Top Nigerian president aide, state governor test positive for coronavirus.

Explanation: The Nigerian president’s influential chief of staff has tested positive for coronavirus, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said on Tuesday.

Abba Kyari, who is in his 70s, is an important figure in President Muhammadu Buhari’s government and his illness could have ramifications for the running of the country. His case was one of a growing number in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, with a state governor also testing positive and the Lagos state health commissioner warning that they were beginning to see the virus “spread in the community”. Previously, most cases were travellers who had recently returned from the United Kingdom or the United States. Kyari has a history of medical complications, including diabetes, and is the gatekeeper to the president. Many who wish to deal with Buhari must go through Kyari, including Nigeria’s top politicians and business owners. Matthew Page, an associate fellow with the Africa Programme at Chatham House, described Kyari as the “lynchpin” of the Buhari government. “This has the potential to further slow down decision-making within top tiers of Nigerian government,” he said. Kyari travelled to Germany in early March with a delegation of other Nigerian officials for meetings with engineering and industrial giant Siemens AG. It is unclear if Kyari, who three diplomats also said had tested positive for coronavirus, self-isolated upon his return to Nigeria. Germany has reported some 27,000 cases of coronavirus and 114 deaths from the pandemic. A presidency spokesman did not comment on Kyari’s condition and whether Buhari has been tested. The president, 77, has undisclosed medical ailments and spent five months in London for treatment in 2017. Later on Tuesday, a Bauchi state government spokesman said Governor Bala Mohammed had also been diagnosed with coronavirus and was in quarantine. As of Tuesday, Nigeria had 42 confirmed cases of coronavirus, two of whom had recovered, and one death - a 67-year-old former oil official. It was unclear if Kyari or Mohammed’s diagnoses were included in that total. The number of journalists allowed access to the presidential office complex will be cut indefinitely from more than 100 to 13 starting Wednesday, the presidency said late on Tuesday with all foreign media barred. And parliament was adjourned for two weeks. The Nigeria Stock Exchange said its trading floors would close temporarily, only allowing remote trading. Lagos state Commissioner for Health Professor Akin Abayomi warned that hundreds of Africa’s top film stars could have been exposed to coronavirus at the African Magic Viewers’ Choice Award on March 14. Lagos state governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu announced that all parks, gyms and public markets in the commercial capital, apart from those selling food, water, medicine or “other essential life-saving products”, would close on Thursday for at least seven days. He stopped short, however, of calling for a total lockdown, citing the many among Lagos’s 20 million residents who could not afford to stock up on essential items. “We know what our poverty line is, and I’m a very realistic leader,” he said. “We need to be considerate of that.”


Explanation: This was a story about a possible new medication in the pipeline that may enable people to lose weight. It did not include the information needed to understand the relative strength of the study reported about and did not quantify in absolute terms (number of pounds lost)  the benefit that might be attained with the use of this medication. It was an interesting piece in that it made an attempt to contrast this medication with one that was withdrawn from the market. However, in light of this comparison, the story should have explained something about the time frame of the current study, and how that compared with the period of time that was needed for the problems with the drug that was withdrawn from the market to be observed. It should have also mentioned that the current trials with the new medication specifically exclude people with type of heart issue that was seen to be problematic with the withdrawn drug. The bottom line is that while the company may be optimistic that this drug will not result in harms, there are not yet sufficient data available to determine whether this is the case. It would have been useful to readers had the story made this clear. Finally, this was a San Diego paper reporting on “mid-stage” trial results on a San Diego company’s product. It is doubtful that the paper would report on such results from another company in another location. Applying that “business news” approach to health care product news is often problematic. It gives local readers a skewed picture of the research landscape and may give undue weight to the local idea.

If it’s not too early to project that the drug may be submitted to the FDA for approval within a year, then it’s not too early to get some estimate of cost or at least to give some context about the cost of other obesity drugs on the market. The story detailed that individuals taking lorcaserin lost more weight in 12 weeks than did the individuals who were taking the placebo. However the story did not provide any information about the magnitude of the difference between the groups, nor did it actually provide absolute quantitative information about the actual amount of weight lost. The phrase "significantly more weight loss, at least 5 percent of their weight" doesn’t tell readers how much. Although mentioning the heart valve problems which were seen to occur with the use of a different weight loss medication, there was no mention in this story of the side effects (headache, nausea, and dizziness) which were seen to occur with this medication during the relatively short period of time it was used. The story also failed to mention whether weight re-gain was common after use of the medication was stopped. Harm is of particular concern with obesity drugs, particularly given the experiences with Fen-Phen which had a similar mechanism of action. Rather than reporting that "People taking the Arena pill experienced significantly more weight loss, at least 5 percent of their weight over 12 weeks, than people taking a placebo"  the story should have provided information about the nature of the study (randomized, placebo controlled trial), the number of people involved in the study (10, 100 or more than 400?) an estimate for the number of pounds being lost and whether or not all people taking the drug lost weight. Although most of the story did not engage in disease mongering,  the statement by the study’s lead author indicating that the results would ‘provide reason for optimism for the millions of Americans struggling with the obesity epidemic’ could be argued to fall into this category. It is both hyperbole to conclude that the results of one study provides optimism for millions as well as disease mongering to describe people who are obese as struggling with the obesity epidemic. That statement should have been challenged. There were no sources of information quoted that were independent of the study or the company developing the drug. The story did not provide any information about other treatment options (currently available medications, lifestyle changes, and surgical interventions) that provide similar or superior weight loss results. The story was clear that it was reporting on the results of a recent clinical trial and that a request for FDA approval had not yet been made, from which the reader could conclude that the drug is currently not available. The story described that lorcasein targeted the 5HT-2c serotonin receptor but was specific to the brain receptor as opposed to fenfluramin which was less selective and was found to also target a serotonin receptor in the heart. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. This was a San Diego paper reporting on a San Diego company’s product in "mid-stage" trials. It’s doubtful the paper would report on similar results from a company located somewhere else.


An adopted dog's former owner turned out to be a soldier who was killed in Iraq.

Explanation: However, that the story may not be literal truth doesn’t prevent it from being figurative truth. Those who serve overseas do so at the cost of great personal sacrifice. A tale such as this — literal truth or not — serves to remind us all of how much they give and how much we owe them.

Those who serve with the U.S. armed forces often face difficult choices when they receive orders deploying them overseas. Not only do they have to be prepared to be parted from their loved ones and make arrangements regarding the storage of personal possessions, but they may also face the problem of finding proper caretakers for their pets — not all of those serving in the military have people they can leave their beloved animal companions with. Some locate appropriate foster families that will care for their pets until their return, some give up their critters for adoption at shelters, and some may even (as a last resort) turn them loose to fend for themselves. (There are services that will assist those departing for overseas duty with the process of finding good temporary homes for their pets, such as “Dogs on Deployment” and “Guardian Angels for Soldier’s Pet.” If you’re looking for a way to help those who are serving their country outside the U.S. and have room in your life for an extra cat or dog for the duration of someone’s tour of duty, do consider opening your home to a military pet.) One such tale about a military pet began hitting our inbox in August 2009, with our earliest online sighting of it dating to an August 2008 message board post:  They told me the big black Lab’s name was Reggie as I looked at him lying in his pen. the shelter was clean, no-kill, and the people really friendly. I’d only been in the area for six months, but everywhere I went in the small college town, people were welcoming and open. Everyone waves when you pass them on the street. But something was still missing as I attempted to settle in to my new life here, and I thought a dog couldn’t hurt. Give me someone to talk to. And I had just seen Reggie’s advertisement on the local news. The shelter said they had received numerous calls right after, but they said the people who had come down to see him just didn’t look like “Lab people,” whatever that meant. They must’ve thought I did. But at first, I thought the shelter had misjudged me in giving me Reggie and his things, which consisted of a dog pad, bag of toys almost all of which were brand new tennis balls, his dishes, and a sealed letter from his previous owner. See, Reggie and I didn’t really hit it off when we got home. We struggled for two weeks (which is how long the shelter told me to give him to adjust to his new home). Maybe it was the fact that I was trying to adjust, too. Maybe we were too much alike. For some reason, his stuff (except for the tennis balls — he wouldn’t go anywhere without two stuffed in his mouth) got tossed in with all of my other unpacked boxes. I guess I didn’t really think he’d need all his old stuff, that I’d get him new things once he settled in. but it became pretty clear pretty soon that he wasn’t going to. I tried the normal commands the shelter told me he knew, ones like “sit” and “stay” and “come” and “heel,” and he’d follow them — when he felt like it. He never really seemed to listen when I called his name — sure, he’d look in my direction after the fourth or fifth time I said it, but then he’d just go back to doing whatever. When I’d ask again, you could almost see him sigh and then grudgingly obey. This just wasn’t going to work. He chewed a couple shoes and some unpacked boxes. I was a little too stern with him and he resented it, I could tell. The friction got so bad that I couldn’t wait for the two weeks to be up, and when it was, I was in full-on search mode for my cellphone amid all of my unpacked stuff. I remembered leaving it on the stack of boxes for the guest room, but I also mumbled, rather cynically, that the “darn dog probably hid it on me.” Finally I found it, but before I could punch up the shelter’s number, I also found his pad and other toys from the shelter. I tossed the pad in Reggie’s direction and he snuffed it and wagged, some of the most enthusiasm I’d seen since bringing him home. But then I called, “Hey, Reggie, you like that? Come here and I’ll give you a treat.” Instead, he sort of glanced in my direction — maybe “glared” is more accurate — and then gave a discontented sigh and flopped down. With his back to me. Well, that’s not going to do it either, I thought. And I punched the shelter phone number. But I hung up when I saw the sealed envelope. I had completely forgotten about that, too. “Okay, Reggie,” I said out loud, “let’s see if your previous owner has any advice.” To Whoever Gets My Dog: Well, I can’t say that I’m happy you’re reading this, a letter I told the shelter could only be opened by Reggie’s new owner. I’m not even happy writing it. If you’re reading this, it means I just got back from my last car ride with my Lab after dropping him off at the shelter. He knew something was different. I have packed up his pad and toys before and set them by the back door before a trip, but this time … it’s like he knew something was wrong. And something is wrong … which is why I have to go to try to make it right. So let me tell you about my Lab in the hopes that it will help you bond with him and he with you. First, he loves tennis balls. the more the merrier. Sometimes I think he’s part squirrel, the way he hoardes them. He usually always has two in his mouth, and he tries to get a third in there. Hasn’t done it yet. Doesn’t matter where you throw them, he’ll bound after it, so be careful — really don’t do it by any roads. I made that mistake once, and it almost cost him dearly. Next, commands. Maybe the shelter staff already told you, but I’ll go over them again: Reggie knows the obvious ones — “sit,” “stay,” “come,” “heel.” He knows hand signals: “back” to turn around and go back when you put your hand straight up; and “over” if you put your hand out right or left. “Shake” for shaking water off, and “paw” for a high-five. He does “down” when he feels like lying down — I bet you could work on that with him some more. He knows “ball” and “food” and “bone” and “treat” like nobody’s business. I trained Reggie with small food treats. Nothing opens his ears like little pieces of hot dog. Feeding schedule: twice a day, once about seven in the morning, and again at six in the evening. Regular store-bought stuff; the shelter has the brand. He’s up on his shots. Call the clinic on 9th Street and update his info with yours; they’ll make sure to send you reminders for when he’s due. Be forewarned: Reggie hates the vet. Good luck getting him in the car — I don’t know how he knows when it’s time to go to the vet, but he knows. Finally, give him some time. I’ve never been married, so it’s only been Reggie and me for his whole life. He’s gone everywhere with me, so please include him on your daily car rides if you can. He sits well in the backseat, and he doesn’t bark or complain. He just loves to be around people, and me most especially. Which means that this transition is going to be hard, with him going to live with someone new. And that’s why I need to share one more bit of info with you … His name’s not Reggie. I don’t know what made me do it, but when I dropped him off at the shelter, I told them his name was Reggie. He’s a smart dog, he’ll get used to it and will respond to it, of that I have no doubt. but I just couldn’t bear to give them his real name. For me to do that, it seemed so final, that handing him over to the shelter was as good as me admitting that I’d never see him again. And if I end up coming back, getting him, and tearing up this letter, it means everything’s fine. But if someone else is reading it, well… well it means that his new owner should know his real name. It’ll help you bond with him. Who knows, maybe you’ll even notice a change in his demeanor if he’s been giving you problems. His real name is Tank. Because that is what I drive. Again, if you’re reading this and you’re from the area, maybe my name has been on the news. I told the shelter that they couldn’t make “Reggie” available for adoption until they received word from my company commander. See, my parents are gone, I have no siblings, no one I could’ve left Tank with … and it was my only real request of the Army upon my deployment to Iraq, that they make one phone call to the shelter … in the “event”… to tell them that Tank could be put up for adoption. Luckily, my colonel is a dog guy, too, and he knew where my platoon was headed. He said he’d do it personally. And if you’re reading this, then he made good on his word. Well, this letter is getting to downright depressing, even though, frankly, I’m just writing it for my dog. I couldn’t imagine if I was writing it for a wife and kids and family. but still, Tank has been my family for the last six years, almost as long as the Army has been my family. And now I hope and pray that you make him part of your family and that he will adjust and come to love you the same way he loved me. That unconditional love from a dog is what I took with me to Iraq as an inspiration to do something selfless, to protect innocent people from those who would do terrible things … and to keep those terrible people from coming over here. If I had to give up Tank in order to do it, I am glad to have done so. He was my example of service and of love. I hope I honored him by my service to my country and comrades. All right, that’s enough. I deploy this evening and have to drop this letter off at the shelter. I don’t think I’ll say another good-bye to Tank, though. I cried too much the first time. Maybe I’ll peek in on him and see if he finally got that third tennis ball in his mouth. Good luck with Tank. Give him a good home, and give him an extra kiss goodnight — every night — from me. Thank you, Paul Mallory I folded the letter and slipped it back in the envelope. Sure I had heard of Paul Mallory, everyone in town knew him, even new people like me. Local kid, killed in Iraq a few months ago and posthumously earning the Silver Star when he gave his life to save three buddies. Flags had been at half-mast all summer. I leaned forward in my chair and rested my elbows on my knees, staring at the dog. “Hey, Tank,” I said quietly. The dog’s head whipped up, his ears cocked and his eyes bright. C’mere boy.” He was instantly on his feet, his nails clicking on the hardwood floor. He sat in front of me, his head tilted, searching for the name he hadn’t heard in months. “Tank,” I whispered. His tail swished. I kept whispering his name, over and over, and each time, his ears lowered, his eyes softened, and his posture relaxed as a wave of contentment just seemed to flood him. I stroked his ears, rubbed his shoulders, buried my face into his scruff and hugged him. “It’s me now, Tank, just you and me. Your old pal gave you to me.” Tank reached up and licked my cheek. “So whatdaya say we play some ball? His ears perked again. “Yeah? Ball? You like that? Ball?” Tank tore from my hands and disappeared in the next room. And when he came back, he had three tennis balls in his mouth. As to the core question of whether it’s a true story, accepting it as literally true requires the reader to believe in a chain of improbable circumstances: that a no-kill shelter would agree to serve indefinitely as an unpaid kennel service, that a dog owner would turn over his pet to the long-term (and possibly permanent) care of others without telling anyone its real name, and that a dog’s adoptive owner would accept a “sealed letter from his previous owner” and simply toss it aside without bothering to open or read it. This string of contrivances smacks more of a fictional plot device than a literal account of a real-life occurrence. Moreover, none of the verifiable details checks out as given in the narrative. Many different web sites record and honor the names of all U.S. service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we could find no one by the name of Paul Mallory listed among the casualties on any of them (including the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count’s iCasualties.org and the Washington Post’s Faces of the Fallen), nor could we turn up any confirmatory news account of the death of a U.S. serviceman named Paul Mallory. Even if we proceed on the assumption that “Paul Mallory” is a pseudonym, the details still don’t check out. The narrative describes Reggie’s original owner as having posthumously received the Silver Star after being killed in Iraq, as having never been married, and as having no living parents, siblings, or other relatives with whom he could have left his dog while he was deployed overseas. We meticulously checked the Silver Star database at the HomeofHeroes.com web site and located obituaries for every single U.S. service member (from all branches) who was listed there as having posthumously received that award in connection with his service in Iraq, and every single such recipient was described in his obituary as having left behind some combination of parents, siblings, wives, and children — not one of those fallen heroes was unmarried with no living parents or siblings.


Judge tosses $417M award against Johnson & Johnson.

Explanation: A judge on Friday tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene.

Johnson & Johnson, Los Angeles, Cancer, Health, Ovarian cancer, Business, AP Top News, Courts, U.S. News

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company’s request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago. Nelson also ruled that there wasn’t convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and the award for damages was excessive. The decision will be appealed even though Eva Echeverria has died, said her attorney, Mark Robinson Jr. “We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product,” he said in a statement. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the company’s baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” she said in her lawsuit. Her attorney contended that documents showed that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer for three decades. The company said it was pleased with the ruling. “Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease — but it is not caused by the cosmetic-grade talc we have used in Johnson’s Baby Powder for decades. The science is clear and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder as we prepare for additional trials in the U.S.,” spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement. Similar allegations have led to hundreds of lawsuits against the New Jersey-based company. Jury awards have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars. However, on Tuesday a Missouri appellate court threw out a $72 million award to the family of an Alabama woman who has died, ruling that the state wasn’t the proper jurisdiction for such a case. The court cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that placed limits on where injury lawsuits could be filed, saying state courts cannot hear claims against companies not based in the state where alleged injuries occurred.


Many U.S. kids have chronic health problems: study.

Explanation: More than a quarter of American children have a chronic health condition such as obesity or asthma, but many children overcome these problems with time, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

They said the findings make clear that chronic health conditions are rising among children, and access to healthcare is essential to diagnose and treat them. “A lot of kids will have chronic conditions over the course of their childhood,” said Dr. Jeanne Van Cleave of Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston, who worked on the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “It is very important for children to have continuous access to high-quality healthcare, especially primary care, where a lot of these conditions are picked up and treated,” she said in a telephone interview. Van Cleave and colleagues used data from a government survey of three groups of children — each group with about 1,000 or more children — aged 2 through 8 between 1988 and 2006. They found the rate of chronic health conditions — obesity, asthma and learning problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD — doubled to 26.6 percent in 2006 from 12.8 percent in 1994. “The good news is, for about half of these kids, their conditions will go away over time,” Van Cleave said. They found that 16.6 percent of all the children surveyed had a chronic condition at the beginning of the study period, and 20.8 percent reported having a chronic condition at the end. But only 7.4 percent of the children had a chronic condition both at the beginning and at the end of the study period, and 9.3 percent of children reported having a chronic condition at the beginning of the study that was not present at the end. “It’s a very hopeful finding. It offers a lot of opportunity for prevention and for finding out more about why certain chronic conditions resolve, and why others don’t, and why the same chronic condition in one child will resolve and why it doesn’t in another child,” Van Cleave said. The trick, she said, is finding out why conditions go away so that more children may be helped. She said future studies need to look at what factors surround the kids who see improvements compared with the ones who do not. “Our study didn’t specifically look at for which children the chronic condition of obesity was less likely to resolve. That would be a very important piece of information we could use in actual medical care,” Van Cleave said. Dr. Geetha Raghuveer of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, who was not involved with the study, said that while it was heartening that chronic conditions went away in several children, it was worrying that such a large percentage of children had a chronic health problem at some point. She said these problems “will need prevention strategies geared toward larger environments such as families, schools, communities,” and laws that make nutritious foods more accessible and affordable.


The high-dose Fluzone vaccine caused the deaths of 23 senior citizens during a clinical trial.

Explanation: Because no evidence is provided for the claim that these 23 deaths were linked in any way to the trial in either Health Impact News’ reporting, the raw clinical trial data, or the published report based on that trial, we rank the assertion as “False.”

It may not shock anyone to hear that among a group of 3,000-plus Americans no younger than 65 and with an average age of 73, 23 of them passed away during a six-month period. It wouldn’t shock actuaries, who know that the average life expectancy in the United States is 78.6 years. It wouldn’t shock statisticians, who know that the U.S. death rate among 75- to 84-year-olds is 4,472.6 deaths per 100,000 people a year, which would equate to over 100 deaths per 3,000 people annually. Nonetheless, it appears to have shocked the editors at the anti-vaccine website Health Impact News. In 2013, that outlet published a story with the misleading headline “23 Seniors Died After Receiving Flu Shot Sold by Pharmacies.” Snopes continues to get worried inquiries about the claim every flu season. Health Impact News’ story came from the publicly available insert that comes with a specific flu shot marketed as “Fluzone High-Dose,” which discussed the results of scientific testing that went into approving the vaccine for use in 2009: Within 6 months post-vaccination, 156 (6.1%) Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 93 (7.4%)  Fluzone recipients experienced a serious adverse event. No deaths were reported within 28 days post-vaccination. A total of 23 deaths were reported during the period Day 29–180 post-vaccination: (0.6%) among Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 7 (0.6%) among Fluzone 1 recipients. The majority of these participants had a medical history of cardiac, hepatic, neoplastic, renal, and/or respiratory diseases. No deaths were considered to be caused by vaccination. Fluzone High-Dose, as the name implies, contains more antigens than the regular inactivated influenza virus, thereby creating more antibodies capable of defending the body against influenza. The necessity for such a drug stems from the fact that seniors require more antibodies than younger individuals to fight the flu, and because they die from it at higher rates. The results in the drug insert discussed by Health Impact News stem from a Phase Three clinical trial that occurred between 2006 and 2007 and whose results led to approval of the drug. Health Impact News, based on the vaccine insert, makes three poorly formulated assertions under the guise of “just asking questions.” Most of the answers to these questions could have been found by analyzing the publicly available raw data from the clinical trial or by reading the study that was published as a result of that trial: As a general rule, a temporal relationship between a vaccination and a death — especially when the considered period of time includes 180 days of follow-up — is not sufficient evidence that the vaccination caused that death. A death can be attributable to a vaccination if it appears to have been caused by an established and known scientific mechanism — these are summarized in a 2011 National Academies publication and are rooted in rigorous epidemiological data — or if an acute, adverse reaction, such as anaphylactic shock following administration, clearly causes the death. The fact that a senior with an average age of 73 died at some point between 29 and 150 days after receiving a flu shot is not evidence of death from a flu shot, nor does any reason exist that death from a flu shot should be the default assumption over that period of time. The Health Impact News claim that “the deaths [should] be equally spread out through all time periods” is confusing and betrays an ignorance of the underlying study. Follow-up monitoring of participants occurred over 180 days split into two periods of time. The first time period monitored by the researchers lasted 28 days. The second monitoring period lasted the following 152 days. No reasonable person would argue that a person has an equal chance of death — all other issues ignored — over a 28-day period versus a 152-day period. Though no data is presented about the health of the participants who died during the trial, Health Impact News again relies on the baseless assumption that people can die during a clinical trial in only two ways: from a condition one had prior to receiving a drug and from the drug itself being tested in the trial. In fact, a condition known as “old age” makes one more susceptible to a wide variety of illnesses that could conceivably develop over 180 days. What we do know is that the population of people in this clinical trial who received the high-dose flu shot and the people who received the regular dose of the flu shot were statistically identical from a pre-existing health condition perspective. Further, if the implication is that the flu shot caused the death of 23 people, one might reasonably infer that more deaths would be expected in the high-dose group compared to the low-dose group. This was not the case: 16 of the deaths came from the 2,573 individuals who received the high-dose vaccine, and seven came from the 1,260 who received the other vaccine. From a percentage basis, 0.6% of participants in both the high-dose and low-dose groups died during the 180-day monitoring period. Health Impact News spends several paragraphs convincing the reader that giving seniors a higher dose of a flu shot is inherently wrong while ignoring voluminous scientific evidence supporting the notion that the elderly need a higher dose, and that such a product could save countless lives. Ironically, they then present (without context) the results of a study that unequivocally demonstrates that a higher dose did not create any increase in long-term adverse effects but did increase the immunity of seniors. It is true that 23 people (out of 3,800) died during the 180-day period following vaccination, but this death rate is on par with the U.S. rate for that age group regardless of participation in a trial.


One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.'

Abortion, National, Debates, Carly Fiorina,

Following the release of several videos claiming to prove Planned Parenthood illegally profits off of aborted fetal tissue, many anti-abortion politicians have called for cutting off federal funding to the women’s health organization. At the second Republican debate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina laid out defunding Planned Parenthood as a priority. "I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes," she said on the stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Sept. 16. "Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " The videos, which amount to at least a dozen hours, are produced by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress. They primarily show people posing as tissue brokers and talking with Planned Parenthood employees about procuring fetal tissue for medical research. Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." There isn't. Fiorina is likely talking about this 10-minute Aug. 19 video. (Warning: The video contains extremely gruesome footage.) The video shows an interview with a woman talking about a scene similar to the one Fiorina describes; the video’s creators have matched her interview with grisly stock footage of a fetus outside the womb. In the video, the Center for Medical Progress interviews a woman identified as Holly O’Donnell, a former procurement technician for StemExpress. StemExpress is a biomedical company that previously worked with Planned Parenthood to collect tissue for medical research, but the company ended its relationship with Planned Parenthood amid the ongoing controversy. O’Donnell talks about a time when she saw a fully-formed aborted fetus, with its heart still beating, in a pathology lab at a California Planned Parenthood clinic while she was on a job. "I’m sitting here looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think," O’Donnell said. According to O’Donnell, her supervisor then told her they would procure the brain because the fetus was well-preserved. The Center for Medical Progress video does not show actually show footage of O’Donnell’s experience, and there’s nothing else in the video to corroborate O’Donnell’s story. Additionally, the supervisor in O’Donnell’s story does not say anything about keeping the fetus alive specifically for the purpose of harvesting the brain. To dramatize O’Donnell’s interview, the video cuts to a fetus outside the womb, placed on what appears to be some sort of examination surface, and the fetus’ legs are moving. The Center for Medical Progress says the source of the footage is the Grantham Collection, an organization that hopes to stem abortion by promoting graphic images of the procedure. We don’t know the circumstances behind this video: where it came from, under what conditions it was obtained, or even if this fetus was actually aborted (as opposed to a premature birth or miscarriage). Our ruling Fiorina said one of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." One of the Center for Medical Progress’ videos attacking Planned Parenthood shows an interview with a woman identified as a former tissue procurement technician, who tells about an experience in a Planned Parenthood pathology lab where she sees a fetus outside the womb with its heart still beating. According to the woman, her supervisor said they would procure the fetus’ brain. The video’s creators added footage of an aborted fetus on what appears to be an examination table, and its legs are moving. But Fiorina makes it sound as if the footage shows what Planned Parenthood is alleged to have done. In fact, the stock footage was added to the video to dramatize its content. We rate her statement .


Taiwan says WHO ignored its coronavirus questions at start of outbreak.

Explanation: Taiwan accused the World Heath Organization of ignoring its questions at the start of the coronavirus outbreak, part of what it has long described as a pattern that puts it at risk because of Chinese pressure to exclude it from international bodies.

Taiwan is barred from membership in the WHO under pressure from China, which views it as a province rather than a state. It responded early to the coronavirus outbreak in China, and has had notable success in limiting contagion so far, with just two deaths and 215 cases. Taiwan’s government has said that keeping it out of the WHO during the outbreak amounts to playing politics with Taiwanese lives, and it has been denied access to first-hand information. Both the WHO and China say Taiwan has been provided with the help it needs. Speaking to reporters in Taipei, the island’s Centres for Disease Control chief Chou Jih-haw said that it written to the WHO and China as early as Dec. 31, asking for information about the newly uncovered virus outbreak in China’s Wuhan city, including whether there was human-to-human transmission. “We asked them whether there’s a possibility of human-to-human transmission. We indeed asked them and reminded them of the matter,” Chou said. He said the WHO confirmed it had received the letter but did not respond to it. Health Minister Chen Shih-chung, sitting next to Chou, said Taiwan had fortunately decided that same day to begin screening passengers flying in from Wuhan, and activated its emergency operations center on Jan. 2 - a move experts say allowed Taiwan to effectively control the early spread of the virus. While Taiwan did send experts to China in January, they were not allowed to see any patients or to go to the market where the virus is believed to have originated, Chen said. That trip made Taiwanese officials realize they had to act quickly. China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan. 20. The WHO said on Jan. 12 there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. The WHO, in a statement to Reuters, did not directly address the issue of Taiwan being ignored, but said its office in China was informed of the “pneumonia of unknown cause” on Dec. 31. “Since that time until now WHO has regarded the event as very serious and applied the full range of attention to it from across the organization,” it said. In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang denounced what he said were efforts to “politically manipulate” the outbreak, and that the WHO dealt with Taiwan under the “one China” principle. Taiwan has also complained about the WHO listing its cases under China’s, saying this has confused countries into believing its situation is as serious as in mainland China, where more than 80,000 cases have been reported. (This story is refiled to change Wuhan description to city not province in paragraph 4)


Sean Tagert's decision to obtain a physician-assisted suicide was caused, in part or in whole, by a regional health authority's failure to provide what he regarded as necessary care.

Explanation: What's true: Facebook posts written by Tagert clearly show that his decision to pursue a medically-assisted suicide was substantively linked to his frustration and desperation at what he perceived as Vancouver Coastal Health's failure or refusal to fully fund his home care or sufficiently accommodate his complex clinical and personal needs. What's undetermined: Evidence is not yet available that would allow us to verify that Tagert's perceptions of Vancouver Coastal Health's actions and decisions about his care were fully accurate.

If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. In September 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of news reports that claimed that a Canadian man with a terminal illness had opted to undergo an assisted suicide after fighting, and ultimately failing, to obtain the care he needed. On Aug. 21, the pro-life website LifeNews.com published an article with the headline “Disabled 41-Year-Old Man is Euthanized After Funding for Home Health Care Runs Out,” which reported that: “Canadian Sean Tagert, aged 41, was killed by assisted suicide after health officials decided to cut the funding for his in-home care hours. Mr Tagert suffered from Motor Neurone Disease (MND) which is known in Canada as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). His illness reduced his ability to move his body, eat or speak, however his mental awareness remained unaffected. “Doctors recommended 24-hour in-home care to support Mr Tagert. However, Vancouver Coastal Health, initially only offered Mr Tagert 15.5 hours of care a day, which was then raised to 20 hours a day, meaning that Mr Tagert was forced to pay $263.50 a day for the remaining care that he needed to survive.” Earlier, Catholic News Agency reported that: “The family of a Canadian man who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is urging the country’s government to change the way it treats patients with the disease after he received a ‘medically-assisted death’ following years of struggle to find adequate care … “…Tagert’s doctors recommended 24-hour in-home care, which is typical for a person who uses a ventilator full time. Vancouver Coastal Health, Tagert’s regional health authority, only initially offered 15.5 hours of care a day. Eventually, after much effort, they increased their offer to 20 hours a day — which still meant that Tagert had to pay $263.50 each day for the remaining four hours of required care. Tagert and his family continued to fight for coverage of a full day’s care, to no avail.” Both articles clearly drew a causal link between Tagert’s difficulty in obtaining a level of care that he regarded as adequate, and his ultimate decision to avail himself of a physician-assisted suicide, which was legalized in Canada in 2016. A significant element of truth is in those claims. In Facebook posts, Tagert clearly linked his decision to undergo an assisted suicide with his own fatigue, frustration and desperation after what he documented and presented as many months of bureaucratic wrangling and correspondence with Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), the regional public health authority for the Greater Vancouver area. According to Tagert’s Facebook posts, as well as multiple contemporary news reports, he had sought funding for 24-hour home care, which he viewed as essential due to his many complex health needs, but VCH had offered him funding for only 20 hours of care per day. In 2019, Tagert appears to have shifted his focus toward obtaining adequate round-the-clock care in a hospital setting, but reported that VCH officials had been unwilling or unable to agree to his requirements, in particular his need to be hospitalized at a location close to where his 11-year-old son lived, or alternatively, for his son to be allowed to sleep over at the hospital. On March 19, Tagert signaled his intent to pursue a physician-assisted suicide, in light of the difficulties he was experiencing in obtaining what he regarded as adequate care and quality of life, and the financial perils of attempting to cover the shortfall in his care himself. He wrote: “My plan all along has been to endure til a cure, but without the support that Canada promises, it seems to be an untenable position. Two therapies that could make me better are being completely ignored by the health authorities. So left with the options of either waiting for a day that I have no staff available and choking to death, or being institutionalized at George Pearson [a VCH-run long-term care facility], the ‘Jail for quads,’ and dying a slow tortuous death, I’m going to pursue medically assisted death. It will wreck my son, but better then him walking in on a blue contorted corpse one day. The only thing I have left to give is a meaningful death …” He persisted for a time in attempting to obtain what he regarded as necessary care in another VCH-run, long-term care facility, Evergreen House, but his efforts appear to have been unsuccessful. On July 25, Tagert announced on Facebook that he had six days earlier submitted an application to undergo a physician-assisted suicide. He wrote: “Hey everyone. I’ve been quiet lately because I’m just done, worn-out. So last Friday I officially submitted my Medically assisted death paperwork, with lawyers and doctors, everything in proper order. It’s been over a month since I submitted my appeal to the Vancouver Coastal Health patient care quality department. They didn’t even respond …” On Aug. 6, Tagert died by assisted suicide at his home in Powell River, British Columbia, at the age of 40. Tagert would ultimately have died prematurely from his illness, and according to a Facebook post announcing his passing, his health was “rapidly deteriorating” at the time he opted for an assisted suicide. However, in his Facebook posts, for weeks and months leading up to his death, Tagert displayed a determination to obtain a level of care that would afford him as much quality of life as possible during his final weeks, and allow him to spend time with his family members. Based on his March 19 and July 25 Facebook posts, Tagert’s decision to choose a medically assisted suicide appears to have been hastened or caused, either wholly or in part, by — in his perception — VCH’s failure to either provide him funding for 24-hour home care, or hospital care that met his complex clinical and personal needs. The fact that Tagert clearly perceived his circumstances, and the actions of VCH, in this way, is enough to lend significant credence to the claims made by LifeNews.com and Catholic News Agency. However, we have not yet been able to independently verify the accuracy of Tagert’s claims about VCH’s actions. Tagert regularly documented, on Facebook, his account of his interactions with VCH and the authority’s purported refusal or failure to fully cover the cost of 24-hour home care, as well its purported refusal or failure to guarantee Tagert the conditions and requirements he felt would be necessary in a long-term care facility. In one instance, he posted a document that contained what he said were excerpts of email correspondence between him and VCH administrators on the subject of Tagert’s requests and requirements should he choose to take a place at Evergreen House, a VCH-run, long-term care facility in North Vancouver. According to that document, administrators acceded to some of Tagert’s requests, but not others. The document is relatively strong evidence but can’t be treated as definitive because it is made up of what appear to be excerpts of emails (rather than screenshots of the original emails themselves); does not include time or date stamps; is heavily annotated by Tagert himself; and does not clearly distinguish direct quotations from Tagert’s paraphrasing of correspondence sent by the VCH officials. Similarly, Tagert’s claim that VCH initially offered to fund only 15.5 hours of home care before increasing that coverage to 20 hours per day (still short of the 24-hour care Tagert requested) was documented in news reports dating back to September 2018. However, none of VCH’s public statements, included in those news reports, explicitly confirmed the nature and extent of what the authority had offered Tagert, and what it had refused to provide him. Tagert’s perception of VCH’s actions and decisions, along with his own rapidly worsening health, clearly caused or contributed to, or potentially hastened, his decision to pursue a physician-assisted suicide. However, until or unless we obtain corroboration from VCH, or definitive documentary evidence, we can’t say with certainty that Tagert’s perceptions and public pronouncements were fully accurate. If such evidence becomes available to us, we will update this fact check accordingly. Snopes made repeated efforts to contact VCH for comment, sending several spokespersons a list of detailed questions about VCH’s actions and decisions in relation to the care offered and provided to Tagert, and asking the authority to either confirm or deny multiple, specific factual allegations he made before he died, as well as offering VCH the opportunity to respond, more broadly, to news reports about this episode. Despite these efforts, we did not receive a response from VCH.


Vectura, Sandoz win ruling on inhaler packaging case against GSK.

Explanation: Vectura Group said on Friday a British court had ruled in its favor on the packaging of a generic version of an inhaler made by bigger rival GlaxoSmithKline.

Vectura said the court dismissed all GSK claims related to the packaging of AirFluSal Forspiro, which it developed in partnership with Sandoz, owned by Swiss drugmaker Novartis , as a branded version of GSK’s asthma inhaler, Seretide Accuhaler. GSK, with which Vectura has partnerships, said it was “disappointed” with the court decision and will “consider its next steps”. Sandoz launched AirFluSal Forspiro in late 2015, following which GSK filed a legal claim that Sandoz had used shades of purple similar to Seretide’s packaging to pass off AirFluSal Forspiro as being related to GSK’s product. “Our issue was simply with the color of the device itself and its similarity to GSK’s Advair/Seretide,” a GSK spokesman said, adding that the company was not opposed to a new entrant in the market. Forspiro is a dry powder inhaler developed by Vectura and licensed to Sandoz for use with the AirFluSal product. Seretide is a combination of two active ingredients that make it easier to breathe and is sold by GSK in the UK in two forms here one of which is the Seretide Accuhaler, which delivers the drug as a dry powder. Vectura shares rose as much as 2.4% after the announcement. In May, a jury found that one of Vectura’s U.S. patents was infringed by the sale of three of GSK’s Ellipta products in the United States and Vectura was awarded $89.7 million in damages.


UK to use firefighters to deliver food, collect bodies in coronavirus crisis.

Explanation: The United Kingdom will use firefighters to help deliver food, retrieve dead bodies and drive ambulances as it braces for the looming peak of the coronavirus outbreak that has already claimed the lives of more than 22,000 people across the world.

Britain initially took a strikingly modest approach to the worst health crisis since the 1918 influenza epidemic but then changed tack to impose stringent controls after projections showed a quarter of a million British people could die. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has ordered a virtual lockdown of the world’s fifth largest economy to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus banning Britons from leaving their homes for all non-essential reasons. So far, 578 people in the United Kingdom have died after testing positive for coronavirus and the number of confirmed cases has risen to 11,658. The UK toll is the seventh worst in the world, after Italy, Spain, China, Iran, France and the United States, according to a Reuters tally. Under a deal struck between the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), Fire chiefs and Fire and Rescue Employers, firefighters will continue to respond to their usual emergencies but will now also carry out new tasks. “We face a public health crisis unparalleled in our lifetimes. The coronavirus outbreak is now a humanitarian emergency and firefighters rightly want help their communities,” said Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary. “Many fear the loss of life in this outbreak could be overwhelming and firefighters, who often handle terrible situations and incidents, are ready to step in to assist with body retrieval.”  As well as collecting those who die should there be mass casualties, firefighters can drive ambulances, and take food and medicine to the vulnerable under the agreement. To cope with the outbreak, Britain has already asked tens of thousands of retired doctors and healthcare workers to return to work, while hundreds of thousands of people have volunteered to assist the state-run National Health Service. On Friday, the capital’s ambulance service appealed to  former paramedics and control room staff for help, and London’s police force asked officers who have retired in the last five years to come back. “It is important that we take all reasonable steps to bolster our numbers,” London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said. Britons across the country took to their balconies and front doors on Thursday evening to applaud health workers and bang pots and pans to show support for those working for the nation’s much-loved NHS. There has been criticism that the government has not acted quickly enough to provide protective equipment to frontline healthcare staff and it is also scrambling to source thousands of ventilators to treat those with severe breathing problems caused by the virus. The government has admitted that it missed an opportunity to join a European Union procurement scheme to source the equipment because of an email mix up. “There was an issue in terms of communications so the tendering process on those schemes had already started,” Business Secretary Alok Sharma told BBC radio on Friday.


The government are putting £34 billion into the NHS, the biggest ever cash injection.

Explanation: Striking Zimbabwean doctors said on Wednesday they were being threatened with death and suspected state security agents were pressuring them after police blocked their second protest march over the disappearance of their union leader.

Peter Magombeyi, president of the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association (ZHDA) and one organizer of an ongoing strike to demand higher wages for state doctors because of soaring living costs, disappeared on Saturday night. ZHDA represents junior and middle level doctors at public hospitals. “As health professionals we are being threatened by security elements. Both nurses and doctors are regularly being told that resisting what the government offers them will result in their death,” according to a doctors petition to parliament. “Evidence of the threats is available in audio and text messages,” the petition said without giving more details. Police said they could not immediately comment. Edric Nhema, secretary general for the country’s nurses union who was part of the salary negotiating team with Magombeyi, told doctors at Parirenyatwa Hospital before the march that he had received death threats from unknown people. State security minister Owen Ncube said in a statement that the government was treating Magombeyi’s case as a disappearance and not an abduction as alleged by the doctor’s colleagues. He said the timing of Magombeyi’s disappearance, ahead of the United Nations annual meeting next week and at a time a U.N. special rapporteur on human rights was in Zimbabwe, pointed to work by a “third force” meant to tarnish the country’s image. Dozens of riot police blocked more than 200 doctors on Wednesday as they marched to parliament to present their petition chanting “no Peter, no work”. Two years after President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the army conspired to oust longtime ruler Robert Mugabe, people are suffering from triple-digit inflation that has eroded salaries and shortages of basic goods like fuel and electricity. Human rights groups say they have recorded more than 20 cases of abductions of activists by state security agents since January. The government denies any involvement. Churches under the Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD) groups said they were worried that after many reported cases of abduction, no one had been arrested. “This has put the security of citizens at the highest level of vulnerability,” ZHOCD said in a statement, adding that Mnangagwa should publicly condemn abductions and torture of civilians.


Explanation: On the whole, this is a well crafted story about a new genetic test that may provide men with advance knowledge about their potential to develop prostate cancer in the future. The story made it very clear that gaining this information is not without cost above and beyond the test. This new screen suffers from the same problem as the currently available methods of detecting prostate cancer, namely determining whether the cancer will be deadly or not. This is a critical piece of information because as the story points out – the treatments for prostate cancer are not without side effect. It will fall upon the men taking this test who have an indication of high risk to then make a determination of the course of action they want to pursue. It is important for them to recognize that at this point in time, we do not yet know whether aggressive treatment of early detected prostate cancer is effective. The story allowed the test’s promoters to have their say. But it offered good context and balance, particularly with the quote about the impact on a man’s decision-making, which is key:  “Technology today enables us to find out a huge amount of information,” Dr. Gelmann said. “But how does the public deal with this information? How does it help them make decisions? And if they make a decision, does that lead to a day, a week, a month, of life saved?”

The story included a cost for the test. The story did provide some discussion on the conundrum presented by prostate cancer detection – namely that it is really an incomplete piece of information. The real goal is to develop a means of distinguishing between indolent and deadly prostate cancer. The risk of the former would not warrant treatment likely to render the individual impotent and/or incontinent. The risk of the latter might be worth the risk, or at least participation in active surveillance to allow for detection of a cancer while it is still localized. The story did mention this conundrum though it might have spent more time on it. The benefit of this treatment is an early warning of a pathology that might develop; it is less clear what a man in his 30s would do with this information. The story did include mention of the harms that are associated with treatment of prostate cancer, namely impotence and incontinence, and that the treatment of prostate cancer may not be at all necessary because not all prostate cancers are life threatening. As this is a very counter-intuitive thought (that not all cancers are deadly) it might have been emphasized more. It is critical that people be aware that while a large clinical trial (the PIVOT study) is underway, it is not yet known whether aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer is effective or whether it may cause more harm than good. So while the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening remains controversial,it’s important to note that aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer remains controversial too. The story was about variant forms of several genes each of which appear to confer some risk for the development of prostate cancer by the time a man reached the age of 65. It explained that this was a single study and that the contention that these alleles can be put to predictive use needs to be tested in several different populations in order to confirm the contention that they have merit for this use. A couple of the quotes border on disease-mongering when discussing the prospect of earlier prostate cancer screening – even in men in their 30s.. However, the story attempted to provide some context with expert comment questioning the wisdom in this approach. The story included comments from experts in the field who were not connected to the study reported on. The story never mentioned that it is an option to decline screening. The story reported that the company that would be offering the test estimated that it would be available in a matter of months. The story was clear that the genetic screen to predict risk of developing prostate cancer was not yet commercially available. The story included interview material with several respected clinicians active in this field.


Boats left high and dry by drought back on Great Salt Lake.

Explanation: Dozens of beached sailboats that spent two years on the shore of Utah’s drought-stricken Great Salt Lake were hoisted on cranes back into the briny waters Thursday after winter storms raised lake levels.

Great Salt Lake, Utah, Lakes, Science, Travel, U.S. News

“Mother Nature has been very kind to us,” said Janet Robins, the commodore of the 140-year-old Great Salt Lake Yacht Club, comprised of the self-proclaimed “world’s saltiest sailors.” Robins and other sailors watched and helped on the docks Thursday as sailboats, one at a time, were raised from their high and dry purgatory in the marina parking lot, carried across the sky on a crane and lowered into the water. The Great Salt Lake, about 75 miles long (120 kilometers) and 30 miles wide (50 kilometers), is America’s largest outside of the Great Lakes on the Canadian border and its waters are about three to five times saltier than the ocean. It’s a harsh environment for most creatures outside of salt-loving brine shrimp, but the mineral-packed lake is a sailing haven. The dense water isn’t easily whipped up by wind, keeping it calm for sailboats gliding across. “It’s just like sailing across glass,” Robins said. The state-run marina, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Utah’s capital city, sits on the lake’s southern shore and offers about 300 slips for boat owners to rent and park their boats. After an unusually high snowpack six years ago raised water levels 5 feet (1.5 meters), water levels dropped, skirting historic lows in recent years. Most of the 175 boats waiting ashore on trailers and cradles were removed the two years ago, when their keels had a tough time navigating the few feet of water at the mouth of the marina. Most stayed ashore because it’s difficult to transport long sailboats, with their masts and extended keels, across Utah to other lakes, where sailors would contend with less-than-ideal waters, more drought and waiting lists for a space at the dock. LeRoy Carter, who lives in the nearby city of Tooele, said the recent drought was the most serious he can remember in his 44 years of sailing the lake. “We’re subject to the whims of nature,” Carter said as he took a break on the docks Thursday, helping to unload boats from the crane as they hit the water. But then a wet winter raised water levels about 2 feet (60 centimeters), and 2017 is shaping up to be another high water year, according to Cory Angeroth, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. Angeroth said snow in the nearby mountains will melt through July, and that runoff will keep feeding the thirsty lake and raise the water level a few feet more. State officials estimate Utah missed out on collecting roughly $450,000 in slip rental fees since 2015, Utah State Parks spokesman Eugene Swalberg said. The state this week started work on a $1.5 million dredging project to remove silt buildup in the marina. Dave Shearer, the harbor master at the marina, expected the crane crews, sailors and volunteers would be able to get 55 boats in Thursday, before wind or darkness ended the day’s work. He hoped about 120 remaining boats on shore can be back on the water in the coming weeks. “It’s a big deal,” Shearer said. “People are happy that we’ve had one hell of a good winter.” ___ Follow Michelle L. Price at https://twitter.com/michellelprice.


Safer Method Found to Treat Heart Failure

Explanation: This article discusses the use of a dialysis-like process for the treatment of decompensated heart failure. It is a misleading piece because it reports that the use of this medical device is safer and more effective than ‘water pills’ when it is really being assessed as a substitute for intravenous(IV) diuretic administration. The article fails to mention that the results reported on are preliminary as they have not yet undergone peer-review and have only appeared in an abstract and a presentation at a conference – and that they are the result of a single study. The article did mention that the study was company sponsored.

The story explains that “The filtration device costs hospitals $10,000 and each treatment requires an $800 filter – expenses that should be more than offset by lower hospital bills because of shorter stays.” The results of treatment as compared with IV diurectic are clearly laid out in terms of differences in fluid and weight loss; the difference in the number of days spent in the hospital and how less likely patients were to have a return visit to the emergency room (although no time frame for this observation was provided). No harms associated with this treatment were mentioned; only that it was “safer’ than “water pills” (as opposed to the IV diuretic to which it was compared.) While no harms were mentioned, the article did mention that patients did not report feeling any better. The article fails to mention that the results reported on are preliminary as they have not yet undergone peer-review and have only appeared in an abstract and a presentation; and that they are the result of a single study. The article did mention that the study was company sponsored. Does not provide a natural history of heart failure; article mentions an estimate for the number of Americans that have heart failure (5 million) and the number who will be hospitalized for decompensation appear reasonable. But the tyranny of the anecdote comes into play with the patient testimonials used (“I actually could breathe again” and “It gave me my life back.”). How were these patients selected? Were there any negative experiences? Research was discussed at an American College of Cardiology meeting. No abstract was available on-line. A quote from an American Heart Association spokesman, reported to have no role in the study, was included as part of the story. However, it does report on the use of a proprietary software and machine, and the story gave no details regarding the author’s relationship to the company. The reporting in this article is problematic with regards to treatment options. Notwithstanding mention of pills ( a little vague) for which this device may substitute, the title “Safer method found to treat heart failure” is drawing conclusions prematurely. In addition, this treatment is not currently being suggested as a replacement to the daily “water pills” that many patients with heart failure take but rather as a substitute for the diuretics administered IV for decompensated heart failure patients. This point is not made clear in the article. Use of the term “pill” is inappropriate as the filtration was compared with medication administered IV, not by mouth. There is no mention of whether this device is still in testing or whether it has garnered FDA device approval. (In fact, the FDA has determined that the device may be marketed as of August 18, 2005; the company was FDA approved to market it for “failed diuretic therapy” not as an alternative for heart failure patients – FDA Feb 2, 2006 .) Described within this story as ‘a new device’ and that ‘about 100 hospitals around the country already are using the treatment’ which suggest that this is a relatively new approach. No obvious use of text from the company’s press release in the article.


Explanation: While the benefits are clearly explained, the story failed to mention any possible harms, didn’t discuss the cost of the drug, and didn’t explain that there is uncertainty about how long the benefits may last. The story also didn’t put the results in context with hormone replacement, the main alternative for women with more bothersome symptoms. These deficits might have been addressed in comments from an independent expert, but the story didn’t seek out any external perspective on the findings. We need more treatment options for women with disruptive menopausal symptoms. Although hormone treatment is effective, many women are reluctant to take hormones because of the small increase in potentially serious adverse effects associated with their use. Emerging research suggests that antidepressants may be an alternate option, but the study discussed in this story found that Lexapro is only slightly more effective than a placebo for reducing hot flashes. In addition, use of antidepressants also may cause a variety of adverse effects which, while less serious than the risks of hormone therapy, can be troublesome enough to cause people to stop taking the medication. Stories should provide this full context to help women make the best possible choice about how to manage their symptoms.

This story did not mention costs. Lexapro costs about $110/month and is not available as a generic. Because of this, insurance companies will probably relegate it to 2nd or 3rd tier status with higher copays for those who wish to use it. The story quantifies the benefits of treatment in appropriate terms using measures that are meaningful to readers. It explains that women taking Lexapro had a 47 percent decrease, or about 4.6 fewer hot flashes per day, whereas women taking a placebo had a 33 percent decrease or 3.2 fewer hot flashes per day. The story could have made the effects even clearer with a statement along the lines of … “On average, women with moderate to severe menopausal hot flashes had 5.4 hot flashes daily when taking lexapro and 6.4 hot flashes daily when taking placebo, a difference of 1 fewer hot flash daily.” As usual, the emphasis on percent reduction tends to obscure the absolute benefit. The story did attempt to put the size of this effect into some kind of context — calling it “modest” — which is something the WebMD coverage failed to do. While the competing WebMD coverage at least mentioned the possibility that this drug could cause adverse effects, this blog post does not acknowledge any potential downsides of treatment. We have a lot of good data on the adverse effects of antidepressants, and the story could easily have brought in summary data from other studies, rather than relying simply on 8 week data from a relatively small number of women. Giving results from a single study, while ignoring data from hundreds of other relevant studies involving thousands of patients, is a frequent problem in reporting. See the WebMD review for a more thorough discussion of why this is important. The description of the study was accurate and detailed enough to satisfy this criterion. As with the competing WebMD story, there could have been more emphasis on the short length of the study and the lack of data on longer-term outcomes. Menopausal symptoms can last for years, and an 8-week study doesn’t really tell us much about the durability of the treatment in this context. Also, while it’s useful to know the drug’s effect on frequency and severity of hot flashes, it would have been valuable to have data on the drug’s impact on health-related quality of life. The story didn’t state that the study discussed here was restricted to women with moderate to severe symptoms, as the competing WebMD coverage did. Also, the story would have been more informative if it had reported the proportion of menopausal women who have moderate to severe symptoms. By our read, a reader could misconstrue the study to mean that all menopausal women with hot flashes are appropriate candidates for treatment. There were no independent sources referenced in this post. In addition, while the story notes that the study was federally funded, it should have pointed out that at least one of the study researchers receives research funding and is a consultant for Forest Laboratories, which makes Lexapro. Although the story mentions hormone replacement, it gives readers the impression that this approach is no longer used for the treatment of hot flashes because the risks outweigh the benefits. In fact, women with more bothersome menopausal symptoms may still use hormones for short-term relief, concluding that the benefits for them individually still outweigh the risks. This story should have spent some more time putting the benefits and risks of antidepressants in context with those of hormone replacement. Also, many women try complementary and alternative medicine treatments. The story did not comment on the availability of Lexapro to treat hot flashes. Although many readers may be aware that this drug is approved to treat depression and may therefore be used to treat other conditions off-label, the story should have spelled this out as the competing WebMD coverage did. The story notes that other antidepressants have been tested in small studies for the treatment of hot flashes. It doesn’t oversell the novelty of this approach. This blog post did not include any external perspective on the study, so we can’t be sure to what extent it may have relied on a press release.


Americans sicker but English die quicker says study.

Explanation: Older Americans suffer more chronic disease than their English counterparts, but the English die earlier, according to a study on Thursday that could revive debate about whose health system is better.

An elderly man in a electric wheelchair smokes a cigar as he rides through Hyde Park in London, May 19, 2010. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth Researchers at the U.S.-based RAND Corp and Britain’s Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that while Americans aged 55 and older have higher rates of chronic disease, they live longer than elderly people who get ill in England. “If you get sick at older ages, you will die sooner in England than in the United States,” said James Smith, an economist with RAND in Santa Monica, California, who co-authored the study with James Banks and Alastair Muriel of the IFS. “It appears that at least in terms of survival at older ages with chronic disease, the medical system in the United States may be better than the system in England.”   But that edge comes at a price. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data show the United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation, and Banks said spending on healthcare for the elderly in the U.S. is almost double that in England. In 2008, the latest year for which full OECD figures are available, the United States spent 16 percent of its national output or $7,538 per person on health — well over double the $3,000 per person average of all OECD countries. British politicians leapt to defend the state-funded National Health System when it was attacked during the 2009 U.S. presidential election campaign by Republicans who used criticism of the NHS — which they called a socialist system — to stoke opposition to Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. Supporters of Obama’s reforms argue too many people fall through the net and are without medical insurance. Once people in the United States turn 65, however, they become eligible for Medicare, a government-run health insurance program for the elderly that gives nearly 40 million Americans access to high quality medical care. For the study, published in the journal Demography, researchers analyzed data from two surveys of people aged 50 and over — the U.S. Health and Retirement Survey, a nationally representative sample than includes over 20,000 people — and the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing, which contains data on around 12,000 respondents. They looked at rates of key chronic diseases — diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, chronic lung diseases and cancer — and at death rates among those aged 55 to 64 and aged 70 to 80. They also looked at the onset of new illnesses in these groups from 2002 to 2006. For people in their 70s, diabetes rates were almost twice as high in the United States as in England, at 17.2 percent versus 10.4 percent, and cancer rates were more than double, at 17.9 percent in the U.S. and 7.8 percent in England. Death rates among those 55 to 64 were similar in the U.S. and Britain, showing that although the Americans had more disease they lived just as long. In the older age group the English death rates were higher, showing that even though these Americans had higher rates of disease, they lived longer. The researchers said the findings showed that among older people, the U.S. health problem is not in healthcare provision nor in insurance coverage but in excess rates of illness. “The differences (in disease rates) are striking ... and that’s got to be an important priority for policy in terms of lifestyle or behavioral factors,” Banks told Reuters in London. In a telephone interview, Smith said that while the U.S. health system does a poor job at preventing disease, it delivers more when people get ill and is better at keeping them alive. “The criticism has been that the American medical system must be awful, but if you get treated, you actually have a better probability of survival. We are getting something from all of these dollars we put into the medical system.”


City Government, Corrections and Updates, Transportation, Texas, Bike Austin,

CLARIFICATION, 3:46 p.m., Sept. 9, 2016: Shortly after this fact check posted, we revised a sentence to say that we didn't find research tying the addition of simple bike lanes to specific percentage reductions in crashes. We'd originally said we didn't see research generally tying bike lanes to crash reductions. Our rating of the group's claim didn't change. After a 14-year-old bicyclist was hit by a car and killed in Austin in June 2016, local nonprofit Bike Austin called on the city to make streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. In a statement, the group’s executive director, Mercedes Feris, said: "Bike lanes and sidewalks have been proven to reduce crashes by up to 38 percent on Austin’s streets." Does that hold up? Group cites city report To our inquiry, Feris cited a 2015 City of Austin report, "Redesigning the Street: A Report on Right-Sizing Projects in Austin, TX 1999-2014," analyzing the effects of a certain kind of project, called a road diet, designed to make streets safer by shrinking opportunities to drive too fast. In what the Federal Highway Administration calls the classic example of a road diet, lane lines on a four-lane road that has two lanes in each direction are repainted to create a three-lane road, leaving a single lane in each direction and a center lane solely for left turns. A 2014 agency guide to road diets says the concept developed decades ago in response to the expansion-minded road construction of the 1950s and 1960s, when two-lane roads were frequently upgraded to four lanes. One of the first road diets, the guide says, was applied in 1979 to a four-lane road in Billings, Montana. On that road, where about 10,000 cars drove every day, the shrinkage to three lanes was found to reduce crashes without increasing delays. We dug into Austin’s more recent report and checked with experts on road diets and bicycle transportation. From that, we found that such projects often incorporate new bike lanes -- but they don’t typically add sidewalks. Generally, too, the highway administration has found that crashes in which a car hits a pedestrian walking on the side of the road consistently fall by more than 50 percent when sidewalks are installed. We failed to identify research tying the addition of simple, striped bike lanes to specific percentage reductions in crashes. The cited city report covers 37 local road diets completed from 1999 through 2014, including the one that Feris pointed out, on a 1.6-mile stretch of Manor Road in Northeast Austin. It resulted, the report says, in a 38 percent drop in crashes. A city spokeswoman, Marissa Monroy, responded to our inquiry about the research, saying by email the 38 percent reduction in any kind of crash ties to nearly six years of data collected by the Austin Police Department before and after the road diet took place on the stretch of Manor Road between Theo Drive and East 51st Street in November 2010. A close-up aerial view from along the noted 1.6-mile segment of Manor Road after the road diet was completed. The road includes bike lanes and the hallmark of a road diet project: a center two-way left-turn lane. SOURCE: Google Earth. Monroy told us that in the three years before the project, from November 2007 through October 2010, the to-be-reconfigured section had 39 crashes involving any combination of motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians--adding up to one pedestrian death and 16 injury crashes involving motor vehicles. In the three years after the project, from December 2010 through November 2013, she said, the stretch had 24 crashes -- or 38.5 percent fewer -- with no fatalities and 14 injury crashes, one involving a pedestrian, two affecting bicyclists. It’s also worth mentioning, as the city report says, that bike traffic on the segment increased 180 percent, from 54 bikes tallied in a 24-hour period before the project (and its bike lanes) was completed with 151 bikes in a similar period after. The full report presents general crash-reduction analyses for five of the 37 projects. Among the five, it sums up, "right-sizing projects," or road diets, contributed to at least 22 percent fewer crashes, on Amherst Drive, up to the nearly 39 percent reduction on the Manor Road stretch. We calculated the average of the five: 28.8 percent fewer crashes. Expert: Road diets reduce accidents For outside perspective, we reached out to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, hearing back about road diets, bike lanes and sidewalks from Joan Hudson, an associate research engineer. Hudson advised that the noted 38 percent reduction in crashes falls in line with national research she’s reviewed, also pointing us to the highway administration and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program -- a division of the Transportation Research Board, which is part of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Each agency highlights the same two studies finding "the road-diet treatment had a significant effect" in reducing crashes, as the cooperative research program said in a 2008 report. The reductions ranged from 19 to 47 percent, with an average of 29 percent. Hudson said road diets make roads safer for a few reasons: additional space improves reaction time, and a narrower roadway tends to reduce how fast drivers go, making crashes less severe. Road diets also make bicyclists more comfortable, she said, because they have dedicated space instead of sharing lanes with cars. The city’s report also reflected these points. Hudson confirmed that most road diets include bike lanes, but said sidewalks -- posing greater costs than what it takes to revise lane lines -- are hardly ever included. (It looks to us like a sidewalk may have been installed on the Manor Road stretch. To our query, Monroy said she couldn’t confirm it was part of the related road-diet project.) And by phone, Hudson told us that determining how much road diets reduce crashes involving bicyclists or pedestrians is hard because there’s not much data measuring bicycle and pedestrian traffic before and after roads are relined. It may be, for instance, she said, that bike accidents escalate after a project is completed largely because more bicyclists use the added bike lanes. That looks to us like what happened on the on the Manor Road stretch, where bike traffic more than doubled with bike crashes only slightly going up. Bike lanes alone? We wondered if perhaps bike lanes alone result in double-digit crash reductions. To our inquiry, a University of Wisconsin urban planning professor, Robert Schneider, said by email that "it is difficult to make a specific statement" about how a particular bike lane reduces crashes, because that’s not what researches examine. Schneider, who teaches about pedestrian and bike safety, said research tends to be broader, looking at what experts call "networks" -- routes through whole cities or significant parts of cities -- to determine how easy and safe it is to get around on a bike. Research examining those networks, Schneider said, shows that bike-friendly cities help drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians stay safe. He cited a 2011 study from two engineers at the University of Colorado-Denver finding that when intersections and roads are easier for cyclists to navigate and more cyclists hit the road, drivers tend to slow down and be more aware of their surroundings. A Bike Austin leader, Miller Nuttle, informed of our findings, said its claim wasn’t worded as precisely as it should have been. Our ruling Bike Austin said: "Bike lanes and sidewalks have been proven to reduce crashes by up to 38 percent on Austin’s streets." Research suggests big drops in pedestrian-vehicle accidents when sidewalks are introduced. But Bike Austin didn’t offer nor did we find research showing the addition of bike lanes in themselves or bike lanes plus sidewalks resulted in any percentage plummet in crashes. Instead, the city analysis states that reconfiguring lanes on part of one road, which also gained bike lanes, preceded 38 percent fewer crashes--with crash reductions averaging 29 percent among five road-diet projects.


If you maintain social distancing indoors “there's no reason to have an additional mask on top of that.”

Explanation: Multiple scientists have encouraged people to wear masks in public in addition to other measures including hand washing and social distancing. The CDC recommends that people wear cloth masks in public especially when social distancing is hard to maintain.

Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini brought his legal fight against local government mask mandates to cable news, saying the requirements violate "facial autonomy" and aren’t very effective. Sabatini, a Republican from Howey-in-the-Hills in Lake County, has filed at least eight lawsuits against local governments including Leon County, where a judge upheld the mask ordinance, and Hillsborough County. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has deferred to local officials and not issued a statewide order despite record-setting cases of the disease. CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked Sabatini if he wore a mask at the grocery store. "Absolutely not," he replied. "I've maintained social distance though." Keilar pushed Sabatini to explain why he is against masks when research supports wearing them to limit the spread of the coronavirus. "The studies that I have seen, the studies that have been most popular over the last 100 days of this crisis, have said mask or social distancing. So if you're maintaining basic social distancing, like I do, there's no reason to have an additional mask on top of that," Sabatini said July 15. Is that really what the research shows? Scientists said he is wrong. "Doing both provides best but likely not complete protection," said Volker Mai, a University of Florida epidemiologist. Masks alone don’t guarantee protection from the virus. But they can help slow down the spread. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public when around people who don’t live in their household, "especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain." Studies show cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets carrying the virus. Sabatini did not respond to our query about the recent studies he was citing by deadline. About a week earlier, Sabatini tweeted a link to a 2006 paper by researchers at the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Baltimore about disease mitigation measures amid pandemics. The paper, which included a couple of paragraphs about masks, stated that many in the public in Asia wore surgical masks during the SARS pandemic. "Studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus," it said. "The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask. There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting." We interviewed three of the co-authors of the 2006 paper about Sabatini’s comment. Each one stressed the current medical advice that wearing masks reduces the likelihood that someone who is unaware that they are contagious will spread the virus. "That paper was 14 years ago and accurately reflected what was known at the time," said Dr. Tom Inglesby, who is now the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. "We have learned a lot in the course of this pandemic." Inglesby pointed to the current universal masking recommendation from the CDC leadership which cites research that found universal masking was associated with a significantly lower rate of COVID-19 among health care workers at a Massachusetts hospital system, it found. "This and other current studies support the use of masking by the public, and I do recommend the use of masks and social distancing together," said Inglesby, who testified before a congressional committee in May in favor of cloth mask wearing. Dr. Tara O’Toole, one of the coauthors, noted that the 2006 paper referred to masks as protection for the wearer. The point of wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is not to protect oneself, but to protect those around you. "I wear my mask to protect you. You wear your mask to protect me," O’Toole said. A June study published in The Lancet medical journal found that "face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection." One reason experts recommend wearing masks and social distancing indoors is that a person can’t always prevent others from coming within six feet. "It is impossible — impossible — to always stay six feet away from others, indoors," said Andrew Noymer, a disease prevention expert at UC Irvine. "Someone brushes past in the grocery-store aisle. Someone is leaving the bathroom just as we go in. Indoor air circulation is unpredictable due to HVAC idiosyncrasies. Best practice is to mask AND distance." Sabatini said on CNN that if you maintain social distancing indoors "there's no reason to have an additional mask on top of that." Multiple scientists and the CDC say that it is best to wear a mask indoors in public in addition to other measures including social distancing and hand washing. We did not find research to support Sabatini’s claim that if you social distance you don’t need to wear a mask, too. We rate this statement .


Donald Trump Says Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.

Explanation: The Trump campaign said that in the course of his career, Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. The number is close. What the tweet ignores is that Booker stopped taking money from pharmaceutical industry PACs and top executives. Since 2016, Booker received zero dollars from drug makers and individual contributions have fallen by 75%. The average reader of the tweet would have no idea that Booker has shunned pharmaceutical money for the past two years. That’s additional context, but Booker did accept the money in years past. That meets our definition of this rating.

National, Campaign Finance, Health Care, Donald Trump,

Both Republican and Democratic voters have little love for prescription drug makers. When asked, four out of five Americans say the cost of drugs is "unreasonable." Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has signed on to a bevy of plans to bring prices down. "There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers," Booker said at the first Democratic debate in Miami. The Trump campaign fired off a reminder that Booker has history with the drug makers. "Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career," @TrumpWarRoom tweeted June 26, the night of the first Democratic debate. FACT: Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career. pic.twitter.com/1HUfFVBGVU By one measure, that number is correct. But a more granular look at drug maker political money delivers a lower number, and the tweet gives no hint that Booker stopped taking pharmaceutical money in 2017. The Trump campaign sent us to Booker’s career summary page on the Open Secrets website, a reliable source of federal political money data. Booker first ran for Senate in 2013. Since then, people and groups tied to the pharmaceutical/health products industry have given Booker $411,948. The number is actually higher. Booker runs a leadership PAC, a common device on Capitol Hill to raise money for a variety of uses, from travel expenses to helping other candidates fund their campaigns. Booker’s PAC got $56,000 since 2014, for a grand total of $468,000. There’s an important caveat: That industry group includes much more than drug makers. Drug wholesalers, medical equipment makers and dietary supplement companies all fall under this category. The wholesalers would have a stake in bills aimed at lowering prescription drug costs, but many other companies, such as Nestlé, which owns several dietary supplement brands, and Medtronic, maker of insulin pumps and much more, would go untouched by such legislation. Boiled down to drug makers alone, according to data pulled by the Open Secrets staff, Booker’s total is $327,000. That includes both donations to his campaign committee and his leadership PAC. One last wrinkle would add some money back in. The Trump campaign tweet was based solely on Booker’s federal receipts. But as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013, Booker raised millions. Some of that came from people tied to drug makers. A notable example is Jonathan Sackler, a member of the family behind Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In 2009, Sackler gave $26,000 to Booker Team for Newark, a joint campaign committee to help elect Booker and a slate of city councilors. At the end of the day, we found that drug makers gave Booker’s campaigns upwards of $350,000. That’s less than the tweet claimed, but still a hefty amount. And if drug wholesalers are added in, the gap largely disappears. In June 2017, Booker told NPR he had stopped taking industry donations. "We put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism," Booker said. Recently, he tweeted, "Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. I’ve said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives — they are part of this problem." Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. I’ve said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives — they are part of this problem. It’s time to work on a solution. Chip in to help us run a people-powered campaign As far as his PAC money, that revenue stream has died for Booker. Up through 2016, drug makers had given him $202,000. Since then, as the chart below shows, the amount from drug makers directly is zero, with some ongoing donations from individuals who work for drug makers. New Jersey is home to many large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Individuals who work for them have continued to give to Booker, but since 2016, that has fallen from nearly $100,000 to about $26,000. Booker’s campaign noted that he joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on a drug importation bill. Booker also put forward legislation that would allow the Medicare program to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. These and other measures have drawn strong opposition from the drug industry. The Trump campaign said that in the course of his career, Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. The number is close. What the tweet ignores is that Booker stopped taking money from pharmaceutical industry PACs and top executives. Since 2016, Booker received zero dollars from drug makers and individual contributions have fallen by 75%. The average reader of the tweet would have no idea that Booker has shunned pharmaceutical money for the past two years. That’s additional context, but Booker did accept the money in years past. That meets our definition of .