U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican, is a frequent critic of the Affordable Care Act but opposed his party’s health care plan. The ACA passed under President Barack Obama included the expansion of Medicaid, a program that provides health coverage for about 74 million poor Americans. (Yoho’s state of Florida rejected the expansion.) Yoho, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, says the law has driven people to Medicaid, a program he described as a worldwide failure. "With the Affordable Care Act, what’s happened is, all these people have been running to Medicaid, and it’s been proven over and over again Medicaid has the worst outcomes in the industrialized world as far as the quality of health care," he said in a March 14 interview on PBS, about a week and a half before the Republicans canceled a vote on their health care plan. Yoho spokesman Brian Kaveney walked back the congressman’s statement somewhat when we asked for evidence that Medicaid has the worst outcomes in the industrialized world. "Hindsight being 20/20, the congressman didn’t mean to use the word ‘worst,’ " Kaveney said. "The congressman was pointing out that since the implementation of ACA, health care trends have not improved." Kaveney added: "To say that Medicaid expansion under ACA has resulted in better health outcomes would be a very debatable point." Experts we interviewed about Medicaid outcomes said they were unaware of any research comparing Medicaid outcomes with the rest of the industrialized world. Leighton Ku, an expert on health policy at George Washington University, said that Medicaid improves access to care for poor people, but research about outcomes comes with caveats. "There is no question -- and there is a lot of research -- that Medicaid improves poor people's access to health care, in terms of seeing a doctor, getting medications, etc.," he told PolitiFact. "The problem with comparing health outcomes is that Medicaid recipients start out sicker, both because they are poor, but also because people who are sick really need to get Medicaid to get access to care, while healthier poor people may go uninsured because they don't need much care." Studies about Medicaid Yoho was referring to two articles in 2017 by Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a policy director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Cass argued that Medicaid studies show that the program doesn’t improve public health. But there aren't studies comparing its health outcomes to other industrialized countries. "Whether people on Medicaid have better or worse outcomes than people in other countries doesn’t tell you anything about the effectiveness of Medicaid," Cass told PolitiFact. "The question is whether there are public programs that have as little effect on outcomes relative to the baseline of no-insurance in that country." Let’s look at the studies that Cass cited, some of which we have reviewed before. Oregon study: Cass wrote that a 2013 study about Medicaid expansion in Oregon showed "recipients gained no statistically significant improvement in physical health after two years." The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment compared about 6,000 patients who got a slot in a 2008 Medicaid expansion and about 6,000 who didn’t. Over two years, the study found that while patients in the program initially reported feeling better, there was no real change in health indicators such as diabetes control, cholesterol or blood pressure. However, patients in the study did report better access to care and improvements in mental health. Harvard study: Harvard researchers compared the effects of Medicaid expansion programs in Arizona, Maine and New York with other states that made no change in the 2000s. "Only one of the three achieved a statistically significant reduction in mortality," Cass wrote. One of the study’s authors, Ben Sommers, said when examining each state individually only the largest state -- New York -- was significant on its own. Sommers has since done additional research and found that deaths from causes most treatable with timely medical care — such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes — did go down in the other two states expanding Medicaid as well. (Sommers did part-time work for the Obama administration.) Study on life expectancy and income: Cass also cited a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that examined the relationship between life expectancy and income. The study was not about Medicaid, but found differences in life expectancy for low-income individuals is not significantly correlated with measures of the quantity and quality of medical care. "Our study shows that behavioral conditions such as smoking and obesity are very important in mortality," study author Raj Chetty told PolitiFact. "The study does not imply that Medicaid is not important, let alone that it has the worst outcomes in the industrialized world." Cass cited one positive health impact from Medicaid: He wrote that it "may have significant positive effects on pregnant women and young children." Researchers at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation looked at the big picture for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Kaiser reviewed 108 studies about the expansion of Medicaid under the law. They found that most research shows that the expansion positively impacts access to care and improved self-reported health. More research was needed, however, to know the effects on health outcomes. Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago professor of social services administration, said that Medicaid, much like private insurance, is a weaker tool in improving health outcomes than  experts would like to see. But Medicaid critics sometimes omit context about the program for the poor. "Many studies that compare Medicaid recipients to others find negative associations between Medicaid and health for the simple reason that Medicaid serves individuals facing the greatest social and health risks," he said. "These cannot be interpreted as identifying a harmful causal role of Medicaid." Our ruling Yoho said "It’s been proven over and over again Medicaid has the worst outcomes in the industrialized world as far as the quality of health care." Yoho’s spokesman said that he didn’t mean to use the word "worst." His evidence focused on studies about Medicaid outcomes within the United States with no comparison to other countries. Yoho intended to argue that Medicaid under the ACA hasn’t improved health outcomes. Kaiser examined multiple studies and found Medicaid expansion improves access to care and self-reported health, but additional research is needed to determine effects on health outcomes. As far as Yoho’s original statement.


People on pot "shoot each other ... stab each other ... strangle each other, drive under the influence, kill families.

Drugs, Crime, PunditFact, Marijuana, Nancy Grace,

An amusing Web video pits tough-talking former prosecutor and HLN host Nancy Grace against a combative adversary on the subject of pot: Nancy Grace. In one frame, Grace argues smoking marijuana makes users less prone to picking a fight or "basically starting Mortal Kombat." They’re more likely "to lay on the sofa and eat," she said while discussing Trayvon Martin having marijuana in his system at the time of death. In the other frame, Grace is heated up about the debate du jour: legalized recreational pot in Colorado. In a recent show, Grace dismissed the arguments of a marijuana advocate who thinks the drug should be legalized and regulated like alcohol. She argued about whether the drug is "highly addictive" with Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Mason Tvert, who suggested Grace is against legalization because "she does not like the people that use marijuana." She disagreed. "The reason I’m against legalization of pot is that I’ve seen too many felonies, and I don’t mean pot sales or growing pot," she said. "I mean people on pot that shoot each other, that stab each other, strangle each other, drive under the influence, kill families — wipe out a whole family." Tvert went on to chastise her "1930s" tone, and the argument went on. For many, Grace’s comments about people using marijuana and committing violent acts raised eyebrows, so we decided to check it out. HLN publicists did not respond for comment. The consensus among drug and psychiatry experts: Marijuana alone does not propel one to commit acts of violence. Most users are not lighting up and heading over to Fight Club. They want to wind down, not amp up. And while there is evidence that people who commit crimes often smoke marijuana (in part because smoking marijuana is a crime in many places itself), there is little support to back up the idea that it drives people to commit crimes, especially violent ones like Grace described. "Clearly the majority of users don’t become aggressive," said Dr. Ihsan Salloum, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and chief of the Division of Substance & Alcohol Abuse at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "Definitely in terms of clinical work, violence is not the first thing that comes to mind when people are dealing with marijuana." That said, marijuana is still a mind-altering drug, and it could have a different effect on people who are predisposed to aggression and anxiety, he said. It could induce fear or paranoia when people cannot process an environment, though some may withdraw instead of reacting aggressively. Other psychologists and psychiatrists essentially agreed with Salloun. "Other than people driving under the influence, there’s no scientific basis for what she’s saying," said Matthew Johnson, associate professor in the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The effect is often not as dramatic as driving under the influence of alcohol, Johnson said. Usually people who drive while high drive slower, and the impairment is usually noticed when the driver’s attention is divided, he said, akin to the effect of some prescription medications. People who come to treatment facilities are typically using multiple drugs, making it tough to suss out which substance was responsible for a violent act. Violence is not typically associated with the use of marijuana, unless the victim is a "chocolate chip cookie," joked Dr. Scott Teitelbaum, professor and vice chairman of the University of Florida’s Department of Psychiatry and chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine. Levity aside, Teitelbaum stressed some people can still become addicted to the drug, and he worries about more young people using it with further legalization. A spokeswoman for the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Drug Free America Foundation directed us to a slew of news clips documenting shootings related to marijuana theft, grow houses and co-ops. The clips also highlighted marijuana use of gunmen from some of the country’s most recent and notorious shooting sprees. "In many cases of violence, such as with Benjamin Bishop, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and the Pentagon shooter, these gunmen actively were or previously had been marijuana users," said Calvina Fay, the foundation’s executive director, in a statement. She pointed to a 2012 study by researchers from Duke University, the University of Oregon, King’s College London and University of Otago in New Zealand that highlighted brain development in teens who smoke marijuana. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, relied on data for more than 1,000 people who were tracked from the time they were born to age 38. People who started using marijuana as teens and used it at least once a week showed the biggest loss in IQ points. People who picked up the drug as adults didn’t show the same loss in mental functioning. Johnson, the Johns Hopkins professor, says this research is controversial because it’s tough to eliminate marijuana use from all other factors that make people willing to engage in behavior that isn’t socially acceptable. "But even if that were true, we’re talking about a small minority," he said. "It’s not a question for the large majority of the public." Gil Kerlikowske, the White House director of national drug-control policy, released an analysis in May that attempted to show a link between crime and marijuana use. It found that 80 percent of adult males arrested for crimes in Sacramento, Calif., in 2012 tested positive for at least one illegal drug. The most commonly detected drug was marijuana, which was found in 54 percent of those arrested. The analysis didn't say what percentage of the crimes were violent and did not conclude that marijuana was the reason people committed crimes. (A positive urine sample only indicates use in the past month.) FBI data for violent crimes with reported drug and alcohol involvement is not broken down by substance, so there is no telling which violent crimes as reported by law enforcement agencies are at least linked to marijuana use. A 2003 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research found "surprisingly few" studies have tried to nail down a direct link between marijuana use and crime. After reviewing related academic studies and crunching arrest and crime data, the NBER researchers determined people involved with violent crimes are also likely to use marijuana, but "the marijuana use is not necessarily related to their decision to engage in crime." Their report highlighted a 20-year-old study by the National Research Council that suggested longterm marijuana use may affect a person's nervous system so he or she becomes more violent. Still, the causal link "remains in question," the NBER report said. The researchers did find a positive association between marijuana use and property-damage crimes, particularly among youth. Finally, on the subject of high-profile murderers who use the drug, Johnson said there is bound to be overlap between people accused of murder and those who use marijuana given how popular it is. But the same could be said for people who have blond hair and commit murders, he said. One is not a direct result of the other. Dr. Antoine Douaihy of the University of Pittsburgh College of Medicine said even though he thinks Grace is overreaching, there are concerns about the unknown social risks of legalizing marijuana in more states. Often, he said, people are passionate about the topic without noting nuances or differentiating among legalization, decriminalization and authorizing cannabis for medicinal purposes. Our ruling Grace said, people on pot "shoot each other ... stab each other ... strangle each other, drive under the influence, kill families." Yes, you can find individual cases to back up each of Grace's points, but Grace suggested pot drives people generally to commit violent acts, and there's no evidence of that. Behavioral science experts we consulted stressed using marijuana has consequences. But a hard turn toward violence, including shooting each other and killing families, isn’t one of the direct effects from using the drug for most people. We rate Grace’s claim .


China to extend winter anti-smog measures for another year.

Explanation: China will extend winter anti-smog measures such as production cuts and traffic restrictions for a third successive winter, the environment ministry said in a pollution battle plan for 2019 published on Wednesday.

The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) also vowed to speed up the elimination of small coal-fired heating boilers in major regions. It will also step up the elimination of outdated and excessive production capacity in polluting sectors such as steel, coal and coal-fired power. China is in the sixth year of a “war on pollution” aimed at reversing the damage done by more than three decades of breakneck economic growth, and it has taken action to eliminate outdated vehicles and production technology, cut industrial emissions and ease its dependence on coal. However, according to Reuters analysis, only six of 39 smog-prone northern Chinese cities have managed to cut concentrations of hazardous airborne particles known as PM2.5 during the latest winter anti-smog campaign beginning last October. Average PM2.5 concentrations actually rose 13 percent over the period. That will mean the cities will have to make further cuts this year. The MEE’s new plan said cities that failed to meet air quality standards this winter will have to cut PM2.5 by at least 2 percent in 2019. Liu Bingjiang, a senior MEE official, said on Tuesday that while the rebound was partly caused by weather anomalies, some local governments believed they deserved “a rest after years of hardship” to meet the anti-smog measures. He added that those governments would face punishment. The 2019 action plan outlined further steps this year to control coal consumption. The ministry will help draw up new measures aimed at encouraging the use of cleaner-burning  replacement fuels and speed up efforts to eliminate small and inefficient coal-fired heating boilers in smog-prone regions. It will also further promote the implementation of ultra-low emission coal-fired power in western regions, and also encourage steel mills to install ultra-low emission technology. The ministry also vowed to crack down harder on the production, import and use of substandard diesel vehicles, encourage bulk commodity deliveries by trains rather than trucks and make use of satellite technology to monitor rural air pollution sources.


Prostate Cancer Drug Gets Lukewarm Review

Explanation: This story reports on an analysis done for the agency that oversees Medicare of the evidence of the effects of Provenge (sipuleucel-T) in certain men with advanced prostate cancer. It summarizes some of the conclusions and includes comments about how the analysis might influence a decision about whether Medicare and Medicaid will pay for the expensive new treatment. But the story leaves readers with the impression that the drug has been proven to extend the life of the average patient by about four months when actually there are many uncertainties about that estimate due to weaknesses in the clinical trials sponsored by the maker of the Provenge. The assessment done for Medicare underscores the questions that still need to be answered in order for doctors and patients to know whether and how to use Provenge, but that perspective is largely missing from this story. This story portrays debates about insurance coverage of Provenge as a matter of how much value to place on four months of life. But what the federal analysis of the Provenge trials actually focuses on is uncertainty about the amount of additional survival and questions about how other factors besides Provenge (including other treatments that were given to the trial participants) might have affected the trial results. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer occurring in men, though most tumors grow slowly and men diagnosed with the disease typically die of something other than their prostate cancer. Some tumors are aggressive and more effective treatments are needed for these cases. Provenge’s novel immunotherapy approach offers an attractive alternative to existing treatments, but the initial application for FDA approval was rejected in 2007. A new clinical trial was done and the treatment was approved for sale in the U.S. earlier this year. Although historically Medicare and Medicaid have covered treatments deemed safe and effective without considering the magnitude of the expected benefit, the limited additional survival and the high cost of Provenge treatment have highlighted debates about whether and how to consider these factors in deciding whether a particular treatment should be reimbursed.

The story appropriately reports that Provenge treatment costs $93,000 per patient and is satisfactory based on the criterion. However, the costs should ideally be put into context and compared to alternative treatments. An editorial published along with the Provenge trial in the New England Journal of Medicine noted the costs of alternative treatment is $1,800 per patient. The story reports that in clinical trials Provenge extended the lives of certain men with advanced prostate cancer by about four months. However, the story does not tell readers that the expert reviewers who analyzed the available evidence for Medicare wrote that the actual quantity of the benefit is “less certain” because of weaknesses in the trials. As a result, readers are likely to believe that the “four months” additional survival is a firm estimate of the average benefit when in fact there are important questions about that conclusion. Also, the story does not report that according to the clinical trials Provenge did not make any difference in how long it took for prostate cancer to progress in these men. The story does not mention harms. The clinical trials reported that patients treated with Provenge experienced infusion reactions and infections. The review for Medicare also noted that the FDA ordered further study of strokes in people who get Provenge. The story does not give readers an adequate understanding of why the reviewers question the quality of the evidence indicating patients treated with Provenge lived longer. The story does report that the analysis of the clinical trials of Provenge treatment raised questions about the design of the trials, including that the treatment given patients in the “placebo” arm of the trials “was not really inert.” However, the analysis of the evidence done for Medicare concluded that the actual amount of a survival benefit from this treatment is “less certain” because of issues with the designs of the key trials. Readers were not told that the reviewers rated the quality of evidence on survival as only “fair” and that the reviewers spelled out the sort of clinical trials that are still needed in order to provide more reliable estimates of the effects of Provenge. Because trial design is central to understanding how to judge the merits of this treatment, the story should have done more to explain the shortcomings identified by the expert reviewers. For example, although two clinical trials did report that patients receiving the treatment lived about four months longer on average, there was no significant difference in the amount of time before the disease progressed. Also, there were differences in the other treatments (including chemotherapy) given to the patients in the treatment and control arms of the trials. The reviewers also recommended that future trials look at possible interactions between Provenge and chemotherapy and other post-progression treatments, in order to find out if they might shed light on the survival differences. The story reports that Provenge treatment is approved only for patients with “advanced prostate cancer that is resistant to hormone-deprivation therapy but who are experiencing no or minimal symptoms.”  Although the story uses excerpts of written statements from a financial analyst and the president of a cancer advocacy group, it does not include an independent source who addresses the scientific issues raised by the analysis of Provenge done for Medicare. The story does not tell readers that the cancer advocacy group it cites receives support from and promotes its services to health care corporations, including pharmaceutical companies. Although the available treatments for men with advanced prostate cancer are limited, there are other approaches that could have been mentioned. The omission is of particular importance because the analysis done for Medicare specifically highlighted questions about whether other treatments, including chemotherapy, that were given to patients in the Provenge trials might have influenced the outcomes. The story reports that treatment with Provenge has been approved for certain patients with advanced prostate cancer but that availability is limited by manufacturing capacity. The story reports that Provenge is the first approved treatment that is designed to try to stimulate a patient’s immune system to attack tumors. The story does not rely on a news release.


Baby aspirin linked to reduced cancer deaths

Explanation: This story about the apparent cancer reducing effect of daily low-dose aspirin seen in an analysis of data from a collection of earlier heart disease trials provides a more thorough discussion of the limitations of the latest study and its methods than some of the other stories we reviewed. It also provides more specific information about harms that aspirin can cause and it includes several independent voices that add valuable perspective. As a result, readers will be more likely than those who saw some of the other coverage to understand the call for thoughtful consideration before initiating a daily aspirin regimen in hopes of reaping cancer reduction benefits. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States behind heart disease, and there are few proven methods for reducing one’s risk of developing the disease. The study discussed in this story provides fairly convincing evidence that a daily low-dose aspirin does indeed prevent some cancers when taken over the course of many years. Because of limitations in the data, however, it is unclear if these benefits will apply to all healthy adults or if they outweigh the risk of side effects, which can include potentially fatal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract and brain. Individuals need to take these uncertainties into account when deciding whether they want to commit to taking aspirin every day for many years.

The cost of aspirin is not in question. Nevertheless, a broad recommendation to begin taking aspirin daily in middle age would likely be followed by at least hundreds of millions of people, thus the cumulative costs would be large. Also, such widespread use would increase the costs of treating bleeding ulcers and other adverse events caused by aspirin, though hoped-for savings in reduced cancer treatment would be an offestting factor to consider. Still, because the cost of aspirin on an individual basis is low and well-known we won’t insist on this point. As with some of the competing stories about this study, this report relies too heavily on relative risk figures to describe the potential benefits of aspirin therapy. Quantifying the risk reductions in absolute terms would have provided a more realistic assessment of the advantages. For example, the researchers said that during the course of the original trials there were 674 cancer deaths among more than 25,500 participants, so while it is accurate to say that those taking aspirin had a greater than 20 percent lower risk of cancer death than those taking a placebo, the absolute rate of cancer death was 2.3 percent in the aspirin groups combined vs. 3 percent in the placebo groups combined. The story should have given readers more information about the total numbers of cancer deaths in order to help them put the differences into perspective. The story provides more information than several of the stories we reviewed about the risks of aspirin therapy. Quoting one of the study researchers, the story notes that about 1 in 1000 patients who take aspirin will experience gastrointestinal bleeding each year, compared 2 to 4 per thousand who will avoid cancer death. While this makes it sound like the benefits of aspirin clearly outweigh the potential harms, the story probably should have cautioned that these data are taken from studies of heart disease. No study has looked specifically at the risks of aspirin when used over the long term to prevent cancer, and it is unclear if different risks might emerge in a population prospectively studied for this purpose. The story also should have mentioned the increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke — which is frequently fatal — associated with aspirin use. This story is better than some other stories at describing what happened in this study and mentioning potential limitations. It notes that the findings don’t necessarily support new recommendations for everyone to take aspirin, but it goes further than some others in describing why the results might not be broadly applicable. It notes that the study included primarily men, so the data don’t tell us if aspirin can prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer in women, or other common cancers such as ovarian cancer. The story also notes that participants in these studies may have stopped taking aspirin after the initial trial period was over. (Conversely, they may also have started taking aspirin if they were in the placebo control group.) This loss of randomization can make it difficult to assess the true effects of aspirin on deaths occurring many years later. We wish the story had given more attention to an important drawback of the study: the fact that it was not designed and prospectively initiated as a study of cancer outcomes, and did not provide data on harms. However, we think the story provided enough information to give readers a reasonably balanced view of the issue. The story did not exaggerate the impact of cancer and it accurately described the possible relevance of this study to a large segment of the population. The story quotes from interviews with the study researchers and 3 independent experts. That’s the most important factor in this case, so we will pass this story on this criterion. However, while the study itself did not receive outside funding, readers should have been told that some of the authors have had consulting relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Some of the other news stories about this study pointed out that avoiding smoking and obesity are known to reduce cancer risk. This story should also have pointed out these options, which also do not have potential adverse effects. The availability of aspirin is not in question. Also, the story points out that low-dose aspirin is currently used by some people to reduce their risk of cardiovascular events. The study discusses the previous research that led to the current study and does not oversell the novelty of the new findings. This story does not appear to be based on a news release.


NY project would map genes of 1 million to fight Alzheimer’s.

Explanation: Researchers would aim to map the genes of one million people living with or at-risk of Alzheimer’s disease over five years through a proposed initiative at the State University of New York.

Genetics, Health, Andrew Cuomo, General News, New York, Science, Higher education, Education, Alzheimers disease

Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed Friday to establish the SUNY Curing Alzheimer’s Health Consortium to collect and map genomic data statewide. The Democrat said the initiative will eventually provide the data to researchers working to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s. The governor says SUNY and the state’s economic development agency, Empire State Development, will seek proposals for private providers to work with SUNY, other hospitals and non-profit higher education research institutions on the mapping initiative. The Empire State Development’s life science initiative would provide $20 million in initial funding to identify and recruit 200,000 people for genetic testing. State health officials would help acquire samples and anonymized electronic health records of volunteers. More than 5 million people in the United States and millions more worldwide have Alzheimer’s, the leading cause of dementia. New York’s Department of Health estimates 390,000 individuals in New York had Alzheimer’s disease in 2017 — a figure expected to increase to 460,000 by 2025. Current drugs only temporarily ease symptoms and do not alter the course of the disease.


US proposes new rules to increase organ transplants.

Explanation: The U.S. government is overhauling parts of the nation’s transplant system to make sure organs from the dead no longer go to waste — and to make it easier for the living to donate.

AP Top News, Health, General News, Politics, Medicare, Organ transplants, U.S. News, Seema Verma

The rules proposed Tuesday aim to ease an organ shortage so severe that more than 113,000 Americans linger on the transplant waiting list — and about 20 die each day. Part of the reason: An Associated Press analysis  recently found some of the groups that collect organs at death secure donors at half the rate of others, missed opportunities that could have saved lives. But the government currently has little way to directly compare organ collection agencies and force poor performers to improve. “No life-saving organ should go to waste,” Medicare chief Seema Verma said in announcing stricter standards to hold those agencies more accountable. At the same time, the administration also aims to spur more living donors by allowing them to be reimbursed for lost wages and child care or elder care expenses incurred during their hospitalization and recovery. “When an American wishes to become a living donor, we don’t believe their financial situation should limit their generosity,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, whose father received a kidney transplant from a living donor. The rules come after President Donald Trump  in July ordered  a revamping of care for kidney disease, including spurring transplants of kidneys and other organs. The proposals are open for public comment for 60 days. Transplant advocates praised the move. “Patients are dying, and they deserve better,” Jennifer Erickson, a former Obama administration staffer who worked on transplant policy, said of the crackdown on “organ procurement organizations,” or OPOs. And the association that represents those organ collection groups pledged to work with Medicare, which regulates the nonprofits, to implement the tougher standards. The new rules are “an opportunity to drive meaningful changes that will increase the availability of organs for transplant and save more lives,” Kelly Ranum, CEO of Louisiana’s OPO and president of the association, said in a statement. Today, the country is divided into 58 zones, each assigned an OPO to essentially be a matchmaker — rapidly collecting organs from willing donors at death and getting them to the right transplant center, even if a hospital calls with a potential donor at 3 a.m. It’s hard to tell how well they do the job. They self-report to the government success rates without any way to tell how many potential donations were left behind, or why. And current rules give little incentive for retrieving less-than-perfect organs, such as those from older donors. “For countless patients, an imperfect organ is better than no organ at all,” Verma said. Under the proposal, Medicare will calculate each OPO’s donation and transplantation rates using federal death records that show the entire pool of potential donors each has to draw from — anyone 75 or younger who dies in a hospital of conditions that wouldn’t automatically preclude donation. For the first time, that would allow Medicare to rank OPO performance. Verma promised yearly evaluations, saying any organ agency that didn’t do as well as the top quarter of their competitors would be pushed to improve. “This is a great first step,” said Greg Segal of the advocacy group Organize, whose father waited five years for a heart transplant. “Now the government needs to implement the rule as strongly and quickly as possible.” Verma estimated the change could spark another 5,000 transplants a year. A 2017 study by University of Pennsylvania researchers had estimated that a better-functioning system could yield as many as 28,000 additional organs. Deceased donors make up most transplants but people lucky enough to receive a kidney or part of a liver from a living donor not only cut their wait, but those organs tend to survive longer. Yet fewer than 7,000 of the 36,529 transplants performed last year were from living donors. Currently, the transplant recipient’s insurance pays the donor’s medical bills. But donors are out of work for weeks recuperating and not all employers allow some form of paid time off. The new proposal aims to ease that economic hurdle; still to be determined is exactly who will qualify. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Massachusetts OKs funds to offset Planned Parenthood losses.

Explanation: Massachusetts, led by a Republican governor, has become the first state to approve money to offset the potential loss of federal funding to women’s reproductive health organizations since the Trump administration adopted a new rule in February meant to bar federally funded family planning clinics from making abortion referrals or sharing office space with abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood, Health, Legislation, Abortion, North America, Charlie Baker, Massachusetts, Womens health

The Massachusetts law sets aside $8 million in state dollars to close any gaps in federal Title X funding for health clinics that could lose funding by the proposed change — derided as a “gag rule” by critics. Gov. Charlie Baker, who signed the bill, said this week the measure “ensures women’s health providers across Massachusetts will continue to have access to these critical funds.” The bill was passed overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts House and Senate. Baker is the first governor to sign such legislation. In 2017, in anticipation of the Trump administration rule, Maryland passed a similar law meant to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland bill became law in 2017 after Republican Gov. Larry Hogan decided not to veto it. On Thursday, Maryland also became the first state to pass a bill that would reject federal money for family planning services if the new rule, which is being challenged in court, takes effect. Other Democratic-leaning states, such as Washington and Oregon, may take similar steps. Dr. Jennifer Childs-Roshak, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said a loss of federal funding could affect about 75,000 patients who rely in part on services funded by Title X. She said the program, in place since the 1970s, provides no- or low-cost services including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and pap smears. Of the Title X funds that come into the state, Childs-Roshak said Planned Parenthood receives less than 20%, with the rest going to other clinics that offer similar health services. Childs-Roshak said there never had been any Title X funding for abortion coverage, adding there are “very specific rules about how to manage inventory and keep everything separate.” The Trump administration’s actions, she said, were meant to please what she described as a “minority extreme view.” “The Trump/Pence administration is obsessed with Planned Parenthood, and not in a good way,” Childs-Roshak said. “They are obsessed with abortion.” Religious conservatives and abortion opponents have welcomed the new rule. They argue that Title X funding has been used to indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the U.S. Krystal Linn, 39, lives in Southbridge and is a parent to seven children — both biological and foster — ages 6 to 17. “I have been a Planned Parenthood patient since I was about 14 years old,” Linn said. “My first experience was getting birth control.” Over the years, Linn has had a range of health care needs met through the agency. Much of that care, Linn said, would have otherwise been too costly. “I was able to have children on my own time,” Linn said. “I’m almost 40 years now. My concern now is more for the generation coming up. Without Planned Parenthood or providers like Planned Parenthood, what would they do? I had that benefit.” Massachusetts is also part of a multistate lawsuit led by state attorneys general in 20 mostly Democrat-controlled states, including Connecticut and Rhode Island, challenging the ruling. During the 2018 fiscal year, Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey’s office said, Massachusetts received $4.3 million in Title X funding. That allowed 96 service sites in the state to offer services including pregnancy testing, contraceptive services, routine gynecological care, cervical and breast cancer screenings, infertility services, treatment for STDs, and health education, she said. The federal lawsuit, filed last month in Oregon, alleges the new regulations are unconstitutional, violate federal law, and threaten the health and well-being of millions of low-income women and families, Healey said.


Puppy love: therapy pooches bring peace of mind at Spanish psychiatric center.

Explanation: Tucked away in Spain’s Pyrenees mountains, patients at psychiatric facility Benito Menni stretch out across floor mats and stroke greyhound puppies Atila and Argi.

Puppy love is part of the treatment for conditions such as schizophrenia. The facility, based in a town near the border with France, uses the dogs to help patients with intellectual disabilities and mental health conditions develop social skills and a sense of autonomy. Alongside misty views of green rolling mountains, petting sessions with the eight-month-old puppies have a calming effect serving as an emotional outlet for patients who struggle to connect with others. Playing with those who are more active and sitting still with those who find moving a daily challenge, the dogs tailor their behavior according to the needs of their patient. For a Reuters photo essay, click reut.rs/2ntcZeA  Unlike other centers, Atila and Argi live on the grounds and are cared for by patients. “They are in charge of the dogs 24 hours a day,” said head nurse of Benito Menni Uxua Lazkanotegi. “The dogs are now part of the center.”   In an effort to promote good habits like self-control and personal hygiene, patients groom and feed their furry companions taking them for daily walks to the nearby village where the dogs are icebreakers facilitating conversation with the locals. Center residents who struggle to express themselves because of a range of cognitive and behavioral disabilities referred to their feelings for the dogs using words like “calmness”, “companionship” and “affection”. The dogs also work with those unable to feed or walk the animals, sitting with severe dementia patients in an effort to combat isolation and depression by stimulating their senses of touch.


Parent's Choice diapers are causing small children to suffer chemical burns.

Explanation: We contacted Parent’s Choice to ask whether they had any information about reports of chemical burns associated with the products, or if there had been any recalls involving the brand. A spokesperson told us that although the recirculation of the Facebook post led to an increased level of concern and calls, there did not appear to be a rise in reported “chemical burns” associated with any Parent’s Choice diaper or wipes and no recalls had been issued.

Medical, diapers, parent's choice, viral facebook posts

In April 2018 a screenshot of a post circulated on social media, claiming that Parent’s Choice brand diapers (sold at WalMart and secondary retailers) caused chemical burns:  This is what happened to Gunner’s leg after trying the parents choice pull ups. His pediatrician did confirm that he had a chemical burn. Please don’t buy these pull ups!!! Every one please share thus post so that parents can be warned We were unable to find any type of recall, warning, or other information from the brand or consumer groups indicating that Parent’s Choice diapers or pull-ups were associated with chemical burns or a risk of skin reaction. Anecdotal reports of diaper-related chemical burns circulate for nearly every brand of diapers and wipes. The original post appears to have already been either removed or restricted, and it did not appear in a Facebook search. Neither was the date of the original post available, only the copy posted by the Facebook page “Smoove Element” in February 2016. As noted on an earlier page involving similar claims: Children can and do develop severe cases of diaper rash and symptoms resembling chemical burns for a variety of reasons independent of what type or brand of diaper they use. To assume that an observed rash or burn in a diaper-wearing toddler must be directly and solely related to the brand of diaper worn without reproducible confirmatory evidence is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. As well, to believe that a particular brand of disposable diaper poses a general danger of severely burning children in its ordinary use requires the additional beliefs that major companies who have been in the disposable diaper business for many years have suddenly unleashed new varieties of those products on the market without conducting the minimal testing necessary to uncover such issues, that the source of the reported hazard is obvious despite the fact that in-depth testing by government regulatory issues can’t uncover it, and that this looming danger threatens all children who wear a particular brand of disposable diaper even though only a relative handful of the millions of consumers who use the brand have reported such issues. A much more logical belief is that such cases, while real, are coincidental or only indirectly related to the brand of diaper used. Children may receive rashes and burns from other external sources unknown to their parents, such as exposure to caustic substances. Children may experience severe allergic reactions to something they’ve been exposed to (inside or outsider of their diapers). Children may develop cases of diaper rash so severe that they resemble chemical burns just as a matter of course and not because of the brand of diaper they’re wearing. Other contributory factors may also come into play that produce rash or burn-like effects in only a small number of cases, such as unrealized interactions with other household products (e.g., bleaches or cleaning agents), the content of a child’s excretions, children being left with unchanged diapers for far too long, or children experiencing some other type of medical issue that creates or exacerbates symptoms. Likewise, confirmation bias is strong in such cases. People report and pay attention to only those cases that fit the suspected pattern, while ignoring cases of parents who report the same symptoms even though their children don’t wear the identified type or brand of diapers, or parents who use the identified type or brand of diaper with no problems.


An audio tape captures VP candidate Tim Kaine yelling at his mistress.

Explanation: This is the second time that a piece of famous audio has recirculated with Tim Kaine’s name attached to it. On 13 October 2016, audio of Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter was shared as if it featured the voice of Kaine.

Politics Politicians, election 2016, mel gibson, Tim Kaine

On 29 October 2016, the Twitter account @OMFG_America published an audio recording of a man yelling at a woman along with the claim that it featured Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine and an unnamed mistress: DEVELOPING: New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of threats, verbal abuse. h/t @JerseyJ0E pic.twitter.com/Pd8Ltsol2x — OMFG’ngton SHITPOST (@OMFG_America) October 29, 2016  Tim Kaine is not the man speaking in this audio recording. The dialogue was taken from an infamous recording of actor Mel Gibson yelling at his former girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, which was first made public in 2010. It should also be noted that Tom Kaine has not been accused of having a mistress or of verbally abusing a woman. This Twitter account launched a baseless accusation at Kaine and backed it up with an unrelated piece of audio.


Proposed legislation in Kentucky (HB 148) mandates women report whether they are pregnant or not every month.

Explanation: Will a Kentucky Bill Mandate That Women Confirm Whether They’re Pregnant Every Month?

In May 2019, links to and screenshots of Kentucky HB 148 began circulating on social media, often alongside posts baffled about the bill’s purported provisions mandating that women in the state “shall acquire a signed and notarized statement from a practitioner licensed pursuant to this chapter each month that states whether she is pregnant or not pregnant”:Circulating alongside many of the posts was a link to a document [PDF] on the website for Kentucky’s legislature, appearing to represent a piece of proposed legislation. Marked with “Unofficial Document” at the top, it read:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT FORM 2019 REGULAR SESSION Amend printed copy of HB 148/HCS 1On page 3, between lines 3 and 4, by inserting the following: “SECTION 2. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 311 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: All women who are Kentucky residents, and of child bearing age, shall acquire a signed and notarized statement from a practitioner licensed pursuant to this chapter each month that states whether she is pregnant or not pregnant. If pregnant, the signed and notarized statement shall provide the status of the pregnancy. The woman shall submit the signed and notarized statement to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services each month. Any woman who fails to provide this monthly signed and notarized statement to the cabinet shall be subject to arrest and fines. Any woman who is pregnant and fails to provide this monthly signed and notarized statement to the cabinet will be fitted with an ankle monitor for the duration of the pregnancy in addition to any arrest and fines.”; and Renumber subsequent section accordingly[. ]The document as it appeared on the Kentucky legislature’s site led many who clicked through to the page to believe it was sincere, authentic legislation. The manner in which it was worded suggested that the “pregnant/not pregnant” proposal was an amendment to separate legislation, but most sharers just shared screenshots and links to that page.Rep. Mary Lou Marzian was listed as the amendment’s sponsor. In February 2019, Spectrum News 1 Louisville reported on it in an article headlined “Rep. Marzian files protest amendment that calls for a pregnant women registry.” That story noted that the amendment was to HB 148, a bill that would ban abortion in Kentucky in the event that Roe v. Wade was overturned.The amendment to the bill satirically proposed what was essentially a place for pregnant women to register:Fed up with men trying to control women’s’ bodies, Representative Mary Lou Marzian is filing a floor amendment to Representative Joe Fischer’s abortion bill.Fischer’s bill, HB 148, would ban all abortion in the Commonwealth should Roe v. Wade be overturned.Marzian’s amendment says all women of childbearing age must get a notarized statement from the doctor monthly, stating if they are pregnant or not. Any woman who doesn’t give that paper to the Cabinet of Heath and Family services can be fined or arrested. If CHFS finds a pregnant woman doesn’t turn in her paper, she is to be fitted with an ankle monitor for her pregnancy.The amendment was filed in jest, but the Democrat from Louisville says the thought behind it is real.Marzian said, “I’m filing an amendment number one, because it’s such hypocrisy, and number two, to demonstrate; if they want government in your life, which a lot of these folks say we want less government, then we’ll have it in your life…”Kentucky’s HB 148 was a legitimate bill which would trigger a statewide ban on abortion in the event that the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. In protest of that bill, Marzian filed an amendment requiring women to report each month whether they were pregnant or not pregnant. Marzian’s bill was never intended to be sincere, but was rather borne of frustration with legislation to ban abortion in Kentucky. HB 148, the original bill, was signed into law by Kentucky’s governor in March 2019. Marzian’s amendment was not included in the final version.


South African union takes government to court over COVID-19 gear shortage.

Explanation: South Africa’s main health workers’ union planned to challenge the government in court on Tuesday over shortages of protective gear for frontline staff as the country braced for a surge in new coronavirus cases.

Under a strict 21-day lockdown imposed from March 27 in a bid to contain the outbreak, South Africa has 1,749 confirmed cases, the continent’s highest number, and 13 deaths. “The risk of employees being infected with the COVID-19 virus is real,” Zola Saphetha, general secretary of the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (NEHAWU), said in court papers. COVID-19 is the potentially lethal respiratory illness caused by the novel coronavirus. A health ministry spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, but Health Minister Zweli Mkhize said on Tuesday that the country as a whole had not run out of protective equipment. He encouraged health workers to point out where there were shortages so the government could move stocks around and said no one would be forced to work if they didn’t feel adequately protected. Many doctors are buying their own protective gear in a desperate bid to ward off infection. Officials in the worst-hit Gauteng province appealed over the weekend for public donations of ventilators and vital masks and gloves. The union wants the ministers of health and labour, among others, to establish rules on treatment in the absence of appropriate protective equipment. “The failure to provide guidelines to mitigate the risk to employees in the circumstances unjustifiably and without valid reason places employees at great risk and violates their right to work in a safe environment,” the affidavit said. The union expressed outrage last week that several of its members had contracted the coronavirus at a hospital in KwaZulu-Natal province. Mkhize said on Tuesday that around 48 staff members at the hospital had now tested positive and that provincial officials were discussing closing down parts of the facility. Unions exert great power in South Africa. NEHAWU’s quarter of a million members are part of a group of unions that are in a  alliance with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party. “We don’t have an unlimited reserve of doctors and nurses, and we know the case numbers are going to rise,” Angelique Coetzee, chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, which represents some 16,000 doctors, told Reuters. A global scarcity of personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves, for nurses, doctors, porters and other health workers is a big obstacle to attempts to curb death tolls, elsewhere in Africa and on other continents. In Zimbabwe, where health workers had been striking over pay and working conditions before COVID-19 arrived, doctors have also gone to court to force the government to provide equipment, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights said on Monday. The court has not yet set a date for a hearing.


What I have done -- and this is unprecedented ... is I've said to each agency ... 'look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.'

Explanation: Ever since Godzilla first rampaged across cinema screens 65 years ago, film critics have seen the reptilian anti-hero as a symbol of the fears gnawing away in the deepest recesses of movie-goers’ minds.

National, Government Regulation, Regulation, Barack Obama,

With the giant lizard’s return in Godzilla: King of the Monsters, launched in cinemas at the weekend, reviewers are parsing the blockbuster for insights into the world’s paralysis in the face of climate breakdown. “It would be a mistake to dismiss Godzilla: King of the Monsters as mindless pap or escapist fantasy,” wrote anthropologist Nathaniel J. Dominy and biologist Ryan Calsbeek, both from Dartmouth, in the journal Science. “What began as a pointed anti-nuclear fable has since evolved into a broader allegory for human folly and our reckless disregard for the natural environment.”  Godzilla earned its reputation as a bellwether of collective anxiety soon after Japanese director Ishiro Honda first depicted the dinosaur-like creature in his 1954 film ‘Gojira’ — a nickname derived from the Japanese words for gorilla and whale. In Honda’s film, a radioactive, 50-metre tall Godzilla lays waste to Tokyo after being  awakened from the deep by underwater nuclear tests. Released barely a decade after atom bombs obliterated Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the film was a tacit reflection of Japan’s shared wartime trauma. In King of the Monsters, directed by Michael Dougherty, an embittered former British army colonel, played by Charles Dance, believes modern civilization is on track to wipe out all life on the planet. The colonel and his paramilitary team go on a mission to release gargantuan mutant ‘Titans’ from their resting places to try to tip the scales back into Earth’s favor. No longer the enemy who once delighted in toppling Japanese skyscrapers, Godzilla is cast as an unlikely eco-warrior battling to defeat the Titan menace — led by the three-headed King Ghidorah — and save humanity from itself. Film critics say the devastating elemental forces unleashed by the Titans in the 35th Godzilla film hold up a mirror to real-world fears of wildfires, super-storms and floods caused by growing man-made instability in Earth’s atmosphere. “Dougherty’s film recalls America’s present-day anxieties over increasingly intense weather patterns tearing across the country from coast to coast,” culture writer Andy Crump observed in a review in The Week. Although post-apocalyptic climate scenarios have been a staple of the ‘cli-fi’ genre for years — notable examples include The Day After Tomorrow and Mad Max: Fury Road — Godzilla has returned against a uniquely febrile backdrop. With hundreds of thousands of teen climate activists marching in cities across the world, and Extinction Rebellion bringing parts of London to a standstill in April, a new awareness of the crisis is seeping into mainstream culture. While nobody pretends that a movie can directly deliver cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, fiction can serve as a vehicle to help communities face up to crises that might otherwise seem too overwhelming to contemplate. “We need to engage with the reality of climate change in order to deal with it,” said Caroline Hickman, a psychotherapist who lectures at the University of Bath in southwest England, and is a member of the Climate Psychology Alliance. “The monster gives us a metaphor, a narrative through which we can do that.”  While the new Godzilla film has been panned in some quarters, Zhiwa Woodbury, author of a book on the psychology of the climate emergency, sees King of the Monsters as Hollywood’s most profound ‘cli-fi’ contribution to date. By including a sequence where Godzilla is once more roused by an undersea nuclear blast, Woodbury says the film is asking audiences to heal the rupture in mankind’s relationship with the natural world that occurred at the dawn of the atomic age. “Godzilla is spot-on in asking us to face our inner demons,” Woodbury wrote on his EcoPsychology NOW! blog. “Only then can we hope to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the petrochemical age, and regenerate our world on a path of climate recovery.”


A message said to be from an Iowa Army National Guardsman named Ray Reynolds who is serving in Iraq. It lists a number of improvements in Iraq since the U.S. led incursion in 2003.

Explanation: Good things in Iraq not being reported

This message began circulating on the Internet in April, 2004. It’s a passionate email from a soldier serving in Iraq about some of the good things that are happening as a result of the U.S.-led incursion. We checked into each one of his statements and some were accurate, some were not. Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations  But his figure is low! According to a UNICEF report at the end of 2003, more than 3 1/2 million children had been immunized. School Attendance is up 80% Again, according to an April, 2004 report from UNICEF, school attendance in Iraq increased by 60 percent shortly after the war to more than 95 percent during the recent national exam week. More than 1,500 schools renovated UNICEF says that as of April, 2004, more than 2,500 schools have been renovated with the goal of 4,000 being completed by the end of the year, but 10,000 more need repair. The Port of Uhm Qasar [sic] renovated so grain can be offloaded faster In a November, 2003 interview on National Public Radio, Andrew Natsios of the U.S. Agency for International Development said that the port at Umm Qasar, Iraq’s largest, is modern and functioning for the first time in 20 years. Iraqi oil reached 2 billion barrels exported in August of 2003 Iraq sits on the second largest proven crude oil reserves in the world and the flow of oil resumed in August, 2003 amid equipment that needed repair and suffered from looting and attacks from saboteurs. The initial flow in August, 2003, was 500,000 barrels per day, according to the BBC. Iraqi oil is subject to the ups and downs of the crude oil market but in April, 2003, more than 2 million barrels a day were being produced, but that has not accumulated to 2 billion. Clean drinking water for the first time for than 4.5 million Iraqis According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, safe drinking water was not widespread in Iraq before the U.S. led coalition invaded Iraq but that was partly because of water treatment systems that were in disrepair or had been looted. In other words, clean water is not new to Iraq. We couldn’t find any figures that indicated how many would be receiving clean water for the first time. In December, 2003, USAID was on track to provide clean water to more than 14 million Iraqis. Iraq has twice the electrical power than before the war USAID says power was restored in October, 2003 to slightly more than pre-war levels, or more than 4500 MW as opposed to about 4400 MW prior to the war. The goal was to reach 6000 MW by the summer of 2004. All of the hospitals operating Because of disrepair and looting, it took a lot of work to get hospitals back up to speed but according to James Haverman, the Coalition Provisional Authority Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics were operating as of December, 2003. Elections taking place in all major cities This has been a source of contention in Iraq. In June of 2003 U.S. authorities called halts to local elections across Iraq and chose to put hand-chosen mayors or administrators into office. There have been various local elections since that time and debate over whether Iraq is ready for national elections. According to the Army New Service, there were three truly democratic elections by the end of 2003 in the cities of Tallafar, Zumar and Al-Eyaldia in northern Iraq. Sewer and water lines installed in every major city  We’re not sure about all the major cities, but according to USAID, the water and sewage in Iraq has been suffering from years of neglect, electricity shortages, and post-war looting. Work is underway to restore healthy water and sewage treatment to more than 14-million Iraqis. More than 60,000 police in the streets, more than 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police securing the country, and 80,000 Iraqi soldiers patrolling the streets with the U.S. soldiers All accounts regarding the Iraqi police say that the goal is to have 35,000 to 50,000 trained and in place by 2005 or 2006, according to the U.S. State Department. The first class of more than 400 police offers graduated in January, 2004. The Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) is composed of Iraqis who remain citizens, as opposed to serving full time in the military, and are integrated into the coalition military units. The internal defense of the country is in their hands and they are led by the coalition. According to There were about 25,000 hired and trained by February, 2004. The first Iraqi Army battalion of 700 soldiers graduated in October of 2003. By February of 2004, 3,500 had been recruited, about 2000 of those being operational. Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever  We’ve not found any statistics regarding how many new customers there will be for telephones. Most of the work in Iraq has been to restore telephone communications that were lost because of damage from the war. An interim constitution has been signed On March 8, 2004, an interim constitution that defines Iraq as being “federal, democratic and pluralist” was signed by members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Girls are allowed to attend school A quick read of Sgt. Reynolds’ report would leave the impression that Iraqi girls are able to attend school for the first time because of the invasion. According to Human Rights Watch, Iraqi girls and women have enjoyed comparatively more rights than in some of the other countries of the Middle East. The Iraqi Constitution of 1970 included women’s rights for voting, attending school, owning property, and running for office. Still, the status of women in Iraq has not always been the best because of other cultural and economic factors such as the aftermath of the 1991 war and economic sanctions. School attendance for girls has not been prohibited although more boys than girls have been enrolled, especially in rural areas. Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs Not only are U.S. soldiers demonstrating field sanitation and hand washing, but UNICEF is conducting an active health education program to improve personal hygiene and promote more hand washing. Textbooks that don’t mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years According to published reports, a team of U.S. appointed Iraqi educators combed through more than 500 Iraqi textbooks and removed every mention of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party including pictures. The texts will probably be revised by the Iraqis at some point in the future, but the pre-war texts were dominated with Saddam Hussein. Last updated 4/24/04 Comments


Science Says: Too early for forecast on Lyme disease ticks.

Explanation: Tick populations are exploding? Tick-borne diseases are on the rise?

Animals, Health, Ticks, Science Says, Lyme disease, New York, Science, U.S. News

Some recent headlines suggest Americans are facing a particularly bad year for tick bites and illnesses, but the evidence is patchy and the science complicated. What may be true in one part of the country — or even one part of a county — may not be true in another. And there are signs that the most common tick-borne illness — Lyme disease — may be occurring at roughly usual levels. Here’s a look at the tick situation: THE HAZARD Ticks are small, bloodsucking parasites that feed on animals but will bite people, too. Some are infected with germs that can cause illness, and they spread those germs when they bite. For people, the main worry is blacklegged ticks, which can spread Lyme disease and other illnesses. Nearly 30,000 cases of Lyme disease are reported to the federal government each year, but experts think it’s underreported and the actual number may be more like 300,000. Blacklegged ticks — also called deer ticks — were once found mainly in New England and pockets of the Midwest, but in recent years have been seen over a wider range . When infected ticks bite, a “bulls’-eye” rash can appear a few days later. It can be followed by severe headaches, neck stiffness and pain in the joints or other parts of the body. People usually recover quickly and completely when treated with antibiotics in the disease’s early stages. Not all blacklegged ticks are infected. Typically about half of the adult ticks that come in for testing at a University of Massachusetts lab carry the bacteria, and that’s about what the lab is seeing again this year, said Stephen Rich. He runs a project that tests around 10,000 ticks each year sent in by people who were bitten. THE OUTLOOK U.S. health officials refuse to make predictions about ticks and tick diseases, and say it’s hard to even know how bad things are. There are monitoring projects in some states, or some parts of states, but there’s not any comprehensive data to give a clear picture of what’s happening nationally, noted Rebecca Eisen, a tick expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Concern about blacklegged ticks recently amped up, largely because of a prediction made by Richard Ostfeld of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, north of New York City. Ostfeld, a respected tick researcher, says blacklegged tick populations can explode based on a boom-and-bust cycle of acorns and white-footed mice, which ticks like to feed on. He says conditions over the last two years bode for a boom this year in the Northeast. But he acknowledges “it’s too early to tell just how bad a year it is.” Thomas Mather, a University of Rhode Island researcher who’s considered a pro at surveying for ticks, hasn’t seen a jump in the blacklegged variety. Even if blacklegged ticks are up this year, a change in conditions — like a dry heat wave — could knock the population way down, he added. OTHER TICKS Other kinds of ticks can cause other diseases and health problems. Perhaps the most unusual is caused by the Lone Star tick, which — despite its Texas-sounding name, is found mainly in the Southeast. Several years ago, doctors began noticing a sudden increase in meat allergies in people bitten by Lone Star ticks. Researchers concluded that the bloodsuckers are carrying a sugar humans don’t have, which can trigger the bizarre immune system reaction that makes them react to red meat. Blacklegged ticks also spread other infections including the rare Powassan virus. Only 75 cases were reported across the nation in the last decade, but more doctors are looking for it and other tick illnesses and that may affect future counts, experts said. To protect against ticks, learn what kinds are common where you live. Avoid high grass. Use EPA-registered repellent. And check yourself and your children for ticks daily. “It only takes one tick to make you sick,” said Rich. ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


House Republicans required the use of Styrofoam cups in House cafeterias that are "part of Koch Industries.

Explanation: Rep. Moran says GOP requires use of cups in House cafeterias made by Koch Industries

At a recent Democrat-sponsored rally to end "corporate dominance of our Democracy" at George Mason University, Rep. Jim Moran, D-8th, used Styrofoam to make a point. Lecturing on what he sees as the growing influence of corporations, Moran suggested a link between between the billionaire Koch brothers of Kansas -- the influential conservative owners of Koch Industries -- and a recent preference for Styrofoam in House of Representatives cafeterias. "As soon as the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, they threw out all of the biodegradable utensils we were using in the cafeterias and they required us to buy Styrofoam cups and plates and so on that are manufactured by Dixie, and, in fact, this is part of Koch Industries," he said. Moran added: "The CEO was one of the partners of Koch Industries that is now benefiting from what we have to buy because we’re basically a captive audience in the House of Representatives." That sounds like a conspiracy theory worthy of an Oliver Stone movie. But a PolitiFact check is the best we can offer. We asked Moran’s press secretary where the congressman came up with his information. She didn’t get back to us. Moran’s initial statement begs two questions: 1) Did GOP leaders require the government to buy Styrofoam products from Dixie; and if so, 2) does Koch Industries benefit from that decision? Now for the answers. When Republicans took control of the House in January, House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., suspended the chamber’s composting program, part of the "Green the Capitol" initiative launched by former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The program -- which required use of biodegradable corn-based cups, dishes and utensils in the cafeteria -- was costing $475,000 a year to run and a review revealed that it had increased the House’s overall energy consumption, Lungren said. Democrats were quick to pounce on the decision as environmentally unfriendly, even though the move had been recommended by outgoing Administration Committee Chairman Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, in December. The decision did in fact lead to a move to Styrofoam. Beyond that piece of truth, however, Moran’s claim runs into serious problems. First, Republicans didn’t make the decision to go to Styrofoam, much less to a Koch-related company. Instead, Restaurant Associates, a company that manages the cafeterias, was given discretion to do what they wanted. "We just said, `Look, you don’t have to use compostable -- it’s not working. It’s increasing our energy, it’s not reducing our carbon emissions, and it’s costing a half a million dollars a year,’" said Salley Wood, spokeswoman for the House Administration Committee. "Of course, they’re going to go to the most cost-effective" products, she said. They went with WinCup, which makes Styrofoam products. And while Dixie is a brand under Georgia-Pacific, owned by Koch Industries, WinCup has no affiliation whatsoever with Dixie apart from the fact that its owner, George Wurtz, years ago served as executive vice president at Georgia-Pacific, which was acquired by Koch Industries in 2005, a year before he left. "Restaurant Associates is not currently using Dixie products," said Dan Weiser, a spokesman for the House chief administrative officer. So let’s look back. Moran claims that upon taking the House, Republicans "required" a move to Styrofoam products made by Dixie, a brand under the Koch Industries umbrella. Problem is, he’s wrong about everything. The vendor, not House Republicans, decided to move to Styrofoam as a cost consideration after the composting program was discontinued for its ineffectiveness and high costs. And even that decision was based on a recommendation by Democrats. Next, the company the vendor chose, WinCup, is not at all related to Dixie or Koch Industries, and is in fact a competitor. The fact that the man who owns WinCup once worked for a company that was bought by Koch Industries is irrelevant. Moran must have been wearing a tin foil hat on the day he came up with this one. !


Tesla CEO says bought ventilators in China for U.S.

Explanation: Tesla bought hospital ventilators in China and shipped them to the United States, CEO Elon Musk said on Tuesday.

Tesla’s purchase comes as governments across the globe appeal to automakers and aerospace companies help procure or make ventilators and other medical equipment. “China had an oversupply, so we bought 1255 FDA-approved ResMed, Philips & Medtronic ventilators on Friday night & airshipped them to LA,” Musk said on Twitter. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday said the state would receive 1,000 ventilators from Tesla as the United States braces to deal with an influx of patients infected by the coronavirus. Authorities are hoping large-scale manufacturers can use their low-cost supply chains and digital design expertise, including 3D printing, and repurpose some factories in order to make up the expected shortfall in vital medical hardware. Carmakers have cautioned that assembling delicate medical equipment to standards adequate for use in hospital intensive care units remains a challenge.


“The mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.”

Explanation: This news broadcast gave no evidence of its claim about errant mainstream media reporting. Our review of state and national articles about the election found no references to a “surge” or anything close to that. Reports accurately listed the number of cases potentially related to the election and the caveat that we can’t know the origin of those cases for sure. The conspiracy implied by the use of “pretended” makes this even more ridiculous, since there isn’t proof any reporting was wrong in the first place.

Elections, Fake news, Wisconsin, Coronavirus, One America News,

A far-right news broadcast shared widely on Facebook says the "mainstream media" is misleading people about Wisconsin’s mid-pandemic election. The election has remained a hot topic nationally, as it was effectively a study in what can happen when a large number of people go out in public together amid a lockdown order. It’s a unique datapoint as politicians and citizens alike argue over how and when to re-open. And one TV outlet says you’re being lied to about it. On the One America News Network, host Liz Wheeler described it this way in a May 8, 2020, clip labeled online as "What the (mainstream media) was afraid to tell you": "There is no evidence to date that there was a surge of infections due to the April 7, 2020, election in Wisconsin. … But did the mainstream media report on this? No, no," she said. "In fact, the mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Wheeler is right about there being no evidence of a surge. We’ve repeatedly debunked claims that there was one. But her generalization about "mainstream media" claiming otherwise? That’s ridiculous. Let’s take a closer look at how this topic has been covered by prominent media outlets. For starters, let’s be clear that there was no election "surge." As of May 11, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services identified 71 people who tested positive for COVID-19 after voting or working the polls in the April 7 election, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt. The important caveat here is that it’s impossible to say how many were infected at the polls since some reported other possible exposures. The 71 tally runs from April 9 to 21, when the two-week incubation period for the coronavirus would have ended. There were 1,864 positive tests in that span in Wisconsin, so the cases known to intersect with election activity accounted for less than 4% of that total. Now on to the "mainstream media" reports. Wheeler’s report cites no sources for the claim the media said there was a surge in cases, so we cast a wide net looking at news coverage ourselves. CNN — a favorite target for far-right claims of media bias — reported on April 22 about what was then 19 cases in people who voted or worked the polls. The third and fourth paragraphs of the story detail the caveat that those people had other exposures, so it’s impossible to say the election was the source. ABC News published a similar report April 21, prominently noting the same caveat in the second paragraph. The Associated Press, reporting on updated data April 29, said 50 people connected to the election had tested positive. It noted the origin caveat in the second paragraph. Like the CNN and ABC reports the week before, it contained no hyperbolic language calling this a surge or anything close to that. In-state sources were even more clear. An April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was headlined, "Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions." A Wisconsin State Journal report on April 23 worked the "can’t say for certain" caveat into the lead sentence. It did the same for a May 8 story when the tally had grown to 67. And a fact-check published by both PolitiFact Wisconsin and USA TODAY rated False a claim from a little-known news outlet that there had been a "surge" in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin after the election. Here’s what that fact check said about the sloppily-reported claim from SecondNexus.com: "The data the article cited failed to factor in a drop in the number of tests administered. It wrongly treated an unusually low number of cases on April 13 as a baseline against which to compare the following days’ new cases. The increase cited was in fact connected to an increased number of tests in the following days." Both the article and the tweet it was based on were removed after that fact-check published. We won’t bother to dive deeper into Wheeler’s "pretended" claim. That adds another layer of absurdity since it implies some kind of intentional coverup or falsehood, when there’s no proof the coverage was wrong in the first place. The One America News Network claimed in a video posted to Facebook that "mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting." We didn’t find a single traditional or "mainstream" news outlet that characterized the election-related cases as a surge or anything close to that — much less anything that would support this kind of sweeping generalization. The reports prominently noted the caveat that officials can’t say for certain that the election caused the cases we are aware of, and they had made no exaggerated claims about how large those numbers were. (And, to be clear, the 71 cases certainly don’t constitute a surge.) So Wheeler is flat wrong in both her claim about coverage and the related implication from the use of "pretended" that something was reported wrong intentionally. We rate this .


Television viewers can drastically lower the TV ratings for Donald Trump's inauguration by changing the channel.

Explanation: As Nielsen’s data is largely drawn from “Nielsen families,” a non-Nielsen family member’s individual viewing (or lack thereof) of Donald Trump’s inauguration would have virtually no impact on the event’s overall television ratings.

Entertainment, donald trump, inauguration, tv ratings

A “call-to-action” message that urged television viewers to watch anything other than Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2017 in an attempt to lower the event’s TV ratings (and thus strike a blow to the President-elect’s ego) was widely circulated on Facebook: However, a boycott scheme similar to the described above would likely not be very effective regardless if whether viewers had their televisions turned on, off, or changed to something other than Inauguration Day news coverage. The largest stumbling block to this plan is the assumption that each individual’s personal viewership affects a given television program’s ratings. This simply isn’t the case — unless, of course, that individual is a member of a “Nielsen family.” The Nielsen Company gathers data to determine the ratings of television programs, and while the company employs a variety of methods to collect their data (especially in this relatively new age of Internet streaming), the most common method is via Nielsen families: Chosen at random through proven methodology, Nielsen’s U.S. TV families represent a cross-section of representative homes throughout the country. We measure viewing using our national and local people meters, which capture information about what’s being viewed and when, and in the major U.S. markets, specifically who and how many people are watching. We also have TV set meters in many local markets, and we collect more than two million paper diaries from audiences across the country each year during “sweeps” — specific periods during the months of February, May, July and November. To measure video content viewed on mobile devices, we have expanded our panels to incorporate census-style data from third parties in order to capture the breadth and depth of consumer usage. Nielsen households are randomly selected as a representative sample of the TV-viewing population of the United States: “It’s a very select few,” explains Jon Gibs, Nielsen’s senior vice president for analytics and insights. “The reason these people are picked is because they are representative of a broader population.” The company goes to great lengths to make sure that each household chosen to be among the 25,000 Nielsen households stands for a large number of other people. “We make sure that our TV households maintain what we’d consider sort of normal behavior,” and people are warned against changing their viewing habits just to make a particular show popular. Since Nielsen uses these selected families to determine television ratings, the viewing habits of most people (who are not members of a Nielsen family) go largely unrecorded. Vulture reporter Margaret Lyons addressed this issue in a 2015 Q&A: (Q): Is there an effective way to support my favorite shows? I rarely watch the traditional way anymore, what with DVR, streaming, iTunes, and a public library with a good DVD collection. So when networks are looking at numbers to decide the fate of a show, what do they take into consideration? Tweets? Emails? Purchases? App views? Hulu? Amount of GIFs on Tumblr? Do we now live in a world where Firefly could have been saved? Does my vote “count”? —Annie (A): The short answer is no. And the long answer is nooooooooo, your TV vote doesn’t count in any meaningful way unless you’re a Nielsen family, in which case you affect ratings. And ratings are what count. The various fan ephemera does not have a big or clear impact on keep/cancel decisions. As of August 2016, there were about 40,000 Nielsen households, representing a total of 118.4 million TV-viewing households, in the United States. Steve Krakauer added more detail about how Nielsen ratings were determined in a 2015 post on Autonomous: The households are evenly distributed by population throughout the United States, and are roughly meant to be representative of the population as a whole. They also rotate occasionally. But let’s get back to that number. Maybe 50,000 households seems like a lot to you, but to put it in perspective, there are approximately 100 million households with a TV in the United States. That means even at the high estimate of 50,000 households, the number represents .05% of the households. That would be less than 1/10 of 1%. The ratings that you see — for cable news, for broadcast primetime shows, etc — are then extrapolated out from these Nielsen households. So in this scenario, each household represents 2,000 other households in approximating what the country is watching. Although Nielsen isn’t the only company that compiles TV ratings, they are the company that has the most influence over the purchase of television advertisements: “For 66 years, New York-based Nielsen has calculated viewership numbers. And since Arbitron Inc. got out of the TV ratings business in 1993, Nielsen has been pretty much the only player. Nielsen numbers have been arguably the sole basis on which local and national TV ad rates are calculated, using a ubiquitous cost-per-point formula.” It should also be noted that the way consumers watch television, and the way that Nielsen collects is data, has changed in recent years. For instance, the company inked a deal with DISH Network in April 2016 to incorporate DISH’s set-top boxes into its data. However, this deal was primarily focused on enhancing Nielsen’s data from small, local markets: The Dish info is “the first nationwide dataset to be integrated with our panel data, reaching the perfect balance of deep viewing characteristics and the granularity of large datasets,” says Nielsen’s COO Steve Hasker. “As the global leader in audience measurement, this is another step in our efforts to integrate big data into our portfolio and our Total Audience efforts.” Set top box data is especially helpful in small markets where the sample sizes for Nielsen’s surveys often are too small to give advertisers a clear sense of what niches of viewers watch. So it’s not surprising that Nielsen will begin by blending the Dish data into reports for all 210 markets in its its Local TV Measurement service. The ratings company also will use the results in other products including Nielsen Scarborough, Nielsen Data Fusion, and Nielsen Media Custom Insights.


Joe Biden "already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history.

Explanation: This is a complicated assertion to evaluate, because the nature of liberalism changes over time, making candidate-to-candidate comparisons difficult. If you compare Biden’s platform to an absolute concept of liberalism, it is the most progressive. Tracking shifts within his party, Biden has moved to the left compared with where Obama and some previous Democratic nominees stood. In his own time, though, Biden is hardly in his party’s ideological vanguard, at least compared with previous nominees such as George McGovern.

Candidate Biography, History, Barack Obama,

In his video endorsing Joe Biden for president, former President Barack Obama not only backed his former running mate but also offered an olive branch to supporters of Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who had challenged Biden from the left in this year’s primaries. In the April 14 video, Obama said: "You know, I could not be prouder of the incredible progress that we made together during my presidency, but if I were running today, I wouldn’t run the same race or have the same platform as I did in 2008. The world is different; there’s too much unfinished business for us to just look backwards. We have to look to the future. Bernie understands that, and Joe understands that. "It is one of the reasons that Joe already has what is the most progressive platform of any major-party nominee in history. Because even before the pandemic turned the world upside down, it was already clear that we needed real structural change. The vast inequalities created by the new economy are easier to see now, but they existed long before this pandemic hit." Is it accurate to say that Biden "already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history"? The topic is somewhat murky, and after interviewing presidential historians we came up with the somewhat unsatisfying answer of "yes and no." There is a plausible case for Biden as the most progressive Democratic nominee in history. Political scientists note that the Democratic Party as a whole has moved to the left in recent years. This is partly because of rising polarization between the parties. As conservative Democrats have increasingly left to become Republicans or independents, the remaining Democrats are clustered closer to the liberal end of the spectrum. Biden has heeded this leftward shift, just less aggressively than such primary rivals as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. On many issues during the 2020 primaries, such as gun policy, Biden’s positions were largely indistinguishable from those of his rivals. And on the issues where he did offer a more moderate vision than his Democratic primary opponents, such as health care and climate change, he still went further than Obama had during his presidency. On some issues, including health care, climate change and criminal justice reform, Biden has moved beyond Hillary Clinton in 2016. Biden backs some policies that few previous Democratic nominees would have considered backing. These include a $15 minimum wage, a study of reparations for slavery, two years free public college, ending new oil and gas leases on federal land and offshore, creation of a national firearm registry, and scrapping past marijuana convictions. (An exception is trade policy, where the Democratic mainstream has drifted in a more pro-trade direction in recent decades.) "Biden has moved steadily in a progressive direction," said Max J. Skidmore, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the author of Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review. These include promising to name a woman as his running mate and moving towards the Sanders and Warren positions on student debt and bankruptcy reform. Skidmore also cited Biden’s support for eliminating private prisons, abolishing the death penalty, and providing paid family and medical leave. Another way to look at it is how the nominees’ stances compare with those of their general-election opponent. Walter Mondale faced Ronald Reagan in 1984; Michael Dukakis faced George H.W. Bush in 1988; and John Kerry faced George W. Bush in 2004. Each of these Democratic nominees positioned himself sharply to the left of his general-election opponent, but the difference between Biden and Donald Trump is at least as large, particularly on such issues as immigration. While Biden is "less dramatically progressive" than some of his 2020 primary rivals, Skidmore said, Biden’s contrast with Trump "is absolutely dramatic. Does a Biden presidency promise to be more progressive than those of his predecessors? Yes — a resounding yes — in an absolute sense. He accepts, and would build on, all of their achievements, and add to them." That said, there are a couple factors that make it hard to compare one nominee with another on ideology. The first problem is that on a historical scale, the concept of a most progressive (or most liberal, or most left-leaning) nominee is a moving target. For instance, in 1948, the Democrats called for a national health program, "which would have been a more radical break with the status quo than what Biden is proposing, but in absolute terms would have landed to the right of where we are today," said H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas-Austin who has written books about Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. "That same 1948 platform called for eradicating all racial discrimination, which would have been a huge break with the Jim Crow system then in place. Nothing today could come close to that." Franklin D. Roosevelt (Wikimedia Commons) Another example: Two decades ago, support for same-sex marriage "was a very progressive idea, but today, it’s the law of the land, and few conservatives still challenge it," said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Claremont McKenna College political scientist. Any effort to determine the most liberal nominee is undercut by the reality that liberal goals that have already been accomplished can’t be accomplished again. Once Franklin Roosevelt enacted Social Security and once Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, future nominees had to move on to new policy goals. But just because virtually all politicians today support these programs today doesn’t mean that today’s politicians are as liberal today as Roosevelt and Johnson were in their day. David Greenberg, a Rutgers University historian and author of "Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency" and books about Calvin Coolidge and Richard Nixon, said Obama’s statement is "without much meaning or value." "It’s not meaningful to try to compare whether a set of proposals from 2020 is more or less progressive than proposals from 1960 or 1900 or 1800," Greenberg said. "In every era, the problems are different, the policy possibilities are different, and our understandings of what’s ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ are different." The second problem with Obama’s assertion is that nominees may be more liberal on some issues and more moderate on others. "Being progressive on class issues is different from being ‘woke’ on identity issues," said Jennifer Delton, a Skidmore College historian and author of "Rethinking the 1950s: How Anticommunism and the Cold War Made America Liberal." Indeed, candidates may choose to emphasize some parts of their agenda over others, changing how liberal or moderate they appear to be. Part of the candidate’s dance on these issues has to do with managing the differing demands of constituencies within the Democratic Party coalition. "As the Democratic Party has been moving leftward, Biden has been balancing between the pragmatic and idealistic left sides of his party," said Bert Rockman, an emeritus professor of political science at Purdue University who has written books assessing Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama. "It probably is true that this might well be the most progressive platform the Democrats have had, but that doesn’t mean that Biden will emphasize all of it." Where Obama’s assertion is on weaker ground is if you compare Biden’s platform not with an absolute measure of historical liberalism but in relation to his own party. Past nominees of both parties have taken positions more at odds with the mainstream of their own party than he has. In 1972, for instance, George McGovern won the nomination as an insurgent candidate whose policy positions were to the left of where many in the party stood. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs were on the outer edge of what some party figures would have advocated, Skidmore said. If the question is, "Is Biden pushing the envelope of what is possible?" then the answer is no, Delton said. "And most Democrats are fine with that," she said. There’s even a president who proposed such liberal initiatives as a guaranteed minimum income, controls on wages and prices, a more ambitious forerunner to the Affordable Care Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. "His name," Pitney said, "was Richard M. Nixon." Obama said that Biden "already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history." This is a complicated assertion to evaluate, because the nature of liberalism changes over time, making candidate-to-candidate comparisons difficult. But there’s evidence that both supports and undercuts Obama’s position. Obama is on the strongest ground if you compare Biden’s platform with an absolute concept of liberalism. Tracking ongoing shifts within his party, Biden has moved to the left compared with where Obama stood, and is further to the left than many prior Democratic nominees. Also, as more liberal policies are enacted, the next steps are necessarily more liberal. However, in his own time, Biden is hardly on his party’s ideological vanguard, unlike previous nominees such as McGovern. We rate Obama’s statement .