Texas leads "the country in drunk driving fatalities.

Explanation: Austin police chief says Texas leads nation in drunk driving deaths

Drugs, Public Safety, Texas, Art Acevedo,

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo cut to the chase during an interview about a law that lets drivers convicted of driving while intoxicated return to the road. "We're in the worst state in the union when it comes to drunk driving and drunk driving fatalities," Acevedo said in an interview with the Austin American-Statesman and Austin's KVUE-TV, Channel 24. "We lead the country in drunk driving fatalities." The interview aired Sunday Nov. 14. Texas, No. 1 in alcohol-fueled driving deaths? We asked Acevedo how he reached his conclusion, then started checking national comparisons. An August 2010 report posted online appears to support the claim. In 2009, Texas tallied 1,235 alcohol-impaired fatalities, according to the report by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which says the statistic reflects fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle rider with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 grams per deciliter or greater. The 2009 Texas total exceeded by more than 250 the 950 alcohol-related driving fatalities in California, which was the No. 2 state in the dubious category. States rounding out this top 10 were Florida (770), Pennsylvania (406), South Carolina (377), North Carolina (363), Georgia (331), Ohio (324), New York (321) and Illinois (319). Texas also topped other states in alcohol-impaired fatalities in 2008, the report says. The report also lays out the percentage of total traffic deaths due to alcohol impairment. Texas ranked No. 5 by this gauge, with alcohol impairment accounting for 40 percent of the 3,071 driving deaths in 2009. Four states had higher percentages: Hawaii, 48 percent of 109 deaths; Connecticut, 44 percent of 223 deaths; South Carolina, 42 percent of 894 deaths; and Washington, 42 percent of 492 deaths. Texas's 40 percent matched the percentages of deaths linked to alcohol impairment in South Dakota, Kansas and Rhode Island. Though Texas last year experienced one of the country's largest reductions in total traffic fatalities -- from 3,476 deaths in 2008 to 3,071 in 2009 -- more people still died on Texas roads than in any other state. As with drunk-driving deaths, that toll is influenced by factors such as Texas's size, population and number of miles traveled on its roads. In search of expert perspective on the meaning of such numbers, we reached Bernie Fette, a senior researcher at the Center for Transportation Safety at the Texas Transportation Institute in College Station. He showed us two other ways to compare alcohol-related driving deaths by state, based on the percentage of such deaths for every 100 million vehicle miles traveled or on the number of licensed drivers in each state. Online, NHTSA has posted state-by-state rates of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for 2005 through 2008. We checked the rates over those years for the 10 states that had the most alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2009--and found that Texas's rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, ranging from .55 in 2007 to a high of .59 in 2006, exceeded that of all but one of the states. South Carolina's rate, ranging from .81 in 2008 to .91 in 2007, was higher every year. The federal agency also provides information on the number of licensed drivers by state as of 2008. We divided the number of alcohol-impaired driving deaths in each state for that year by its licensed driver total. According to the resulting ratios, Texas ranked 9th nationally in alcohol-impaired driving deaths that year. States with higher ratios were topped by Wyoming, followed by Mississippi, South Carolina, Montana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and West Virginia. We also wondered how Texas compares in alcohol-related driving deaths when population is taken into account. We divided the 2009 alcohol-impaired driving deaths for each state by U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for each state. Result: Texas trailed 15 states in deaths per resident. States with higher ratios, led by Wyoming, included North Dakota, Montana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas, Delaware and Missouri. So, it looks like Texas is not No. 1 for drunk driving deaths by every measure. Still, Fette suggested, no matter how you look at the stats on alcohol-impaired driving deaths in Texas, the news isn't good. "If all of the measures rank at the top or nearly at the top, no matter what the (state's) rank is, it's a serious problem that deserves attention," he said. Our take: Several statistical approaches show Texas behind other states in the rate of alcohol-related driving deaths. But it's also reasonable to focus on the sheer number of deaths linked to drunk driving. We rate Acevedo's statement .


Egg Freezing Puts The Biological Clock On Hold

Explanation: This is an interesting story. But our three reviewers thought it fell short in evaluating the quality of the evidence, in not providing a full description of potential harms, and in framing the issue in a way that smacks of disease-mongering. Many women face worries about infertility. They need accurate and objective descriptions of the possible treatments. The lack of crucial long-term evidence of safety in this case seems crucial to any discussion about these emotional issues.

The story includes the high price tag for freezing eggs and the possibility that a family may need more than a single “freezing.” The story quotes about $40,000 for a safe number of eggs in storage and seems to imply that price includes the in- vitro fertilization required. But we wish they had done a better itemizing more ofl the costs of a high-tech pregnancy, including the possible higher risk of twins and pre-term delivery. Yes. The story is generous with describing the potential benefits. There are risks of pre-term pregnancy because of in-vitro fertilization. There are risks to babies from being one of multiples – such as twins or triplets. These risks are just as important to discuss and weigh as the risks that the story puts forward as reason for this high-tech solution – having “old” eggs as a woman of 40 years. Yet the story does not discuss these. The story fails to give us the context for judging the egg-freezing technique. It correctly calls the procedure “experimental” but only quotes an expert chosen from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. He points out how few procedures have been done, but he calls the technology “close” to proven effective. Such a long feature had plenty of reporting time – and could have included a much more skeptical voice and better discussion of evidence. Our medical editor who reviewed this story felt there were elements of disease-mongering in the framing of the story. She wrote: “I am not sure that waiting until you are out of the window for a specific biologic function is a disease. The story framing almost makes a disease out of a life choice in this particular example of women who want to risk waiting until they might not be expected to have normal fecundability/fertility and higher risk.” Is “Nudging Young Women To Think About Fertility” akin to creating a new disease that’s not really a disease? The story did a good job with asking a variety of potential patients for their opinions. It did not do quite so well in providing a diversity of medical experts. No head to head data are provided. The story doesn’t say how different outcomes are for embryo vs. oocyte freezing, and could have included more information (less dramatically) about natural changes in fecundability and pregnancy outcomes with age. ASRM has identified the “best practice” as encouraging women to consider pregnancy whenever possible within the optimal timeframe rather for hoping for a technology fix. The story barely meets this requirement. It describes the procedure as something gaining acceptance, but still “experimental.” What isn’t emphasized is that this is not offered by many centers that can freeze ooccytes and far from all infertility programs have successful protocols in place. The story does a decent job of explaining that the technique is experimental. The story obviously required in-person reporting of a group meeting of women worried about fertility. However, it could have been improved with phone calls to a wider diversity of medical researchers.


Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home.

Explanation: If one were to compare electricity consumption in Al Gore’s home in April (the month of lowest usage) to the national average, the multiplier drops from 34 to 10. Of course, comparing any single month to an annual average is problematic, as monthly electric use fluctuates throughout the year (and also in response to local conditions, such as weather and climate patterns).

Business, al gore, al gore energy use, ASP Article

A 2007 report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), claiming that Al Gore’s Tennessee home uses over 20 times more energy than the average U.S. home, was released the day after the former vice-president’s film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award for Best Documentary:  Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh – more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh-guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. The specific numbers involved were disputable (the TCPR claimed Gore’s home used electricity at a rate more than “20 times the national average,” while the Associated Press reported that their own review of bills indicated that the Gores’ Nashville household used more than 12 times the average for a typical household in that area), but the basic gist of the claim — that the Gores’ Nashville residence consumed a larger proportion of energy than the average American home — was true. Some important points not covered in the report, however, included whether equating the Gores’ home to the average American home was really a relevant comparison. A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores’ Nashville residence isn’t an “average” house: it’s about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from “green” sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) made the Gore home’s energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area. The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures was misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a “carbon-neutral lifestyle,” by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home used: Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that “the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.” A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. “In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power,” Kreider added. “They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” Also, by the end of 2007 the Gores had completed renovations that made their home much more energy-efficient: Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation’s most environmentally friendly. The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs. “Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design. Gore’s improvements cut the home’s summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave. Nearly identical claims were published in August 2017 — after the release of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, Gore’s follow-up to his Oscar-winning 2006 documentary — this time under the misleading headline “Al Gore’s Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household.” Drew Johnson, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, wrote the August 2017 piece. (Johnson appears to have been behind the 2007 claims about Gore’s energy use as well.) In that article, he cited his own report for National Center for Public Policy Research (without making it clear that he authored the report), in which he found that Gore’s electricity bill for September 2016 was 34 times more than the national average. However, Johnson, as well as  other sources that replicated his claims — including the National Center for Public Policy Research’s own press release — implied in the headlines or bodies of their articles that Gore’s home “consistently devoured” 34 times more energy than the average home, which was not the case: that figure was based on estimates for a single month during the previous year, and that single month was August, a time of the year when energy usage typically spikes due high mid-summer temperatures. When we asked about the discrepancy in the headline of his article (““Al Gore’s Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household”), Johnson told us (emphasis ours):  The title I turned in to the Daily Caller for the column/op-ed was “Al Gore’s Home Devours Up to 34 Times More Electricity than an Average U.S. Household, Hypocritically Issues Call to Reduce Energy Consumption in New Film.” My goal was to indicate that, at its highest, Gore’s home energy usage spikes to 34X that of the typical American household (as the NCPPR paper suggests). It is not accurate that Gore’s home consistently uses 34X the national average — in the past year, Gore’s home consumed 21.35X the national average. I even rounded down to 21.3X in everything I wrote to be as fair and as bulletproof as possible — that’s why I went about so thoroughly discussing the makeup of the power he receives at his home and his donations to the Green Power Switch program, so there would be no confusion on those issues when it came to his power bill costs and his “100% renewable” claim.” I don’t believe the DC title intentionally misrepresented the report. I just gave an unwieldy title that needed to be trimmed down. And although I wish there was a qualifier (“up to”, “as much as”, “in one month”), it was based off of a legitimate number. (We have reached out to Nashville Electric Service and Al Gore’s media team to confirm the numbers but have yet to receive a response.)


Ibuprofen patch heralds side effect free drug future

Explanation: To begin with, the headline of this story is a little much: a “side-effect free future” with this patch? Surely, we can’t dispense entirely with oral ibuprofen even if this patch were to deliver everything it promises. And while it makes sense that transdermal delivery would reduce stomach-related side effects, do we really know if this approach will eliminate other possible side effects that aren’t related to the GI tract — for example related to cardiovascular risk? The advantages of the TEPI patch (this apparent acronym is never spelled out in the story) over existing products on the market sound impressive and believable — although very little evidence is given to help us assess the quality of these claims. The promise of transdermal drug delivery has been on the horizon for decades and the TEPI patch is the latest iteration. Ibuprofen and the other NSAID’s are safe and effective for the vast majority of people taking them. People with chronic conditions like osteoarthritis are at risk for side effects because of the relatively large doses taken orally. In theory, a patch could reduce the likelihood of these side effects but the proof is simply not there yet.

We’ll rate this N/A since the patches are still in development for the consumer market. Having said that, we should point out that generic ibuprofen is very inexpensive. It is very likely that the TEPI system will cost the consumer much more. The story is full of superlatives but provides absolutely no information on how the TEPI patches were tested. All of the information provided appears to be related to results in the lab and not on people. We are told, “…capable of releasing between five and ten times the amount of drugs used in gels and patches currently on the market, for periods of six hours, 12 hours, and even 24 hours.” How long do current gels and patches last? How much medication do they release? Is is important to be able to achieve the higher dosages discussed in this story? While it all sounds very impressive, the reader isn’t provided enough information to tell if any of these results are meaningful. The story provides no information on the potential side effects of this method of drug delivery. Ibuprofen is a drug and all drugs have side effects. It sounds like the TEPI patches will have the same possible side effects as topical gels or other patches, which are mostly limited to irritation on the skin and other minor issues. It is claimed that the TEPI patches cause little discomfort, but how was this assessed? It is not at all clear how the advantages of TEPI patches over current products on the market were established. No disease-mongering here. No independent sources were interviewed. The two sources that were interviewed for this article were both disclosed to be affiliated with the company Medherant, producer of the TEPI patches. Since the use of transdermal patches has been around for decades, it should have been relatively easy to identify experts in the field. There was a decent amount of discussion about alternatives like ibuprofen administered orally or topically as a gel. The story tells us the the patches are expected to hit the market in three years, but the information comes direct from the company and isn’t independently verified. Given the stage of development for this technology, three years sounds like a very aggressive timeline given the need for clinical validation of the assumptions made and the need for regulatory approval. The story establishes what’s new about the patch compared with existing transdermal technologies, including that it might be applied to drugs that previously haven’t been suitable for this approach. It’s clear that some original reporting was done in an interview, so the story does enough to clear our bar. That being said, the end result doesn’t seem to be much different than this December 2015 news release.


A video shows small, white worms inside some cherries.

Explanation: Both home and commercial farmers take precautions to prevent cherry fruit flies from contaminating their crops. As we have yet to see any information about a recall or public statements regarding a cherry fly infestation, the viral video of maggots in cherries likely captured a relatively isolated incident.

On June 26, 2019, a video supposedly showing small, white worms inside of a batch of cherries went viral on social media:  This video, which was viewed millions of times within a week of its initial posting, drew plenty of reactions from viewers who were shocked and disgusted at the apparently sight of maggots in the fruit. While we won’t argue about the gross-out factor of this clip, finding worms in cherries (or other pieces of fruit) isn’t all that unusual. The video likely documents a subject familiar to cherry farmers, the larvae of the cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cerasi). Washington State University’s Tree Fruit Website labels the western cherry fruit fly as a “key pest in all cherry growing regions of the western United States.” A photograph from the website showing the fruit flies’ larvae in the flesh of a cherry resembles the images seen in the viral video:  When someone asked the Department of Horticulture at Iowa State University for the best way to get rid of the “white worms in my cherries,” the university responded as follows: The small, white “worms” are probably the larvae of the cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis spp.). Cherry fruit flies lay eggs on developing cherry fruit in May. Damaged fruit appear shrunken and shriveled when ripe, and usually contain one off-white larva (maggot) that is slightly longer than one-quarter of an inch. Cherry fruit fly damage varies greatly from year to year. It may be more practical to tolerate some damage and loss of usable fruit than to attempt effective preventive control. To prevent maggots from appearing inside the fruit, the tree must be thoroughly sprayed with a labeled insecticide when the adults emerge and before the females lay their eggs inside the young fruit. Because the flies emerge over an extended period of time, several sprays will be needed. You can monitor fruit flies with yellow sticky traps hung in the tree in early May. Check traps daily after the first fruit fly is caught and repeat the spray application until flies no longer appear. Effective home orchard type sprays can be purchased at your local garden center. Carefully read and follow label directions. The cherry fruit fly isn’t the only insect to deposit its larvae in cherries, and this viral video might also show the larvae of the spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): The spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) is a relatively new pest of cherries and other soft fleshy fruits (strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, etc). Unlike other vinegar flies that attack rotting or fermenting fruit, the spotted wing attacks maturing fruit. The name spotted wing drosophila comes from the single black spot at the tip of each wing of the male adult. Don’t think though that you will be able to identify this fly by those markings without magnification because these adults are small, really small. The female is able to penetrate the skin of the fruit to lay her eggs and this act creates a small depression (“sting”) on the fruit surface. The eggs hatch and the maggots develop and feed inside the fruit, causing the flesh of the fruit to turn brown and soft. A video published in the peer-reviewed BMC Journal shows the larvae of the fruit fly D. suzukii in a ripe cherry:   Larvae of the fruit fly Drosophila suzukii in a ripe cherry — this species has become a substantial pest species in Europe and the USA. For more on how this species has evolved to be able to feed on ripe fruit, while its sister species can only feed on rotting fruit. While we certainly wouldn’t recommend eating these white worms with your cherries, Garden Guru Pat Welsh noted that accidentally consuming one shouldn’t consitute a health emergency: “The larvae of Western cherry fruit fly don’t harm human beings who have accidentally ingested them since they are not adapted to living in human intestines, and they are mainly, after all, made up of cherry meat, but it is certainly a disgusting thought to know you have been eating worms.”


Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in a 2005 paper published in Virology Journal that hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating SARS.

Explanation: As mentioned earlier, the above-displayed screenshot shows an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Fischer, which was published on websites such as One News Now and the conspiratorial True Pundit, a site that traffics in misinformation.

In July 2020, social media users posted a meme that included a screenshot of an article excerpt that allegedly demonstrated hydroxychloroquine would be an effective “cure and vaccine” against COVID-19. The claim stems from an opinion piece by Bryan Fischer, former director of the American Family Association, that interpreted a 2005 study on the utility of chloroquine to treat SARS as being relevant to COVID-19 — a disease that did not exist at the time of that paper’s publication. SARS (aka SARS-CoV, which caused epidemics in the early 2000s) and COVID-19 (aka SARS-CoV-2) are both caused by coronaviruses, but that does not mean that both could be treated with the same medication. Similarly, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are related drugs, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Finally, the excerpted study was limited in scope and based on laboratory results. Fischer attempted to tie Dr. Anthony Fauci to the 2005 study by falsely alleging that it was published in a journal run by the U.S. agency Fauci heads. Are SARS and COVID-19 the same? No. While SARS and COVID-19 are both coronaviruses, that does not mean these two diseases are interchangeable, nor that they can be treated with identical medicines. Hundreds of coronaviruses exist, most of which circulate among animals. These viruses occasionally jump to humans and cause diseases that range in severity. The common cold, for instance, which isn’t particularly known for being lethal, can be caused by a coronavirus. On the other hand, COVID-19, which has caused more than 150,000 deaths in the United States (and close to 700,000 total deaths worldwide) as of this writing, is also caused by a coronavirus. Nobody would argue that a treatment for the common cold would be equally effective against COVID-19. Fischer attempts to dismiss the fact that SARS and COVID-19 are two distinct diseases by arguing that they share a similar scientific name (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2) and 79% of the same genome. Saying that these two diseases share 79% of their genome sequence may make it sound like these diseases are nearly identical, but consider this: Humans share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees. Are hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine the same thing? No. Although these drugs are similar (they are both derivatives of a 4-aminoquinoline [4AQ] nucleus), they aren’t interchangeable. Chloroquine is primarily used to treat malaria, while hydroxychloroquine, which is considered less toxic than chloroquine, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and certain blood disorders. CNN writes: Chloroquine is used to treat malaria, as well as in chemoprophylaxis, which is the administering of drugs to prevent the development of disease, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2006, it has not been recommended for use in severe malaria because of problems with resistance, particularly in the Oceania region, according to the World Health Organization. […] Hydroxychloroquine is what’s known as an analog of chloroquine, meaning the two have similar structures but different chemical and biological properties. The former is considered the less toxic derivative, according to studies. It’s given to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and the blood disorder porphyria cutanea tarda, the CDC said. Did this study prove that chloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No. The 2005 article published in Virology Journal was based on a laboratory cell-culture experiment that used primate cells, not human cells. The authors noted at the time that more testing was needed before antivirals could be developed to treat the disease in humans: Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15]. Together with data presented here, showing virus inhibition in cell culture by chloroquine doses compatible with patient treatment, these features suggest that further evaluation of chloroquine in animal models of SARS-CoV infection would be warranted as we progress toward finding effective antivirals for prevention or treatment of the disease. It should also be noted that this was an in vitro study, meaning that it was conducted in a controlled environment, like a test tube, not inside a living organism. The Universal Health Network, a medical research organization in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted that in vitro models have a reputation of being “less translatable” to humans than other research methods: A major drawback is their failure to capture the inherent complexity of organ systems. For example, in vitro models may not account for interactions between cells and biochemical processes that occur during turnover and metabolism. As a result, in vitro studies have developed a reputation for being “less translatable” to humans. More importantly, in the years since the SARS outbreak in 2002, chloroquine has not been widely used to treat the disease. Did this study say that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No. The 2005 paper in the Virology Journal never mentions hydroxychloroquine. Was Fauci or the NIH involved in this 2005 paper? No.


Opponents of Florida’s medical marijuana amendment are warning that cannabis-enhanced edibles will endanger children, hoping that voters will eat up their dire predictions and reject the measure. "Amendment 2 will bring kid-friendly pot candy to Florida," the anti-drug campaign Vote No On 2 said in a flier we received in the mail Sept. 22, 2016. The campaign is run by the Drug Free Florida Committee, an anti-drug group started in 2014 by longtime GOP fundraiser Mel Sembler and his wife, Betty, with financial backing from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. We wanted to find out whether the medical marijuana amendment allows "pot candy," and whether it really would be "kid-friendly." Candy plan As a quick refresher, Amendment 2 would let doctors recommend medical marijuana for patients with a host of certain conditions, including cancer, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and more. It’s only a recommendation, because marijuana still is illegal under federal law, so doctors can’t prescribe it and pharmacists can’t distribute it. The patients would take their recommendations to what is referred to as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center, which would be regulated by the state to provide the drug. Here’s where we get into Vote No On 2’s assertion about pot candy. The amendment language says the following (emphasis ours): " ‘Medical Marijuana Treatment Center’ (MMTC) means an entity that acquires, cultivates, possesses, processes (including development of related products such as food, tinctures, aerosols, oils, or ointments), transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or administers marijuana, products containing marijuana, related supplies, or educational materials to qualifying patients or their caregivers and is registered by the Department." So while the amendment doesn’t specifically mention candy, it does allow edibles. Proponents argue that edible forms of marijuana are better for some patients, in part because the effects can be longer-lasting than other methods of ingestion. That’s also part of the problem, because it can be difficult to gauge how the drug may affect people when eaten instead of smoked. Vote No On 2 cites an uptick of children being hospitalized in many of those states for eating marijuana-laced candy, which they say is tempting to kids if left out. They pointed to several news stories about children in medical marijuana states consuming cookies, chocolate bars, brownies and other sweets and candies. In some of their cases it wasn’t apparent if the candy was medical marijuana or from some other source. (It’s also possible that people could always just buy cannabis in bud form and make their own edibles.) Ben Pollara, director of United for Care, the group behind the amendment, said Vote No On 2 was creating a "total dystopian fantasy about the way the amendment could be implemented." He said a child getting into an adult’s medical marijuana presents the same issues as any medication, and it was up to the adult to prevent accidents from happening. "Put it away," he said. "That’s Parenting 101." Kate Bell, legislative counsel at the Marijuana Policy Project, which supports the amendment, said 19 of the 25 medical marijuana states allow edibles, although they all handle them a bit differently. Amendment 2 offers the state plenty of leeway on how it could regulate the marijuana industry. The Legislature would have to pass a law on the issue and the Department of Health would have to write the regulations. What those rules would specifically say is anyone’s guess, and the health department told us that they couldn’t speculate. A health department spokeswoman pointed out that under current Florida law allowing medical marijuana for some epileptics and terminal patients, the only prohibited form is smoking, which Amendment 2 would allow. That leaves us to look to see how other states handle guidelines about things like packaging and sales practices. Washington, for example, bans products designed to appeal to kids. Connecticut requires tamper-resistant packages just like prescription drugs. California, which is phasing in new regulations, requires labels warning patients to keep products away from children. New Jersey only allows edibles in lozenge form, which were previously only available to child patients to take at school. (There’s an overview of guidelines for each state here.) In Colorado, which started selling medical marijuana in 2001 and recreational marijuana in 2012, there has been an increase in the number of children hospitalized for ingesting marijuana. A spokeswoman for the state’s marijuana enforcement division acknowledged in 2014 that edible forms carry "a significant public safety risk." Colorado this year banned some products shaped like people, fruit or animals. The state also requires opaque, tamper-resistant packaging and a label announcing the content of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The state also is starting to use a universal symbol designating a marijuana product. That doesn’t mean kids don’t end up getting exposed to the drug. Mike Van Dyke, the chief of environmental epidemiology, occupational health and toxicology at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the state continues to adapt its packaging policies to make edible marijuana less accessible to children. A Colorado report on the amount of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for marijuana exposure shows the number of affected children under 9  — when use is more likely to be accidental — has increased over the last 15 years. But Van Dyke says they still are small numbers. In 2000, prior to medical marijuana being legalized, only 1 child was hospitalized statewide. In 2014-15, there were 37 ER visits and 15 hospitalizations. There’s also been an increase among people older than 9, too, but there are caveats to the data. Hospitals record these as exposures, but they don’t necessarily specify how patients were exposed, or if they were at the hospital because of the exposure or for a related issue. "We’ve definitely seen an increase, but a lot of people are inflating the impact of these cases," Van Dyke said. "Prior to 2010, we didn’t have commercially available, edible marijuana products, so of course there’s going to be more instances with an increase in availability." The Journal of the American Medical Association this year published a study of marijuana exposures in Colorado for kids younger than 10. It found between 2009 and 2015, children’s hospital visits increased from 1.2 to 2.3 per 100,000. The Washington Post noted that means hospitals and poison control centers are much more likely to get calls about diaper cream, toothpaste, laundry detergent and crayons than they are about marijuana. Our ruling Vote No On 2 said, "Amendment 2 will bring kid-friendly pot candy to Florida." The proposal would allow edible forms of marijuana, but the amendment does not specifically identify candy. Calling it "kid-friendly" plays on parents’ fears without any proof that’s what will happen. The statement is partially accurate but requires additional context. We rate the statement .


One in five people are drinking too much alcohol. 21% of adults aged 16+ in England reported to an NHS Digital survey that they usually drank more than the recommended 14 units of alcohol a week in 2017. Alcohol deaths in England at record high after 6% rise in a year. Correct, in terms of deaths that are a direct result of alcohol misuse. However, the number of alcohol-specific deaths per 100,000 people has remained virtually the same over the last ten years. Claim 1 of 3


If you want out of the individual mandate... all you have to do now is tick off the box that says 'hardship' and you're out.

Health Care, PunditFact, Charles Krauthammer,

Individual mandate, schmindividual schmandate. There’s a quick, penalty-free fix for anyone who wants out of Obamacare’s health insurance requirement, says conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer. Just check a box. The one that says "hardship." That’s it, you’re done! There will be no questions, and no consequences. At least, that’s how easy Krauthammer made it sound during his April 1 appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. He and host Bill O’Reilly discussed the Democrats’ changes to the law since it passed in 2010. Krauthammer: "They decide what the law is every Wednesday morning. They've changed it 38 times. The employer mandate is out. Remember the great debate in the country for two years over the individual mandate? "The individual mandate no longer exists. They haven't said so officially, but if you want out of the individual mandate, do you know what you've got to do? "You have to say that this is a hardship. There are hardship exceptions. It means, it was meant to mean, if there's a hurricane or a tornado and you're living out of the back of a pickup truck, you can opt out. All you have to do now is tick off the box that says 'hardship' and you're out." O'Reilly: "Yes, you don't even have to explain it." Krauthammer: "You don't have to explain --" O'Reilly: "And it can be as simple as 'I don't know how to work the computer, so I can't get it.' " Krauthammer: "Right. When you have an anonymous bureaucratic computerized system and then you use the word 'honor system' as the way of describing, you are deliberately misusing the language." O’Reilly: "I think the evidence is overwhelming that you are correct." With an assurance like that from O’Reilly, we thought Krauthammer’s point merited a second look. Is it really so easy to get out of the insurance mandate by claiming a hardship? We know from a previous fact-check that the Internal Revenue Service cannot use the threat of jail time or property seizures to go after people who do not pony up the "shared responsibility payment," or what’s sometimes referred to as the "tax" for not having health insurance even though you can afford it. That fee, which will be collected in 2015 for the filing of 2014 taxes, is 1 percent of annual income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is more expensive. The fee goes up every year. Already, some people are exempt for reasons including religious beliefs, prisoners, Indian tribes, income being below the federal filing level, and undocumented immigrants. The hardship exemption comes in when you don’t fall into those categories but have a reason for not having health insurance and paying the fine. In most cases, it’s because you can’t afford it. Getting one is not as easy as checking a box. Here’s the application from the Health Insurance Marketplace, which spells out 14 categories for the hardship exemption. It also says what form of documentation (hello, proof) you need to attach in order to qualify. Categories that require some form of documentation include being evicted or declaring bankruptcy in the last six months; receiving a shut-off notice from a utility; the death of a loved one; a human or natural disaster caused substantial property damage; racking up unexpected costs taking care of a family member; applying for but not receiving Medicaid because the state of residence did not expand Medicaid access envisioned in the law; and having medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last two years. There’s also a hardship category for people whose health plans were canceled and they find other options unaffordable. Being homeless or suffering domestic abuse are the only categories that do not require some form of documentation. But then there’s the 14th category: "You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance." Documentation should be submitted "if possible." Is that the magical "other" category promising safe haven for people who don’t want to pay the insurance penalty? "Exemption 14 is broad, but not open ended," said Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University professor who has studied the law. "My understanding is that it is meant to give (Health and Human Services) the discretion to take into account hardships not specifically listed." An unlisted hardship would have to be in the spirit of the other categories, he said, and it would not be permanent, if it’s granted at all. The Department of Health and Human Services will respond within one to two weeks to let someone know if more information is needed, the application says. If the exemption is okayed, the recipient gets a special number to include on his or her tax return. "HHS could certainly deny a hardship exemption if there was insufficient documentation or explanation," Jost said. Gail Wilensky, an expert on the law who headed Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush, said Krauthammer’s point isn’t that far from the mark, especially since "the administration has shown itself to be extremely 'flexible' when it comes to any type of enforcement or timing thus far." Still, there is some explaining required. There’s a box for applicants to describe how their hardship prevented them from getting health insurance, with exceptions for people turned down for Medicaid and health policy cancellations (which are proven by copies of a denial for Medicaid or notice of cancellation). People who submit hardship exemptions without really needing one should pay special attention to step three of the application. That’s the part where you sign, under penalty of perjury, that your exemption claim is honest. Lying is a crime. "Only people who have a true, factual basis for their claims should be advised to file," said Sara Rosenbaum, George Washington University health and policy professor. Our ruling Krauthammer said people who don’t want to comply with the individual mandate should just "tick off the box that says ‘hardship’ and you're out." He is over-simplifying the process. Included in the hardship exemption application -- because there’s an application, you don’t just check a box on your tax form -- is a 14th category that reads kind of like "other." It’s meant to catch examples of hardship not delineated in the form. Documentation is requested if possible. Again, claiming it doesn’t mean you get it. You apply. And just because you ask does not mean you will receive.


Mark Pryor Says Tom Cotton "voted against preparing America for pandemics like Ebola.

National, Ebola, Message Machine 2014, Public Health, Voting Record, Mark Pryor,

While it’s highly unlikely that Ebola will make it to the United States, the pandemic has wormed its way into one of the most contentious U.S. Senate races -- in Arkansas. Despite the fears of many Americans, experts on infectious diseases -- including the Centers for Disease Control -- say there is a very, very low likelihood that the United States would experience an Ebola outbreak. Compared to west Africa, America has well-resourced health care services, as well as federal programs and agencies dedicated to preventing public health crises in the United States. But that’s no thanks to Rep. Tom Cotton, says incumbent Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor in his most recent ad. Pryor’s running against Cotton, a Republican, to keep his seat. "Tom Cotton voted against preparing America for pandemics like Ebola," the ad’s narrator says. "Congressman Cotton voted to cut billions from our nation’s medical disaster and emergency programs. He was the only Arkansas congressman to vote this way. Just like he was the only one to vote against Children’s Hospital. Instead, Cotton voted massive tax cuts for billionaires. Not protect our families’ health and safety." As a tea party Republican, Cotton has a history of voting against federal government spending, including spending on disaster relief. But tying Cotton to a potential Ebola outbreak caught our attention. The vote This year, Ebola has killed more than 1,400 people in west Africa as of Aug. 20 and is the largest ever recorded outbreak, according to the World Health Organization. No cases have been recorded in the United States, though two American health care workers contracted the virus while in Liberia and were treated in an Atlanta hospital. We asked Pryor’s campaign for evidence backing up their claim, and they said the ad refers to the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013. The law -- passed in March 2013 -- continues funding various medical and public health emergency preparedness programs through 2018. (The first iteration of the law was passed in 2006.) As you might guess from the name, the law pertains to preventing pandemics, like Ebola, from breaking out in the United States. Several programs funded under the act are already working on Ebola response, such as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, said Gretchen Michaels, a spokeswoman for the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Additionally, the law’s 2013 reauthorization gave the Food and Drug Administration the ability to authorize use of unapproved products in the case of an emergency. So earlier this month, the FDA authorized use of a new tool for diagnosing Ebola, as well as an experimental treatment. Did Cotton try to stop this legislation? At first, it seems that way. The House passed the legislation Jan. 22, 2013, with strong bipartisan support and very little opposition -- 395 to 29. Cotton voted against it, along with 28 other Republicans. The bill moved on to the Senate, where lawmakers made a few changes, passed it by a voice vote, and sent it back to the House to approve the changes. The House once again passed the Senate’s version of the bill with an overwhelming majority from both parties. This time around, Cotton changed his position and voted for the bill. (Seven other Republicans who previously voted "nay" also changed their vote.) It’s not clear why Cotton didn’t vote for it the first time. The law passed with such little debate that it went over without much media attention. We reached out to Cotton’s campaign but haven’t heard back -- though they posted an article on their website refuting the claim. According to CQ Weekly, the major difference between the House and Senate version of the act is that the House version approves funding and programs through 2017, while the Senate version goes through 2018. We also used a tool to compare differences between the two texts and found that the final version includes a clause clarifying that state and local workers asked to temporarily take on a different assignment in case of an emergency would not be required to accept that reassignment. Regardless, the country’s ability to address a pandemic does not hinge on either of those changes. There is no readily available evidence showing that Cotton actively campaigned against the bill. And the final version, which got Cotton’s vote, also got positive votes from nearly every Senate and House Democrat -- including Pryor. Our ruling A Pryor for Senate ad said, "Tom Cotton voted against preparing America for pandemics like Ebola." Cotton voted against one version of a 2013 pandemic and emergency preparedness bill. However, Cotton voted for the final version, which Pryor also supported. The bill easily became law. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam "stated he would execute a baby after birth.

Explanation: What's false: Northam did not "state he would execute a baby after birth." What's undetermined: The ambiguity of Northam's remarks about late-term abortions, which he has not since clarified, raised questions about what exactly he was proposing or advocating.

In early 2019, Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam battled against widespread criticism and calls for him to resign his office. A scandal emerged on 1 February when the Virginian-Pilot newspaper published a photograph obtained from Northam’s 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook page, which showed one man in “blackface” and another wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood. Northam apologized but resisted calls for him to leave office. By the time the yearbook scandal erupted, Northam had already become embroiled in controversy after comments he made about abortion during a live radio interview on Washington, D.C.’s, WTOP radio just two days earlier. On 5 February, President Donald Trump himself attacked Northam’s abortion remarks during the State of the Union address, claiming the Virginia governor had “stated he would execute a baby after birth”:  In reality, Northam did not say he would “execute a baby after birth,” but the exact meaning of everything he did say was not entirely clear. The full video of the governor’s WTOP interview is available here, and a transcript of the most relevant section follows. Understanding the full context of his remarks is important to this issue. In early January, Delegate Kathy Tran, a Democratic member of the Virginia Assembly, introduced House Bill 2491, which would have lessened legal restrictions on second- and third-trimester abortions. Of particular note, the measure would have reduced from three to one the number of doctors required to certify that a third-trimester abortion was necessary to prevent a pregnant woman from dying or experiencing physical or mental harm, and it would have eliminated an existing requirement that such harm be certified as “substantial and irremediable.” During a 28 January Courts and Justice subcommittee hearing, Tran faced a series of questions from Republican subcommittee Chairman Todd Gilbert about the provisions of her bill and their potential implications. In one instance, Gilbert asked Tran whether her bill would, in theory, allow a doctor to certify that a woman’s mental health was at risk from continuing a pregnancy, even at the point where she was about to give birth, and whether House Bill 2491 would make it legally permissible to perform an abortion at that stage. Tran agreed that her bill would permit that. The legislation was voted down in the committee and therefore was not passed by Virginia legislators, but video footage of the exchange between Tran and Gilbert prompted outrage among pro-life commentators and in national news news coverage:  That was the background for a question put to Northam two days later on WTOP radio, when WRC-TV’s Julie Carey asked him whether he supported Tran’s proposals. The following is a transcript of the relevant exchange, which can be watched in the video embedded below: Julie Carey: … There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County Delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third-trimester abortions, as well as other restrictions now in place. And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is, essentially, dilating, ready to give birth. And she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure? And explain her answer. Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …  Northam’s remarks prompted an immediate backlash, with some right-leaning and pro-life observers claiming that he had expressed support for infanticide (i.e., the intentional killing of a child). President Trump, in his State of the Union address, went even further in stripping away the nuance and context from what Northam said and described the comments even more provocatively by claiming: “He [Northam] stated he would execute a baby after birth.” Northam certainly did not say that, but the exact meaning of his remarks was unclear. The governor invoked a “particular example,” but did not make it clear what the parameters of that example were. Was Northam describing a hypothetical scenario under current Virginia law, or under what would be the legal milieu if Tran’s bill were passed? Did the example he used involve a fetus given a late diagnosis of disability or of a fatal condition, which meant the fetus was “non-viable” and could not survive even after being delivered alive? When Northam said the fetus would be “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired,” was he saying he would, hypothetically, support a decision to allow the fetus to die by not providing life-extending medical intervention? What would be an acceptable outcome, in his view, to the “discussion” that would then take place between the woman and her physicians, and was Northam giving tacit support to a decision whereby a physician would withdraw life-extending care or take actions to intentionally end the life of the fetus? We put this list of detailed questions to Northam’s office in order to clarify the exact meaning of his remarks to WTOP on 30 January but did not receive a response in time for publication. Vox quoted a spokesperson for Northam as saying that the governor’s comments were “absolutely not” a reference to infanticide but rather “focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe abnormalities went into labor.” Also, according to NBC News, a spokesperson for Northam “disputed [President Trump’s] characterization” of his comments but did not provide any further clarifying details. It’s clear that Northam did not “state he would execute a baby after birth,” as Trump claimed he did. However, his remarks did lack precision and clarity of meaning to the extent that they raised reasonable questions about what exactly he was proposing or advocating.”


“The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.”

Explanation: The 2019 coronavirus is part of a family of viruses that produce illnesses ranging from the common cold to more critical diseases such as SARS or MERS. The 2019 coronavirus is a new virus that had not been previously identified. Most cases of the 2019 coronavirus have been mild, but it’s been lethal for some people.

Public Health, Pundits, PunditFact, Coronavirus, Rush Limbaugh,

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh accused the media of overhyping the 2019 coronavirus that’s infected nearly 80,000 people worldwide, calling it "the common cold" and claiming, without evidence, that it’s "being weaponized" as an attack on President Donald Trump. "It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump," Limbaugh said Feb. 24 on his radio show. "Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus … I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks." "The drive-by media hype up this thing as a pandemic," Limbaugh continued. "Ninety-eight percent of people who get the coronavirus survive. It’s a respiratory system virus." The recent Presidential Medal of Freedom winner went on to push the debunked conspiracy theory that the new coronavirus strain was created in a lab as a bioweapon. But we were also struck by his claim that the 2019 coronavirus is nothing more than "the common cold." We didn’t have to look far to see where Limbaugh went wrong. In a FAQ about the 2019 coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressed his confusion head-on. "A novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified," the CDC wrote. "The virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not that same as the coronaviruses that commonly circulate among humans and cause mild illness, like the common cold." The current strain of coronavirus was first detected in December in Wuhan, China. It’s one of seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the CDC. Named for the crown-like spikes on their surface, coronaviruses are typically found in animals such as camels, cattle and bats. Strains infecting humans were discovered in the mid 1960s. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a "beta coronavirus" similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath — similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains "usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, like the common cold." But the same fact-sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. "This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019," it said. Limbaugh seems to have been "mixing up clinical symptoms as defining the disease," said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California. "Many diseases start off with ‘flu-like symptoms’ and progress on to something else," Watanabe said, noting that the 2019 coronavirus is part of a different family of viruses than the flu. "This is a brand new virus," he said. "I think what Rush Limbaugh is referring to is the idea that it is from a family of coronaviruses. That is the family name of these viruses, and some of them in the past have caused systems that were more consistent with the common cold. But it’s also been the same family of viruses that caused SARS, that caused MERS." Experts from the National Institutes of Health and Penn State University’s College of Medicine drew a line from the spread of the 2019 virus to outbreaks of SARS and MERS in a report titled "Coronavirus Infections — More Than Just the Common Cold." According to the WHO, about 80% of 2019 coronavirus patients have recovered from mild symptoms without needing special treatment, while roughly 1 in every 6 people have become "seriously ill." About 2% of people have died. (For comparison, the flu — which is more severe than the common cold — has an estimated death rate in the United States of about 0.1%). People who are older or have certain pre-existing health conditions have been more likely to experience serious symptoms, the WHO’s website says. "There are alpha coronaviruses that cause common cold," said David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto. "This is a beta coronavirus like SARS and MERS and is approximately 20 to 30 times more deadly than (the) flu." We follow the facts and share what we learn so you can make your own decisions. Support our mission today. Membership.politifact.com As of Feb. 24, the new coronavirus has spread to 29 countries beyond China, according to the WHO's official count. In China, the virus has infected at least 77,262 people and resulted in at least 2,595 deaths. Outside of China, there have been at least 2,069 infections and 23 deaths. That’s a fatality rate closer to 3%. The WHO declared the virus an international public health emergency in late January, and the group’s director-general has since called it a "potential pandemic." Daily media briefing on #COVID19 with @DrTedros https://t.co/ChotCy0r1k Limbaugh said the 2019 coronavirus is "the common cold." Generally speaking, coronaviruses are a family of viruses that produce illnesses ranging from the common cold to more critical diseases such as SARS or MERS. But the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. We rate Limbaugh’s statement .


Tanzania rejects suspicions that it covered up Ebola cases.

Explanation: Tanzania on Thursday rejected suspicions that it might have covered up cases of the deadly Ebola virus, calling it a plot to show the country “in a bad light.”

United Nations, Health, General News, East Africa, Africa, International News, Tanzania, Travel, Kenya, Ebola virus

The health minister’s comments came after the World Health Organization issued an unusual statement saying Tanzania refused to share information and the United States and Britain issued travel warnings. The current Ebola outbreak based in neighboring eastern Congo is now the second-deadliest in history with more than 2,000 people killed. Tanzanian Health Minister Ummy Mwalimu said there were two suspected Ebola cases last month but the East African country determined they did not have the virus. “Ebola is not a disease one can hide,” the minister said. “Tanzania is well aware of the dangers of hiding such an epidemic.” Global health officials had repeatedly asked Tanzania to share the results of its investigations, but Mwalimu asserted there is no need to submit a “negative sample” for further testing. Countries with little or no experience testing for Ebola, especially ones such as Tanzania which have never had a confirmed Ebola case, are asked to send samples to a WHO-accredited lab to confirm the initial results, no matter whether they are positive or negative. Tanzania’s health minister said the country will follow international protocols, including reporting to WHO, “if there is an Ebola case.” WHO has said it was made aware on Sept. 10 of the death in Tanzania’s commercial capital, Dar es Salaam, of a patient suspected to have Ebola. A day later, it received unofficial reports that an Ebola test had come back positive. On Thursday, it received unofficial reports that a contact of the patient, who had traveled widely in the country, was sick and hospitalized. The lack of information from Tanzania made it difficult to assess potential risks, WHO said. A rapid response is crucial in containing Ebola, which can be fatal in up to 90% of cases and is most often spread by close contact with bodily fluids of people exhibiting symptoms or with contaminated objects. The initial symptoms for Ebola, including fever and pain, are similar to those of other diseases such as malaria and measles, and mistakes in diagnosis and mismanagement of patients could inadvertently allow an outbreak to spread. Critics have shown increasing alarm as Tanzanian President John Magufuli’s government has restricted access to key information and cracked down on perceived dissent. Lawmakers recently approved an amendment to a statistics law to make it a crime to distribute information not sanctioned by the government or which contradicts the government. ___ Associated Press writer Maria Cheng in London contributed. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa


Health Care, Public Health, PunditFact, Elizabeth Cohen,

The paid medical experts of TV channels are seeing a lot of time on the airwaves lately as they diagnose the country’s measles flare-up. It wasn’t too long ago that they were explaining risks of the Ebola virus killing thousands of Western Africans and the chances it could spread throughout the United States. This time around, the health pundits have spent considerable time spelling out the differences between the two scary diseases. Ebola, which has a low risk of spreading through the United States, is passed through direct contact with bodily fluids and not through the air. Measles, which was eliminated from the United States in 2000 due to wide vaccination, is a very different virus, explained CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. Unlike Ebola, "you don’t need to be that close to someone or kiss someone or anything like that" to pass it around. "It’s airborne," she told Anderson Cooper on Feb. 2. "If someone is in a room that has measles and leaves and you walk in two hours later, you could get measles from that person." We thought her example sounded alarming. So, after checking our personal immunization histories, we decided to fact-check her statement. We didn’t hear back from Cohen when we reached out to CNN, but we found information from a reliable source that backs up her scenario. Her example is nearly exactly the transmission description for measles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The measles virus stays in the nose and throat mucus of someone who has the infection, so it makes sense that it is passed around through coughing and sneezing. "Also, measles virus can live for up to two hours on a surface or in an airspace where the infected person coughed or sneezed," the CDC says. "If other people breathe the contaminated air or touch the infected surface, then touch their eyes, noses, or mouths, they can become infected." Physicians encourage the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine because it is very effective in preventing the virus from entering the body (and as we found, the science is certain that it is safe). The disease is so easy to catch, the CDC says, that if one person catches it, a whopping 90 percent of people who are not immune (i.e. did not have the vaccine due to a weak immune system, age or personal choice) close to the infected person will also become infected. We can compare the contagion of each disease by examining the basic reproductive number, known as the R0. This refers to the average number of secondary infection cases stemming from one infected person in a "completely susceptible" uninfected population (if the population is vaccinated for, say, measles, the R0 basically disappears). As the R0 increases above 1, the disease spreads more widely. The R0 of Ebola is around 2, meaning an average of two people catch the disease from one infected person during an outbreak. The measles has a much higher R0 of 18, higher than AIDS (R0 of 4), SARS (R0 of 4), or mumps (R0 of 10). NPR’s Shots blog has a great chart breaking down this concept. Put another way, "Ebola's got nothing" on the measles epidemic, wrote Dr. Catherine Troisi, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, in a recent Houston Chronicle opinion-editorial. "Just being in the room where someone with measles has been 30 minutes earlier can expose you," Troisi wrote. Troisi confirmed the accuracy of Cohen’s statement. When we asked about the discrepancy between her 30-minute window and Cohen’s two-hour window, she directed us to the CDC’s website and called her estimate "conservative." Our ruling Cohen said, "If someone is in a room that has measles and leaves and you walk in two hours later, you could get measles from that person." She is right. Measles is a highly contagious airborne disease, and the CDC gives this exact timeframe on its website. We rate her claim .


The rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) died in February 2018.

Explanation: In March 2017, federal prosecutors indicted Simmons on 14 felony counts of tax evasion and failure to file tax returns for multiple years. Simmons initially pleaded not guilty to all 14 charges, but has changed his plea to guilty for the second count — “evasion of payment of income taxes.”

Entertainment, celebrity death hoax, dmx, hip hop

In February 2018, rumors spread online that the 47-year-old rapper DMX had died. The speculation was partly fuelled by a widely-shared prank Facebook post, and partly by confusion over older reports about an alleged drug overdose. As of 16 February 2018, DMX is alive. At the time of publication, the rapper and producer (whose real name is Earl Simmons) is incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, after being remanded into custody on 30 January, in connection with felony tax evasion charges. Speaking to us by phone, Simmons’s attorney Murray Richman confirmed that his client is alive and well, and that he had met and spoken with him more than once during the week of 12 February 2018. Asked whether DMX had fallen ill or been hospitalized recently, Richman said “he certainly has not.” The celebrity gossip web site TMZ reported that Simmons had violated the conditions of his probation by consuming alcohol and narcotics while visiting St. Louis, Missouri, where he had performed on 20 January. Court records show that on 30 January 2018, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ordered DMX to be remanded into custody, and prison records show that he was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, as of 16 February 2018. Simmons’s probation conditions mean he must undergo drug rehabilitation treatment, and ask the judge for special permission any time he wants to leave the state of New York. While travelling, he must be accompanied by a drug counsellor. On 13 February 2018, Facebook user Tyrone Williams posted a distasteful prank death notice for the rapper, writing: Earl Simmons AKA “DMX” peacefully passed by a home in Los Angeles, California. Feb 13, 2018. The post was shared more than 50,000 times within a few days. Williams later confirmed the post was a fake, pointing out that he had not (technically speaking) claimed Simmons was dead. Reading is very fundamental 💯 A few thousand people think DMX is dead right now smh. I never even mentioned death or him dying in the post. The post claims DMX “passed by,” not passed away. Adding to the confusion, concerned DMX fans began sharing news articles which reported that he had been hospitalized after a drug overdose. However, those reports are two years old. In February 2016, Simmons was resuscitated by police officers after being found unconscious outside a hotel in Yonkers, New York. Witnesses claimed he had had a drug overdose, but Simmons and his family denied this, claiming he had suffered an asthma attack.


AstraZeneca's Imfinzi gets speedy FDA review for small cell lung cancer.

Explanation: British drugmaker AstraZeneca Plc said on Friday its immunotherapy cancer treatment Imfinzi has been granted a speedy review by the U.S. medicines watchdog for the treatment of a particularly aggressive type of lung cancer.

The company said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted its supplemental application and granted priority review to Imfinzi for the treatment of previously untreated late-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The FDA decision is a boost for the treatment as it competes against similar medicines from rivals Merck and Roche, and follows data in September which showed Imfinzi prolonged survival in SCLC patients when used with chemotherapy. AstraZeneca has already carved out a niche for Imfinzi, which boosts the body’s immune system to fight cancer cells, in the more common cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with an existing approval for use in situations where tumors have only spread in the chest. The FDA in March approved Roche’s immunotherapy Tecentriq for the treatment of SCLC. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo is also approved in cases where patients fail at least two other treatments. A final decision to approve Imfinzi for SCLC is expected in the first quarter of 2020, AstraZeneca said.


Which antidepressant is right for you? This genetic test could help

Explanation: This Philadelphia Inquirer article looks at two companies’ direct-to-consumer genetic tests designed to help doctors rely less on trial-and-error, and more on genetic markers, in guiding their medication choices for patients who’ve proven difficult to treat for depression. The article offers balance through two patient anecdotes. One patient says the genetic testing helped guide her to an effective antidepressant, while the other isn’t convinced. An outside expert is also tapped who points to specific treatments rather than genetic testing for higher chances of success. Although this article was cautious about the touted benefits, it would have served readers better by exploring some of the limitations of the research studies. The evidence doesn’t appear to come from gold-standard, randomized controlled trials. The only study we found through an online search was an abstract presented at a May 2018 medical conference. The majority of patients with major depression who choose antidepressant therapy do not achieve remission with the first medication they try. Even among those who do, many relapse. That’s why many patients end up frustrated — and still suffering with symptoms — as they endure a subsequent trial-and-error approach until an effective medication or combination of medications is found. One promise of precision medicine — that has yet to be proven — is that genetic testing may help guide this process and make it more “personalized” and efficient. It’s important to make it clear (as this article does) that these genetic tests cannot predict which medicines will work, and it’s arguable if they can even identify those that will not. Furthermore, because the financial stakes are high, it’s important for journalists to scrutinize (and be transparent) about the funding of studies on these genetic tests, potential conflicts of interest, and whether the results are expressed in more meaningful absolute terms, rather than more eye-catching (and potentially misleading) relative terms. For more on this, see our primer on evaluating relative vs. absolute numbers.

The article notes that the GeneSight test is covered by Medicare if a patient is being treated by a psychiatrist and that some insurance plans also cover the test. It also tells us that the Genomind Genecept Assay is covered by Medicare and Medicaid. We aren’t provided out-of-pocket costs for the GeneSight test, though. Nor could we find the full price of Genomind’s ‘Genecept Assay’ on its website or elsewhere. On the one hand the article is appropriately cautious in stating: But while genetic testing offers tools to better guide patients’ treatment, it cannot tell doctors which medicines will work — or necessarily provide the key to enduring remission from depression. On the other hand, the results of Myriad’s recently published “large-scale test” on outcomes are given as “patients were 30 percent more likely to respond to treatment” when guided by their GeneSight test. But, as we wrote back in May in a review of a Wall Street Journal article on the test, there’s problems with that percentage: “No absolute numbers are given … just a relative improvement in ‘response’ to medication (ie. 30% greater response to the medicine when the test was applied).” The Philadelphia Inquirer story quotes an independent source saying he’s impressed by the response rate (50%) and remission rate (40%) at six months, but again, these are relative numbers. Myriad did not provide the absolute numbers at 6 months … only at 8 weeks …. at which time the absolute difference in achieving remission between those who did and did not receive genetic testing was only 5%. Although harms from a cheek swab are unlikely there is a potential harm in framing the genetic testing results as guiding the choice of one antidepressant over another. Patients may focus solely on pharmaceutical options, to the exclusion of non-pharmaceutical ones. Antidepressants have well-documented side effects and drug interactions. The only data cited in the article comes from unpublished data presented at a medical conference. The research has not been peer-reviewed. No disease mongering. We were glad to see the article include this relevant context: As many as two-thirds of people with depression aren’t helped by the first antidepressants they try, leaving many to spend months after they are diagnosed without real help …. [genetic testing] is meant to help avoid the painful trial-and-error process many depression patients endure in the search for the right medicine. As noted above, it should have been made clear that the May 2018 “large-scale test” is unpublished and funded by the test sponsor. The same goes for the Genecept paper that is cited by the company’s VP: it’s an industry-sponsored review paper — not original research — and cannot  make claims about improved clinical outcomes or reduced overall medical costs from genetic testing. We were pleased to see two independent sources cited, one of which provided a critical perspective. An independent source is included who mentions transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroconvulsivetherapy (ECT) as alternatives to antidepressants in the treatment of resistant depression. One alternative that is not mentioned is cognitive behavioral therapy. It’s clear that both GeneSight from Myriad Genetics, and Genecept from Genomind, are commercially available. By featuring both the work of Myriad Genetics and Genomind, the reporter makes it clear that this is already a competitive arena within so-called “precision medicine.” This article does not rely solely on a news release and quotes outside sources.


Grants awarded to address lead-based paint in Rhode Island.

Explanation: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has awarded $12.4 million in Rhode Island to protect low-income families from lead-based paint and home health hazards.

Rhode Island, Lead poisoning, Health, Jack Reed, General News, Woonsocket, Poisoning

The agency and U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, announced Monday that RIHousing is getting $8.4 million and the city of Woonsocket is getting $4 million. Reed says lead poisoning remains a real problem that affects too many kids. RIHousing, which was created by the General Assembly, provides mortgage loans and other assistance to homebuyers. It will address lead hazards in 340 homes for low-income families with children, and perform assessments in another 118 units. The work will be targeted in Pawtucket and Central Falls. Woonsocket will use its funding to address lead hazards in 200 homes for low-income families with children.


Test can predict success of IVF: U.S. report.

Explanation: U.S. researchers have developed a formula that can predict whether fertility treatment will succeed more accurately than using age alone, and used it to develop a commercial test.

They said their test, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, could save couples the agony and expense of multiple attempts to have babies using in vitro fertilization, also known as IVF. Surprisingly, they said, the test showed that couples who would have been discouraged from trying again using traditional assessments were actually likely to succeed. In IVF, egg and sperm are united in a lab dish and resulting embryos are implanted into the mother’s uterus to grow. Predicting whether it will work is tricky and doctors rely heavily on a woman’s age. A team lead by Dr. Mylene Yao of Stanford University in California, decided to look at dozens of factors, including age but also looking at how well and how fast the embryos grow, a woman’s hormonal response to the treatment and the condition of her uterus when the embryo is implanted. They used data from more than 5,000 IVF cycles performed at Stanford Hospital from 2003 to 2008 and matched it to success rates. “Since this model uses clinical data from a previously failed IVF attempt, a first IVF treatment can be viewed both as an infertility treatment and as a potential prognostic tool for future cycles,” Yao said in a statement. As many as 80 million couples worldwide and 7.2 million in the United States are infertile. The infertility market is large and growing with an estimated 140,000 IVF cycles in the United States in 2008. That accounts for about 2 percent of infertile couples, Yao’s team said. About 1 percent of U.S. newborns were conceived using IVF, the researchers said, and a million babies have been born using IVF globally since Louise Brown, the first “test tube” baby, was born in Britain in 1978. Yao and colleagues have founded a new company called Univfy to develop and commercialize the test. The company has licensed the technology from Stanford and has applied for a patent. It is seeking U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to market the test by this fall.


Health department will get $11.3M for kids’ vaccine programs.

Explanation: U.S. Sen. Jack Reed says Rhode Island’s health department will receive $11.3 million in federal funding over five years for immunization and vaccine programs for children.

Rhode Island, Immunizations, Health, Jack Reed

The Rhode Island Democrat says the state should expect to get nearly $2.3 million of that funding this year from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reed says the federal money will be used to improve immunization levels and help eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases among children in Rhode Island. The funding can be used so that health care providers can vaccinate uninsured children, underinsured children and children on Medicaid at no cost to their family. Reed says Rhode Island isn’t immune from the threat of a measles outbreak, but its high vaccination rate of young people is the best line of defense.


U.S. President Barack Obama waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead before declaring a public health emergency concerning swine flu, the H1N1 virus.

Explanation: The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government’s initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October.

On Feb. 28, 2020, the website PJ Media published an article claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama had waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead from swine flu, the H1N1 virus, before declaring a public health emergency in 2009. The article, which was presented as a “fact check,” got several simple details wrong. In response to criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump’s handling of a recent outbreak of a new coronavirus, the PJ Media article opined that Obama had been lackadaisical about his response to a health emergency back in 2009, and that Trump by comparison had done his job admirably. PJ Media writes: Surely, St. Barack of Obama would have dealt with this horrible pandemic better than Orange Man Bad, right? No-Drama-Obama had this whole thing under control, of course! Well, let’s compare and contrast… Now, let’s go to the Wayback Machine. In April of 2009, the H1N1 became a pandemic. But it wasn’t until six months later, October, that then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S. There are several factual inaccuracies in this excerpt alone. For instance, PJ media writes that H1N1 became a pandemic in April 2009. But that’s not the case. The disease emerged in April but wasn’t declared a pandemic until June. The excerpt also claims that Obama “declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic” in October 2009. But this is also wrong. Obama declared a national emergency, not a public health emergency, in October 2009. The Obama administration declared a public health emergency in April, months before swine flu was declared a pandemic. At the time that the Obama administration declared a public health emergency, only 20 confirmed cases (not over a million) of H1N1 existed in the United States. The New York Times reported on April 26, 2009: Responding to what some health officials feared could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, American health officials declared a public health emergency on Sunday as 20 cases of swine flu were confirmed in this country, including eight in New York City. […] The emergency declaration in the United States lets the government free more money for antiviral drugs and give some previously unapproved tests and drugs to children. One-quarter of the national stockpile of 50 million courses of antiflu drugs will be released. PJ Media also inaccurately presented a video in the article as if it showed Obama addressing the swine flu after it had “already become a pandemic.” Again, that simply isn’t the case. When Obama addressed the nation about swine flu, or H1N1, in April 2009, the disease was just starting to spread. It wouldn’t be until June 2009 that the swine flu would be declared a pandemic. Here’s Obama’s April 2009 address: The swine flu pandemic spread quickly across the United States starting in April 2009. There were approximately 60 million cases over the course of the following year, which resulted in nearly 275,000 hospitalizations and more than 12,000 deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a detailed timeline of this pandemic on its website. It shows that the CDC first activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on April 22, 2009. At the time, there were only two confirmed cases in the United States. On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency of international concern, and the following day the Obama administration did the same. At that time, there were about 20 confirmed cases. Despite the CDC’s efforts, the swine flu continued to spread. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, renewed the emergency declaration on July 24, 2009, and then again on Oct. 1, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2009, Obama declared a national emergency that gave officials more resources to fight the pandemic. The Associated Press reported: President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients.


“The coronavirus has made it to Mississippi and the lady that caught it wasn’t around nobody with it which means it is airborne. That means if the wind blows it your direction you’ll have it also.”

Explanation: According to the CDC and Mississippi, there are no confirmed COVID-19 cases in the state. Researchers believe the disease is mainly spread person to person. It has been hypothesized that the disease is airborne, but not documented.

Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

As the novel coronavirus spreads in the United States, so does misinformation. More than 5,000 people have shared a Feb. 28 Facebook post, for example, that warns "the coronavirus has made it to Mississippi." "And the lady that caught it wasn’t around nobody with it which means it is airborne," the post continues. "That means if the wind blows it your direction you’ll have it also." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First of all, as of March 3, it doesn’t appear that there are any confirmed cases in Mississippi of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The Mississippi State Department of Health website says "there are currently no cases of COVID-19 in Mississippi." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there are 60 confirmed cases in the U.S. in 12 states as of March 3, but Mississippi is not one of them. Because COVID-19 is a new disease, researchers are still learning about how it spreads. But according to the CDC, the virus is thought to spread mainly from person to person, either between people within sixfeet of each other or through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. It’s also possible that someone could get COVID-19 by touching something that has the virus on it and then touching their mouth, nose or eyes, but the CDC says this isn’t the main way the virus spreads. Noreen Hynes, director of the John Hopkins Geographic Medicine Center, told PolitiFact in an email that talking — especially when saying words with the letters "t" or "d" — could also spread the droplets that can cause infection when they come into contact with the mucous membranes of someone’s eyes, nose or mouth. The spread of coronavirus via such droplets has been documented. Airborne transmission has not been documented but, Hynes said, it "has been hypothesized to occur." Hynes explained that "airborne transmission" refers to when residue from evaporated respiratory droplets contains a microorganism and can linger suspended in the air for a long time. "The organism on such droplet nuclei, as they are called, must be capable of surviving for a long time outside the body and must be resistant to drying," Hynes said. "Such droplet nuclei act like a gas, allowing organisms to enter both the upper and lower respiratory tract. Diseases associated with airborne transmission include measles, chickenpox and tuberculosis." But the University of California San Francisco says in a Feb. 13 post on its website that the new coronavirus "isn’t believed to be an airborne virus, like measles or smallpox, that can circulate through the air." Charles Chiu, a doctor who studies infectious diseases at the university, is quoted in the post as saying: "If you have an infected person in the front of the plane, for instance, and you’re in the back of the plane, your risk is close to zero simply because the area of exposure is thought to be roughly six feet from the infected person." There’s a difference between viruses that are transmitted by droplets and things that are aerosolized and float around in the air, according to University of Chicago Medicine. The school puts it like this: "Think of droplets as small bits of fluid that you can see and feel when someone sneezes. You sneeze or cough and these droplets get on surfaces and then you touch them and get them on your hands, or they can fly right into your mouth or nose or eyes. That’s how most coronaviruses are transmitted and that’s how we think this one is too." Now consider an aerosol — like hairspray. You may still be able to smell it a while after someone has used it because it’s lingering in the air, according to the school: "Obviously we’re learning a lot about this virus, but most coronaviruses aren’t airborne this way. Generally speaking, there may be times when some of these droplets or particles are airborne, but it’s limited." Our ruling The Facebook post says a woman in Mississippi was infected by the coronavirus and that it was airborne. We’re still learning about the coronavirus and how it spreads, but this isn’t accurate. Currently, there are no confirmed cases in Mississippi, and while it has been suggested that coronavirus could be airborne, it hasn’t been documented to spread that way. Rather, the virus’s spread has been documented via respiratory droplets mainly when an infected person coughs or sneezes. We rate this Facebook post .