Soupy Sales was once suspended for asking his young television viewers to send him "little green pieces of paper" taken from their parents' wallets.

Explanation: Perhaps someone should have been more concerned with the gullibility of parents, not children.

It may be hard to imagine for those who have grown up in the modern era of radio and television with its “shock jocks” and numerous programs involving hosts playing all sorts of bizarre (and sometimes outright cruel) pranks on unsuspecting participants, but back in 1965 an off-the-cuff joke by children’s television host Soupy Sales touched off a huge scandal over what would today seem like little more than a harmless prank: Examples: [Sivulka, 1998] In January 1965 on his morning children’s show, the performer Soupy Sales suggested to his young viewers that they find the wallets of their sleeping fathers and take out “some of those funny green pieces of paper with all those nice pictures of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexander Hamilton, and send them along to your old pal, Soupy, care of WNEW, New York.” [Collected on the Internet, 1997] “Hey kids, last night was New Year’s Eve, and your mother and dad were out having a great time. They are probably still sleeping and what I want you to do is tiptoe in their bedroom and go in your mom’s pocketbook and your dad’s pants, which are probably on the floor. You’ll see a lot of green pieces of paper with pictures of guys in beards. Put them in an envelope and send them to me at Soupy Sales, Channel 5, New York, New York. And you know what I’m going to send you? A post card from Puerto Rico!” The controversy began on Friday, 1 January 1965, when Soupy Sales — who was somewhat miffed at having to work on New Year’s Day — had a few minutes to kill at the end of his program. Ad-libbing, Sales looked into the camera and delivered a request to his young viewers to sneak some “little green pieces of paper” (i.e., currency) out of their parents’ wallets and send them to him. (The show was aired live and no tape of it exists, so a verbatim transcription of what Sales actually said is not available.) Complaints from outraged parents came fast and furious, and the television station that hosted Sales’ program, WNEW-TV in New York, had pulled him off the air by the following Monday. (Contrary to common belief, Sales wasn’t fired over the stunt, nor was his show canceled because of it: He resumed broadcasting two weeks later, and his program ran on WNEW for almost another two years.) It’s easy for those who weren’t around back then to be puzzled by the frenzied response to what now seems like a tepid, impulsive gag at worst, but back in 1965 plenty of adults were livid at the thought of a TV personality’s crassly manipulating children for commercial gain. As many of Sales’ supporters maintained, though, Soupy hadn’t really done anything that radio and television pitchmen hadn’t already been doing for years: he had simply cut out the middleman by suggesting that children send him money directly rather than exhorting them to buy his sponsors’ products. Hadn’t his radio predecessors been just as commercially manipulative when they continually touted the charms of various mediocre products to children, who then pestered their mothers to buy those products solely because the purchases were necessary to obtain a Shake-Up Mug or Code-O-Graph or whatever geegaw was being plugged on popular kids’ shows like Little Orphan Annie and Captain Midnight? If cooler heads had prevailed back in 1965, adults might have realized that the furor was much ado about nothing. The premise of Soupy’s stunt was largely untenable, because it required that children mostly too young to understand or appreciate the concept of “money” would nonetheless be able to recognize it, surreptitiously remove it from their parents’ wallets, put it in envelopes with the correct postage and address (even though Soupy hadn’t provided an address), and mail it to him, all without their parents’ knowledge or assistance. At that age I’d have been hard-pressed to successfully mail a postcard to myself without help, and no kid I knew who was mature to enough understand the value of money was about to part with any prized currency by sending it to a TV host who promised nothing in return, no matter how nicely he asked. Nonetheless, decades later sloppy historians were still reporting that “It worked. According to reports it was ‘the biggest heist since the Brink’s robbery. '”1 It didn’t work. Although various accounts credit Soupy with having received up to $80,000 through the mail, Sales himself has revealed on numerous occasions that he netted only a few real dollars, along with a lot of play money, green Monopoly money, and other forms of fake currency: The most famous single gag comes on New Year’s Day 1965. Mr. Sales tells kids to go into their parents’ wallets and to send him “those little green pieces of paper.”It’s become a cult thing to say you sent $10, $20, he says, but if that had been true, he would have had enough money to buy the building. He received only a few dollars, and a week’s suspension. 2


Usain Bolt brings his e-scooter to Japan despite regulatory road bumps.

Explanation: Nine-time Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt is bringing his electric scooters to Japan, hopeful that his celebrity status will help persuade regulators that the environmental benefits are important enough to relax some of the curbs on their use.

Under current laws, scooters can only be driven on roads, they need to carry license plates, and riders require a motorcycle license. The world-record sprinter and co-founder of Bolt Mobility announced the launch at an event in a Tokyo restaurant on Friday. The initial goal is to limit its scooter rentals to private land, which is exempted from the traffic regulations, and to be operating on 40 university campuses by the end of 2020. Beyond that, representatives of the year-old American start-up are talking with regulators about easing restrictions, arguing its scooters can reduce traffic congestion and thereby reduce emissions. Bolt hopes his celebrity can help deliver that message. “We’re still talking and trying to figure out how to push forward and do better things for the environment, because that’s where it started,” he said in an interview with Reuters following the event. “This is the future.”   Bolt Mobility aims to be in 20 cities globally by the end of this year and 50 across eight countries in 2020. Earlier this year, it launched in New York, Paris and Washington. E-scooter sharing has become a popular option for so-called “last-mile” commutes in many urban centers worldwide, but they have also created problems. In San Francisco, customers have abandoned the vehicles on public walkways, spurring the city attorney to call them a “public nuisance.”   Paris has tightened rules on where scooters can be ridden following two deaths and scores of injuries. An elderly cyclist died after colliding with an e-scooter in Singapore in September. In Tokyo, e-scooters are still a rarity, and under current laws are treated as low-powered motorcycles. However there is growing momentum for making them more mainstream. At the Tokyo Motor Show this month, hosted by the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, visitors could try out electric scooters built by Japanese and foreign startups. The world’s largest e-scooter company, Lime, joined the Japanese lobby group Microbility Promotion Council on Thursday. However a change in regulation may take some time, despite the backing of some Japanese government officials. “Even though everyone says it’s very convenient, safety has to be the top priority,” an official at Japan’s transport ministry said, declining to be named because he was not authorized to talk to the media. “That’s going to be an extremely high hurdle.”


New Mexico OKs more businesses to open, mandates masks.

Explanation: New Mexico is giving the green light for nonessential businesses including retailers and many services to reopen on Saturday at limited capacity, while ordering that face masks be worn in public with few exceptions to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

Michelle Lujan Grisham, Health, General News, New Mexico, Virus Outbreak, Public health

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a news videoconference Wednesday that a new public health order will allow businesses to reopen at 25% of building occupancy limits. Large retailers can attend to 20% of maximum capacity set under fire safety regulations. New Mexico health officials cautioned that infections among children are surging, complicating efforts to reopen the economy and provide summer recreation programs. Lujan Grisham referred to children as potential “super-spreaders” of COVID-19. Strict limits on nonessential business will remain in place in northwestern New Mexico, which includes a portion of the vast Navajo Nation. Human Services Secretary David Scrase said average daily infections in the northwest of the state, including McKinley and San Juan counties, have declined slightly in recent days. But those two counties still accounted on Wednesday for 109 out of 155 newly confirmed infections and eight out of 12 deaths statewide. Lujan Grisham said the state was on target to potentially open dine-in restaurant service in early June. She said safety concerns are making it difficult to allow hair salons and gyms anytime soon. No date has been set for public schools to reconvene. Republican Party Chairman Steve Pearce said he believes the easing of business restrictions is arriving too late for many small businesses to survive, and he urged the governor to speed up relief from onerous restrictions. He deferred to health officials on the need for face coverings in public. Lujan Grisham said that the state secretary of health is in negotiations to have a “qualified hospital administrator” take the reins of day-to-day operations at Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital in Gallup, where medical staff last week held a street protest to complain of inadequate staffing and urge hospital CEO David Conejo to resign. She said the negotiations are designed to avoid protracted litigation or receivership proceedings. About 17 nurses were cut from the Rehoboth hospital workforce in March as the pandemic bore down on New Mexico, and at least 32 staff have tested positive for the virus, according to the hospital’s chief medical officer and other hospital officials. Those events and the departure last week of the hospital’s pulmonologist have limited its ability to treat COVID-19 patients, as people with acute respiratory symptoms are transported to Albuquerque facilities. Further details of management negotiations were unavailable. Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital also is under mounting pressure to comply with a financial audit. State Auditor Brian Colón said he has given hospital officials a week to deliver additional financial documents to independent auditors and that public confidence was fading in management at the 60-bed hospital funded in part by property taxes. “It’s gone from a deeply concerning issue to a crisis that isn’t being overstated when we say that it’s a matter of life and death,” said Colón, who led a conference call Tuesday involving Conejo, officials from McKinley County and the hospital board of trustees. Conejo said nothing of negotiations with the Health Department on Wednesday as he defended his leadership during the health crisis he described as a “perfect storm.” He says surgical staff and hospital trustees signed off on workforce reductions in March. The state has confirmed 231 deaths and more than 5,300 infections. Testing was offered this week to the state’s entire public and private workforce for any reason, and officials are encouraging multiple tests for people who fear exposure or sense symptoms. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death. ___ This version corrects that the state is unlikely to reopen dine-in restaurant service until early June..


Black women's hair loss tied to braiding, weaving: study.

Explanation: Very tight braiding or weaving may be linked to a permanent type of hair loss that affects many African American women, according to a U.S. study.

Prolonged pulling at the hair strands may cause inflammation of the hair follicle, which has been showed to lead to scarring. In principle, this could lead to scarring hair loss or central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, a type of balding that starts at the top of the scalp and then spreads slowly to the rest. “Our survey results suggest there is a high prevalence of central hair loss among African American women,” wrote Angela Kyei, of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, who led the study. Though the findings couldn’t prove that hair grooming was at the base of the problem, women might still want to take them into consideration, she added. The study, published in the Archives of Dermatology, is based on health questionnaires and scalp examinations of 326 African American women. Nearly all of them straightened their curls chemically and about one in six had scarring hair loss. More than half the women with this condition said they had braids, weaves or hair extensions, as compared to only a third of those with less severe hair loss. Kyei did note, however, that there could be other causes for the balding. The researchers found that women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to have scarring hair loss, as were those with bacterial scalp infections. “If there is any take-home message from this study, it is that hair grooming is not the only thing you should look at in these patients,” she added. SOURCE: bit.ly/e3oj6W


Testing hand-grip strength could be a simple, low-cost way to predict heart attack and stroke risk

Explanation: This release about the ability of grip strength testing to predict death and disease rates leaves readers without enough context and ultimately overstates the importance of the findings. While the tone of the release is measured and the quotes include some caution about interpreting the results, there’s no mention anywhere in the release about the limits of observational studies — which are discussed both in the study that’s the basis for the release and the accompanying editorial. And although overall death rates are unquestionably an important outcome, the release does not tell readers what it would mean for a person to be identified as having a 17 percent higher risk. What use is that information and how would it affect how that person is cared for? “Why This Matters” is something this news release should have educated us about. A clinical test result is useful only when it helps people make decisions. This release should have spent more time addressing how the study results might be applied. Would identifying a person as being at a 17 percent increased risk of death or a 7 percent increased risk of a heart attack change how doctors would monitor or treat him or her? Would someone be prescribed a statin based on a finding of decreased hand grip strength? Even though the study was intended only to assess how grip test results in a wider variety of countries compare to previous findings in high-income countries, the release could have at least briefly mentioned how such test results are commonly used in clinical settings. What’s more, it’s clear that news coverage, feeding off this news release, is reporting on this without caveats about observational studies, and therefore, delivering an incomplete message to the public. And it all started with this news release, because the caveats appear in both the journal article and in an accompanying commentary. Here are a handful of examples: Your Handshake Tells the Story of Your Health Patients’ grip strengths reveal heart attack risk: study Palm ‘holds secrets of future health’ Why a weak handshake is bad news for your heart

The release says that grip strength is low-cost, but a dynamometer is not something used routinely in clinical practice. Why not provide a cost estimate for both the dynamometers, the cost of administering the test in the clinical setting, and the cost of potential widespread risk-stratifying use? Would this still be low-cost? Maybe so, but some projections are possible IF you deal with real numbers, not just the researchers’ value judgment that it is “low-cost.” The release does not tell readers how important a 7 to 17 percent increase in risk for the measured outcomes really is. There are no absolute figures included, only relative risks. What’s more, the release makes no mention of how this sort of risk stratification would be used. Would people identified as having a 10-20 percent higher risk of certain conditions be offered different tests or treatments than those with stronger grips? Without this sort of context, readers of this release don’t have any way of knowing what the benefits of grip testing might be. It is also odd that the headline and lead paragraph of the release highlighted heart attack and stroke, when the risk stratifications for those events were smaller than those for other outcomes. As mentioned in the section on benefits, the release does not explain how the test results might be used. If the intent is to steer people identified as being at higher risk toward more testing or treatment, then the release should have mentioned the risk of doing more harm through overtreatment. The release would have been better if it had included a clear statement near the top highlighting that this observational study cannot say whether poor grip strength itself predisposes a person to health problems or is merely a result of factors that also lead to health problems. The journal article included that caveat: “The observational nature of this study does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the causal role of muscular strength in death or cardiovascular disease. Although we adjusted for many potential confounders, we cannot exclude the possibility that residual confounding underlies the associations between grip strength and these outcomes.” And an accompanying editorial also described “the limitations of observational epidemiology to address causal pathways.”  Yet the Lancet news release made no mention of these clearly-stated limitations. Journal news releases could do a great deal to help educate journalists and the public about the value of, and the limitations of, such research. The outcomes highlighted in the release, including overall death rates and cardiovascular disease, are indeed important, as is evidence on ways of improving clinical practice. But we’re troubled by the introduction of the concept of hand grip strength being a “new biomarker of aging” — as if aging were some type of disease that we need better tools to diagnose and/or monitor. We’ll rule it Satisfactory with some reservations. This rating is for a sin of omission. It does not appear that any conflicts were hidden, but all news releases should routinely report a summary of funding sources and disclosures. The journal article reports funding sources for the study and lead authors. There are no competing interests reported. The maker of the dynamometer used does not appear to have played any role in the study. But even in cases like this, where it does not appear that there any funding or other conflicts of interest, news releases should routinely include some reference to funding and disclosures by researchers. The release specifically notes that grip strength results are a stronger predictor of death than systolic blood pressure. But what about the most common ways that clinicians currently assess the health risks of patients, such as with Framingham data and the related NHLBI heart risk assessment tool — free and online? Call us picky, but we can easily recall widespread news coverage of whether wrinkles in your earlobes can predict heart attack risk. So we don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some reference to an enduring, well-supported alternative to the risk predictor of the day. The release implies that the type of dynamometer used to assess grip strength in this study is widely available, but a clearer statement about availability, especially in low-income countries, would have made the release better. The release notes that this association between grip strength and health risks has been documented previously in high-income countries, and that a key feature of this study is the inclusion of people from low- and middle-income countries. This is a close call. The tone of the release is generally measured. However, the release headline suggests that hand grip strength is “simple” and “low cost” — neither of which have been proven in widespread clinical practice. It takes training to use this device and interpret the results correctly. And it’s not clear how accurate this test is or if it’ll lead to unnecessary tests or treatments. In other words, the release conveys a certainty about this test that just doesn’t exist — something we think is unjustified.


Immunotherapy reduces cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis

Explanation: This news release asserts that a study found that combining two biologic drugs which contain extra-low doses of antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) and interferon (IFN) can “improve the efficacy of standard rheumatoid arthritis therapy and decrease cardiovascular risk.” But the accuracy of that statement depends on what your definition of “cardiovascular risk” is. If your definition includes the risk of heart attacks and strokes (as it surely does for most people), then the statement is questionable at best. The release does not mention any of those outcomes and instead focuses on “unstable angina, severe hypertensive crisis, and deterioration of chronic heart failure.” The news release is rich in mechanistic details, ie: how the treatments’ processes may help reduce markers of cardiovascular risk, but poor in important details of interest such as potential harms, costs and impacts on heart attacks or strokes. Granted, it was a small study, but it would have benefited from appropriate caveats around the actual outcomes observed, the potential for harms, and an overall sense of context. [Editor’s note: The European Society of Cardiology, which issued the release, has appeared on HealthNewsReview.org’s Wall of Shame twice before (see here and here) and this release comes close to meriting a repeat appearance.] In rheumatoid arthritis cytokines, a type of proteibn such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF) and interferon (IFN), start to attack healthy cells. If low-dose anti-TNF or anti-IFN drugs could reduce the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis as well as decrease cardiovascular risk they may make a huge contribution to rheumatoid arthritis sufferers. If many people with rheumatoid arthritis also have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease it is useful to study if biologic drugs can reduce those risks by slowing down or halting the disease process.

Association/Society news release,cardiovascular disease

No mention of costs, whatsoever. This may be a lost learning opportunity because these drugs are not only very expensive, but are also at the ends of their patent lives and hence generic companies are making cheaper biosimilars. The release offers some quantification of benefits when it describes the “incidence of cardiovascular events (unstable angina, severe hypertensive crisis, and deterioration of chronic heart failure)” as being 37% in conventional disease-modifying drugs group compared to those who also took anticytokines (at 13%). Normally, that quantification would earn the release a satisfactory rating but the definition provided here for “cardiovascular risk” does not include heart attacks and strokes. It’s misleading to leave them out. No mention of harms, and there are known rare, but serious, adverse effects associated with all of the biologic drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. What the study description needed was a caveat saying that a 68-person trial might be preliminary, or interesting, or even hopeful, but certainly not definitive. In addition, the release doesn’t mention how the outcomes were measured and if the study was blinded on the part of either the patient or the research observer. No obvious disease mongering here. We would caution that whenever a drug study encourages physicians to prescribe the drug more often, particularly in patients with mild disease, it could be construed by some observers as disease mongering. We learn that Professor Aida Babaeva, the lead investigator, is the head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia, but not the degree to which she may have connections to companies making these drugs. Those kind of clarifications are important. There are a range of alternatives (statins, antihypertensives, anticoagulants) that can help reduce cardiovascular risk in patients but none of these alternatives are mentioned in the context of the study. Even one line acknowledging the existence of these alternatives would have rendered this a much more satisfactory release. It can be safely assumed that the biologics mentioned in the study are on the market, but are the “extra-low dose combination of two anticytokines” readily available? We’re not sure. This might be worth the benefit of the doubt. The news release does not misrepresent the novelty of the approach and the lead investigator asserts that not all rheumatoid arthritis patients should be using this combination, saying “In patients with highly active disease, the standard biologics are better at preventing severe complications such as progressive joint destruction and/or systemic manifestations (vasculitis, uveitis, involvement of internal organs).”  It appears that the use of the “extra low” doses are simply a novel use of standard drugs, possibly in patients who would never have used the drugs in the past. There are no obvious examples of the use of unjustifiable descriptors. However, the first paragraph seems to suggest that it is well-known that these drugs will reduce rheumatoid and cardiovascular disease. The implication is that these have been well-proven, but we think that’s still an open question.


Morning-after pill sold over the counter in Canada.

Explanation: The so-called “morning after” pill Plan  B has received full over-the-counter status in Canada, drug  maker Paladin Labs Inc said on Thursday.

Paladin said that following a decision by the National  Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, an umbrella  group for Canada’s provincial regulators, the emergency  contraceptive will be available directly from pharmacy shelves. Plan B, which is used after having sex to prevent  unintended pregnancies, previously had behind-the-counter  status, meaning that it was available from a pharmacist on  request but did not require a doctor’s prescription. The pill is 95 percent effective in preventing a pregnancy  when taken within 24 hours of unprotected sex, but does not  have any impact on an pre-existing pregnancy, according to  Paladin. Canada allowed the controversial pill to be available  without prescription in 2005. In the United States, women and men 18 and older can buy  Plan B without a prescription if they show proof of age at a  pharmacy. Girls under 18 still need a prescription. Supporters of the contraceptive have hailed it as a way to  reduce the number of abortions, while critics have argued it  could promote promiscuity or be used as a regular method of  birth control. Family-planning groups in the United States have said some  women have run into difficulties getting Plan B, with some  pharmacists declining to dispense it or stores refusing to  carry it. In Canada, Plan B is distributed and marketed by Paladin,  while in the United States, it is sold by Barr Pharmaceuticals  Inc, which owns the rights to the contraceptive.


“Every election year has a disease” ... SARS in 2004; avian flu in 2008; swine flu in 2010; MERS in 2012; Ebola in 2014 and 2018; Zika in 2016 and the coronavirus in 2020.

Explanation: Most of these diseases were discovered and spread before the election years and were minimally mentioned during campaigns. SARS, avian flu and MERS had virtually no effect on the U.S. during election years. One exception: Ebola was a significant campaign issue in 2014.

National, Elections, Health Care, Facebook Fact-checks, Health Check, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

As coronavirus misinformation spreads like wildfire, there have been conspiratorial attempts to connect the disease to election year politics. Many tweets and Facebook posts are making the  claim that there is a trend of disease outbreaks matched to elections. "Every election year has a disease," reads one. The posts connect SARS to 2004, avian flu to 2008, swine flu to 2010, MERS to 2012, Ebola to 2014 and 2018, Zika to 2016, and the coronavirus to 2020. "Coincidences? NEVER." One post we saw supposedly linked to the World Health Organization (WHO), but that lead to a 404 error page. Our research showed that most of these connections weren’t real. We decided to take a closer look and see if the diseases were significant enough to appear in party platforms or mentioned during candidate interviews. In most cases, they weren’t. Online, fact-based news is going to be very important in the coming weeks. Please consider donating to PolitiFact today. SARS is a coronavirus disease that spread from animals to humans and was diagnosed in China in 2003. SARS is a respiratory illness that affects breathing and is usually associated with coughing and a fever. It is spread through infected droplets that can survive on surfaces and could affect you if airborne. The SARS outbreak was stopped by July 2003, and in 2004 China took precautions by putting an embargo on animals that could have been the source of the disease. SARS affected eight people in the United States, and all these cases were contracted from travel abroad. SARS did not spread within the United States during the 2003 outbreak, and there have been no cases reported since then. SARS wasn’t a main campaign point in the 2004 presidential elections. It was referenced once in the Republican Party platform that was released in August 2004, under a section on international diplomacy that mentioned it as a joint concern of the United States and China. Avian flu is usually found in aquatic birds and poultry, but in rare cases the influenza can cross over and infect humans. The symptoms of avian flu are like general influenza, including cough, fever, sore throat or headaches. The two most prevalent avian influenza viruses, H5N1 and H9N2, caused respiratory infections in humans in China as early as the 1990s. Vietnam, Indonesia, China, Egypt, Thailand, and many other countries struggled with the spread of H5N1 from 2004 to 2014. In 2014, there was only one case of H5N1 in North America, according to the CDC, and there were never any U.S. cases. As far as the 2008 presidential campaign is concerned, the Democratic Party platform mentioned avian flu briefly to justify strengthening international support systems. Nevertheless, the avian flu was a pandemic before the 2008 presidential election and has continued to be a problem even today, with new strains appearing as recently as 2017. The 2008 strain of the influenza had no significant influence on elections that we could determine. The swine flu, more specifically H1N1, started spreading in early 2009 and combined avian, swine, and human influenza in one new strain. The symptoms of the disease are like most flu symptoms, including a fever, chills, cough, sore throat, or a runny or stuffy nose. It also spreads like most influenza, with infected droplets that could be airborne or left on surfaces. The 2009 swine flu outbreak was the "first global flu pandemic in 40 years," according to the CDC. The panic surrounding swine flu led to many extreme measures, including school shutdowns and people camping outside of free swine flu vaccine centers. But not everyone approved of the vaccine. PolitiFact checked a statement from October 2009 by Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host who was against the swine flu vaccination. He believed the vaccine would lead to neurological problems like that of an influenza vaccine from the 1970s. Swine flu was a politically polarizing disease when it came to vaccinating and expanding the government’s health budget to prevent more outbreaks. It affected Americans directly and led to preventative legislation, but we found no examples of representatives using H1N1 in their campaigns during the 2010 midterm elections. The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, or MERS, is a viral respiratory illness that was first found in dromedary (or one-humped) camels and then spread to humans. Most cases of the disease came from direct or in-direct contact with camels. Human-to-human transmission of MERS is more rare and mostly appears in unsanitary health care settings. Symptoms of the disease include fever, coughing, or trouble with breathing that can lead to pneumonia. MERS was first diagnosed in Saudi Arabia in 2012, according to the CDC. All cases of MERS in 2012 were within the Arabian Peninsula, with two unlinked cases only reaching the U.S. in 2014. MERS was not brought up by any campaigns or included in any party platforms in the 2012 presidential election. It didn’t affect the U.S. until 2014, and even then the only comment was from press secretary Jay Carney, when he said at a press conference that President Barack Obama had "been briefed" on the MERS developments. Even though MERS did occur during the 2012 election, it didn’t seem to have any effect on U.S. politics. The Ebola virus emerged periodically and caused outbreaks in many African countries as early as 1995. Ebola is introduced into the human population when there is close contact with the bodily fluids of infected fruit bats, chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys, forest antelope or porcupines. Human-to-human transmission only occurs when touching infected human bodily fluids or objects that have touched infected human bodily fluids. The first signs of Ebola include fever, fatigue, or a sore throat. Later, the infected person will experience vomiting, diarrhea, rash, and symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function. In the most deadly cases, there is internal and external bleeding. The first large outbreaks were in 1995 and 2000 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, according to the CDC’s timeline. The CDC also documented only four diagnosed Ebola cases in the U.S. in 2014, and only two of the Ebola patients were infected in the U.S. In 2018, there were only outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. In 2014, an NPR report broke down how Ebola was used by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats would use Ebola to "argue that budget-cutting Republicans have deprived the government of the resources it needs to keep Americans safe." Republicans used the government’s reaction to Ebola as an example of President Obama’s "incompetence" and linked Ebola to border security. In contrast, Ebola was not a topic in the 2018 election because Ebola was only concentrated in two African countries and had a very low chance of coming to the U.S. again, according to the Association of Health Care Journalists. Ebola was not a huge threat to Americans in the United States despite some cases in 2014, but it was used as a political tool in the 2014 midterm elections. Comparatively, there were no cases of Ebola in 2018 in the United States, and it was not used as rhetoric in the elections. Zika is spread mostly through the bite of infected mosquitoes, but can also be transmitted through unprotected sex. The most common symptoms of Zika are fever, rash, headache, joint and muscle pain, and red eyes (conjunctivitis). While Zika has a low death rate, it became a larger issue when it was linked to fetal brain defects in infected pregnant women’s children. Outbreaks of the Zika virus have been reported in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands since 1952, according to the CDC. It began to appear more in the United States in 2015 and 2016 because of people travelling from tropical climates and from local mosquitos in Texas and Florida. In 2016, the Zika outbreak hit a peak, with 5,168 symptomatic Zika virus disease cases reported in the U.S., according to the CDC’s 2016 report. Zika sowed division in an already divided Senate but didn’t impact the presidential race. President Obama’s administration asked Congress "for more than $1.8 billion in emergency funding to enhance… efforts to prepare for and respond to the Zika virus" in February 2016. It took almost seven months for Congress to approve a federal spending bill to prevent the Zika virus from spreading. The New York Times reported that they voted to advance the funding, despite disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on where the funding should come from. A month later, the bill had fallen apart, with the Democrats rejecting provisions added by the Republicans. Finally, the bill passed on Sept. 28, 2016, with concessions made by both sides. During this congressional tug of war, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both brought up the Zika virus only once during their campaigns. When Trump was asked about how he would deal with the Zika virus while he campaigned in Florida, he said that Rick Scott, the state’s Republican governor, was doing a great job and "he's going to have it under control, he probably already does." Clinton urged Congress to pass a spending bill and "called for more public education about the virus’ dangers, the development of a rapid diagnostic test, investment in treatment and a vaccine, better mosquito control and abatement, and improved access to health and family planning services." While the Zika virus had an impact on Americans in 2016 and showed how divided the Senate was, we found little impact on the 2016 presidential election. The 2019 Novel Coronavirus, or COVID-19, is a respiratory disease that has symptoms of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. It is spread by airborne respiratory droplets that are released when an infected person coughs or sneezes and can also be spread by touching surfaces that droplets have landed on. Like it says in the name, COVID-19 was discovered in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It has spread across the world as people traveled to and from China. There are now 647 cases in the U.S. as of March 10, 2020. As COVID-19 has spread in the United States, Congress and President Donald Trump have approved funding to create a vaccine and prevent a pandemic. On March 6, 2020, Trump signed an $8.3 billion emergency spending bill. This time, the virus has been a major point of discussion for the president and other presidential candidates. A post on social media says "Every election year has a disease" ... SARS in 2004; avian flu in 2008; swine flu in 2010; MERS in 2012; Ebola in 2014 and 2018; Zika in 2016 and the coronavirus in 2020. But most of these diseases were discovered and spread before the election years. Some of the diseases never impacted the United States, and never came up as a large point in a campaign. There is some evidence that Ebola in 2014 impacted the election, but otherwise there is no straightforward connection between national U.S. elections and pandemics. The post is not accurate. We rate this statement .


Minnesotans are drinking water contaminated by nitrate.

Explanation: Years of unchecked agricultural pollution has led Minnesotans to drink tap water that is contaminated with unsafe levels of nitrate, a chemical associated with cancer and other serious health problems.

Environment, General News, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Pollution

In a report released Tuesday morning by the Environmental Working Group, it was found that one in eight Minnesotans are drinking nitrate-tainted tap water, according to the Star Tribune. The environmental group says Minnesota is on “the brink of a public health crisis.” Nitrate, a chemical component in fertilizer and manure, is being washed away by rain and irrigation off crop fields and seeping into groundwater. Based on public records from the state Department of Health and Department of Agriculture, the nitrate contamination is far worse in privately owned wells, given they are not required to be periodically tested like Minnesota public water systems are. “I think we would all be surprised how much nitrate is in these wells if we actually tested them,” said Anne Weir Schechinger, a senior economic analyst in the the organization’s Minneapolis office and co-author of the study. Drinking water high in nitrate has been linked to different types of cancer, elevated heart rates and a potentially fatal condition known as blue baby syndrome in which infants are deprived of oxygen. In efforts aimed to stop the use of nitrogen fertilizers, Minnesota implemented at the beginning of this year, the Groundwater Protection Rule. It prohibits applying commercial nitrogen fertilizer in the fall and in drinking water supply management areas that already have elevated nitrate levels. The rule also establishes an enforcement program encouraging farmers to adopt greener practices. Farmers are in full support of the new nitrogen fertilizer restrictions but conservation groups and some agricultural experts criticize the new rule doesn’t address manure or contamination of private wells. Retired University of Minnesota soils scientists Gyles Randall said a big miss in the rule is it only focuses on when commercial fertilizer is applied and not how much is applied. The Environmental Working Group praised the rule as a strong first step, and said other states are watching to see how it’s implemented.


A ham and cheese sandwich on one slice of bread is the responsibility of the USDA ... But a ham and cheese sandwich on two slices of bread is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration.

Explanation: A legitimate beef with ham sandwich regulations

National, Consumer Safety, Regulation, Hillary Clinton,

In a speech in Shenandoah, Iowa, Clinton made a campaign issue out of a ham and cheese sandwich. She said the federal government "is not taking the steps necessary to protect us" because of inadequate inspections of toys and food. She cited this example: "A ham and cheese sandwich on one slice of bread is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which inspects manufacturers daily. But a ham and cheese sandwich on two slices of bread is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration, which inspects manufacturers about once every five years." To find out if her sandwich example was correct, we turned to government reports on food safety, interviewed the head of the USDA's food inspection service and studied the government's Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, a fascinating manual that provides rules for Wiener schnitzel ("a veal cutlet prepared by dipping in egg, flour and bread crumbs, and frying to a golden brown") and vinegar pickle ("sausage in vinegar pickle is approved with the understanding that sausage is completely covered with pickle and that the pickle has a pH level not higher than 4.5"). The manual also spells out which foods are under USDA jurisdiction. We found that Clinton is correct about the regulation of sandwiches and the big disparity in inspections by the two agencies. In an interview with PolitiFact last week, Richard Raymond, the USDA's undersecretary for food safety, acknowledged that the sandwich rule is silly. "There is no rationale or logic that I can explain to anybody," he said. "It defies logic." He said the rules don't affect the safety of the nation's food supply, but said, "it's an issue that makes it look like we don't know what we're doing." Raymond didn't know the origin of the sandwich rule, but others suggested that the volume of meat might have been the key factor in whether it was FDA or USDA jurisdiction. (The rule only applies to plants that assemble sandwiches for retail stores like 7-Elevens. Sandwiches made-to-order at a deli or a Subway store are not subject to the inspections, Raymond said.) To understand the strange bureaucratic turf of food inspections, you have to go back to the 1906 publication of Upton Sinclair's novel  The Jungle  , which described horrific conditions at meat plants. That book, still required reading in many high school English classes, had such impact that it persuaded Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt to enact a law requiring meat inspections. Roosevelt had called for a law that would require oversight "from the hoof to the can." Since then, the government has put considerable emphasis on meat and poultry, which fall under the USDA. The agency's 7,500 inspectors and veterinarians conduct continuous daily inspections of the nation's meat and poultry plants. The law requires USDA inspections before the products can be sold. But other foods have not gotten the same scrutiny. Most are regulated by the FDA, but the law does not mandate inspection frequencies, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. The report confirms that Clinton is correct that, on average, the FDA inspects the 57,000 food plants under its jurisdiction about once every five years. "There is no rhyme or reason to how we regulate food today in the U.S.," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's based on antiquated laws and bifurcated agencies. The current food safety system doesn't protect the public." Without a mandate for regular inspections, the FDA hasn't gotten enough money to do them more frequently. Smith Dewaal said the agency is "really starving for resources." Her complaints are echoed in a new report from an FDA advisory panel. The November 2007 report for the agency's Science Board said the FDA is so overburdened and underfunded that it can't effectively conduct routine surveillance. "The nation's food supply is at risk," the report said. And so we find that Sen. Clinton has a legitimate beef on ham and cheese. We find her claim to be .


Sleep apnea patient finds rest with implant device: "It saved my life

Explanation: Inspire Therapy implant The story focuses on one patient’s experience with a technology called Inspire, which is an implantable device used to treat one particular form of sleep apnea (obstructive). While sleep apnea is a common problem in the United States, the story does little to place the work in context. Instead, the story cites a medical professional who calls it “revolutionary” and a “game-changer” without telling readers that the doctor is a consultant for Inspire. There is also no objective medical assessment of the device’s effectiveness, as the medical professional quoted is also the treating physician. It’s also not clear why the story came out now, given that Inspire has been on the market for a few years and that the evidence cited is from 2014. We are happy for any patient who has found relief for a medical problem. But the treatment that works for one patient may not work or even be appropriate for others. It is important for any story about medical treatments to offer detailed information about the costs, risks and benefits of a treatment, rather than relying on one person’s story. This is true for any treatment, but especially for medical devices, which are not tightly regulated by the FDA. This story focuses on one person, but tells readers that Inspire “is offering hope for millions of patients with sleep apnea.” The story should let readers know whether that hope is justified, and also provide clarification regarding its potential benefit applies only to individuals with obstructive sleep apnea.

Here’s what the story says in regard to cost: “The device costs around $20,000 not including the surgery.” This doesn’t adequately address two key points. The first problem here is that an invasive surgery, such as this one, could be extremely expensive. Does it require the patient to be put completely under by anesthesia? Is it out-patient surgery, or would patients have to spend at least one night in a hospital? Details like that can make a huge difference in terms of cost. The second, bigger problem is that the story doesn’t make clear that this is not a one-time cost. Inspire implants can malfunction, and the batteries in the implants will need to be replaced. For example, a 2010 study published in Sleep Medicine Reviews found that, out of eight patients, five experienced device malfunctions more than six months after implantation. There may have been improvements in the technology since that study was published, but there is still no acknowledgment that Inspire’s internal power supply would need to be replaced periodically — and neither the new battery nor the related medical procedure is likely to be free. Benefits are not quantified. Beyond one patient’s anecdotal experience, the story refers to a study that found “68 percent of patients experienced less sleep apnea after getting the implant.” How bad was the apnea before? How did the compare against a control group (if there was one)? But there is virtually no information about the study, the extent of the improvement, how long it lasted, etc. More detailed information is needed here. However, the biggest concern here is that the story doesn’t make sufficiently clear that Inspire is designed to address just one particular type of sleep apnea. It does say that Inspire is for “moderate to severe cases,” but that’s pretty vague — and doesn’t address the core problems here. First off, there are two large classes of sleep apnea: obstructive (in which the airway becomes blocked) and central (in which the brain doesn’t send the appropriate signals for normal breathing). Inspire can only address obstructive sleep apnea. What’s more, it can only address some types of obstructive sleep apnea. For example, Inspire’s website notes that “Inspire therapy is not intended for patients with a complete concentric collapse at the level of the soft palate.” What exactly does that mean? How common is that condition? I wish the story had told us. What’s more, Inspire’s website also notes that “Inspire therapy has not been clinically tested in patients with a body mass index greater than 32.” In other words, no one knows whether Inspire would work on one of the groups of people at greater risk of sleep apnea. There’s also this hyperbolic quote: “This has been revolutionary. It’s been a game changer,” Dr. Maurits Boon said. Considering the device doesn’t work for everyone, is expensive, invasive, and may cause side effects, it doesn’t seem revolutionary. The story notes that “like any surgery, there is risk of infection” when Inspire is implanted. That isn’t enough. A check of FDA’s MAUDE database reveals patient complaints of slurred speech, difficulty breathing, and the device suddenly activating itself, among other problems. In addition, there are questions particular to the use of an electrical device implanted in the chest — especially for a condition that is most common among patients who are “older, overweight and male” (as the story puts it). For example, can patients with pacemakers also use Inspire, or would they interfere with each other? Outside of one patient’s personal experiences, and a single, vague reference to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, there is no discussion of evidence supporting benefits associated with Inspire. To be clear, we are not saying this evidence isn’t out there, we’re simply saying the story doesn’t tell us what that evidence is. The story only includes the perspective of one patient with very severe sleep apnea, but never clarifies how many people with sleep apnea have mild, moderate or severe sleep apnea. We’re left to assume it’s a whole heck of a lot of people, because the story says this new treatment “is offering hope for millions of patients.” This lack of clarity adds up to disease-mongering. The story cites only one expert source — and fails to tell readers that the source is a consultant for Inspire. In fairness, you won’t find that information on the doctor’s professional website. However, it is disclosed in a 2016 journal article by the doctor and one of his collaborators. If we could find that information (with a minimum of effort), we think its omission is a significant oversight. The story does tell readers that CPAP, a widely used treatment for sleep apnea, did not work for the patient being profiled. However, the story doesn’t let us know how often CPAP is ineffective, whether there is any difference in effectiveness between CPAP and Inspire for most patients, or what other treatment options are available. It is clear from the story that Inspire is available. This is a tough one. On the one hand, the story does clearly explain how the Inspire technology works — which is good. However, doesn’t state how this is different from any other treatment options — the only other option mentioned is CPAP. If Inspire takes a completely different approach from other treatment technologies, it’s important for the story to come right out and say so. The story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. In fact, it’s not clear why the story is running now at all. Inspire was approved by the FDA in 2014 and has been on the market for quite some time.


Your child's brain on math: Don't bother?.

Explanation: Parents whose children are struggling with math often view intense tutoring as the best way to help them master crucial skills, but a new study released on Monday suggests that for some kids even that is a lost cause.

According to the research, the size of one key brain structure and the connections between it and other regions can help identify the 8- and 9-year olds who will hardly benefit from one-on-one math instruction. “We could predict how much a child learned from the tutoring based on measures of brain structure and connectivity,” said Vinod Menon, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, who led the research. The study, published in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to use brain imaging to look for a connection between brain attributes and the ability to learn arithmetic. But despite its publication in a well-respected journal, the research immediately drew criticism. Jonathan Moreno, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, fears that some parents and teachers might “give up now” on a math-challenged child. “If it gets into the popular consciousness that it’s wise to have your kid’s brain checked out” before making decisions about academic options, he said, “that raises huge issues.”  Menon and his fellow scientists agree that their research shouldn’t lead to hasty conclusions. They are exploring whether any interventions might change the brain in such a way that children who struggle with math can benefit more from tutoring. Just as learning to juggle increases the amount of gray matter in the area of adult brains that is responsible for spatial attention, said Menon, maybe something could pump up regions relevant to learning arithmetic before a child begins math tutoring. Until then, he said “it’s conceivable” that parents will interpret the new study as saying some kids cannot benefit from math tutoring, “and give up before even trying. How this plays out is far from clear.”  The study was conceived as a way to understand why some children benefit more than others from math instruction, said study co-author Lynn Fuchs, professor of special education at Vanderbilt University and an expert on ways to improve reading and math skills in students with learning disabilities. For the research, the scientists first ran several tests on 24 third-graders to measure their IQ, working memory and reading and math ability. The children also underwent brain imaging. Structural MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) revealed the size and shape of various regions, while functional MRIs revealed connections among them. Then the children received 22 one-on-one tutoring sessions, spread over eight weeks, for eight to nine hours per week. The tutoring emphasized number knowledge (principles like 5 + 4 = 4 + 5, and that many pairs of numbers add up to, say, 9) and fast-paced mental math (“quick, what is 6 + 9?”). After the tutoring, the children all improved in their arithmetic ability, solving more problems correctly and more quickly. But the amount of improvement varied enormously, from 8 percent to 198 percent. None of the measures - pre-tutoring IQ score, working memory and math skills - predicted how much a child would improve. But when the scientists compared each child’s improvement with his or her pre-tutoring brain images, two connections jumped out. The volume of gray matter (neurons) in the right hippocampus, one of the twin structures crucial for forming memories, varied by about 10 percent in the children, Stanford’s Menon said. The strength of the wiring between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex and the basal ganglia varied by about 15 percent. Both predicted how much a child’s math skills improved with tutoring, the scientists reported. The prefrontal cortex, behind the forehead, “is important for cognitive control, which plays a role in the formation of long-term memories,” Menon said. The basal ganglia, tucked under the brain’s outer surface, “is involved in habit formation and procedural memory,” such as how to add numbers. “Children with a larger right hippocampus and greater connectivity between the hippocampus and these two structures improved their arithmetic problem-solving skills more,” said Menon. These brain features explained 25 percent to 55 percent of the variation in improvement after math tutoring, he said. That, of course, leaves almost half of the difference among children to be explained by other factors. Among the concerns raised about the study is its size. It enrolled only two dozen children, on a par with many neuroimaging studies but quite small for research that might influence people’s behavior, said psychologist Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University. “This is very, very preliminary evidence that brain measurements might tell you something that psychological measurements don’t,” said Lilienfeld, co-author with psychiatrist Sally Satel of an upcoming book, “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” that critiques some uses of neuroimaging. “It’s important to see if the findings hold up in a second sample, and if other labs corroborate this.”  Because brain images seem more rigorous than psychological measures, he said, there is a risk that parents and educators will interpret the study as definitive evidence that some children are doomed to be innumerate. “Caution has to be the watchword here,” he said.


Explanation: This article highlights a different approach for the treatment of alcoholism, namely a monthly injection of an opioid antagonist in conjunction with counseling or group therapy. The allure of this drug is that the oral medication performs well among those who take it. This may be a welcome treatment regimen for individuals seeking help for their alcoholism. Perhaps because of side-effects or for other reasons, compliance with the pill is not great, so this once-a-month treatment is attractive on the face of it. Unfortunatelly, this story provides little information about the efficacy of this treatment. Trials of the drug showed that about 15% of patients stopped taking the drug during the 6 month trial because of side effects, but the story didn’t mention this. The story also didn’t mention that the trials showed high rates of anorexia, nausea and fatigue among the actively treated subjects. In fact, no details on the clinical trials or the views of experts in the field were provided. The story only included quotes from drug company spokesmen. Finally, while this was an article highlighting a new option for the treatment of alcoholism, no mention was made of established programs for treating alcoholism.

The article may have been a bit naive on the pricing issue. While saying that a drug company executive said the drug’s price wouldn’t be decided until its U.S. launch in late June, did the reporter even push for an estimate? Were drug analysts consulted? In addition, the drug needs to be given as monthly injections in a doctor’s office. The story didn’t include that factor in its too-brief discussion of costs. No mention of the percentage of individuals who could be expected to benefit from this treatment was provided. The potential for liver damage was mentioned, acknowledging that Vivitrol will carry a black-box warning about this. But the trials of the drug showed that about 15% of patients stopped taking the drug during the 6 month trial because of side effects. The story didn’t mention that the trials showed high rates of anorexia, nausea and fatigue among the actively treated subjects. No mention was made of the recently-concluded phase III clinical trials studying the efficacy of this treatment. This randomized controlled trial can be found in the April 6, 2005 issue of JAMA. While the treatment was shown to result in a statistically significant decrease in heavy drinking in men, there was no reduction in the number of days without any alcohol consumption for either men or women. This piece does not appear to disease-monger. A prevalence for alcohol dependence in the US is placed at 9 million with an estimated 2.2 million who are seeking treatment for alcoholism. The story didn’t include any comment from any independent expert not connected with the drug or its maker. The article mentions other medications for the treatment of alcoholism such as oral naltrexone and antabuse while failing to mention acamprosate. The benefit of this new, injectable treatment for alcoholism, which is to be administered monthly, is that it eliminates the challenge presented by the need for daily adherence to treatment. However, there was no mention of Alcoholic’s Anonymous or other treatment programs . It was reported that this drug will be sold beginning in late June which concurs with the information in the company press release. Reported as new treatment for alcoholism; according to the FDA, there is no therapeutic equivalent for Vivitrol. So we’ll give this a satisfactory score. But the story could have asked questions such as “Is this truly novel? Is an injectable treatment that different from a pill?” As much of the material in the article is consistent with the Alkermes, Inc. (drug company) press release of April 13 on the FDA approval of Vivitrol, it would appear that the press release was a main source of information for this story. There is no evidence of information from any other source.


Cancer the latest health woe for resilient Justice Ginsburg.

Explanation: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is resting in a New York hospital following surgery to remove two malignant growths in her left lung, the third time the Supreme Court’s oldest justice has been treated for cancer and her second stay in a hospital in two months.

AP Top News, Supreme courts, Cancer, Health, Politics, North America, U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Courts, Donald Trump

Worries over Ginsburg’s health have been a constant of sorts for nearly 10 years, and for liberals, particularly in the last two. Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing and known to her fans as the Notorious RBG, has achieved an iconic status rare for Supreme Court justices. If she did step down, President Donald Trump would have another opportunity to move a conservative court even more to the right. “Wishing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery!” Trump tweeted after the court’s announcement Friday. But Ginsburg has always bounced back before, flaunting her physical and mental fitness. After past health scares, she has resumed the exercise routine popularized in a book written by her personal trainer and captured in a Stephen Colbert video. Weeks after cracking three ribs in a fall at the Supreme Court in November, the 85-year-old Ginsburg was asking questions at high court arguments, speaking at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens and being interviewed at screenings of the new movie about her, “On the Basis of Sex.” Ginsburg will remain in the hospital for a few days, the court said. She has never missed arguments in more than 25 years as a justice. The court next meets on Jan. 7. While it’s hard to refer to good luck and cancer diagnoses in the same breath, this is the second time for Ginsburg that cancerous growths have been detected at an apparently early stage through unrelated medical tests. The nodules on her lung were found during X-rays and other tests Ginsburg had after she fractured ribs in a fall in her Supreme Court office on Nov. 7, the court said. In 2009, routine follow-up screening after Ginsburg’s colorectal cancer 10 years earlier detected a lesion on her pancreas. Doctors operated and removed the growth they’d previously spotted, plus a smaller one they hadn’t seen before. The larger growth was benign, while the smaller one was malignant. Doctors who are not involved in Ginsburg’s care said she may have gotten lucky again, although they caution it is too soon to know. “This is just luck” that the growths were found through those rib X-rays because accidentally discovered lung tumors tend to be early-stage when surgery works best, said Dr. Giuseppe Giaccone, an oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. John Lazar, director of thoracic robotic surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said it’s not uncommon to see slow-growing lung cancers in women in their 80s, and they tend to respond well to surgery and go on to die of something unrelated, he said. Ginsburg’s previous bouts with cancer were so long ago they’re unlikely to be related, Giaccone said. “If she doesn’t need anything but the surgery, it is a very good sign,” Lazar said. Both doctors said patients typically spend three days or four days in the hospital after this type of operation. On Friday, doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York performed a procedure called a pulmonary lobectomy on Ginsburg. The growths they removed were determined to be malignant in an initial pathology evaluation, the court said, citing Ginsburg’s thoracic surgeon, Dr. Valerie W. Rusch. But there was “no evidence of any remaining disease” and scans taken before the surgery showed no cancerous growths elsewhere in her body, the court said. No additional treatment is currently planned, it said. Among other health problems, she also broke two ribs in a fall in 2012 and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014. She was hospitalized after a bad reaction to medicine in 2009. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg rebuffed suggestions from some liberals that she should step down in the first two years of President Barack Obama’s second term, when Democrats controlled the Senate and would have been likely to confirm her successor. She already has hired clerks for the term that extends into 2020, indicating she has no plans to retire. ___ AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.


Scottish government identifies case of mad cow disease.

Explanation: Scotland’s government said on Thursday that a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, had been discovered on a farm in Aberdeenshire, the first in Britain since 2015.

A quarantine area has been put in place around the farm while inspectors try to identify the origin of the disease. “I have activated the Scottish government’s response plan to protect our valuable farming industry, including establishing a precautionary movement ban being placed on the farm,” Scotland’s farming minister, Fergus Ewing, said in a statement. The infected animal did not enter the food chain and food safety body Food Standards Scotland said there was no risk to human health as a result of the isolated case. BSE was first detected in Britain in the late 1980s, spreading from there to other parts of Europe and ravaging cattle herds until the early 2000s. It has been linked to the brain-wasting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) data show that the two most recent cases in Britain were in 2015. “The epidemic of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in cattle in the UK is largely over but there is still the odd detected case,” said Matthew Baylis, Chair of Veterinary Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. He said it was too early to say if the case was significant. “It is described as ‘classical BSE’, like the vast majority of cases we have seen in the UK. This form of BSE is acquired by cattle from BSE-contaminated food,” Baylis said. “At this stage, we need to know if it was a very old animal, infected long ago, or if it is younger and there is still an active source of infection on the farm, such as a contaminated feed bin.”  Scotland had been classified by the OIE as a zone with a negligible risk of BSE, a status it may now lose. England and Wales have a higher “controlled risk” classification. “Whilst we lose our negligible risk status, it is not unexpected to see a new case and demonstrates the efficacy of the surveillance measures in place,” Andrew McCornick, president of NFU Scotland, said. “This simply brings us back in line with the rest of Great Britain, reverting back to where we were 18 months ago.”  Britain’s beef exports were banned by many countries after the original outbreak and in some cases it took many years before measures were lifted. China only lifted a ban on British beef earlier this year. “Our current export activity is not affected (by this case) and this emphasizes to the world the effective and robust surveillance systems we have in place in the UK,” the British industry and farmer funded Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) said in a statement.


Children's radio host Uncle Don inadvertently uttered a shockingly derogatory remark about youngsters that was caught on an open mic.

Explanation: Narrator: One lesson an announcer learns is to make sure he is off the air before he makes any private comment. But even the greatest sometimes slip. A legend is, Uncle Don’s remark after he had closed his famous children’s program. Let’s turn back the clock.

In the early days of Snopes.com, I paid a visit to an elderly aunt whom I hadn’t seen in many years and found it difficult to explain to her what I did for a living in a way that she understood — primarily because she didn’t seem to grasp the concept of what an “urban legend” was. I searched my memory for an example of an urban legend that she would recognize, and recalling the time and place where she grew up (i.e., the East Coast in the 1930s), I asked her, “Do you remember Uncle Don?” Her face immediately lit up. She started to say, “I was listening the day when …” My aunt didn’t need to finish that sentence for me to know what she was referring to, of course. Nor did she need to say anything more for me to know that she was about to regale me with her personal reminiscence of witnessing an event that never took place. The “Uncle Don” legend was the seminal cautionary tale of the mass communications era ushered in by the advent of broadcast radio, a technology that created the potential for an injudicious remark uttered in an unguarded moment to be heard in real time by thousands of persons geographically remote from the speaker — with potential career-ending consequences: The affable host of a radio show for children finished telling his last story of the day, wished a good night to all the youngsters in his audience, and sang his familiar sign-off ditty. As the station went to a commercial break, he leaned back in his chair, sighed, and said to no one in particular, “There, that oughta hold the little bastards!” Unfortunately for the ill-fated host, the engineer was late in cutting to the station break, and the host’s disparaging remark was picked up by the still-open microphone and broadcast into millions of homes. The station was immediately flooded with thousands of telegrams from outraged listeners, and the humiliated host was fired before the day was out, never to broadcast again. Disgraced beyond redemption, he lived out the rest of his life in obscurity and died, an impoverished drunk, several years later. Versions of this tale were familiar to many Americans in the mid-20th century, typically told by someone who claimed to have heard the infamous broadcast themselves, or who had an older friend or relative who did. At the very least, most everyone knew someone who recalled the national uproar caused by the incident or remembered reading about the firing of the hapless host in the newspaper. This legend seems to have been attributed, at one time or another, to virtually everyone who had ever hosted a show for youngsters on radio or television. Adults who grew up in America during the years of radio’s prominence between the world wars tended to name whichever local children’s host they listened to or were most familiar with as the culprit. Those who grew up after television became a fixture in American households were more likely to identify one of the many ubiquitous kiddie TV personalities as the guilty party. In one of his popular books of urban legends, folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand provided a prime example of this phenomenon. After devoting a few pages on the legend to letters debunking the notion that this incident took place on a “Bozo the Clown” television show, Brunvand offered his own recollections: “To tell the truth, I always thought that the host of my own favorite kids’ radio show, ‘Happy Hank’ (heard in Lansing, Michigan, mid-1940s), had spoken these naughty words into a live mike.” Despite the wide variety of radio and television hosts with whom this legend has been associated, over the years one name has been connected with the alleged incident more often and more prominently than any other: Don Carney, known to millions of pre-television youngsters as “Uncle Don.” As broadcast radio rapidly gained in popularity during the early 1920s, commercial stations began creating programming specifically for children, leading to the rise of numerous radio “uncles,” “aunts,” and “brothers,” hosts who related stories and songs and acted out skits with regular characters they invented for a largely preschool audience. These shows typically aired in the hours after school, on Saturday mornings, and in the early weekday evenings. By far the longest-lived and most well known of these children’s hosts was “Uncle Don” Carney of station WOR, whose show aired throughout a seven-state area including metropolitan New York six days a week for 21 years. Don Carney, born Howard Rice in 1897, hailed from St. Joseph, Michigan. He left home to join the circus as an acrobat and ended up in vaudeville, where, at age 15, he began using the stage name of Don Carney while performing stock Irishman parts. He traveled throughout the Midwest, performing in various stock and repertory companies before gaining minor notoriety as a trick pianist who could play while standing on his head. After bouncing from job to job and state to state, Carney eventually made his way to New York, where he obtained employment at radio stations WMCA and WOR, working as an announcer, vocal handyman, and stand-by pianist. When a toy manufacturer came to WOR one day looking for a children’s show to sponsor, Carney was tapped to audition for them. The routine he threw together in a few hours impressed the sponsors, and Don Carney soon embarked upon a new career as the beloved kiddie host “Uncle Don.” His children’s show made its debut in September 1928 and ran for nearly two decades (until February 1947), airing six nights a week Monday through Saturday. (At various times Carney also read the funnies to his audience of youngsters on Sunday mornings.) Uncle Don’s program was a combination of original stories and songs, jokes, advice, personal messages, birthday announcements, and club news, woven around numerous commercial messages. Even before we begin a discussion of any potential factual basis for this legend, we can already determine that the repercussion aspect of the legend — the claim that Uncle Don was fired (and, in some versions, replaced with a sound-alike) in response to his alleged careless remark — is clearly false. Don Carney broadcast day in and day out, six and sometimes seven days a week, starting in 1928 and ending only when he finally stepped down from daily broadcasting in 1947. (Even then, he continued on with WOR as a DJ devoted to playing children’s records before moving to Miami Beach in 1948 and hosting a weekly children’s show on WKAT until his death in 1954.) His show was never canceled, and he was never taken off the air or relieved of his job for any period, until his daily spot was finally discontinued by WOR in 1947. Don Carney was never penalized for anything he said as an on-air radio personality. We also note that not a single contemporaneous account of Don Carney’s supposed involvement in a “bastard” scandal appeared in any major news or trade publication of the day. The only articles linking the name of Uncle Don to this tale did not report it as current or recent news, but rather recounted the incident in the latter years of his career as an occurrence that had purportedly taken place at some indeterminate time in the past (a typical pattern for print accounts of apocryphal events). In fact, we know that this Uncle Don “bastards” rumor is false, and we know exactly how it became associated with Don Carney. It was an extant legend told about a number of different children’s show “uncles” and “big brothers” in the early days of broadcast radio, and — in true urban legend fashion — when Uncle Don eventually became the most famous exemplar of that form of radio host, the story gravitated to, and became permanently attached to, him. We know this because in May 1928, several months before Don Carney debuted as “Uncle Don,” the very same story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Examiner, related in a first-person account by a “radio station Big Brother” identified only as “J.K.”:  And within a few years (April 1930), the very same story was published in the entertainment industry trade publication Variety, once again attributed to a unidentified children’s radio host who was clearly not Uncle Don. (Carney broadcast out of New York and not Philadelphia.) Readers at the time would have assumed the announcer referenced here was most likely Christopher Graham, known in Philadelphia as Uncle WIP: His Error! A wisecracking radio announcer in a Philadelphia station lost his job about two weeks ago as a result of a stern reprimand of the station by the Federal Radio Commission. Announcer had concluded a bed-time story for children and thought the power was off. For the benefit of the control room he added: ‘I hope that pleases the little b______.’ This went out over the air. Within 10 minutes several telegrams of protest, among them [some from] the Federal Radio Commission, had arrived. Others came later in bundles. Note the many aspects of implausibility to this item. It bears a curious lack of detail for a news report of an event that supposedly happened only “two weeks ago”: no specific host was named, no particular radio station was identified, and no date was provided, even though the incident was supposedly quite recent. Moreover, it posits that telegrams of protest allegedly started arriving at the radio station “within 10 minutes,” as if the show’s listeners (including members of the Federal Radio Commission, who apparently had the facilities and staff to monitor every single program on the air) lived within yards of a telegraph office and had nothing better to do that evening than pop out the door and dash off telegrams of complaint. Unfortunately, once the “little bastards” rumor was attached to Don Carney, it clung there tenaciously for the rest of his life (and beyond), reinforced by manifestly false accounts which supposedly documented something that never took place. For example, the following narrative appeared in Sidney Skolsky’s syndicated entertainment column “Hollywood Is My Beat” on July 24, 1957: “I’ve just run across your reference to Uncle Don’s classic blooper on radio and your bid for the exact story from a reader, who had some connection with the incident,” writes Oliver M. Sayler. It was back in the winter of 1928-29. The station was WOR. I was in the fifth year of my weekly book and play review, “Footlight and Lamplight.” One of Uncle Don’s, programs for children immediately preceded my time on the air. I had no contact with it except, when occasionally, other studios were occupied and I was asked to broadcast in the studio he had used. On this particular occasion, I was to follow Uncle Don on the spot, and I was standing by in his studio, waiting for the late Floyd Neal to sign him off, give the station break and introduce me. Uncle Don twittered his usual cheery wind-up, and then, not realizing that I was to follow on the same microphone, and thinking he was off the air, blurted out: “There, I hope that’ll hold the little b_______.” Well, he wasn’t off the air! The nation-wide reaction to his blunt statement raised a furor that impaired his celebrated program. Only after a 10-year atonement and the spending of a fortune on his part to conduct a children’s entertainment concession at the N.Y. World’s Fair in 1939, did he manage to return fully to radio’s good graces. But he never again achieved his former vogue. On the surface, this would appear to be a fairly credible account of the incident in question. It comes from someone purportedly in the broadcasting business, working at the same station as Uncle Don, and it describes a fairly specific time and place of occurrence (even if it does rely upon the amazingly fortuitous circumstance of the claimant’s just happening to be in precisely the right spot, at just the right time, to witness the event). However, this account leaves us puzzled as to how a “nation-wide reaction” could have taken place yet remain unreported in any major newspaper, magazine, or trade publication of the time. Where, then, did this national reaction play out? Moreover, a check of the radio listings in The New York Times from the winter of 1928-29 reveals that Oliver Sayler’s “Footlight and Lamplight” radio program didn’t, as he claimed, follow Uncle Don’s show, but preceded it. (“Footlight and Lamplight” aired after the news at 6:15 p.m.; Uncle Don was on the air from 6:30 to 6:55 p.m.) How, then, did Sayler come to be in the studio at the conclusion of Uncle Don’s program, as he claimed he was? Despite the occasional attempts to perpetuate it in newspaper columns, this rumor might have significantly declined in prevalence after Don Carney’s death (or at least been less frequently associated with his name) were it not for a series of popular “Blooper” records that rekindled public awareness of the legend. Starting the mid-1950s, writer and producer Kermit Schafer began compiling several albums of alleged boners, fluffs, and outtakes from radio and TV and issuing them in record jackets deceptively claiming that the recordings contained within were “authentic.” Although the “Bloopers” records led listeners to believe that they were hearing actual recordings of broadcast blunders, much of what Schafer presented actually consisted of fabricated “re-creations” based on (often apocryphal) secondhand sources. In this vein, Vol. 1 of the “Blooper” series presented Uncle Don front and center, in a clip of impossible clarity and audio fidelity which had clearly been staged in a modern recording studio:


Over 20 dead in U.S. polar vortex, frostbite amputations feared.

Explanation: Tens of millions of Americans braved Arctic-like temperatures on Thursday as low as minus 56 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 49 Celsius) that paralyzed the U.S. Midwest and were blamed for at least 21 deaths.

Warmer-than-normal weather was on the way, but that offered little comfort to vulnerable populations such as the homeless and elderly enduring cold that caused frostbite in minutes and made being outside potentially deadly. Officials across multiple states linked numerous deaths to the frigid air. The death toll rose from a previous 12 after at least nine more people in Chicago were reported to have died from cold-related injuries, according to Stathis Poulakidas, a doctor at the city’s John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital. Poulakidas, a trauma specialist, said the hospital had seen about 25 frostbite victims this week. He said the most severe cases risked having fingers and toes amputated. Among those believed to have died from the cold was  University of Iowa student Gerard Belz. The eighteen-year-old was found unresponsive on campus early Wednesday morning just a short walk from his dorm, according to university officials. Police told a local television station they believed the cold played a factor in his death. The wind chill at the time officers found Belz was minus 51 F (minus 46 C), according to the National Weather Service. Homeless and displaced people were particularly at risk, with Chicago and other cities setting up warming shelters. But many toughed it out in camps or vacant buildings. A 60-year-old woman found dead in an abandoned house in Lorain, Ohio, was believed to have died of hypothermia, Lorain County Coroner Stephen Evans said. “There’s just no way if you’re not near a heat source that you can survive for very long out in weather like this,” Evans told the Chronicle-Telegram newspaper. It has been more than 20 years since a similar blast of frigid air covered a swath of the U.S. Midwest and Northeast, according to the National Weather Service. The bitter cold was caused by the mass of air known as the polar vortex drifting south from its usual position over the North Pole. Homes and businesses used record amounts of natural gas to fight the cold, according to financial data provider Refinitiv. Utilities appealed to consumers to conserve energy to avoid power outages. In Detroit, General Motors Co suspended operations at 11 Michigan plants to cut natural gas consumption. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV canceled a shift on Thursday at two of its plants. Snow and ice created treacherous travel conditions, with 26 road collisions reported within two hours on Thursday in eastern Iowa’s Johnson County, emergency communications center chief Tom Jones told the Iowa City Press-Citizen. For the second day in a row, the intense cold and windy conditions forced U.S. airlines to cancel more than 2,000 flights. Chicago was hardest hit, with O’Hare International Airport experiencing over 700 cancellations, according to the FlightAware tracking site. Heavy snow hitting Chicago off the Great Lakes was set to begin winding down on Thursday night, the weather service said. More than 30 record lows were shattered across the Midwest. Cotton, Minnesota, had the lowest national temperature recorded early on Thursday at minus 56 F (minus 48 C), before the weather warmed up, the weather service reported. Temperatures in the Upper Midwest will rebound to well above zero F (minus 18 C) on Friday, with highs making it into the teens and low 20s F. By Saturday, highs will be in the 30s and even low 40s F, while the central Plains will be in the low 60s F, nearly 20 to 25 degrees above normal, the weather service said.


Nothing was done. I mean, $25 million was spent, but we don’t have that (gun ownership) database.

Critics have repeatedly attacked California Attorney General Kamala Harris for what they say is her slow progress investigating gun owners who are legally prohibited from having them. In 2001, California created the nation’s only database to identify these gun owners, including the mentally ill and those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. It allows the seizure of weapons by law enforcement from people in the prohibited categories. There’s no record of anyone questioning the existence of the database, which has been praised by gun control advocates. But a decade after it went into effect, the tracking system has a backlog of thousands of cases. Enter Rep. Loretta Sanchez. The Orange County congresswoman is Harris’ closest competitor for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer. All three are Democrats. Sanchez told Capital Public Radio during an interview in January 2016 that Harris has squandered state resources, and hasn’t even produced a database. "So the Legislature gave the Attorney General $25 million to match up those people who were felons versus those people who were buying guns. Just a database, so that we could weed out what was going on with respect to those people who shouldn’t be able to purchase guns – by existing law. Nothing was done. I mean, $25 million was spent, but we don’t have that database," Sanchez said. We decided to focus on whether the database exists, and check on how the state funds have been spent. #ICYMI: See & hear the words that put @LorettaSanchez on the hot seat. #PantsOnFire: https://t.co/HEY8WGisUz pic.twitter.com/pBIkGNvYHd  Our research The database is officially called the Armed Prohibited Persons System, or APPS. It was created in 2001 after the Legislature passed SB 950, a Republican-authored bill, in response to gun violence across the nation. It cross-references all handgun and assault weapon owners in California against criminal records. It’s designed to check for individuals who legally purchased or registered a firearm but later committed a crime that would prevent them from owning the gun. Law enforcement agents are charged with tracking down the individuals and trying to confiscate their weapons. The database became active in December 2006, according to Harris’ office, or four years before she was elected attorney general. In this Nov. 16, 2012 Associated Press file photo, California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles. While the database is not public, it is real. It’s been tied to a court challenge and is the subject of reports by the Attorney General’s Office, articles by the press, and letters by gun rights groups and gun control advocates. "Yes. It does exist," said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office. "These (enforcement) agents are working these cases every day. … It’s definitely a lot of work. It’s time consuming." "The database absolutely exists," added Mike McLively, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. We asked the Sanchez campaign to explain her claim. A campaign spokesman argued that it’s correct — if you add words that greatly change the original statement: "To date, we don’t have that database as it was promised by the (State) Department of Justice in 2013," the spokesman wrote in an email. As a refresher, here’s what Sanchez said originally: "Nothing was done. I mean, $25 million was spent, but we don’t have that database." Still a backlog? It’s a clear misstatement to say "we don’t have that database." But we wanted to see what progress Harris has made reducing its backlog, to better examine Sanchez’s claim that "nothing was done" and that "$25 million was spent." In 2013, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown approved $24 million in additional funds to reduce the long list of cases. It had grown to more than 20,700 at the time, according to Harris’ office. Earlier that year, a Harris aide seemed to suggest that the backlog could be eliminated in a single year, according to news reports from the time. That same year, the attorney general pledged to hire 36 enforcement agents with the money. Two years later, only half as many had been hired  due to what Harris’ office called "hiring challenges." And while state investigations helped clear nearly 7,000 names off the list, the overall backlog had shrunk by only one-fifth during that time, to about 17,500, according to a March 2015 report by the Attorney General’s office. A sample of the firearms seized through the state's APPS program. Photo courtesy California Attorney General's Office. Republicans in the Legislature criticized Harris for what they said was slow progress. Sanchez’s comments about the database came five days before the Attorney General’s Office issued another report on the program. It said the list is now down to about 12,700 cases, which the office called "a historic low." The report makes clear that the list is not static. More than 20,000 people were added to it during the past two and a half years, while about 7,800 dropped off due to death or other reasons. SOURCE: California Attorney General's SB 140 Supplemental Report of the 2015-2016 Budget Package. The above figures represent the end of fiscal year numbers. *This data represents the first six months of FY 15-16. Since the additional funding was approved in 2013, state agents have removed more than 20,500 people, and doubled the average number of guns seized per year, according to the most recent report. The office has spent $15 million of the $24 million, according to the Attorney General’s Office. The office’s authority to spend the remainder expires May 1, though Harris has asked the Legislature to create a permanent funding stream for the program. Our ruling Rep. Loretta Sanchez said in a recent interview that California Attorney General Kamala Harris has done "nothing" to address a backlog of cases in a high-profile gun ownership tracking system. The database allows law enforcement to seize guns from people with criminal records and mental illness. "So the Legislature gave the Attorney General $25 million to match up those people who were felons versus those people who were buying guns. Just a database, so that we could weed out what was going on with respect to those people who shouldn’t be able to purchase guns – by existing law. Nothing was done. I mean, $25 million was spent, but we don’t have that database," Sanchez said. Not only does the program exist, but some progress has been made. The backlog has been cut from more than 20,000 cases to 12,700. That’s after Harris’ office spent $15 million of $24 million allocated by the Legislature and governor. Some continue to argue that the cases should be cleared more quickly, citing the mass shootings that have continued across the country. But there’s no denying that the Attorney General’s Office, under Harris, has put a dent in the backlog, allowing for the seizure of thousands of guns. And that’s far from "nothing." While there’s room to criticize the pace of the program, Sanchez’s statement amounts to a complete misrepresentation of reality.


200 consumer laws were destroyed" in 2011 when Gov. Scott Walker signed Act 92.

Explanation: Hundreds of Afghans, weary of war and unsure of the future, have joined a letter-writing campaign to share their feelings with the powerful few who will decide on peace with the Taliban and, with it, the fate of their country.

Consumer Safety, Legal Issues, Wisconsin, Vince Megna,

The letters from different parts of Afghanistan express a tangled mix of confusion, resignation and fear. “I live in grief but I smile. People think I am brave but I have no choice,” wrote one unidentified person. The letters, part of a project called Dard-e-Dil (a painful heart) are addressed to U.S. diplomats, the Taliban and government officials. They are being written as high-level talks are underway to find a political settlement to end a war that has raged on for 18 years. “I am writing with a hope that we have a better life in Kabul, we live amidst so much tension, I can do nothing to change the situation but I am still writing,” wrote another person from the Afghan capital. The Dard-e-Dil project aims to give ordinary people an outlet to express their feelings at a time when the peace talks among top officials dominate politics, even though the fighting has not subsided. “The prevailing political uncertainty is clearly the most nerve-racking phase for Afghans, most of us are already battling depression and mental health issues,” said artist Omaid Sharifi, who organized the project. Sharifi’s interest in expressing the feelings aroused by the conflict goes back to his work with ArtLords, an art collective he co-founded that has become famous for the dramatic murals it has painted on grim concrete blast walls around Kabul. His team has installed special letter boxes outside cafes, educational centers, hospitals and government offices, encouraging people to try to deal with their anxieties and voice their opinions about the peace talks in letters. The letters are sorted at the ArtLords studio with the aim of sending them on to government authorities, diplomats and the leaders of the insurgency. More important, though, is the need to help people tell their stories, a basic requirement for mental health, said Sharifi, who struggled with anxiety for years. “Everyone has a right to narrate their story. Some of these stories will highlight and reveal human rights abuses and some will offer hope and solidarity,” he said. Afghanistan has been devastated by decades of war, stretching back to the conflict with the former Soviet Union from late 1979. Violence, instability and poverty have touched virtually every family and many Afghans suffer from mental health problems. However, facilities for treating such illnesses are scarce. Wahid Mayar, a spokesman for the public health ministry, estimated that about half of the population will experience mental stress during their lifetime, a consequence of war often overshadowed by daily struggles. “The suffering of mental illness in Afghanistan is a silent war. If peace comes then we will have to accept the new normal, but currently we are in a phase of tremendous uncertainty,” Mayar said. “The prospect of peace brings hope and anxiety. We wonder can peace ever come to embrace us, to calm our minds,” he said. Accurate data on mental health is not available in Afghanistan but the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates more than a million Afghans suffer from depressive disorders and more than 1.2 million from anxiety disorders. The WHO says the actual numbers are likely much higher. Nobody expects the letter-writing campaign to heal the wounds of more than four decades of conflict but it may allow at least some people to start working through their fears and prepare for an uncertain future. “There are times when I want to run away from my country and then I think I should wait for peace and plan my life here,” wrote one person. “Kabul is always the best place to be.”