that Trump had never been accused of sexual assault until he started campaigning against Hillary Clinton:  This meme was recirculated in December 2017 after three of Trump’s accusers joined together to call on congress to launch a bipartisan investigation into the matter. Although an official investigation has not been launched as of this writing, lawmakers such as Kristin Gillibrand have also started pushing for an investigation into Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct. Although Trump had toyed with running for president prior to the most recent election, the meme specifies “ran against Hillary.” Trump formally announced that he was running for president against her in June 2015. (Clinton announced in April of that year.) Although the majority of the 19 women accusing Trump of sexual assault did so publicly for the first time after this date, at least two women accused Trump of sexual assault before the start of his 2016 presidential campaign. Ivana Trump’s Court Deposition in 1989:  Ivana Trump, Donald’s first wife, used the word “rape” under oath during a court deposition to describe an alleged violent sexual encounter with her soon-to-be ex-husband. Ivana’s testimony was described in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon by Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III: After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon. “Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried. What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants. “Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me. '” Ivana Trump released a statement shortly before this book was published to clarify that although she did truly use the word “rape” during her deposition, she did not mean it in a “literal” or “criminal sense”: When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement. “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.” The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.” According to a 1990 article from The New York Times, Ivana ultimately cited “cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump” as grounds for the divorce. Jill Harth’s Lawsuit in 1997: Jill Harth, who at the time went by Jill Harth Houraney, filed a lawsuit in 1997 in which she accused Trump, among other things, of attempted rape. Harth’s 12-page complaint listed several incidents in which Trump allegedly sexually assaulted her. Harth claimed that Trump treated her like a sexual object, expressed his interest to exploit her as a sex slave, demanded that she sleep with him, groped her during a business dinner party, and attempted to rape her: After Trump business associates left, the defendant (Trump) over the plaintiff’s (Harth’s) objections forcibly prevented plaintiff from leaving and forcibly removed plaintiff to a bedroom, whereupon defendant subjected plaintiff to defendant’s unwanted sexual advances, which included touching of plaintiff’s private parts in an act constituting attempted “rape.” Harth also provided several accounts of Trump mistreating other women. Trump denied the allegations. According to Law and Crime, the lawsuit was “voluntarily dismissed” but “without prejudice,” meaning that Harth could have decided to refile the lawsuit at a later date. Relying on anonymous sources, the New York Daily News reported at the time that the matter ended with a six-figure payout: The case was due to go to trial on July 17 in Manhattan Federal Court, but yesterday sources familiar with the deal said Trump had agreed to a six-figure payout. One source described the settlement as “peanuts. Just their legal fees. Donald is very happy. Widespread Accusations of Sexism: In addition to these two alleged incidents of forced sexual contact, the President was also repeatedly accused of sexism before he ran against Hillary Clinton. Although the following incidents focus on sexism and not necessarily sexual assault, they are worth mentioning as the meme suggests that Trump’s alleged poor treatment of women didn’t begin until the 2016 election. Former beauty queen Carrie Prejean described how contestants were subjected to the “Trump Rule,” a pre-contest ritual in which Trump and his staff would evaluate the contestants based on appearance, in her 2009 book: “Many of the girls found this exercise humiliating,” Prejean wrote. “Some of the girls were sobbing backstage after [Trump] left, devastated to have failed even before the competition really began . . . even those of us who were among the chosen couldn’t feel very good about it — it was as though we had been stripped bare.” In 2011, the Washington Post used the “Trump Rule” as a jumping off point to list several other instances that allegedly displayed Trump’s sexism: The world was reminded of the Trump Rule earlier this month, when New York Times columnist Gail Collins published a piece detailing how “The Donald,” in a fit of pique worthy of gossip blogger Perez Hilton, once sent her a copy of her column with the words “Face of a Dog!” scrawled on top of her picture. Collins, it should be noted, is just one of many targets of Trump’s gender-specific hostility: Last year, the master media manipulator was accused of asking the men on “The Apprentice” to rate their female peers, based on appearance, just one of a number of sexist decisions he’s made over the show’s 11 seasons. (“I bet you make a great wife,” one contestant says he told her in 2005.) No one is above his reproach. In 2007, commenting on a spat Angelina Jolie was having with her father, Jon Voight, Trump disparaged the actress’s sexual history (“she’s been with so many guys”) and told Larry King, “I just don’t even find her attractive.” […] Not that Trump cares. “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive],” he told a writer for Esquire in 1991. Trump was also accused of of sexist practices when employees of the Trump National Golf Club filed a a class action lawsuit in 2008. Although the bulk of the lawsuit dealt with the club’s break policies, unpaid reimbursements, and supervisors receiving tips, Lucy Messerschmidt, who was employed as a host at one of the club’s restaurants, said that she would be taken off shifts when Trump was on the premises because he liked to see “fresh faces” and “young girls.” The Los Angeles Times reported: “Donald Trump always wanted good looking women working at the club,” said Sue Kwiatkowski, a restaurant manager at the club until 2009, in a declaration. “I know this because one time he took me aside and said, ‘I want you to get some good looking hostesses here. People like to see good looking people when they come in.’ ” As a result, Kwiatkowski said, “I and the other managers always tried to have our most attractive hostesses working when Mr. Trump was in town and going to be on the premises.” The lawsuit was settled in 2013 when the club agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $475,000 to the employees. Strength in numbers: This meme makes the demonstrably false claim that President Trump was never accused of sexual assault prior to the 2016 election. He was accused of sexual assault during a 1989 court deposition, and again in 1997 lawsuit. It’s worth noting that although it’s true that the majority of sexual assault claims levied against the president weren’t made public until the 2016 election, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump’s accusers were politically motivated, as suggested by the meme. Victims of sexual assault may decide to keep their stories private for many reasons. In light of the allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, for instance, many women have said that they didn’t initially come forward because they were afraid of how it would affect their careers and personal lives. A 2003 study has shown that “75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment faced some form of retaliation.” In addition to fearing the repercussions of accusing a powerful person of sexual assault, many victims wrestle with the simple fact that the public may not believe their story. But as more and more women came forward in 2017 to accuse politicians, producers, and businessman of sexually assault, and more importantly, story after story about those men getting fired, resigning, or simply being shunned, the prospect of coming forward became more plausible for some. Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), an anti-sexual-violence group, noted that when one woman comes forward to speak about sexual abuse, other victims may find the courage to do the same: “The more cases like Weinstein, where victims are able to see that the community is on their side and is willing to believe them when they come forward, I think that has a long-term positive impact and encourages many more people to come forward,”  said Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), an anti-sexual-violence group. Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization for Women–New York, reiterated this sentiment in an interview with Self: “When one woman breaks the silence, others are empowered to tell their [stories] […] Together those stories paint the full picture and create an environment where victims are more likely to be believed.” In Trump’s case, the majority of women accusing him of sexual assault came forward in October 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape was released. At the time, the language of the tape was being condemned by political parties on both sides of the aisle, and public opinion of the candidate appeared to take a hit. It’s in this climate that most of Trump’s sexual accusers came forward with their stories. This meme is strikingly similar to another claim we debunked which argued that President Trump was never accused of being racist until he ran for president. As with that declaration of innocence, however, we found that these accusations of racism were not the political manifestations of a contentious election. In fact, Trump has faced legal action in regard to discrimination laws and was accused of making racist remarks by former employees, committee members, and protesters long before his successful presidential bid in 2016.


If you did the "age challenge" and used FaceApp to upload your picture, Russians now own all of your photographs.

Explanation: What's true: FaceApp, the company that developed and runs the aging software used to do the popular online "age challenge," is based in St. Petersburg, Russia. The company uploads user-submitted photographs to the cloud. What's false: FaceApp doesn't take all of the images off users' phones when they use the app. It only accesses the images that are uploaded. What's undetermined: It's unclear what FaceApp stores on its servers and what it does with that data.

The so-called “#AgeChallenge” went viral in mid-July 2019, starting with celebrities using technology from the St. Petersburg, Russia-based firm FaceApp to apply wrinkles, bags and gray hair to their faces. But almost as soon as people uploaded pictures of their “aged” selves on social media profiles came a backlash. Days after the challenge went viral, software developer Joshua Nozzi took to Twitter and mistakenly raised the alarm that the app was uploading all of the images on users’ devices, whether they selected them or not for the challenge (the app transforms people’s uploaded photographs to show them smiling, sad, etc.). Then came sensationalist headlines reporting (falsely) that “Russians now own all your old photos.” Before long, the panic reached fever pitch, with Democratic lawmakers calling for investigations and warning the technology could be used for election meddling similar to what occurred in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Although FaceApp is based in Russia, that detail alone is not a cause for concern, said Will Strafach, a security researcher and CEO of Guardian Firewall, because “anyone from anywhere in the world can access a server and data on it.” So far, no evidence exists supporting fears that using FaceApp creates a national security risk. Instead, concerns relate to personal data privacy. Strafach said many users believed that the images they filtered through the app were processed locally on their phones, but FaceApp actually uploaded the images to the cloud. “Nobody knew this data was being uploaded, and no one was able to say whether they were comfortable with that,” Strafach told us. “They should have had informed consent, and the reason people are so upset is that they didn’t have that choice.” Strafach also said he wasn’t impressed with the company’s public statements in response to fears about the product, stating it did little to assuage concerns about what FaceApp would do with the images once they were uploaded. In a statement sent to TechCrunch (FaceApp has yet to respond to our inquiries), FaceApp said the company only uploaded photographs selected by users, not entire camera rolls, and FaceApp accepts requests from users to delete data from the servers. The company also doesn’t share or sell data to any third party, and said that, “Even though the core R&D team is located in Russia, the user data is not transferred to Russia.” But Strafach said he was bothered by the company’s vague statement that “most” of the images were deleted after 48 hours, but that officials offered no proof of that. He also expressed concerns about whether the company had adequate security measures to protect the collected data from hackers. “Nothing in the app made me suspicious until I started seeing their answers. I don’t know what to think because only they know what’s on their servers, that’s the bottomline,” Strafach added. FaceApp’s terms of use have been criticized as being so broad that they give the company wide leverage to do what it pleases with data from users. But that’s not unusual for a company of its type, said Christine Bannan, a consumer privacy and data security attorney for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). The user agreement that gives the company wide leverage is a symptom of a bigger issue, Bannan said. “It’s a problem that we really do not have privacy protection [legislation] in the U.S.” FaceApp also isn’t new, and when the app itself first went viral in 2017, technology experts raised privacy concerns then. In light of the 2016 election-hacking scandal in the U.S. presidential fight between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, said David Carroll, associate professor of media design at New York’s New School, “The trust in tech has collapsed, and people are more suspicious of Russia.”  Ben Lamm, CEO of the AI technology and service company Hypergiant, told us in an email that, “Any mass aggregation of highly personal information including a likeness to unknown parties should be considered very carefully.” He added: FaceApp is based in Russia, and with that comes concerns about data transfer, data privacy, and government access to data. However, regardless of whether or not the Russian government has malicious intent relevant to this data, anyone could have malicious intent and we have no idea how secure or insecure the data is that the FaceApp team is handling. The general insecurity of all of our data should be the broader national security level concern we must grapple with as a nation. These types of scandals are exacerbated by the fact that the U.S. lags behind other countries, particularly those in Europe, in enacting data-privacy legislation, Bannan said. But on a positive note, Congress is drafting bills on the issue, she added. “There is hope something could come out of this Congress. There seems to be genuine bipartisan commitment to agreeing to a bill, but it’s ongoing now,” Bannan told us. “There’s always the hope that stories like this get members of Congress to pay attention and give more urgency to passing something.” Lamm added that the fact the viral challenge spread so quickly “Does show the ease with which potentially malicious products or news can spread that seem ‘fun.’ What else can spread while also stealing our information or potentially attacking our systems? We must become a culture that learns to ask questions and protects ourselves.” In summary, no evidence exists that FaceApp gave any information from its servers to any third party, including the Russian government, and using the app doesn’t result in a person’s entire camera roll from a phone being uploaded, either. But as experts have pointed out, the current concern lies with the company’s lack of disclosure about uploading images to its servers, and a lack of transparency about what it does with the data.


TravelLab: Adults take over science museums when night falls.

Explanation: Sometimes, in the middle of the night, nocturnal creatures are allowed to roam the halls of New York’s American Museum of Natural History, free from shouting and swarming children. They are adult humans, known to sometimes quietly contemplate science with a cocktail.

Natural history museums, Ben Stiller, New York, North America, Museums, Science, Travel, American Museum of Natural History, U.S. News

“If you go to a natural history museum during the day, it’s definitely a space for people who are under 4 feet tall. And that’s clear in every way — from the soup they serve at the cafeteria to the height of the label,” said Victoria Cain, a museum historian at Northeastern University in Boston. “It’s kind of fun to reclaim that space for adults.” On a recent June evening, 175 grown-ups signed up for a slumber party at the New York museum, which has capitalized on the hype created by Ben Stiller’s “Night at the Museum” franchise. The museum’s first sleepovers were aimed at kids. Then in 2014, people 21 and up were invited to explore its darkened exhibit halls. The experiment was so popular that other science centers followed suit. Aquariums and museums in Atlanta, Milwaukee, Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere have hosted pajama parties for grown-ups. And they’ve become a hot ticket, according to Cain. “When I saw that we could do it and that there was also alcohol, we were like, ‘Oh my gosh. Someone read our diary,’” said Janine Agarwal, 29, who attended the sleepover at the American Museum of Natural History to celebrate her husband’s birthday. THE EXPERIENCE During the night, guests have dinner in a room full of moon rocks and a 15-ton meteorite, and can wander around the 45 permanent exhibition halls. They can also join guided tours, visit the planetarium, meet with curators and chat with museum scientists about their research — all while the city rests. “I don’t think there’s any way you’d be able to experience this place in such a special way as doing this kind of overnight,” said Giancarlo Bruni, of Toronto, as he played with the control panel of a full-size submarine. “It’s phenomenal.” While only adults are allowed, there is still childish fun to be had. Monica Seebohm and her friend Renee Brown came in hooded T. rex onesies. “We’re always looking for some adventure, and we thought bringing a dinosaur costume was appropriate,” Seebohm said. “We like to dress for the occasion.” Lights go out at 2 a.m. People can sleep in their own sleeping bags or the museum’s cots, aligned right below the belly of a 94-foot-long blue whale that hangs from the ceiling of the Hall of Ocean Life. Those who feel restless can get cookies and coffee at the Hall of Planet Earth. Michael Nedell, 53, recalled being afraid of the whale as a child. “When I was younger, that blue whale freaked me out. I’d been scared of (it) until I grew into a teenager,” he said. “Now I get to sleep under her.” THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT Silence greets those who venture into remote exhibits. That stillness makes a difference for visitors hoping to learn something, said biologist John Karavias. “During the day, you’re fighting crowds. You feel like you’re being rushed and all you’re doing is getting an ‘Ooh!’ and an ‘Ah!’ but you’re not learning,” said Karavias, who studies the effects of climate change on marine life. “When you go to these at night, all the background noise is quieted down and you’re able to digest the science behind everything that you’re looking at.” He was recently invited to show off acrylic bowls filled with weird-looking sea stars and sea urchins. Bright red spikes covered the body of one big star. Another one had arms so thin that they looked like noodles. Some visitors were awed; others recoiled when they touched the marine creatures. Starfish like these depend on a healthy ocean to survive, Karavias explained. But carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and natural gas is making the ocean more acidic. That means sea urchins, mussels, corals and other organisms have a hard time creating their shells or skeletons, which affects their development. A few floors above, tour guide Arlene Katz taught visitors about animals that glow. She approached a tank with an eel snuggled in the rocks. Its camouflaged body was hard to pick out from the sandy bottom. But an ultraviolet film made it glow greenish-blue. It’s not making its own light, like a firefly does. Instead, it absorbs light and releases it as a different color that’s invisible to predators but obvious to other eels. “It’s a hidden language,” she explained. “Sometimes you gotta hide and sometimes you gotta show off. They’re doing it simultaneously. It’s a brilliant solution.” Katz said the sleepover is an opportunity for guests to be surprised by nature. “We want people to have so much fun that they almost forget they’re learning,” she said. “But this is not an amusement park. We are sneaking in a lot of information.” If You Go... AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: Central Park West and 79th Street, New York. Adult sleepovers are offered several times a year. The next one is Sept. 21, $350 per person. ELSEWHERE: Other science centers and institutions also organize adult slumber parties. New York’s Bronx Zoo provides tents for camping on its grounds. The Science Museum of Minnesota will hold a Zombie Adult Camp-in Oct. 26. The Chabot Space Science Center in Oakland, California, will host adults in August to view the Perseids meteor shower. ___ Follow Emiliano Rodriguez Mega on Twitter: @mapache_rm ___ 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.


Explanation: The article describes a study from Italy that reports that rates of sudden cardiac death fell after a screening program with EKG prior to sports participation was instituted. The article does a nice job of including cost and harms information. Letting readers know that screening can lead to unnecessary procedures (which have risks) is particularly valuable, given that many people perceive screening programs to be harmless. The story also provides statements to caution readers about the strength of the evidence, although the fact that this was a population-based cohort study which could not account for all confounders could have been clearer. The article reports benefits in relative terms; providing absolute reductions would have been best particularly because the relative reduction of 89% looks quite large, but the absolute risk is small in the first place and the risk reduction is even smaller. The article also does not describe any alternatives to screening with EKG. Often athletes do have a history and physical before participation and an accompanying editorial published with the study points out that this type of screening may be just as effective as screening with EKG, but we just don’t know. Overall, a balanced presentation, in only 600 words.

The article provides a cost of $20,000 a year for an EKG screening program at one U.S. university. The article also states that if the U.S. adopted such a screening program, approximately 10 million people per year would need to be screened. Yet, it is hard to extrapolate these costs to those of a national screening policy. A key point raised by Dr. Thompson is that the costs need to include not just those associated with the EKG and its interpretation, but also the costs of “false positives” – meaning the workup and potential unnecessary interventions associated with an abnormal screening test. The story tells readers an 89% reduction in deaths occured, but this is a relative reduction – not an absolute figure. Absolute data is best. One could be aware that the absolute risk is extremely small to begin with and even smaller with screening, but the nature of how small the absolute risk is could be spelled out more clearly. For example, x deaths per million vs. y deaths per million. An independent source points out that screening can be harmful if abnormalities that would never have caused problems are identified, potentially exposing people to unnecessary procedures, which have risks. Another harm is that two percent were excluded from athletics. Clearly fewer than that are at risk for death. So many individuals are labeled with a problem that may not have any dire consequences and may be led to believe that they can’t exercise when in fact they could. This is a population-based observational study, which is not explicit from the story. However, the story tells readers that researchers analyzed trends in sudden deaths from heart problems before and after a screening program in the Veneto region of Italy. An astute reader could probably pick this up from the article. The article points out some limitations of the study (but not all), which serves to caution readers about the strength of the study (it’s not a randomized controlled trial and one cannot be certain that the decrease in death was due to the program). The article briefly describes the problem of sudden death in athletes, describing an estimated number of deaths per year and providing some causes. The article appropriately states this occurs in ~25 individuals each year out of many million. The article does obtain independent input from a doctor at the Minneapolis Heart Institute (who praises the research but also points out such screening is unlikely in the U.S.) and the article also incorporates information from a published editorial accompanying the journal article. The editorial points included in the article provide balance and serve to caution readers about the findings. One alternative to screening with EKG prior to sports participation is not screening at all, but a more common alternative is screening with a pre-participation history and physical (vs. an EKG). These options are not mentioned at all. The article presents the options as EKG vs. nothing. This is not the case. A physical examination with attention to the heart and lungs would be an alternative. EKG (electrocardiogram) testing/screening prior to participation in sports is not widely available in the U.S. and the story tells readers that only a handful of universities participate in pre-participation screening using EKG. In the absence of a standard screening policy, different screening standards would be applied. In general, universities are likely to have a health facility that could perform the test. Smaller schools or high schools may not. The article states that EKG screening prior to sports participation does not routinely occur in the U.S., although Italy has instituted a program since 1982. So, this screening would not be “new” in and of itself, but applying it as a standard recommendation across the U.S. would be new, and the story does a good job of explaining that. Because the story relied on several independent sources, it seems safe to assume that it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.