Childrens' YouTube, TikTok, Roblox, and Fortnite channels feature videos with deeply disturbing and violent messages.

Explanation: Violent, Disturbing Messages in Childrens’ Videos?

On February 12 2019, Facebook user Meridy Leeper shared an image purportedly of a drawing by her young child and the following message about suicidal ideation in small children apparently prompted by videos beneath parental radar on YouTube, TikTok, Roblox, and Fortnite — among other platforms:This is an exceptionally hard thing for me to post. I’ve thought long and hard about this. I’ve decided it’s way too important not to bring awareness to other parents. This is not up for criticism. I only want to let all parents know what to watch for….Kids youtube, roblox, fortnight… no matter how much you think you are monitoring your child.. notifications to what your child is watching. It doesn’t matter. My 7 year old child was taught how to attempt suicide by kids youtube and these games. She has expressed that she doesn’t feel neglected or unloved. Instead, she was constantly told to ‘go kill yourself’ by other gamers, by kids youtube. Shown HOW to.Sunday night, she had a full blown anxiety attack. Which I held her and sang to her while she got through it. Monday, she drew this in school.This is a VERY real danger! I NEVER thought I would find myself helping my SEVEN YEAR OLD CHILD through an anxiety attack. PLEASE, keep your children away from these things. I’m just so glad my child was able to express her feelings before she actually tried to harm herself. I never thought something as ‘innocent’ as kids youtube would have these subliminal messages. Again, I’m only sharing our experience in the hopes to prevent another child going through this.This claim appeared to be more than the usual social media panics. In March 2017, TheOutline.com was among news sites covering sinister and alarming videos embedded in content played for preschool children. In that report, the writer described coming across what she described as “off brand” Peppa Pig clips on YouTube:The video, titled “#Peppa #Pig #Dentist #Kids #Animation #Fantasy,” is completely horrifying. Though the animation sort of looks like an actual episode of Peppa Pig, it’s poorly done, and the narrative quickly veers into upsetting territory. Peppa goes to the dentist, who has a giant needle and a lot of scary tools. The pigs are mysteriously forest green rather than pink. Burglars appear to try to burgle.Peppa Pig is a show for preschoolers. Knock-off Peppa Pig is the stuff of nightmares.Later that month, BBC also covered a spate of videos that appeared to be for young children, but that harbored disturbing or frightening scenes packaged as wholesome content:Hundreds of these videos exist on YouTube, and some generate millions of views. One channel “Toys and Funny Kids Surprise Eggs” is one of the top 100 most watched YouTube accounts in the world – its videos have more than 5 billion views.Its landing page features a photo of a cute toddler alongside official-looking pictures of Peppa Pig, Thomas the Tank Engine, the Cookie Monster, Mickey and Minnie Mouse and Elsa from Frozen.But the videos on the channel have titles like “FROZEN ELSA HUGE SNOT”, “NAKED HULK LOSES HIS PANTS” and “BLOODY ELSA: Frozen Elsa’s Arm is Broken by Spiderman”. They feature animated violence and graphic toilet humour.In June 2018, the Guardian revisited the issue and widespread discussion of its effects on forums for parents:Parents reported that their children were encountering knock-off editions of their favourite cartoon characters in situations of violence and death: Peppa Pig drinking bleach, or Mickey Mouse being run over by a car. A brief Google of some of the terms mentioned in the article brought up not only many more accounts of inappropriate content, in Facebook posts, newsgroup threads, and other newspapers, but also disturbing accounts of their effects. Previously happy and well-adjusted children became frightened of the dark, prone to fits of crying, or displayed violent behaviour and talked about self-harm – all classic symptoms of abuse. But despite these reports, YouTube and its parent company, Google, had done little to address them. Moreover, there seemed to be little understanding of where these videos were coming from, how they were produced – or even why they existed in the first place. […]For adults, it’s the sheer weirdness of many of the videos that seems almost more disturbing than their violence. This is the part that’s harder to explain – and harder for people to understand – if you don’t immerse yourself in the videos, which I’d hardly recommend. Beyond the simple knock-offs and the provocations exists an entire class of nonsensical, algorithm-generated content; millions and millions of videos that serve merely to attract views and produce income, cobbled together from nursery rhymes, toy reviews, and cultural misunderstandings. Some seem to be the product of random title generators, others – so many others – involve real humans, including young children, distributed across the globe, acting out endlessly the insane demands of YouTube’s recommendation algorithms, even if it makes no sense, even if you have to debase yourself utterly to do it.The Guardian cited a 2017 New York Times investigation of the “dark corners” of content platforms for preschool and grade school children, which, like other accounts, began with a parent’s unexpected brush with violent and suggestive content:It was a typical night in Staci Burns’s house outside Fort Wayne, Ind. She was cooking dinner while her 3-year-old son, Isaac, watched videos on the YouTube Kids app on an iPad. Suddenly he cried out, “Mommy, the monster scares me!”When Ms. Burns walked over, Isaac was watching a video featuring crude renderings of the characters from “PAW Patrol,” a Nickelodeon show that is popular among preschoolers, screaming in a car. The vehicle hurtled into a light pole and burst into flames.The 10-minute clip, “PAW Patrol Babies Pretend to Die Suicide by Annabelle Hypnotized,” was a nightmarish imitation of an animated series in which a boy and a pack of rescue dogs protect their community from troubles like runaway kittens and rock slides. In the video Isaac watched, some characters died and one walked off a roof after being hypnotized by a likeness of a doll possessed by a demon. […]While the offending videos are a tiny fraction of YouTube Kids’ universe, they are another example of the potential for abuse on digital media platforms that rely on computer algorithms, rather than humans, to police the content that appears in front of people — in this case, very young people.As of late February 2019, that exact video is still up and appears to have been untouched by YouTube moderators. It can be viewed here.Amidst ongoing parental concern over “dark” and “violent” preschool videos, another rumor spread: that these videos are sparking violent or suicidal behavior in young people. It is similar to a 2016 rumor about Internet interest in the purported “Blue Whale” suicide game; that appeared to mostly involve teenagers, but those stories have unsettling commonalities involving violent ideation and suicide contagion.While individual anecdotes about their effects (such as the Facebook post quoted above) are not verifiable beyond doubt without more data, the existence of the described content is certainly documented, and it does not seem like a stretch to assume that children are imitating the behavior they see displayed by familiar, trusted characters. Platforms such as childrens’ YouTube, TikTok, Roblox, and Fortnite channels are aware that the videos appear, but they do not seem to have made any effort to stop those same videos from spreading. The claim is true — videos with sinister and suggestive content masquerading as popular preschool videos (like Peppa Pig and Paw Patrol) remain on children’s content streaming platforms.


Explanation: This Washington Post story reports the findings of a study that compared the efficacy of two classes of drugs available to treat cardiovascular disease (CVD) — angiotensin converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitors versus newer angiotensin receptor blockers, or ARBs. It involved a meta-analysis of more than 100 earlier studies monitoring more than a quarter-million patients who were at high risk for CVD. The results showed the two types of drugs to be equally effective with the major difference being a lower chance of side effects with the use of ARBs. With a bit more information on harms and a better grasp of the limitations of this study, the Post’s coverage is more solid than a competing HealthDay story that was based on a news release. But the story lacks voices other than that of the study’s lead author, and it doesn’t disclose the relationships that several of the authors have with the pharmaceutical industry. For patients with high blood pressure, there are numerous studies that demonstrate medications to lower blood pressure are associated with decreased rates of heart attacks, strokes and to a lesser extent, kidney failure. Given the number of different choices available from a range of classes of medications, how do patients and doctors decide on which to use? Here the comparison is between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). When considering which agent to use for a given patient, a physician generally considers the relative benefits, harms and costs of the different agents, as well as any patient factors that may lead one class of agents to have particular advantages or limitations (for example, if the patient already has a high potassium level, use of either an ACEI or ARB may be problematic since they both raise potassium levels further). The current study seeks to address mainly the relative benefits of these two classes of medicines and glosses over harms and costs while not even mentioning patient-level factors. In terms of the benefits, the authors suggest that initial studies comparing ACEIs and ARBs were biased by the times in which the original studies used to justify approval were performed. Specifically, the older ACEIs studies came at a time when lifestyle and other medication options were more limited than the following decades when ARBs were studied. It is difficult to confirm or refute this assumption, but studies of these classes in a more comparable time frame would decrease bias associated with temporal trends. The current study adds evidence that these two classes are similar, but this isn’t really dramatically new information. Indeed, many guidelines suggest ACEIs or ARBs as being equivalent. The advantage of ARBs is better tolerability, as mentioned in this article, but the disadvantage remains cost. Though the article provides one line saying that with more generics available for ARBs, the cost difference has diminished, but even the cost of generics appear higher for ARBs than ACEIs. Thus, for many clinicians even an increased recognition of similar benefits may not lead to much change in practice given differences in costs

While the story could have been a bit more specific, it gets points for stating that most ACE inhibitor drugs, and many ARB drugs, are now available in generic form, which means the cost for the medications would usually be considerably less than their comparative name-brand compounds. We’ll rate this Satisfactory, but we’d add that though more ARBs are generically available, this class of medications continues to be more expensive than ACEIs. For patients struggling to meet the cost of their medications, this is a major consideration, and important information for any news story. The story points out that the two classes of drugs prescribed for cardiovascular disease are mostly equally effective. It also points out that the main difference lies with the fact that patients report that ARBs are linked to fewer unpleasant side effects, compared to ACE inhibitors. And since patients are usually kept on the drugs for long periods of time, if not indefinitely, that information is important to readers. But the story never says what outcomes exactly we’re talking about here — deaths, heart attacks, blood pressure? Nor does it say how effective these medications were at improving these outcomes — merely that they are equivalent. We think both of these issues should have been addressed in order to earn a Satisfactory rating here. The story does point to the greater occurrence of a dry cough as a result of taking ACE inhibitors compared to taking ARBs but a quick web search for both drug types shows a much larger list of possible side effects including dizziness, headaches, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, weakness, and skin rash, as well as increased potassium levels and possible sexual dysfunction. A similar omission is present in a HealthDay story that explained the same research. Cough is the most common side effect of ACEI that is not generally seen with ARBs. The one other one is angioedema which is more common with ACEI. Otherwise studies show that other side effects are probably similar. This isn’t stated explicitly, but we’ll give the benefit of the doubt. The story is accurate in characterizing this research as a “second look,” or reanalysis of more than a hundred earlier studies comparing both classes of drugs with placebos and with each other since 2000. But while the story is cautious in saying that one class of drugs “may be as effective and safe” as the other, the headline is much more definitive, stating that “New class of blood pressure meds as effective as old, analysis shows.”  The story closes with a nod to limitations, stating that the study was limited to those who did not have heart failure, “and because it involved a retrospective analysis of trials it was unable to control for differences in the design or data gathering of the previous work.” The story does not appear to commit disease-mongering. The single quoted source in this story is the main author of the study and the story fails to mention that some authors have ties to major pharmaceutical firms which manufacture these kinds of drugs. While that linkage doesn’t mean the research is definitely biased, writers should disclose that information when available. Since the story involves the comparison of two classes of drugs for treating cardiovascular disease, there are obviously treatment options available. The story does point out that ACE inhibitor drugs have been available for decades and that ARBs have been available since the year 2000. The novelty here is simply that this meta-analysis is aimed at clarifying uncertainty surrounding the comparison of these two classes of drugs and their efficacy in treating cardiovascular disease. The prevalence of this condition within the population makes it a topic of broad interest, both among the public and among the professionals who treat them. It would be difficult to conclude that this story relied solely on a news release, given that it provided some facts not present in the NYU release. However, the story does not stray far from the information included in the release and could benefit from additional source information and comment. However, its similarity to the NYU news release is far less than that of a HealthDay story about the same research.


A California teen named Connor Reid Eckhardt was determined to have died after smoking a synthetic marijuana compound known as "spice" or K2.

Explanation: Eckhardt’s official cause of death (if any was determined) was not disclosed to the media, but his sudden death was not attributable to other common factors (such as detectable drug use or alcohol intoxication), and the teen was still carrying an envelope of spice when he was hospitalized.

Medical, connor reid eckhardt, K2, spice

On 16 August 2015 the Facebook page “Connor Reid Eckhardt” published the status and video embedded below, which was subsequently shared hundreds of thousands of times in one week alone. Example:     [Collected via e-mail and Facebook, August 2015] Just received a video from a friend. Her friend’s son has died from an overdose of a drugs shipped from China. That young man is Conor Reid Eckhardt. Checking to see if this legitimate. (function(d, s, id) {  var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];  if (d.getElementById(id)) return;  js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;  js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3";  fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); THIS IS SO IMPORTANT TO SHARE….THIS IS NOT A MOVIE!! OUR 19 YEAR OLD SON CONNOR IS NOT WAKING UP FROM THE SINGLE HIT OF “SPICE, K2,” HE TOOK. It has over 600 names. The credits are not going to roll. He is not going surfing this morning. He is GETTING “THAT HAIR CUT” we never wanted to give before he goes into surgery to donate 4 of his organs to SAVE FOUR OTHER LIVES. Connor died. Our son, our only son died from a legal high purchased at the corner market. No drugs or alcohol in his system. Most, not all legal highs are made in CHINA and sold to our youth. Millions are being affected by these legal highs. Please help us get the attention of presidential candidates. We must get this stopped. An entire generation of children and youth are at risk. Please get educated. The Connor Project Foundation is about Education, Awareness, and Prevention. Doit4connor. Do it for your kids and for your communities. Posted by Connor Reid Eckhardt on Sunday, August 16, 2015 The basic context of the clip is not in dispute. In July 2014, 19-year-old Connor Reid Eckhardt slipped into a coma and was declared brain dead after smoking a synthetic form of marijuana known as “spice” or K2. Reid’s father spoke to Los Angeles television station KTLA about Connor’s death in August 2014: On July 11, Connor Eckhardt inhaled one hit of dried herbs that had been sprayed with chemicals to cause a pot-like high, his parents said. “In a moment of peer pressure, he gave into that, thinking that was OK, it was somehow safe, and one hit later, he goes to sleep and never wakes up,” Connor’s father, Devin Eckhardt, said. On 9 August 2014, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy profile of a grieving vigil held by the Eckhardt family in the somber hours before Connor’s organs were harvested for donation. In that piece, the paper reported that neither spice (nor any other known drug compounds) had been found in Eckhardt’s system: At the hospital, tests did not detect spice in Connor’s system. The ever-changing components make it difficult for scientists to develop a standard way to trace it. But the hospital found no sign of other drugs. And he had the small, square packet of spice still in his pocket. As the above excerpt noted, spice’s uncertain (and variable) composition makes it nearly impossible to pinpoint as a culprit in incidents like the one that led to Eckhardt’s death. The wide-ranging nature of synthetic cannabinoids in circulation under the name “spice” was described in an 18 August 2015 article: When using Spice, “people sometimes develop moderate to severe adverse health consequences, including vomiting, muscle spasms, seizures, hallucinations, confusion, and suicidal thoughts. In some cases, Spice has been linked to heart attacks and deaths,” state epidemiologist Dr. Joe McLaughlin said. “At this point, the bulk of the medical transports have involved young adults; however, there have been many transports involving adolescents,” McLaughlin said. “Parents should warn their children about the dangers of using Spice and strongly instruct them to stay away from it.” Spice is typically made by spraying psychotropic compounds onto plant materials. It’s a cheap high that is difficult to regulate because manufacturers often switch ingredients as soon as a chemical compound is made illegal. Although Eckhardt’s adoptive father Devin suggested “peer pressure” was responsible for Connor’s possible experimentation with spice, the Los Angeles Times also reported that the teen had previously battled an addiction to heroin: By 18 he started looking for his birth parents, and plunged head-first into drugs. Last year, Connor went to a rehab program in Palm Springs to get off heroin. He had been sober since, his parents said. Mindy Hunt, 24, who met Connor in the program, recalled long hours they spent discussing the struggle to stay clean. She had smoked spice once; it made her heart beat so fast that she couldn’t stand up. Connor Reid Eckhardt died in July 2014, and his parents strongly believed the synthetic cannabinoid spice directly caused his death. But spice (or K2) is a substance about which little is known, and inconsistencies from batch to batch further obfuscate specific dangers associated with the substance. Since spice is hard to detect on any standard toxicology panel, its use may very well go unnoticed as a contributing factor in serious adverse incidents.


Rumors have circulated social media sites that aspartame, an artificial sweetener used in soft drinks and food, is made from the feces of genetically modified (GM)  E. coli bacteria.

Explanation: Aspartame Is Made from GM Bacteria Excrement

A patent that was filed in 1981 describes making aspartame from the excretions of genetically modified bacteria, but the claim that aspartame is made from GM E. coli poop today is misleading. Claims about aspartame being made from GM bacteria poop come from a European patent that was filed in 1981. The patent, which first became available online in 2013, outlines a process to make aspartame from the excretions of genetically modified bacteria, and E. coli bacteria in particular. But the idea that aspartame is made from GM E. coli poop over simplifies the complex process of making aspartame, which has changed steadily over the years. It also ignores the fact that bacteria exists at the cellular level and doesn’t have a digestive system, which means it doesn’t “poop.”  Instead, it excretes unneeded nutrients and byproducts through a cell wall. Aspartame was discovered as a low-calorie sugar substitute for soft drinks and food in the 1960s, and the process used to create it has been evolving ever since. According to Harvard University: The tumultuous history of the food additive aspartame began serendipitously thirty-five years ago. On the day that James M. Schlatter, a chemist, unintentionally discovered it, he was working on an anti-ulcer drug. As Mr. Schlatter mixed asparatic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally occurring amino acids that are the building blocks of protein, he stuck his finger in the mixture and for some reason decided to taste it. I licked my finger and it tasted good. He later recalled. And with that, a new, low-calorie sweetener was born. What has happened since that fateful day in 1965 comprises the additive’s struggle from birth to maturity; not unlike a human being moving from inception to adulthood, aspartame has overcome many hurdles and incited much controversy on its path to a somewhat more stable maturity. James Schlatter quickly filed a patent for the process in 1966. The FDA approved aspartame for use in various products from the 1970s and 1990s. Still, aspartame remains controversial, with many questioning its side effects. The 1981 European patent states that Schlatter’s peptide synthesis process was too costly and time-consuming. A “new” method described in the patent detailed “the introduction of foreign genetic material into microorganisms which then produce the protein or proteins for which such foreign genetic material codes.” The U.K.-based Independent reports that GM was needed to make the bacteria produce more phenylalanine, one of the two amino acids used to make aspartame: As the G8 summit of rich country leaders decided last night to launch an inquiry into the safety of genetically modified (GM) food, an investigation by the Independent on Sunday revealed that Monsanto, the pioneering GM food giant which makes aspartame, often uses genetically engineered bacteria to produce the sweetener at its US production plants. “We have two strains of bacteria — one is traditionally modified and one is genetically modified,” said one Monsanto source. “It’s got a modified enzyme. It has one amino acid different.” The use of genetic engineering to make aspartame has stayed secret until now because there is no modified DNA in the finished product. Monsanto insists that it is completely safe. A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering. But sweetener supplied to British food producers is not. However, consumer groups say it is likely that some low-calorie products containing genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain. That report was from 1999, and Monsanto sold its NutraSweet division (a brand name for aspartame) in 2000 and has not produced it since. Today, it’s generally accepted that aspartame is made using GM bacteria, but it’s not clear that it’s E. coli bacteria. Companies are notoriously tight-lipped about how they make food products, so there’s no way to know if some, all or none of the 1981 patent is still in use. We have reported this one as truth and misleading because it’s true that patent was filed to produce aspartame from the excretions of GMO bacteria, but the eRumor oversimplifies a complex process and assumes that the process hasn’t changed at all since 1981. Comments


Thirty-three Florida labs were busted for "cooking the books" or tampering with data after not reporting negative COVID-19 test results between March and July 2020.

Explanation: What's true: At least 45 COVID-19 testing laboratories in Florida failed to report negative test results between March and July 2020, thus inaccurate positive testing rates were recorded for those facilities. However, more than 300 Florida labs did report negative results in that time frame. What's undetermined: Although health officials said that all laboratories are required to report both positive and negative test results, testing facilities that Snopes spoke with said that among other discrepancies in reporting requirements, the Florida Department of Health did not previously require negative test results to be reported. Snopes did not find evidence that the omission of negative results data in a minority of Florida labs' reporting was intentional or nefarious.

In July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that Florida labs were intentionally tampering with data by failing to report negative COVID-19 test results, making the coronavirus pandemic appear much worse in the southern state. The claims followed an investigation conducted by Orlando affiliate station Fox 35, which analyzed COVID-19 testing and case data collected between March 16, 2020, when testing began, and July 13, 2020, by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). Of the hundreds of labs analyzed, many were shown to have reported very high positivity rates for COVID-19. The accusations of tampering came as many health officials and local leaders came under criticism for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic and testing responses. Snopes dug through the 49-page report line-by-line and found that at least 45 laboratories that tested for COVID-19 did not report negative test results between March and July 2020 and instead showed 100% positivity, while dozens of others reported 90% positivity and higher. More than 300 labs did report negative test results, clocking percentage rates much lower than 100%. The table below shows labs that tested 40 or more people and reported 100% positivity, and failed to report negative test results:  Public and private testing facilities are required to report their results to the DOH, which then releases a daily report covering surveillance data for every county in the state. DOH confirmed to Snopes that a number of testing labs did not report negative test results and issued the following statement in an email sent July 15, 2020: All COVID-19 cases are confirmed through diagnostic and antigen testing and then reported to the state by the labs performing the testing. Private and public laboratories are required to report positive and negative test results to the state immediately. In recent days, the Florida Department of Health noticed that some smaller, private labs weren’t reporting negative test result data to the state. The Department immediately began working with those labs to ensure that all results were being reported in order to provide comprehensive and transparent data. As the state continues to receive results from various labs, the Department will continue educating these labs on proper protocol for reporting COVID-19 test results. The department did not respond to follow-up questions about whether this lack of reporting could have skewed data on total case counts. It is not yet determined why these smaller labs did not report negative cases, and the department did not answer approximately how many negative test results were unreported. We will provide an update once these questions are answered. Labs Snopes spoke to claimed there were discrepancies and changes in DOH’s data reporting requirements. In an email sent to Snopes, Pancare of Florida President R. Michael Hill said that the DOH “misdirected their data collection process as an inaccuracy on PanCare’s part.” The testing lab said that it uses three methods for testing including one that detects viral antigens, which the DOH reportedly said it would not include “into the county or state numbers.” On July 1, DOH implemented an update to its electronic reporting process to “report all patient-specific results” daily and began integrating previously reported data from PanCare as of July 16. Lab24 in Miami confirmed this statement when it told the Orlando Sun-Sentinel that it had tested around 10,000 people in Florida but that the state required that private labs only notify health officials of positive results. Snopes contacted Lab24 but did not receive a response at the time of publication. “In short, yes the COVID-19 data for the State of Florida is skewed, PanCare has conducted over 6,900 antibody tests, and over 16,000 antigen tests that have not been accurately reported by the Florida Department of Health because they refused to accept the results of both of these FDA-EUA approved tests at the time they were administered,” wrote Hill. Lee Memorial Hospital Lab told Snopes that it had accurately reported both negative and positive test results but that a hospital can have more than one entry in the DOH database. For example, results from Lee Memorial Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital Lab come from the same testing facility yet each reported different rates. Lee Memorial Hospital reported an 18% positivity rate of 2,925 tests conducted while Lee Memorial Hospital Lab reported 100% positivity of 405 COVID-19 tests conducted. When combined, the overall positive results from the two hospitals were between 15 and 25%.


Two men arrested for their part in Turkey's attempted military takeover are CIA agents.

Explanation: However, there’s absolutely no evidence listed (including from the site that first published this story) to suggest that the two pilots were agents of the United States government.

Politics Conspiracy Theories, CIA, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

In July 2016, a failed coup attempt by Turkey’s military ended when security forces detained thousands of participants after a bloody night that left at least 240 people dead. In the days after, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan closed hundreds of schools, arrested thousands, and declared a three-month state of emergency during which he vowed to root out the “viruses” within the military. At the same time, a story emerged that CIA agents were directly involved in Turkey’s failed military coup: According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) for the Republic of Turkey, the two captured CIA pilots were not only responsible for shooting down the Russian Sukhoi Su-24m bomber over Syria last year, but also attempted to kill President Erdogan during the failed “coup” attempt a few days ago. Whatdoesitmean.com reports: The MoD further warned that the Obama regime was planning to kill President Erdogan in a coup and replace him the CIA’s “designated figurehead” Fethullah Gulen—and that Turkey’s MoFA confirmed just hours ago was behind this plot by stating that “the Fethullah Gülen Terrorist Organization is behind this coup attempt”. The conspiracy web site WhatDoesItMean.com appears to be the driving force behind this rumor, which publishes many stories that range from mostly true to completely fabricated. In this case, the site purports to have information that two CIA agents, who were behind a foiled plot to kill President Erdogan, were arrested in Turkey. By a strange coincidence, the site says that these are also the exact two agents who were behind shooting down a Russian bomber over Syria in 2015. It’s true that news outlets reported from the region that two pilots were arrested following the attempted coup: Three senior officials in Ankara said Akin Ozturk, head of the air force until 2015 and a member of High Military Council (YAS), the top body overseeing the armed forces, was one of the masterminds of the plot. He was among thousands of soldiers detained, pictured on Sunday in handcuffs wearing a striped polo shirt at Ankara police headquarters. Ozturk was due to be retired this August at a meeting of the YAS, which convenes twice a year. According to his biography, still on the military’s website, he was born in 1952. The second mastermind was thought to be Muharrem Kose, a former legal adviser to the chief of military staff, the same three Ankara officials said. They described Kose as a follower of Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-based cleric whose network Erdogan has blamed for carrying out the coup attempt. It’s further true that the same two men are accused by the Erdogan administration of downing a Russian jet in November 2015: Two Turkish pilots who played a role in the downing of a Russian jet in November are in custody over the July 15 failed coup in Turkey, a Turkish official said. The downing of the Russian fighter jet on the Syrian border last November sparked an unprecedented diplomatic crisis between Turkey and Russia, which ended last month when the two countries agreed to restore ties. “Two pilots who were part of the operation to down the Russian Su-24 in November 2015 are in custody,” a Turkish official told AFP late on Monday. When asked about the issue by the Turkish media, Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said there were reports of the pilots being detained but they were “yet to be confirmed”. There’s even some speculation that the two pilots have ties to a Muslim cleric originally from Turkey who currently lives in the United States: What is the Gulen movement? A well-organised community of people – not a political party – named after the US-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen. He is regarded by followers as a spiritual leader and sometimes described as Turkey’s second most powerful man. The imam promotes a tolerant Islam which emphasises altruism, modesty, hard work and education. He is also a recluse with a heart condition and diabetes who lives in a country estate in the US state of Pennsylvania.


Comments sought on Idaho Medicaid expansion waiver.

Explanation: Idaho officials are seeking public comments on a waiver to Medicaid expansion involving mental health treatment and substance abuse.

Health, General News, Medicaid, Mental health, Idaho

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare said Friday it’s taking comments through Dec. 24. The waiver would allow Medicaid recipients to receive inpatient treatment for mental health and substance abuse disorders at a freestanding psychiatric hospital. Currently, those services are only available in the psychiatric unit of a full-service hospital. State officials say the waiver will expand access to outpatient behavioral health services throughout the state. The waiver is supported by Reclaim Idaho, the group behind the Medicaid expansion initiative that passed last year. Waivers are required when a state wants to deviate from standard Medicaid rules.


Cory Gardner Says on contraception, his plan is "cheaper and easier for you" than Sen. Mark Udall’s

National, Health Care, Message Machine 2014, Women, Cory Gardner,

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall has consistently attacked his Republican challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner, for supporting anti-abortion measures like personhood legislation. But Gardner is on the offensive with a new ad airing in the Colorado Senate race about women’s health issues. "What’s the difference between me and Mark Udall on contraception?" Gardner says. "I believe the pill ought to be available over the counter, around the clock, without a prescription. Cheaper and easier for you. Mark Udall’s plan is different. He wants to keep government bureaucrats between you and your health care plan. That means more politics and more profits for drug companies. My plan means more rights, more freedom and more control for you." Udall’s "plan" is essentially the Affordable Care Act, which requires health insurance companies to provide access to FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing, meaning the consumer pays nothing for their prescription at the pharmacy. Gardner, who has repeatedly voted to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law, says he believes a "cheaper and easier" alternative is to allow the pill to be sold over the counter, meaning without a prescription. Gardner’s campaign said his plan has two parts: Allow the pill to be sold over-the-counter and "ensure that women can be reimbursed for those through insurance." His campaign said both can be accomplished without the Affordable Care Act. If the Affordable Care Act is not repealed, though, Gardner wants to allow insurance providers to cover the pill over-the-counter without a prescription. Udall’s campaign said he supports allowing over-the-counter sales of the pill as long as insurance companies are still mandated to cover it without any cost sharing. So we’re left comparing the Affordable Care Act to Gardner’s position, which is repeal the ACA and replace its contraceptive component with his proposal. Which contraceptive plan is "cheaper and easier"? We found that even the groups that advocate making the pill available over the counter — like Jessica Arons, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project and Dan Grossman, vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health — did not believe it was a cheaper alternative for consumers than requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives without cost sharing. Gardner’s campaign pointed us to a study by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, an advocacy group for the consumer health care products industry. The study looked at savings from several different drugs becoming available over-the-counter, but not the pill. The group estimated that each dollar spent on over-the-counter medicines saves the health care system up to $7, which comes to $102 billion annually. About $25 billion of those savings come in the form of reduced drug costs. But the bulk of the savings is actually from avoiding trips to the doctor to get a prescription, the association found. (Imagine going to the doctor every time you had a cold to get a prescription for Sudafed or for Claritin when your allergies flared up. Those visits add up.) However, under the Affordable Care Act, women’s preventive health care must be covered without cost-sharing, meaning a trip to the doctor to get a prescription for birth control would not have any out-of-pocket costs. So a big chunk of the alleged savings from moving the pill over-the-counter would not be realized; it’s already not costing consumers anything. It’s also speculative for Gardner to insist that his plan is cheaper. As far as we can tell, there hasn’t been a study that looks specifically at the cost benefits of moving the pill over-the-counter, and a spokesperson for the Consumer Healthcare Products Association told us that they "can't speak to any specific product or ingredient." That’s not to say that providing birth control without cost-sharing, as the Affordable Care Act does, is free to the healthcare system. When insurance companies are required to cover birth control or doctor visits without asking for a co-payment, those costs are baked into the monthly premium. You may not have to pay anything at the pharmacy, but you may pay for it in other ways, especially if you previously chose not to purchase insurance and suddenly are forced by the law to buy a policy. Some grandfathered plans may also choose to not cover these services and it does not address the millions of individuals who would remain uninsured under the law. Zack Cooper, a health policy and economics professor at Princeton University, said it’s possible that if the pill was reclassified as over-the-counter, consumers would have more options, sales volume would go up and competition would increase between drug companies. These factors can all lead to prices going down. But he said it’s also possible that it has a negative effect, since suddenly consumers are paying for birth control at the point-of-purchase instead of getting it at no cost. "When you make something even a little more expensive, use goes down," Cooper said. "That means more women get pregnant, and babies cost a lot more than birth control. You can argue it would actually increase the cost of insurance and the government will be on the hook for more federal subsidies." So there’s a lot of uncertainty as to which would actually be cheaper. We would also like to see more details from Gardner on how he would "ensure that women can be reimbursed for (the pill) through insurance," but so far he has not produced legislation or a detailed summary. And Gardner’s plan only applies to one particular birth control: the pill. While the pill is the most common form of birth control, it’s not the only method. About 27 percent of female contraceptive users reported that the pill was their prefered method, meaning three-quarters use another option (though this survey included male condoms and vasectomies, which aren’t covered by the law and make up a big chunk of contraceptive use). Other birth control methods may be more effective or more preferable for certain patients, but they are also a lot more expensive at the point of purchase, said Alina Salganicoff, vice president and director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Like intrauterine devices, which can cost $500 to $1,000 without insurance. So when Gardner asks "what’s the difference between me and Mark Udall on contraception," but only provides a plan for the pill, he’s leaving out a lot of people who medically cannot use the pill or chose another option. Absent the Affordable Care Act, these other methods would undoubtedly be more expensive for consumers. Similarly, it would definitely be "easier" for a lot of individuals to obtain the pill over-the-counter instead of going to a doctor first to get a prescription, especially those who live in rural areas where a doctor’s office is not nearly as close as the corner pharmacy. But this again does not address all contraceptives, just the pill. Gardner’s campaign also noted that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued an opinion in 2012 expressing medical support for over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives. However, the group also maintained its support for the Affordable Care Act provision that provides women access to the pill without cost-sharing, noting that "numerous studies have shown that even small cost-sharing requirements can limit use of needed preventative care." Our ruling Gardner said his plan on contraceptives is "cheaper and easier for you" than Sen. Mark Udall’s plan. This is based on his support for a plan to allow for over-the-counter sales of the pill. Gardner’s plan is lacking in concrete details that would allow a thorough evaluation. There’s some evidence that health care costs generally go down when drugs are made available over-the-counter, but those studies did not look specifically look at the pill. There is a lot of uncertainty and experts — from advocates to economists — question whether Gardner’s proposal would be cheaper to most consumers or the health care system compared to the Affordable Care Act. And Gardner’s plan would only address one type of contraceptive, meaning the many people who choose other methods of birth control would see higher costs. We rate the statement .


Six new cases of MERS virus hit Saudi Arabia, UAE.

Explanation: Another five people in Saudi Arabia and one in the United Arab Emirates have become infected with the potentially deadly Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus, the World Health Organisation said on Tuesday.

The new infections, including one fatal case in a 73-year-old Saudi man and three in Saudi health workers who showed no adverse symptoms, bring the total confirmed cases of the respiratory disease to 176, of which 74 have died, the United Nations health agency said. MERS emerged in the Middle East in 2012 and is from the same family as the SARS virus. It can cause coughing, fever and pneumonia. Although the worldwide number of MERS infections is fairly small, the more than 40 percent death rate among confirmed cases and the spread of the virus beyond the Middle East is keeping scientists and public health officials on alert. Cases have been reported in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Tunisia as well as in several countries in Europe, and scientists are increasingly focused on a link between the human infections and camels as a possible “animal reservoir” of the virus. In a disease outbreak update, the WHO said the new confirmed case of MERS in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was in a 59-year-old woman, the wife of a man previously confirmed as being infected. Although she has no adverse symptoms, she is in hospital in isolation, it said. Dutch and Qatari scientists published research earlier this month that proved for the first time that MERS can also infect camels - strengthening suspicions that these animals, often used in the region for meat, milk, transport and racing, may be a source of the human outbreak. The WHO says people at high risk of severe disease due to MERS should “avoid close contact with animals when visiting farms or barn areas where the virus is known to be potentially circulating”. For the general public it advises normal hygiene steps such as hand washing before and after touching animals, avoiding contact with sick animals and good food hygiene practices.


Study adds to evidence of vaccine safety

Explanation: The story does a reasonable job in describing the study as published in Pediatrics. Although there are some lapses in the story, the report provides an adequate review of the study and its relative importance. Although thimerosal has been reduced or removed in pediatric vaccines, the issue of autism and vaccines remains in the public memory.

The story was about thimerosal being reduced or eliminated from vaccines, so cost is not an issue in this context. The benefit of the pediatric vaccines was not the central issue of the story but rather the risks associated with their use. The study was intended to determine if a causal relationship could be attributed to the use of thimerosal in pediatric vaccines. As such the theoretical harms of the vaccine are described correctly. However, an important element missing in the story is the downside of not immunizing children. The story would have been enhanced with a brief comment about the negative impact of avoiding immunization (including the use of influenza vaccine). The story correctly describes the study design and the relative uniqueness of the methods used. The conclusions of the study are appropriately noted in the report. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two individuals with expertise in vaccines and with no connection to this study were interviewed as part of this story. The story provided little or no information about decisions beyond simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ concerning vaccination. This story reported on a study of two vaccines against the same disease with different levels of thimerosal. So, for example, are there ever choices to be made about levels of other preservatives in vaccines? The story did not provide information about the benefits or harms associated with vaccination in general. The story was about a study that compared outcomes in youngsters who had received vaccines with different levels of thimerosal. The story correctly points out that since 2001, thimerosal has not been used as a preservative in pediatric vaccines in the US other than flu vccine. The story was about two vaccines for whooping cough with different levels of the preservative thimerosal. The story also reported that the preservative thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines in the US. Therefore, this story is about a treatment that is not available. Does not appear to rely on a press release.


Darrell Issa Says Thomas Eric Duncan came into the United States "with an elevated temperature.

National, Ebola, Health Care, Public Health, Transportation, Darrell Issa,

How much airport Ebola screening is too much? That was the big question on the Sunday talk shows Oct. 26. Over the weekend, New York, New Jersey and Illinois upped their Ebola screening guidelines, quarantining anyone passing through John F. Kennedy, Newark and Chicago-O'Hare international airports who had contact with Ebola patients, even if they’re not showing symptoms. The guidelines surpass federal regulations and have been subject to criticism, particularly from administration officials, arguing that they are unnecessary. JFK, Newark and O'Hare already have screening processes, along with three other American airports, (more on that later) and people who aren’t showing symptoms aren’t contagious, experts say. On CNN’s State of the Union, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said New York and New Jersey’s quarantine might be unnecessary. But that doesn’t change the fact that the country’s Ebola screening hasn’t been adequate so far -- it missed Thomas Eric Duncan, the first patient diagnosed in the United States, who died Oct. 8. "We had Mr. Duncan come in (to the United States) with an elevated temperature. We weren’t checking it, and now we’re playing catch-up," Issa said. The New York and New Jersey guidelines were put in place after a doctor in New York City tested positive for the disease Oct. 23. He arrived in New York Oct. 17 from Guinea, where he had been treating Ebola patients, and had been checking his temperature twice a day. It doesn’t appear that this patient, Dr. Craig Spencer, was showing symptoms when he first arrived in the United States. But what about Duncan -- is Issa right in saying that he came to the United States with a fever (Issa's office did not respond to our request for comment.) Duncan’s fever On Sept. 20, when Duncan arrived at Dulles International Airport in Washington from Liberia (via Belgium), American airports were not yet screening travelers for possible signs of Ebola. But Duncan went through screening Sept. 19 in Monrovia, Liberia, where he presented a temperature of 97.3 degrees -- so he didn’t have a fever when he boarded the plane -- according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials who reviewed Duncan’s airport screening record. (According to the National Institutes of Health, the normal body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and a fever starts at a body temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit.) We (and Issa) can’t know with certainty if Duncan had acquired a fever by the time he arrived at Dulles. But he did not report falling ill until several days later, when he went to the hospital Sept. 25 with a 100.1 degree fever. It was during this first visit to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital that Duncan wasn’t examined appropriately. The nurse documented that Duncan had a temperature of 100.1 degrees. It was only after a physician examined him that she included in his record that he had recently arrived from Africa. He was discharged early the next morning. He returned to the hospital Sept. 28 and died there about 10 days later. We should note that Liberian authorities said Duncan lied on the airport Ebola screening questionnaire by answering "no" to questions about whether he had contact with an Ebola patient or cared for one or touched the body of someone who had died of Ebola. It was found out later that Duncan helped carry 19-year-old Marthalene Williams into a taxi to go to the hospital. She was seven months pregnant and was turned away at the hospital due to lack of space in the Ebola ward. She died several hours later. It is unclear whether Duncan knew of her diagnosis. Airport screenings Airport screenings in West African airports, like the one Duncan went through, have been going on since at least August. According to the CDC, exit screening might look different in each country but the basic elements are the same. All travelers must have their temperature taken, answer a questionnaire about their health and exposure history and are visually assessed for signs of potential illness. Travelers who show symptoms or signs of exposure are separated and assessed further which ultimately determines whether they are allowed to travel. Screenings are also taking place at airports in England, Belgium, France, Hong Kong, Egypt, Canada and now the United States. The first week of October -- the week Duncan died -- the CDC and Department of Homeland Security instituted new airport screening guidelines to supplement the screening already taking place in West Africa airports. Travelers from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone arriving at five major American airports now have to go through an Ebola screening process. After passport review, they will have their temperature taken and answer questions about possible exposure. If they show possible signs of Ebola or exposure, they will be passed on to a public health authority. If not, the traveler will receive information about self-monitoring for symptoms. The five international airports -- John F. Kennedy, Newark, O’Hare, Dulles and Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson -- already handled 94 percent of arrivals from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. On Oct. 21, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that all travelers coming to America from those three countries would have to go through the five designated American airports. Our ruling Issa said Thomas Eric Duncan came into the United States "with an elevated temperature." According to the CDC, Duncan did not have a fever when he left Monrovia. At the time, American airports were not screening travelers, so there’s no way for us (or Issa) to know definitively if he had a fever when he got to the United States. But he did not report falling ill until several days after arriving, when he went to the hospital with a fever. It’s possible that even if current screening measures had been in place, Duncan would have passed without showing a fever or other symptoms. We rate Issa’s statement .


Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets repel bugs like mosquitoes, gnats and flies.

Explanation: Bounce Fabric Softener Dryer Sheets Work as Bug Repellent

The rumor that Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets work as an insect repellant is true, but it’s also misleading. Bounce fabric softener is scented with oil that works as a natural insect repellant, but low concentrations of it. So dryer sheets contain a natural insect repellant, but probably not enough to effectively repel most insects. Scientists did, however, find that Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets work as an insect repellent for at least for at least specific kind of insect: fungus gnats. Fungus gnats were put inside a plastic container that had two smaller containers connected to each side of it. One of the side containers had a Bounce fabric softener dryer sheet inside of it, and the other had nothing, according to a study published by HortiScience. After several days, just 12-18% of the fungus gnats were found inside the container with Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets. Meanwhile, 33-48% of the fungus gnats were in the other container. The experiment was repeated five times and scientists concluded that “Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets do in fact repel” fungus gnats. The scented oil in Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets that repelled fungus gnats is called linalool. Linalool, which is made from the oil of linaloe wood, is commonly used as an air freshener in household sprays and detergents. In higher concentrations, it’s also used as a pesticide. In fact, the EPA approved linalool for use as pesticide in 2009: This notice announces the availability of EPA’s final registration review decisions for the pesticides Trichoderma species (case 6050) and Linalool (case 6058). Registration review is EPA’s periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide’s registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. But there are trace amounts of linalool in Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets. Pesticides, meanwhile, have a 95% concentration of linalool. That means Bounce fabric softener dryer sheets do contain a natural insect repellant, but probably not enought to effectively repel insects in most situations Comments


Suicide among veterans highest in western US, rural areas.

Explanation: Suicide among military veterans is especially high in the western U.S. and rural areas, according to new government data that show wide state-by-state disparities and suggest social isolation, gun ownership and access to health care may be factors.

Access to health care, Health, Politics, North America, Veterans, Veterans affairs

The figures released Friday are the first-ever Department of Veterans Affairs data on suicide by state. It shows Montana, Utah, Nevada and New Mexico had the highest rates of veteran suicide as of 2014, the most current VA data available. Veterans in big chunks of those states must drive 70 miles or more to reach the nearest VA medical center. The suicide rates in those four states stood at 60 per 100,000 individuals or higher, far above the national veteran suicide rate of 38.4. The overall rate in the West was 45.5. All other regions of the country had rates below the national rate. Other states with high veteran suicide rates, including West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky, had greater levels of prescription drug use, including opioids. A VA study last year found veterans who received the highest doses of opioid painkillers were more than twice as likely to die by suicide compared to those receiving the lowest doses. The latest VA data also reaffirmed sharp demographic differences: Women veterans are at much greater risk, with their suicide rate 2.5 times higher than for female civilians. Among men, the risk was 19 percent higher among veterans compared to civilians. As a whole, older veterans make up most military suicides — roughly 65 percent were age 50 or older. “This report is huge,” said Rajeev Ramchand, an epidemiologist who studies suicide for the RAND Corp. He noted that the suicide rate is higher for veterans than non-veterans in every single state by at least 1.5 times, suggesting unique problems faced by former service members. “No state is immune.” Ramchand said it was hard to pinpoint specific causes behind veteran suicide but likely involved factors more prevalent in rural areas, such as social isolation, limited health care access, gun ownership and opioid addiction. Nationally, 70 percent of the veterans who take their lives had not previously been connected to VA care. “This requires closer investigation into why suicide rates by veteran status are higher, including the role that opiates play,” Ramchand said. The dataset offers more detailed breakdowns on national figures released last year, which found that 20 veterans a day committed suicide. The numbers come from the largest study undertaken of veterans’ records by the VA, part of a government effort to uncover fresh information about where to direct resources and identify veterans most at-risk. The department has been examining ways to boost suicide prevention efforts. “These findings are deeply concerning, which is why I made suicide prevention my top clinical priority,” said VA Secretary David Shulkin. “This is a national public health issue.” Shulkin, who has worked to provide same-day mental health care at VA medical centers, recently expanded emergency mental care to veterans with other than honorable discharges. The department is also boosting its suicide hotline and expanding telehealth options. Ret. Army Sgt. Shawn Jones, executive director of Stop Soldier Suicide, said veterans suicide is an issue that needs greater awareness to provide community support for those in need. Transitioning back to civilian life can be difficult for active-duty members who may return home with physical and mental conditions and feel unable to open up to friends or families. As a result, some veterans can feel overwhelmed by daily challenges of finding a job, buying a home and supporting a family. “It can be tough because the military is a close-knit community and you have that familial feel,” Jones said. “As you transition out, you tend to lose that a little bit and feel like an island onto yourself.” The attention on veteran suicide comes at a time when the VA has reported a huge upswing in veterans seeking medical care as they have returned from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Veterans’ groups say the latest data may raise questions about the department’s push to expand private-sector care. “Veterans often have more complex injuries,” said Allison Jaslow, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, citing limitations if civilian doctors don’t understand the unique challenges of the veterans’ population. If doctors don’t ask the right questions to a veteran complaining of back pain, for instance, they may prescribe opioids not realizing the veteran was also suffering PTSD or brain injury after being blown up in a humvee, said Jaslow, a former Army captain. Expanding private-sector care and stemming veterans’ suicide are priorities of President Donald Trump. In a statement this week as part of Suicide Prevention Month, Trump said the U.S. “must do more” to help mentally troubled veterans. ___ Follow Hope Yen on Twitter at https://twitter.com/hopeyen1


Drug for Immune Disorders Helps Alzheimer’s

Explanation: The biggest weakness was its failure to put the study results into any meaningful context for readers. It describes points on a symptom scale without telling us the significance of these changes. And it describes slowing the rate of brain shrinkage in what sound like impressive terms but without giving any context for readers to fully grasp whether it’s truly impressive or not. We applaud the independent perspective sought from the Mayo Alzheimer’s expert and its reminder – "In the past few years alone, several Alzheimer’s drugs that made it to this stage failed to pan out in further testing."

The approach is described as "expensive — about $2,000 to $3,000 per treatment. And patients in the study received infusions up to twice a month, depending on the dose, for 18 months." For reasons described in the Evidence criterion above, we don’t think the story adequately explained what the study found. The story states: We wonder how well patients tolerate side effects of headaches, rashes and higher blood pressure. Problems here. The whole story of benefit is framed around two data points that are not explained in any meaningful context: So readers are supposed to take – on faith – that these are impressive changes, but they are never explained adequately. At least there was a somewhat-balancing comment at the end of the story from an independent expert. No overt disease-mongering of Alzheimer’s Disease. The story explained that the study was funded by the drug company that makes the drug being studied. And it did seek opinions from two independent experts. There was no comparison between these results and other Alzheimer’s research, except for the Mayo expert’s reminder that "In the past few years alone, several Alzheimer’s drugs that made it to this stage failed to pan out in further testing." However, because of the importance of that reminder at the very end of the story, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. We’re told that IVIG is a decades-old drug. No extraordinary claims of novelty were made. There’s no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.


“This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need (a) mask. There is a cure.”

Explanation: A video from Breitbart shows a group of doctors airing unproven conspiracy theories about the coronavirus. Before social media platforms removed it, the video was viewed millions of times. President Donald Trump retweeted it. There is no known cure for COVID-19. And public health officials advise everyone to wear face masks in public to prevent the spread of the virus. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Research on whether the drug could assuage symptoms is not conclusive.

Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Stella Immanuel,

Millions of people, including the president of the United States, have seen or shared a video in which a doctor ly claims there is a cure for the coronavirus, and it’s a medley starring hydroxychloroquine. The video shows several doctors in white coats giving a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. It persists on social media despite bans from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and it was published by Breitbart, a conservative news site. The July 27 event was organized by Tea Party Patriots, a conservative group backed by Republican donors, and attended by U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. In the video, members of a new group called America’s Frontline Doctors touch on several unproven conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic. One of the most inaccurate claims comes from Dr. Stella Immanuel, a Houston-based primary care physician and minister with a track record of making bizarre medical claims, such as believing in alien DNA. "This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax," Immanuel said. "I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need a mask. There is a cure." As of July 27, nearly 150,000 Americans had died because of the coronavirus. Could those deaths have been prevented by a drug that’s used to treat lupus and arthritis? No. Immanuel’s statement is wrong on several points. There is no known cure for COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no specific antiviral treatment for the virus. Supportive care, such as rest, fluids and fever relievers, can assuage symptoms. "There is currently no licensed medication to cure COVID-19," according to the World Health Organization. In spite of Immanuel’s anecdotal evidence, hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with other drugs is not a proven treatment (or cure) for COVID-19. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In mid-June, the FDA revoked its emergency authorization for the use of hydroxychloroquine and the related drug chloroquine in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. "It is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks," FDA Chief Scientist Denise M. Hinton wrote. The WHO and the National Institutes of Health have also stopped their hydroxychloroquine studies. Among the safety issues associated with treating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine include heart rhythm problems, kidney injuries, and liver problems. While some studies have found that the drug could help alleviate symptoms associated with COVID-19, the research is not conclusive. Few studies have been accepted into peer-reviewed journals. And large, randomized trials — the gold standard for clinical trials — are still needed to confirm the findings of studies conducted since the pandemic began. In the video, Immanuel cited a 2005 study that found chloroquine — not hydroxychloroquine — was "effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV," the official name for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. But the drug was not tested on humans, the authors wrote that more research was needed to make any conclusions, and SARS is different from COVID-19. Health officials advise everyone to wear masks in public. The reason why has to do with how the coronavirus spreads. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, they expel respiratory droplets containing the virus. Those droplets can then land in the mouths or noses of people nearby. Since some people infected with the coronavirus may exhibit no symptoms, public health officials say everyone should cover their faces in public — even if they feel well. "The spread of COVID-19 can be reduced when cloth face coverings are used along with other preventive measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces," according to the CDC. In a viral video, Immanuel said there is a cure for COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine can treat it and people don’t need to wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus. All of those claims are inaccurate. There is no known cure for COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine is not a proven treatment, and public health officials advise everyone to wear face masks in public. Immanuel’s statement is .


Postoperative wound monitoring app can reduce readmissions and improve patient care

Explanation: This news release reports on a feasibility study of using a smartphone app to detect post-surgical infections that patients might not recognize on their own. The news release does an exemplary job of discussing the need for such supports as patient training and dedicated staff to monitor uploaded images and points out that the study lacks a cost analysis. However, the headline overreaches when it states that the app “can reduce readmissions and improve patient care,” since this two-week study of 40 patients wasn’t geared to do that. Post-surgical infections can cause pain, poor wound healing, and severe problems including death, research has showed. The release noted they’re the most expensive hospital-acquired infection, costing an average of nearly $30,000 per wound-related readmission and an estimated $3-$10 billion annually. While smartphone apps might improve the ability of staff to monitor surgical wounds, news releases should point out the need to invest in a support structure — such as staff to train patients and monitor data — and should refrain from stating benefits that haven’t been demonstrated.

American College of Surgeons,post-surgical infection,wound monitoring app

The news release addresses the overall cost of post-surgical infections and the potential for cost savings using the monitoring app. The lead author of the study is quoted saying that preventing readmissions due to infection could lead to “significant savings to the health system,” and the release notes that “capturing specific numbers related to cost-savings was not part of this study.” The news release helpfully states that providers have to pay for training and in some cases smartphones for patients, and pay staff to monitor the data in a “dedicated transitional care program.” The the app itself is free for patients to download, which isn’t explicitly mentioned. There’s no mention of whether hospitals have to pay to use it. The news release reports “an overall data submission rate of 90.2 percent among participants, and submissions were reviewed within an average of 9.7 hours. During the study, seven wound complications were detected and one false negative was found.” But with no control group and no long term outcomes studied, it’s likely the benefits of the app are much more modest than these numbers suggest. Harms aren’t explored. The app mentions that there was one false negative result among the 40 patients studied, but doesn’t explain why this happened or what the consequence was. The release should have pointed out clearly that the study was not set up to test a hypothesis or look for any benefits or harms. It mentions that the study involved 40 vascular surgery patients over a two-week period, but does not acknowledge the weaknesses of such a small study and the fact that it did not compare those patients to a group who did not use the app. It also doesn’t mention that the study authors acknowledge more research is needed with non-white patients. The news release does win some points for discussing in detail the need for hospitals to address the fact that not every patient has a smartphone or knows how to upload images to an app. There’s no disease mongering. The news release states that support came from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and that lead author Rebecca L. Gunter, MD, is supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study mentions patients whose infections are detected during routine follow-up exams, but doesn’t describe what steps are currently taken to catch post-operative infections. Do hospitals educate patients to recognize infections? Do staff follow up in any way, perhaps with phone calls? Those questions aren’t answered. There’s no discussion of how many hospitals are using this app. The release did discuss some of the practical aspects of implementation but nothing about whether such an app is available or if insurance will pay for any of the costs involved. The news release provides this quote from the study: “We have demonstrated that a population of complex and high-risk patients, many of whom are older adults and novice smartphone users, can complete this protocol with high fidelity and satisfaction.” Wound management by “telemedicine” is not unique but the use of cell phones is innovative enough to pass on this criteria. The study showed that patients who are given a phone and taught to use it can send pictures of their wounds. The headline overreaches when it states that the app “can reduce readmissions and improve patient care.” The study’s conclusion is far more nuanced: “Preliminary results indicate the ability to detect and intervene on wound complications.”


Novel Stem Cell Treatment May Hold Promise for Type 1 Diabetes

Explanation: This story highlights the novelty of an experimental diabetes treatment. Yet despite cautionary statements from an independent source, the story portrays a preliminary safety test as being much more than it is. The story also should have told readers that this approach to overcoming insulin resistance may not be relevant to the overwhelming majority of people with diabetes, who do not use insulin. It’s also a bit misleading for the story to call this a “clinical trial” since there were only 3 controls and 15 patients. The history of medical research is littered with examples of treatments that seemed highly beneficial when tested in small numbers of patients, but then turned out to cause serious harms or failed to sustain the benefits when tested in larger numbers of people. This test was so small that the patients were outnumbered by the authors of the journal article. It is simply too soon to put much stock in these preliminary findings.

We’ll rule this Not Applicable. The research into this potential treatment is so preliminary that it is difficult to estimate cost figures in the story. That said, the story gives readers the impression that the research is much farther along, at a point where we would normally expect some discussion of costs. The error here is the over-stretch on the effectiveness not the omission of cost data. This story does a good job reporting the results of this trial and it notes that patients in this trial reduced their use of insulin, but were not able to discontinue taking insulin shots. It includes cautionary statements from an independent expert who says that the trial didn’t last long enough “to declare victory over diabetes yet.” But we can’t give it a passing score here because it misleads readers about the important long-term health outcomes that people with diabetes really care about. The story claims that the reductions in blood sugar levels seen in these patients “would” reduce the risk of long-term complications. These researchers did not look at rates of complications. Indeed, the trial was far too short to produce meaningful results about rates of heart disease, blood flow problems, skin ulcers or other complications of diabetes, so any claims about reductions in complication rates are mere speculation. This should have been framed as a preliminary safety study of a new approach that now needs to be tested in a randomized design with adequate numbers of subjects and duration to be able to truly say something about benefit or harm. Novel, promising, passed the first safety test. Period. To claim a treatment is safe after testing it in only a dozen patients at a single hospital in China is to ignore the long history of treatments that appeared to be beneficial after initial tests, then later revealed serious, even lethal, harms. Even though the researchers declare the treatment to be safe in their journal article, journalists should be skeptical of such broad claims that are based on such slim evidence. There is a vast gulf between stating that 12 individuals did not appear to be harmed during a 40-week trial and proclaiming that a treatment would be safe for millions of patients over the course of decades. In many aspects this story does convey the central point: that this small, preliminary trial offers supports for investigating a new way to treat one form of diabetes. However, readers are likely to believe the trial is far more conclusive than it actually is. Only near the end of the story is it mentioned that this trial was designed to look for safety issues. Even though the researchers were very enthusiastic, calling the results “powerful evidence” in their journal article… and the story did include cautionary statements from an independent expert… this report would have been better if it had more specifically alerted readers to the important limitations that are inherent in this sort of small, short-term safety test. We’re going to rule this one Not Applicable. Here’s the issue: While not the sort of disease-mongering we usually watch out for, this story leaves readers misinformed by failing to make clear that the patients in this experiment do not have the kind of diabetes that has dramatically increased along with the rise of obesity. This test included only people with the rarer form of diabetes (Type 1) in which patients don’t produce enough insulin. The story should have noted that it is unknown whether this treatment strategy might offer any benefit for the millions of patients with Type 2 (also known as insulin-resistant) diabetes. Yes, the story says the patients in the trial had Type 1 diabetes, but most readers probably don’t know that most people with diabetes have Type 2. The most important outcome measure of this trial was a reduction in insulin use, but only about a quarter of people with diabetes in the United States use insulin. (www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates11.htm) So readers are likely to have a greatly inflated sense of the number of people for whom this research is relevant. This is a point to consider, but we won’t rule it unsatisfactory because of it. For the same reason, though, we can’t give it a satisfactory score. This story includes important context from an independent source. There is no discussion of any potential conflicts of interest of the researchers, but lacking any clear evidence of conflicts, we will give the story a passing grade. However, at least one online biography of the lead authors mentions that he holds several patents. If he or any of the authors own patents or other rights to treatments ultimately developed from this research, readers should be informed. The story did not report that the trial was funded by the University of Illinois (according to the trial registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01350219). While academic institution funding may seem benign, many universities are actively engaged in licensing their discoveries or even creating companies to develop and market products of their labs, so even this source of funding may raise questions about financial entanglements. The story does of course mention insulin treatment. However, it tells readers that by reducing blood sugar levels this new treatment would reduce complications from diabetes. This trial did not look at complication rates. Until there is evidence developed about complication rates in patients using this new type of treatment it is impossible to claim it is superior to standard therapy. After all, even if patients use less insulin, that fact alone does not guarantee that they will have better long-term health outcomes. It is clear that this type of treatment is not yet available and no claims were made about a timetable for reaching the market. It is clear that this treatment is a new approach. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.


Mountain Dew and other sodas contain a dangerous chemical known as brominated vegetable oil (BVO).

Explanation: What's true: Following a growing number of consumer complaints, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola pledged to remove brominated vegetable oil (BVO) from soft drinks in 2013 and 2014, but Mountain Dew soda still contains that ingredient. What's false: Studies have not proved that the levels of BVO found in sodas such as Mountain Dew have adverse health effects on humans.

Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, has long been used as a food additive in the soft drink industry, primarily to help keep citrus-flavor oils suspended in beverages and prevent them from floating to the top of the fluid. BVO, which is vegetable oil bonded with atoms of the element bromine, was at one point commonly found in Mountain Dew and other popular citrus-flavored soft drinks such as Squirt, Fresca, Sunkist Peach, and Fanta Orange, and also in sports drinks such as Powerade. In recent years viral online pieces have described BVO as a “toxic chemical” and urged consumers to avoid products such as Mountain Dew soda that contain it: Are you a Mountain Dew addict? Then know what you’re drinking! BVO is a toxic chemical that is banned in many countries because it competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, which can lead to hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer. The main ingredient, bromine, is a poisonous, corrosive chemical, linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss.”There’s flame retardant in your Mountain Dew. That soda with the lime-green hue (and other citrus-flavored bubbly pops) won’t keep your insides fireproof, but it does contain brominated vegetable oil, a patented flame retardant for plastics that has been banned in foods throughout Europe and in Japan. Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, which acts as an emulsifier in citrus-flavored soda drinks, is found in about 10 percent of sodas sold in the U.S. “After a few extreme soda binges — not too far from what many gamers regularly consume — a few patients have needed medical attention for skin lesions, memory loss and nerve disorders, all symptoms of overexposure to bromine,” according to a recent article in Environmental News. In a March 2018 Facebook post shared by more than 200,000 users, a woman reported being told by her doctor that the BVO in Mountain Dew causes nerve damage and possibly blindness, and that her headaches and blurred vision could have been caused by drinking large amounts of the beverage:  Apart from a follow-up post saying subsequent tests showed that “something” was causing “pressure on her vision,” the Facebook user reported nothing further about her condition or medical diagnosis. (We attempted to contact her for comment but received no reply.) The status of BVO differs in various parts of the world: It is allowed as a food additive in Latin American and North American countries (including the U.S. and Canada), but not in Japan or European Union countries. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) originally classified BVO as a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) food additive in 1958, but that classification was withdrawn in the 1970s after studies linked the consumption of brominated oil with heart disease in rats. BVO was subsequently reclassified as an “interim food additive” (pending the outcome of additional studies), with the use of BVO in food products limited to a concentration of 15 ppm: Based on data from early studies, the FDA yanked brominated vegetable oil from its Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list for flavor additives in 1970, said Douglas Karas, a spokesman for the FDA. BVO bounced back after studies from an industry group from 1971 to 1974 demonstrated a level of safety.The Flavor Extract Manufacturers’ Association petitioned the FDA to get BVO back in fruit-flavored beverages, this time as a stabilizer, which is its role today. After evaluating the petition and other data, the FDA in 1977 approved the interim use of BVO at 15 ppm in fruit-flavored beverages, pending the outcome of additional studies. “This decision was based on the highest No Observed Effect Levels from the existing safety studies and the estimated daily intake,” Karas said. “Although there were doses that showed adverse effects in the animal studies, there also were lower doses in which there were no adverse effects observed.” As a condition of interim approval, the industry group submitted additional safety studies to the FDA. “The findings from these studies supported the safety of BVO in beverages at a level of 15 ppm in fruit-flavored beverages,” Karas said. “Its use as a flame retardant does not preclude its use as a food ingredient so long as the food use is safe.” More than 30 years later, brominated vegetable oil’s approval status is still listed as interim. Changing the status would be costly and “is not a public health priority for the agency at this time,” Karas said. (Soft drinks that contain BVO now typically contain about half the concentration allowed by law.) Some scientists in recent years have called for a re-examination of BVO’s safety as a food additive using newer technologies that were not available when the issue was last assessed by the FDA: Now some scientists have a renewed interest in this little-known ingredient, found in 10 percent of sodas in the United States.After a few extreme soda binges — not too far from what many gamers regularly consume — a few patients have needed medical attention for skin lesions, memory loss and nerve disorders, all symptoms of overexposure to bromine. Other studies suggest that BVO could be building up in human tissues, just like other brominated compounds such as flame retardants. In mouse studies, big doses caused reproductive and behavioral problems. Reports from an industry group helped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration establish in 1977 what it considers a safe limit for BVO in sodas. But some scientists say that limit is based on data that is thin and several decades old, and they insist that the chemical deserves a fresh look. “Compounds like these that are in widespread use probably should be reexamined periodically with newer technologies to ensure that there aren’t effects that would have been missed by prior methods,” said Charles Vorhees, a toxicologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who studied BVO’s neurological effects in the early 1980s. “I think BVO is the kind of compound that probably warrants some reexamination.” Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, was involved with the petition to remove BVO from the “safe” list in 1970. He said it’s time for the FDA to make a decision, one way or the other. “Is it harmful at the amounts consumed? Probably not,” Jacobson said. “But it would be nice if the FDA did a thorough review of the literature and finalized an approval or a ban.” A few medical cases involving patients who suffered deleterious effects due to excessive bromine levels in their systems have been attributed to consumption of soft drinks containing BVO: In 1997, doctors were stumped by the case of a man who came to the emergency room with headaches, fatigue, and a loss of muscle coordination and memory. He continued to get worse over time, and eventually he lost the ability to walk. A blood test found sky-high levels of bromide. The source? The man had been drinking between 2 and 4 liters of soda containing brominated vegetable oil every day. He needed dialysis but eventually recovered.In 2003, doctors treated a man who developed swollen hands with oozing sores. They diagnosed a rare case of the skin condition bromoderma after blood tests revealed his bromine was about twice normal limits. The man admitted drinking about 8 liters of Ruby Red Squirt, which contains BVO, each day. However, those cases involved subjects who drank what would generally be considered an excessive amount of soda on a regular basis (i.e., between two to eight liters daily). So far, no studies have conclusively documented serious health concerns in human beings caused by the consumption of moderate amounts of beverages containing BVO at the concentrations typically used in such products. Whatever health risks may or may not be associated with the consumption of BVO, warnings about its presence in popular sodas such as became largely outdated (with the exception of Mountain Dew). In January 2013 PepsiCo (while acknowledging that they “don’t find a health and safety risk with BVO”) announced that in response to consumer concerns they would discontinue the use of BVO in their Gatorade line of drinks. The company stated at the time they “had no plans to remove [BVO] from Mountain Dew and Diet Mountain Dew,” but in May 2014 they reversed course, stating that they were working to remove BVO from all their drinks, including Mountain Dew, Fanta and Powerade. Beverage giant Coca-Cola joined ranks with that announcement: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo said they’re working to remove a controversial ingredient from all their drinks, including Mountain Dew, Fanta and Powerade.Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have stood by the safety of the ingredient, which is used to distribute flavors more evenly in fruit-flavored drinks. But their decisions reflect the pressure companies are facing as people pay closer attention to ingredient labels and try to stick to diets they feel are natural. Several major food makers have recently changed their recipes to remove chemicals or dyes that people find objectionable. While food companies stress that the ingredients meet regulatory requirements, their decisions reflect how marketing a product as “natural” has become priority and a competitive advantage. Coca-Cola also said that it’s removing the ingredient from all its drinks to be consistent in the ingredients it uses around the world. In addition to Powerade, Coca-Cola uses BVO in some flavors of Fanta, Fresca and several citrus-flavored fountain drinks. The company said BVO should be phased out in the U.S. by the end of the year. Coca-Cola said it would instead use sucrose acetate isobutyrate, which it noted has been used in drinks for more than 14 years, and glycerol ester of rosin, which it said is commonly found in chewing gum and drinks. PepsiCo did not provide a timeline for the removal of BVO from all soft drinks in their May 2014 announcement. As of 16 January 2019, BVO was still a listed ingredient in Mountain Dew on the beverage’s PepsiCo web site nutrition page and on the product packaging itself:   We contacted PepsiCo to inquire about the status of Mountain Dew and BVO but did not receive a response.


Both real and virtual colonoscopies work: report.

Explanation: Doctors who perform colonoscopies should  not be worried that they may lose business to so-called virtual  colonoscopies, despite reports that both approaches work  equally well at detecting colon cancer, a gastroenterology  expert said on Wednesday.

Details of a study showing both techniques work equally  well were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on  Wednesday. Partial results had been presented at medical  meetings. Dr. Daniel Johnson of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale,  Arizona and colleagues did both virtual colonoscopies and  standard colonoscopies on 2,500 volunteers. They found that the  virtual technique, which uses an X-ray computed tomography or  CT scanner, detected 90 percent of precancerous polyps 10  millimeters or larger. Regular colonoscopies are done by gastroenterologists using  a flexible lit tube passed through the bowel. A device on the  end can remove polyps for testing right away. But with a virtual colonoscopy, also known as CT  colonography or CTC, there is no sedation, so patients can  quickly go back to their normal activities, the cost is  significantly lower than a colonoscopy, and there is less risk  of the bowel being punctured. Both require drinking strong laxatives, a major complaint  among patients. And if lesions are spotted during a virtual  colonoscopy, the patient will require a standard procedure to  remove them. Virtual colonoscopies can also be uncomfortable because  they require briefly inflating the bowel with carbon dioxide  while the patient lies on a scanner. “Both techniques are going to miss some lesions, both  polyps and cancers,” Johnson said in a telephone interview. “In our study, there was a patient with a 35 millimeter  mass that was missed in colonoscopy but found in CT  colonography. None of these tests are perfect.”    Colorectal cancer kills 52,000 people in the United States  each year, according to the American Cancer Society. Most  Americans are advised to begin getting regular colonoscopies at  age 50. Only about half of the 70 million Americans at risk for  colon cancer are getting screened now, and the choice of CTC  may encourage more people to be tested, he said. Gastroenterologists “are nervous that a lot of business will be  taken away from them,” Johnson said. But the availability of a noninvasive method “has actually  increased our colonoscopy volume,” said Dr. Brooks Cash of the  American Gastroenterology Association and a gastroenterologist  at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland,  where both techniques are used. That means more people need a follow-up colonoscopy to  remove any polyps that could grow into tumors. Cash estimated that colonoscopies typically account for 50  to 60 percent of a gastroenterologist’s income. “It appears to be a very reasonable, very accurate test for  colon cancer screening,” he said in a telephone interview. “It  will get them (patients) into the store, if you will. Then they  can use either test.”    Johnson said CTC uses half the radiation of a standard CT  scan.


An x-ray image shows a snake that entered a woman's stomach by crawling through her vagina.

Explanation: An x-ray image showing a slender creature inside a woman's pelvic area has been shared with a variety of backstories attached to it.

A purported x-ray image supposedly showing a long slender creature inside of a person’s stomach has been attached to a wide variety of stories over the years:   This x-ray shows the case of an unfortunate woman who happened to have a snake crawl into her vagina, slither through the fallopian tube, and out past the ovary into her body cavity. It survived unknown for three days until the snake started eating her appendix. In addition to the aforementioned tale of a snake crawling into a woman’s vagina and eating her appendix, this image has also been accompanied by stories about tapeworms, eels, and anal insertions, and is frequently included in galleries exhibiting examples of the “weirdest things found inside the human body.” For example, the website Bold Sky used this image in March 2016 to illustrate a story about a man who inserted an eel into his anus: Lolz! This is the funniest of all. A man from China admitted himself to a hospital when he accidentally got a live eel stuck inside his anus. He said that he was inspired by the porno world so much that he wanted to try something unique. Doctors claim that the eel was alive when the man was being operated, but it died shortly after it was removed. Although some news stories have chronicled tales (accurate or not) of people eating tapeworms to lose weight and inserting eels or snakes into their anuses in pursuit of sexual thrills, the above-displayed image did not stem from any such activities. This image originally appeared on Cyberium.net, a web site dedicated to strange and manipulated digital artwork, circa 2002. The artwork on the web site was divided into punny categories, such as HumAnimals, WoManipulations, and surRealities: “The images you find here are the result of digital manipulation of photos that try to capture the reality of the world in which we live, my purpose consists in recycling their meaning to explore a different hidden reality, my mind …” The artist behind this picture, who identified himself only as “Guido” on the web site, initially posted the artwork under the title “Original Sin”:  While Guido didn’t provide additional information about this particular image, he did explain in the web site’s FAQ section how he created most of his work:  Q: Which graphic tools you use? Always … PaintShop Pro (by Jasc) is my preferred tool to draw and manipulate , easy and fast and powerful … i like it … sometimes… sometimes…PhotoShop is the tool i use to put various effects on images. PhotoShop is the tool i use to put various effects on images , Eye-Candy filters are my preferred .Morpher2 is a simple shareware program to do Morphing . Morpher2 is a simple shareware program to do Morphing .PowerGoo is a simple and funny program for picture deformation . PowerGoo is a simple and funny program for picture deformation .Normally an image is the result of work with 2 or more different tools  Normally an image is the result of work with 2 or more different tools. These programs run under Microsoft Windows operating systems . We also located the snake x-ray that Guido used in his digitally manipulated creation, showing that the reptile was not inhabiting anyone’s innards at the time it was scanned: