Stem cell experiment lets diabetics forgo insulin

Explanation: The NBC broadcast nicely contrasts the demands that glucose monitoring and insulin shots impose on Type I diabetes patients with the tremendous uncertainty associated with experimental stem cell treatments that might free patients from these daily routines. It summarizes the treatment’s apparent benefits and potential harms, as well as ethical concerns about exporting research on dangerous treatments to countries such as Brazil where patients may not fully understand the risks. If the broadcast has a weakness, it is that it fails to mention the limitations inherent in any small, nonrandomized, nonblinded study with short follow-up that investigates a new treatment in patients with a chronic disease requiring lifelong care. (See “Evidence” above.) Even if the treatments were relatively safe and conducted in the U.S., viewers should understand that such studies are awash in potential biases and should always be approached with caution.

There was no discussion of the cost of this experimental procedure, and although it is an experimental procedure, some attempt could have been made to project costs. The broadcast states that 14 of 15 patients “seem to be cured because they have not needed insulin shots for as long as three years.” This is the main finding of the research and a reasonable summary of the therapy’s benefit. The broadcast outlines the harms that this “potentially very dangerous procedure” might cause (e.g. infection) as a result of knocking out a patient’s immune system. The broadcast explains that 14 of the 15 patients who received the experimental treatment no longer need injections of insulin to control their diabetes. Though the broadcast cites experts urging caution about the safety of the new therapy, no one points out that even if the procedure were safe, the remarkable findings could be the result of chance or bias. As the researchers point out in their published manuscript, these findings will need to be validated in studies that randomly assign patients to both the new treatment and a comparison therapy (such as standard care or a sham), assess their health using clinicians who do not know which treatment each patient received, and conduct tests to explain how exactly the new treatment seems to work. Because there is often a period of remission after the onset of Type I diabetes in which patients appear to improve without extraordinary measures, doctors will also have to follow both groups of patients for a longer period of time. The broadcast, though cautious (and limited by TV’s self-imposed time constraints), does not explain this. There is no evidence of disease-mongering. The broadcast balances statements from a cautious but hopeful coauthor of the new research with those of both a concerned academic ethicist and the mother of a young girl who has Type I diabetes. The broadcast transcript mentions insulin injections, the standard of care for Type I diabetes. In addition, the video shows a seven-year-old girl managing her disease through a daily routine of glucose monitoring and insulin shots–an effective way to illustrate the discipline and hardships the current standard therapy imposes on children with the disease, as well as why new approaches would be so welcome. The story makes it clear that this is an experimental treatment and not widely available. The broadcast suggests that this form of stem cell therapy is new. This is true, though experimentation with similar treatments for Type I diabetes go back to the 1990s. No obvious use of text from the press release.


Jon Voight once said "I pray all Americans who have seen and felt the meltdown of America with the Obama years, to please fight for Donald Trump

Explanation: Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay about $1 billion to resolve the bulk of lawsuits claiming the company sold defective metal-on-metal hip implants that ultimately had to be removed, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing people with knowledge of the matter.

The agreement resolves over 95 percent of the 6,000 cases in which surgeons extracted the company’s Pinnacle implants because they left patients unable to walk and in pain, according to the report. The $1 billion total includes an earlier settlement for more than $400 million and there are still about 4,500 pending suits by patients with artificial hips that were not made totally of metal or haven’t been surgically removed, Bloomberg added. In February, Reuters reported J&J’s DePuy Orthopedics unit, which made the products, was in settlement talks to resolve most individual lawsuits alleging the company’s metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip implants were defective and caused severe injuries. The implants were said to cause a build-up of metal ions in the blood, causing groin pain, allergic reactions, bone erosion and tissue death. In 2013, DePuy ceased selling the metal-on-metal Pinnacle devices after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration strengthened its artificial hip regulations. The Pinnacle system continues to be sold with other material combinations. Texas-based plaintiff lawyer Mark Lanier, one of the main attorneys for the consumers, declined to comment. Johnson & Johnson did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.


Corrections and Updates, Health Care, Public Health, PunditFact, Martin Shkreli,

The CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight, says the new price tag is still below market value. Martin Shkreli, a 32-year-old former hedge fund manager, was singled out as the man behind Turing’s controversial decision. So Shkreli took to the airwaves to defend himself, insisting that the price hike was altruistic or, at the very least, not unique. "You only need less than 100 pills so at the end of the day, the price for treatment – to save your life – was only $1,000," Shkreli told Bloomberg TV on Sept. 21, 2015. "These days, in modern pharmaceuticals, cancer drugs can cost $100,000 or more, rare disease drugs can cost half a million dollars. Daraprim is still underpriced, relative to its peers." Daraprim is used to treat a parasitic infection known as toxoplasmosis, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers a leading cause of death attributed to food-borne illnesses. The Toxoplasma parasite can be transmitted through contaminated food,  water, and kitchen utensils as well as contact with infected cat feces. While 60 million Americans carry the parasite with no symptoms, it can become deadly for those with weakened immune systems. We were curious about Shkreli’s claim that Daraprim’s new price was comparable to "its peers." (Shkreli has since said that he would lower the price amid the outrage, but he did not reveal the new price.) Neither Shkreli nor Turing Pharmaceuticals got back to us for this fact-check, but we found that while other treatments are certainly expensive, Shkreli is committing a  equivalence when he compares them to Daraprim. Shkreli is right that other treatments can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars: for example, the cancer drug Revlimid can cost $150,000 per year while Kalydeco, a drug for cystic fibrosis, can cost $300,000 a year, according to the New York Times. By Shkreli’s calculations, the new price of treatment –100 pills of Daraprim for $750 a pop – is $75,000. But that’s a low estimate, according to the Infectious Disease Societies of America. It estimated a new annual cost of $336,000 to $634,000, depending on dosage. Beyond cancer and rare disease treatments, few drugs cost more than $100,000, said David Howard, a professor of health policy and management at Emory University. So the high price Shkreli cited "isn’t a good benchmark for deciding whether a drug is underpriced," he said. Numbers aside, experts told us the real problem with Shkreli’s claim is Daraprim and cancer drugs shouldn’t be compared to each other. "They're not peers," said Amir Attaran, a professor of health law and policy at the University of Ottawa. "He could have said, ‘A bar of gold cost $1 million, so Daraprim is underpriced.’ He's comparing fish and fowl." Simply put, cancer and rare disease drugs are almost always under patent, while Daraprim’s expired in 1953. And unlike Daraprim, those drugs are the products of expensive, recent research. "The comparison is irrelevant. Cancer drugs were developed by companies that invested hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars in research and development," said John Lamattina, a former senior vice president at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., who currently writes about the industry for Forbes. Daraprim, meanwhile, "is generic drug. There’s no research and development they had to do," said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health economics and finance at Johns Hopkins University. The research and development for Daraprim happened long before Shkreli bought the rights. It’s the trade name for pyrimethamine, a drug created by Nobel Prize-winning scientist Gertrude Elion that can be used to treat malaria as well as toxoplasmosis. Though no generic drug company has taken up manufacturing Daraprim (there are only about 2,000 U.S. patients who use the drug every year), it’s been available for reproduction for more than 60 years. That means its peers should be other generic drugs like ibuprofen, penicillin, and antibiotics, experts told us. The proposed 5,000 percent price increase on Daraprim is indicative of a larger trend among more niche generic drugs. A joint House and Senate investigation, partly led by Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, found that the annual cost hikes for 10 generic drugs ranged from 390 to 8,200 percent. This "anarchy pricing" can be attributed to the failure of the free market and a lack of government regulation, says Alan Sager, a professor of health policy and management at Boston University. "Essentially, this is an example of where the drug pricing system for generic drugs has totally failed," Anderson said. "In the past, generic drugs have prices that are low because of competition. Anyone can make it with FDA approval. The only thing you can compete on is price. (Shkreli’s) found something where there's no competitors." Anyone can legally make Daraprim, but for the time being, Turing’s monopoly gives it free reign to impose very high prices. As for Shkreli’s claims that the profits will go to research for a better version of Daraprim, experts aren’t buying it. "Turing has not got a single clinical trial underway. Shkreli’s not testing new drugs of any kind for toxoplasmosis. He's got nothing registered," Attaran said. "No one needs a new drug for toxoplasmosis anyways. It works so well bloody well." Our ruling Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, said, "Daraprim is still underpriced, relative to its peers." By his own estimates, Daraprim is cheaper than cancer and rare disease drugs, which he considers Daraprim’s "peers." By others, Daraprim costs about the same, if not more. Yet experts told us cancer and rare disease drugs are not Daraprim’s peers. Daraprim’s patent expired more than six decades ago and is a niche generic drug. The same cannot be said of cancer treatments. We rate his claim . Correction: An earlier version of this fact-check misspelled Martin Shkreli's name.


March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting in the U.S. since 2002.

Explanation: What's true: According to one government database, the U.S. has had at least one shooting on K-12 school properties every March from 2003 through 2009, and every March since (but not including) 2010. What's false: However, the way that various U.S. government agencies and organizations define a "school shooting" varies greatly, making any numerical claims problematic. Also, by the standards of one key government database, the U.S. had eight — not zero — school shootings in March 2020.

To prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, state leaders across the U.S. ordered widespread school closures in March 2020. In the weeks that followed, millions of students spent their days at home instead of in classrooms. Some teachers and staff moved lessons online, and administrators locked the doors to school buildings so the general public could not enter. The closures were among the most dramatic steps by state leaders to combat the novel coronavirus that has killed more than 58,300 people globally as of this writing in mid-April 2020. About 56.6 million students registered for elementary or secondary school classes in the U.S. at the start of the 2019-20 academic year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. While a disruption to students’ learning, the shutdowns in America may have provided an unintended benefit, beyond limiting people’s exposure to the virus. On April 13, 2020, a journalist tweeted to his some 49,600 followers: “Last month was the first March without a school shooting in the United States since 2002.”  The reporter, Robert Klemko, quickly gained Twitter popularity among Americans who believe federal and state leaders should enact stricter gun laws, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It shouldn’t have taken a pandemic to make this possible,” her Twitter account wrote in a retweet of Klemko’s post. Meanwhile, Facebook users shared screenshots of Klemko’s tweet, and one Instagram account for a website that brands itself as a fact-checking service on that platform posted a photograph of a law-enforcement officer monitoring students boarding a school bus with Klemko’s claim as overlay text. Among media sites, CBS News published a story stating the assertion as fact. “My teens said this is the first time they have relaxed. No need to be hyper vigilant of every unusual sound, can just focus on school work,” one person tweeted. “Both grew up with regular Active Shooter Drills since kindergarten.” The claim about school shootings since 2002 is twofold: It asserts that no school shootings occurred in the U.S. in March 2020 and that every March between 2003 and 2019 documented at least one such incident. But because agencies across government and the news media do not share a consistent way for tracking and defining school shootings, the truth of both assertions depends on whom you ask. The U.S. Secret Service and FBI, for example, provide an explanation of factors that contribute to school shootings but do not keep a running list of all on-campus gun crimes. Academics and school officials often rely on news media reports for their research, though journalists may not cover every shooting. The nation’s biggest guns-rights group, the National Rifle Association, does not publish a running tally of shootings in schools, yet it has convened researchers to compile recommendations on how to avoid such incidents, like other organizations. Meanwhile, a leading opponent of the NRA — the lobbyist group Everytown for Gun Safety — has tracked all “incidents of gunfire” in K-12 schools and colleges, including suicides; shootings in which no one suffered injuries; and cases where the victims or gunmen may not have any connection to the school, since 2013. Those prominent advocacy groups aside, the least partisan and most comprehensive source of school-shooting data appears to be the “K-12 School Shooting Database” sponsored by the U.S. Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Updated daily by emergency-management researchers, the database records “each and every instance in which a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week,” according to its stated methodology. Its website summarizes the tricky situation analyzing school-shooting data as follows: Without a common methodology for data collection, individual data sources are limited in both validity and utility. Furthermore, there is no consensus for what actually defines a school shooting … Based on the differences among all available reporting platforms, there is currently no single source for objective and accessible data from which school administrators, law enforcement, and public officials can draw to inform their decisions. With that as background, administrators of the CHDS-sponsored K-12 database documented eight incidents fitting its definition of a “school shooting” in March 2020. Local news media reports affirm those findings. The incidents include: Regarding the claim that March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting since 2002, the data is more murky. The CHDS-sponsored database lists at least one incident in U.S. K-12 schools in March of every year from 2003 through 2009, and every year from 2011 through 2020, but none in 2010. Supporting that finding, tallies of K-12 school shootings by the for-profit National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm and the advocacy group the National School Safety Center do not show a March 2010 incident. However, those sources only consider shootings on U.S. elementary, middle and high school properties. If you expand the scope of research to also include shootings on college campuses, Ohio State University documented a deadly shooting on March 9, 2010. According to the New York Times’ coverage of the incident, officials said a custodian of the school shot and killed a co-worker before killing himself in a maintenance building. Another person was wounded in the gunfire. We reached out to Washington Post reporter Klemko — the author of the viral claim — to understand where he got his numbers. He said he did include cases involving post-secondary institutions, rather than only focusing on K-12 schools.


Disneyland tower suggested as Legionnaires’ disease source.

Explanation: A cooling tower that provides mist to make Disneyland visitors comfortable was the likely source for 22 cases in a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak last year near the theme park, a health official testified this week.

Health, Legionnaires disease, North America, California, Travel, Disease outbreaks

Most of those who got sick visited the park in the fall of 2017. Disneyland has denied it was the source, pointing to three infected people who had been in the city of Anaheim where Disneyland is located, but not at the park itself. One of them died. Dr. Matthew Zahn of the Orange County Health Care Agency gave testimony Tuesday before an appeals board judge at the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is investigating the case. Zahn said tests around the time of the outbreak showed high levels of Legionella bacteria in two Disneyland cooling towers, which are part of an air conditioning system that releases mist, the Los Angeles Times reported. He said contaminated droplets likely spread to people in the park and beyond. Disneyland is appealing state fines, saying the outbreak’s source was not scientifically determined. Upon questioning, Zahn said he could not be 100 percent certain that Disneyland was the source without additional testing. The disease is caused by bacteria that can grow in man-made water systems. People can develop pneumonia after breathing in contaminated vapor. A young girl who was diagnosed with Legionnaires’ after visiting Disneyland last fall has filed a lawsuit against the theme park. “The facts don’t support these claims and the lawsuit has no merit,” Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown said Tuesday. ___ Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/


Italy threatens to ban outdoor exercise as coronavirus deaths surge.

Explanation: The Italian government threatened on Wednesday to ban all outdoor exercise as the coronavirus death toll soared to 2,978 and frustration grew over the number of people defying a nationwide lockdown order.

Italy was the first Western country to impose severe restrictions on movement to contain the illness. But a week after the curbs were imposed, the disease is still spreading and hospitals in the north are at breaking point. The northern region of Lombardy, on the frontline of the battle against the respiratory pandemic, asked recently retired health workers on Wednesday to return to work and help colleagues overwhelmed by the crisis. “I make a heartfelt appeal to all the doctors, nurses and medical personnel who have retired in the last two years...to help us in this emergency,” regional Governor Attilio Fontana told a news conference. The national death toll surged by 475 over the past 24 hours, the largest increase in numerical terms since the outbreak first came to light on Feb. 21. The total number of confirmed cases grew by 4,207 to 35,713. “I believe that in the coming hours we will have to consider the possibility of a complete ban on outdoor activities,” Sports Minister Vincenzo Spadafora told state broadcaster RAI. The government lockdown banned all non-essential travel, but allowed people to take solitary daily exercise, if needed. Looking to enforce the restrictions, police have stopped more than one million people over the past week and booked almost 43,000 for violating the rules, the interior ministry said. “If the call to stay at home is not heeded, we will be forced to impose an absolute ban,” he said. The real number of deaths could be much higher than the official figure, after it emerged that fatalities in nursing homes - where dozens of patients are dying each day - are not being registered as coronavirus-related because none of the sick are being tested. “There are significant numbers of people who have died but whose death hasn’t been attributed to the coronavirus because...they weren’t swabbed,” said Giorgio Gori, mayor of the town of Bergamo, one of the worst hit areas. While many Italian cities have been largely empty over the past week, photographs have circulated on social media of public transport filling up in the financial capital Milan, suggesting that some people are going back to work. “Every time you leave your home, you are putting yourself and others at risk,” said Fontana. Lombardy, like many regions, is rushing to build makeshift hospitals to add badly needed intensive-care units. However, the move is being complicated by the fact that doctors, nurses and hospital porters are themselves falling sick. Some have died. The Gimbe Foundation research group, using data supplied by the national health authority, said that between March 11-17, some 2,529 health workers had been diagnosed with coronavirus - 8.3% of the national total of coronavirus cases. Officials warned that if the incidence of new cases did not slow in the coming days, they might extend the lockdown already in place, both in terms of the types of restrictions and how long they will continue. In successive decrees earlier this month, the government ordered restaurants, bars and most shops to close until March 25. In addition, it shut schools and universities and told everyone to stay home unless absolutely essential until April 3. Since the restrictions were most recently ramped up on March 12, the number of deaths has more than tripled. “I do not know if the measures will be extended beyond April 3. We will make a decision based on the numbers and events. I cannot rule it out. We will see in the coming days,” said Infrastructure Minister Paola De Micheli.


Consumer goods CEOs in Davos hot seat over plastic waste.

Explanation: Consumer products companies including Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N) and Coca-Cola Co (KO.N) are emerging as new targets for global activism, with green groups blaming them for fouling the ocean with plastic and activists urging governments to regulate them.

At the annual World Economic Forum this week, the bosses of these and other firms like Unilever Plc (ULVR.L) and PepsiCo (PEP.O) have been on the defensive, in a way reminiscent of how coal and oil chiefs came under pressure over climate change in previous years. “I see parallels to coal,” Greenpeace executive director Jennifer Morgan told Reuters after she and Procter & Gamble boss David Taylor had a feisty exchange at a joint news conference at the forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. “It’s clear they are trying to not be regulated,” she added. The CEOs at Davos have vowed to cut their use of plastic packaging through a range of initiatives, including a joint recycling scheme unveiled during the forum. But Greenpeace used that announcement to call for plastic packaging bans and a goal of “peak plastic”, saying recycling was not enough. About 8 million tonnes of plastic are dumped into oceans every year, killing marine life and entering the food chain, according to the U.N. Environment Program. Data like that, and TV shows such as documentary-maker David Attenborough’s Blue Planet, have taken the issue to the top of the summit agenda. Attenborough, 92, was honoured with a special award at the start of the annual event, where environmental concerns were a running theme alongside gloom and doom over the U.S.-China trade war and a slowdown in the global economy. “I sometimes wonder if we’re in the branded litter business, branded trash,” Unilever Chief Executive Alan Jope half-joked after he was asked during a panel debate if consumers were interested in the source of the company’s products. In 2017 at Davos, Dove soap maker Unilever promised to ensure all of its plastic packaging was recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025. “Two years ago at Davos, Unilever was in front on plastics. At the moment it’s very high on our radar to do something about plastic waste above and beyond...the rest of the industry.”  Dozens of big companies have made various pledges to reduce plastic packaging, including a plan by 40 firms to eliminate unnecessary single-use plastic packaging in Britain by 2025. “We will roll out new tech next year that will reduce the amount of packaging per kilo,” PepsiCo Chief Executive Ramon Laguarta said at Davos, adding that Pepsi was trying to move more toward reusable cans and glass. PepsiCo, Unilever and European supermarket chains Carrefour (CARR.PA) and Tesco (TSCO.L) are among firms that signed up to the pilot waste-reduction programme unveiled in Davos this week. It will deliver products such as orange juice in reusable bottles to shoppers and pick up the empties for cleaning and re-use. “We can learn about the business model, and the consumer reaction to this and find solutions that last,” P&G’s Taylor said at the announcement. At one Davos panel debate, human rights lawyer Vivek Maru, founder of legal advocacy group Namati, asked PepsiCo’s Laguarta and the head of The Dow Chemical Company, Jim Fitterling, if they could be hit with lawsuits for the damage their companies had done, similar to litigation against the tobacco industry. “It’s a difficult question to answer,” Fitterling said. “The plastic waste got there through consumer behavior and people putting it out into the environment.”  The plastic debate has also caught the eye of the insurance industry, which has taken stands at times on environmental issues. Some major insurers refuse to provide cover for new coal-fired power stations due to climate-change concerns, for example. “It’s not a big reinsurance topic at this stage,” Christian Mumenthaler, who runs the world’s second-largest reinsurer Swiss Re (SRENH.S), told Reuters at Davos. “The mechanism where insurance would be involved would be on the liability policies of these companies. If the risk becomes very big and they get sued — not specifically plastic but any company — for their behavior, this would flow into our risk assessment and they could start to have trouble getting insurance,” he added. “It’s heating up very quickly and we are already seeing some action from companies, so let’s see. I would hope they would act quickly enough, radically enough to be a good case of change.”  Unilever and PespiCo chief executives bristled at Greenpeace’s call at Davos for more bans on plastic packaging, saying that the problem called for multiple solutions, from recycling and re-use to new packaging technologies. Last month, the European Union passed measures to ban throw-away plastic items such as straws and polystyrene cups by 2021. Greenpeace welcomed the move but called at the time for an EU-wide target to reduce consumption of food containers and cups. Greenpeace’s Morgan said the issue could not be solved through industry initiatives alone. “Many of the businesses behind these initiatives and others are expanding production of single-use plastic and are looking to grow in markets that can’t take more plastic,” Morgan said. “There’s a real risk that products like this become a distracting side show to generate positive (public relations).”  Brune Poirson, secretary of state for ecology, sustainable development and energy in France, also took a swipe at the companies, saying they should take the initiative. “Because you’re not doing that, we have to intervene,” Poirson said. “I think it’s a waste of time, a waste of resources and it’s not being a real responsible organization.”


Liberal feminist Katie Hopkins advocated for driving euthanasia vans around to kill off the elderly.

Explanation: What's true: Hopkins did make the comment in an interview in 2015. What's false: The comments were not made in 2017, when the story was being shared on disreputable web sites; Hopkins is considered a right-wing commentator, not a "liberal feminist".

Uncategorized, daily mail, fake outrage, katie hopkins

On 29 August 2017, click bait web site WorldPoliticus.com, which regularly posts heavily sensationalized stories, reported that British media personality Katie Hopkins (who has made a name for herself by making outrageous comments) advocated for driving a van around with the purpose of euthanizing elderly people: Many people would gladly have Katie Hopkins removed from TV shows. The liberal British TV personality was part of The Apprentice, and made a shocking statement. Hopkins doesn’t really know how things work, and she better stop acting like an expert. The liberal supports the euthanasia of old people, and her excuse is the lamest thing you will ever hear. According to Hopkins, old people are nothing but a burden to society, and euthanasia is the only solution to her problem. She even suggested that communities should have “euthanasia vans” that would roll across the country and collect elderly people. Yes, this is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard. Hopkins, a tabloid columnist, did make the comments — but she did so two years ago, in an interview published on 6 August 2015 by the British program “Radio Times”. On the topic of elderly people and dementia, Hopkins had the following exchange with interviewer Michael Buerk: We’d been getting on terribly well, I thought. She’s smart, funny; attractive, too, in a beaky sort of way. She’d been rattling on, saying out loud the kind of things the rest of us feel guilty even thinking. She giggled a lot. I did a fair bit of sniggering myself, looking around furtively to make sure nobody was noticing. Then I made the mistake of asking the obvious question about her latest television venture, If Katie Hopkins Ruled the World… I couldn’t not ask her: well, OK, what would she do if she did? “Right,” she said, saucer blue eyes looking me up and down, evidently seeing a problem to be solved. “We just have far too many old people.” Did I know that one in three NHS beds was being blocked by the elderly and demented? A third of our hospitals filled up by people who don’t even know they’re there? She’d soon put a stop to that. “It’s ridiculous to be living in a country where we can put dogs to sleep but not people.” Her solution? “Easy. Euthanasia vans – just like ice-cream vans – that would come to your home.” After they’d finished in the hospitals, presumably. “It would all be perfectly charming. They might even have a nice little tune they’d play. I mean this genuinely. I’m super-keen on euthanasia vans. We need to accept that just because medical advances mean we can live longer, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.” I stuttered something about not being entirely with her on this. “Not with me on that? Is it because you’re old?” I told you she was smart. Smart enough to be making a fair old living being rude about people, quite often to their faces. It’s a strange career for a conformist convent schoolgirl, whose first ambition was to join the Diplomatic Corps. Other than the perennial need for outrage-driven clicks, it’s unclear why the 2015 comments have been resurrected in 2017, but as of 5 September 2017, the story had been posted on several junk sites with no citation to the original interview. Hopkins is generally considered a right-wing commentator, per RationalWiki. Although it’s unclear what her true personally held views are, Hopkins has made a name for herself by “punching down”: Katie Hopkins is a writer-broadcaster, former British reality TV contestant and singularity of awfulness. She is known for her right-wing views expressed on television, newspapers, and on Twitter. She has been rude about migrants, Scots, Muslims, people with dementia, the lower classes, and many other individuals and groups. In fairness, it’s unclear how much of her output is designed to wind up the idiots who’ll complain about anything, how much is genuine hatred for those more needy than herself and how much is both. Hopkins now writes columns for a British tabloid, where she regularly rails against immigrants; Hopkins made headlines in mid-2017 when she was dragged by the rest of the UK press for traveling to Sicily and taking selfies with “Defend Europe”, a group of white supremacists who chartered a boat in an unsuccessful attempt to hamper non-governmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders from rescuing stranded migrants in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.


DHEA hormone may help women through menopause: study

Explanation: The scientists involved in this hormone study claim to have “robust evidence” of benefits for women’s sex lives but then also caution that the sample size is too small to be certain. We wish the story had taken a little more time to help readers decide what to believe and that it had included, in particular, information about costs and conflicts of interest. This is especially important given one of the researcher’s past histories with working closely with pharmaceutical companies to help them promote their products. Also, pulling quotes from a news release without attribution is not best practice. Hormone treatments are among the most litigated and most controversial drugs on the market. Readers need to understand the full context around any new development in hormone treatment, and they also need to understand what might be driving the science behind the scenes.

Costs are missing from the story, and, given that these are well established products, cost information could have been explained. The story does a nice job specifically explaining the benefits or lack thereof. It says, “After 12 months, all the women on hormone replacements had improvements in menopausal symptoms, but those taking vitamin D and calcium did not show any significant improvement. At the start of the trial, all groups had similar sexual activity, but after the year, those taking calcium and vitamin D scored an average of 34.9 on the questionnaire scale, while those taking DHEA had a score of 48.6, showing that those on DHEA had more sexual interest and activity.” By presenting the actual scores, readers are able to see how close the scores were and decide for themselves whether the increased benefit was worth the risk of possible side effects. The story explains the potential harms involved in taking hormone treatments, saying, “sales of HRT drugs have fallen sharply since a large study in 2002 found higher rates of ovarian cancer, breast cancer and strokes in women who took the pills, and the search has since been on for alternatives.” But the story does not address any potential harms of DHEA, which was the subject of the story. The story signals up high that the study was limited in scope. It explains the basic study design quickly and competently. “For this trial, a team of researchers led by Andrea Genazzani of the University of Pisa followed a group of 48 post-menopausal women with troubling symptoms,” the story says. “Over a year, 12 women took vitamin D and calcium, 12 took DHEA, 12 took standard HRT and 12 took a synthetic steroid called tibolone which is used to alleviate menopausal symptoms.”  The story does not engage in disease mongering. The article does not quote any outside sources, which we know can be driven by deadline demands. The bigger problem with the story, and it’s a problem shared by many stories about hormone treatments, is that it does not acknowledge the authors’ conflicts of interest. Dr. Andrea Genazzini, for example, has worked with pharmaceutical companies on multiple articles that were ghostwritten by the companies’ marketing firms. You can find this by looking in the Drug Industry Document Archive. We know that it’s tough to cover all the bases when juggling multiple stories in a day, but we hope that more reporters will take the time to at least do a name check on researchers involved in studies of hormone therapy, antidepressants and other drugs that have been the subject of lawsuits and federal investigations. There is a wealth of information in the archive, and readers deserve to know more about it. The story mentions several alternative treatments to hormones. It says, “American researchers said in January that the antidepressant Lexapro, made by drugmaker Forest Laboratories, significantly cut the number and severity of hot flushes in menopausal women, and other antidepressants including GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil and the Pfizer drugs Prozac and Effexor also have been found to be effective.” But it seems strange that the story refers only to these brand name products and does not mention any of the generic medications such as fluoxetine and citalopram that have also been proven to reduce hot flashes. This issue, and the lack of cost information, make this story less helpful to consumers than it might have been. The availability is implied, but the story could have been more explicit about how readers might purchase the specific drugs that were studied or whether they were in specific trial stages for this type of treatment. In fact, tibolone is not available in the U.S. though it is available in Europe. DHEA is sold as a supplement over the counter. There are no claims of novelty made here. The quotes in the story come from the press release issued by the journal (posted here by News Medical).


Joseph Cryan Says direct shipment of wine "makes underage drinking as simple as a mouse click.

Explanation: Assemblyman Joseph Cryan says direct shipment of wine would allow underage residents easy access to alcohol

Alcohol, New Jersey, Government Regulation, Joseph Cryan,

You can do a lot of things with the click of a mouse. End a relationship. Destroy a career. Forward funny pet videos to your friends. Add get alcohol when you’re underage to the list of possibilities if a bill allowing wineries to ship directly to New Jersey consumers becomes law, said Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union). Cryan wrote an op-ed criticizing legislation in the state Senate  that would allow direct shipment of wine. Cryan has sponsored a bill that would amend the state’s licensing laws for wineries but does not allow direct shipping. And the debate over shipping wine is certain to raise at least one concern: underage drinking. "Direct shipment provides a virtual store for teens to buy alcohol they would otherwise be prohibited from buying at liquor stores. It makes the face-to-face purchase transaction practically irrelevant; and makes underage drinking as simple as a mouse click," Cryan wrote in an op-ed posted on CourierPostOnline.com on Aug. 21. Can the under-21 crowd get drunk with the click of a mouse? PolitiFact New Jersey found it’s not that easy. Cryan’s deputy chief of staff, Dave Jenkins, sent PolitiFact New Jersey a 2005 report from an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to support the claim. The report said "the Internet acts as a general store" where teenagers can "get hold of almost anything," including beer, wine and liquor, but also marijuana, prescription drugs and "crack dealer locator services." Though the report raises concerns about what teenagers can access online, it does not address underage consumers ordering wine through a licensed winery. A 2003 study by the Federal Trade Commission and a 2010 report from the Comptroller of Maryland -- that noted the difficulty of proving a cause and effect relationship in this case -- found little to no evidence of an increase in underage drinking due to direct shipment of wine. The Maryland report said, "The reasons for this may be that: (1) "wine" is not the drink of choice for youth; and (2) direct shipment of wine is costly and time-consuming." Jenkins called the Maryland report "useless" because its conclusion "only recognizes the need for a better method of evaluation." Other studies show, and experts said, that underage consumers looking for alcohol probably aren’t going to buy wine. An April report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and a 2006 report by Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse both concluded that wine is not the first choice for underage drinkers. Marilyn Aguirre-Molina, professor of clinical population and family health at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said, "teens are going online for everything imaginable, but something like alcohol -- which requires a credit card, an address to mail it too, as well as patience until it arrives -- online purchase of wine is a drag and hassle, especially if it’s the least preferred of alcoholic beverages." Even if someone younger than 21 wanted to order a bottle of wine and successfully placed that order online, Cryan’s claim starts to unravel when the product is packaged. FedEx and UPS require packages containing wine to be labeled, saying they contain alcoholic beverages. Also, both companies require the signature of an adult 21 or older upon delivery. The U.S. Postal Service does not ship wine. Cryan’s deputy chief of staff said it’s lawmakers’ responsibility to ensure underage individuals do not get access to alcohol. "We cannot depend upon the policies of FedEx, or others to properly deny those underage from delivery. We must be proactive, not reactive. What if FedEx changes their policy tomorrow?" he wrote in an email. Joanne Tetlow, a division staff attorney with the Comptroller of Maryland's field enforcement division who compiled the agency’s report on direct wine shipment, said since "we don’t license consumers like we do retailers" states that allow direct shipment of wine are relying on the shipping companies. And there is a chance those measures will fail. "Do we believe it represents a threat? Absolutely," said Michael Scippa, public affairs director for Alcohol Justice, a California-based industry watchdog. He said age verification online and by delivery companies are "two areas where it seems easy to or possible to bypass the law." The ruling  Cryan claimed that allowing wineries to ship their product directly to consumers makes "underage drinking as simple as a mouse click." But even if an underage individual can order a bottle of wine online, the two major shipping companies in the U.S. require an adult signature in order to deliver the package. Cryan’s claim exaggerates a legitimate concern, but we can’t ignore the hint of truth in the statement -- that shipping wine directly to homes provides another opportunity for underage access. We rate his statement . To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.


Dutch woman aged 107 survives coronavirus.

Explanation: A 107-year old Dutch woman has recovered from the coronavirus, probably becoming the oldest survivor of the pandemic in the world.

Cornelia Ras fell ill on March 17, the day after her 107th birthday, Dutch newspaper AD reported, after attending a church service with other residents of her nursing home on Goeree-Overflakkee, an island in the southwest of the country. She and 40 others at the service were subsequently diagnosed as carrying the virus. Twelve of that group have since died, but Ras was told by her doctors on Monday that she had beaten the infection. “We did not expect her to survive this”, her niece Maaike de Groot told the newspaper. “She takes no medicines, still walks well and gets down on her knees every night to thank the Lord. From the looks of it, she will be able to continue to do so.”     Prior to Ras, the oldest widely documented coronavirus survivor was Bill Lapschies, a 104-year-old American.


Doors singer Jim Morrison has been found alive in a Paris retirement home.

Explanation: This website is satirical in scope and intent. It provides fake news and social criticism in a satirical setting. If this offends you, you might want to consider doing something else with your time rather than looking at the Internet. Really, the quality of your life will improve dramatically. Our intention is not to fool anyone, but if you do get fooled,  don’t sweat it. Please have fun and lighten up and watch out for Snopes.com, we’re not sure they’ve had all their vaccinations.

On 17 March 2016, the Nevada County Scooper web site published an article reporting that Jim Morrison, the Doors singer/songwriter who passed away in Paris (under somewhat mysterious circumstances) in 1971 at age 27 had been found alive in a Paris retirement home:  According to Reuters and the Associated Press International, James Douglas Morrison, the lead singer of the rock group, “The Doors,” is alive in a Paris retirement home. Morrison, who rose to the heights of rock legend in the late 1960’s, was said to have passed away in the bathtub of his Paris apartment on July 3, 1971. The fact that there was no autopsy and no one who claimed to have ever seen his corpse, the legend, mystery, and controversy surrounding the Lizard King has continued to swell. Reuters Paris beat reporter, Belda Sauvé, who has been investigating various Morrison rumors for the past 45 years, broke the story last evening and sat down for a Scooper exclusive. “I was contacted by a nurse from Petites Soeurs des Pauvres, an assisted living hospital for the infirmed,” Ms. Sauvé told the Scooper. “This nurse informed me that she was caring for a patient named Jacques Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The patient, who is suffering from alcoholism and liver and kidney failure, as well as moderate dementia, told her he was the grandson of the famous French post-impressionist artist, Henri Marie Raymond de Toulouse-Lautrec. Everyone believed his story because they knew that the senior Toulouse-Lautrec was a raging alcoholic that cavorted with prostitutes.”  Neither Reuters not Associated Press (nor any other legitimate news agency) reported on this story, however, because it isn’t true. This tale is purely the invention of the Nevada County Scooper, a site described by its disclaimer as being “satirical in scope and intent”:


Drug may prevent lung cancer, study finds

Explanation: Does the pressure to meet a certain volume or quota of stories force some news organizations to feel they must report on abstracts and news briefings from medical/scientific meetings? If so, we suggest that a paradigm shift is in order. Read the full review to see why. Coverage of conference presentations needs caveats about the preliminary nature of the evidence. The story had barely any data, not a word from an independent source, and left out potential harms and costs.

No price tags. A New York Times article from 2005 discussed the expense of drugs like Tarceva. According to drugstore.com, the regimen used in the study costs $4700 a month. Iloprost isn’t cheap, either. No data are presented for the iloprost study. As this was the lead item in the article, we have to give an Unsatisfactory rating. Even though preliminary data from a conference presentation has to be taken with a skeptical eyebrow, the public learns even less from a vague, flat, non-quantified summary of the benefits. Some data are presented for the erlotinib study. No harms of iloprost or erlotinib are mentioned. In the iloprost study, 11% of subjects receiving the drug reported serious adverse events. That’s a pretty big omission. Both halves of the story were good to point out the number of subjects and placebo control groups in each study. The venues for presentation and trial phases are critical pieces of information, but terms like Phase II aren’t meaningful to most people. They should have been explained. Regarding the iloprost study, the marquee topic, the story fails to point out that Phase II data reported at conferences are preliminary. Although the article acknowledges that further study is needed, it simply quotes the abstract and provides no context. It should’ve been clearer that conference abstracts haven’t gone through full peer review process. It also doesn’t explain, related to the key finding, what it means to have significant improvement in "endobronchial dysplasia." The study looked at changes in lung tissue. From the abstract, it doesn’t seem that study made any clinical assessments or diagnoses. In other words, the study didn’t tell us which subjects did and did not ultimately develop lung cancer. While the drug may prove effective towards that end, this study doesn’t tell us. Also missing from the details on the iloprost study was the fact that the study didn’t enroll just smokers and ex-smokers: it enrolled those at increased risk of lung cancer because they had abnormal cells in their sputum. According to one study, most but not all smokers have this risk factor. The second half of the story begins by citing vague, unnamed research about myo-inositol in the prevention of lung cancer. No evaluation of the quality of this evidence was provided, nor was there a way for readers to find out more. Then we move to a published study of erlotinib maintenance therapy for patients with advanced lung cancer. We’re unsure how it’s connected to the previous half of the article, as the heading is simply "Italian research." The reporting of this study is slightly better than the iloprost coverage, including some actual data. But without caveats for the studies discussed previously, we’re led to think the three studies are of equal high quality. Most readers will not be able to decode terms like "Phase 2," "Phase 3," "presented to a meeting," and "reported in Lancet Oncology." If the author had decided to cover a smorgasborg of disparate lung cancer news, which there’s nothing wrong with, it should not have implied that the first study was on equal footing to the second. It would have also been good to note whether the "little" differences in the erlotinib study were statistically significant. (They were.) An independent source could’ve spoken to the clinical significance of these results. (For example, the accompanying Lancet Oncology editorial suggests that they were only compelling enough to change therapy for the subgroup who had EGFR mutations.) The article doesn’t engage in disease-mongering. Independent sources were entirely absent. An independent voice might have added the missing caveats to the preliminary nature of the iloprost data, the fact that the results had already been presented last year, etc. For the coverage of the erlotinib study, independent appraisal might have added some objective context beyond taking the investigators’ claim that their study shows that more clinicians should follow their strategy. The independent source could have been the Lancet Oncology editorial that accompanied the erlotinib study, which discussed some potential limitations in this approach in clinical practice, e.g., regarding EGFR mutations and a history of chemotherapy treatment. Finally, an unaffiliated voice may have pointed out the history and context: in April, the FDA used the results of the erlotinib study to approve Tarceva for the use in maintenance therapy, and not without some controversy. It was against the recommendation of the FDA’s advisory panel, who voted 12-1 vote against approval. (See this article for more details.) The story makes the publication of this study in the journal sound like a bombshell in a vacuum. No conflicts of interest were identified. The erlotinib study was funded by a drug company. As the first study did not show that the drug can prevent cancer, no alternative needs to be mentioned. The story did mention a natural supplement that was recently studied for prevention; we think this nod was so fast and vague, it was more confusing than helpful. It almost felt like a non sequitur. The story mentions that less than half of patients with successfully treated lung cancer currently receive maintenance therapy thereafter. Besides no treatment, none of the alternatives are mentioned. The story gets a marginal satisfactory. In the first half, we’re told of inhaled iloprost’s availability for certain indications, which don’t include the prevention of lung cancer. It could have been a lot clearer that the oral formulation is not currently available to patients; right now, we can only tell that by inference given the indications and brands mentioned for inhaled and IV formulations are mentioned. In the second half, we’re told that erlotinib is currently sold as Tarceva. It would have been good to note its indications, which were expanded in April to cover the approach used in this study because of the results of the study. A mixed bag here. The story establishes that iloprost is currently not approved for the prevention of lung cancer. It’s unclear about the novelty of the oral formulation in any indication. Also, it seems that the study was already reported at a different conference in August 2009, which had some press coverage. There may have been further analysis, but the conclusion seems to have been the same. It speaks to newsworthiness of the 2010 presentation. Regarding erlotinib, the story tells us that less than half of patients with successfully treated lung cancer currently receive maintenance therapy thereafter. What’s missing is that Tarcvea is already approved for this use, due to earlier access to the results of the Italian study. It’s a pretty important piece of information, and it would’ve put the news in much more context. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story may have relied on a news release. We do know that it didn’t quote any independent sources.


UK cost agency rejects leukaemia drug from J&J and AbbVie.

Explanation: A new leukaemia drug viewed by industry experts as a future blockbuster has been rejected by Britain’s healthcare cost-effectiveness agency NICE, which said it could not be confident the medicine represented an effective use of resources.

Imbruvica has a list price of 55,954.50 pounds ($78,000) a year, although it is being offered at an undisclosed discount to the National Health Service by European supplier Janssen, a unit of Johnson & Johnson. Janssen said on Wednesday it was “extremely disappointed” by the draft recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which contrasted with decisions in 48 other countries to fund the medicine. Imbruvica is the first in a new class of cancer drugs known as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Excitement over its prospects prompted AbbVie to buy Pharmacyclics, which developed the medicine with J&J, for $21 billion last year. AbbVie expects it to sell $5 billion annually by 2020. AstraZeneca, meanwhile, acquired a rival drug in the same class by purchasing 55 percent of privately held Acerta Pharma for $4 billion in December.


Certain foods may be the best medicine for lowering ‘bad’ cholesterol

Explanation: This story was about a study comparing a special vegetarian diet containing a “portfolio” of cholesterol-lowering foods (e.g. nuts, soy, margarines fortified with plant sterols) with standard dietary advice for preventing heart disease (e.g. cut out saturated fat). There was plenty to like about this story, including comments from two excellent independent sources which added valuable context to the piece. The story also makes the very important point that this study looked only at a surrogate marker of heart disease risk, LDL cholesterol, and not actual heart disease outcomes. But the story didn’t provide crucial information about costs or availability of the diet components and it didn’t fairly describe how difficult it would be for most people to maintain this kind of diet. These mistakes are compounded by a glaring misinterpretation of the study which is trumpeted in the headline — i.e. that the diet tested in the study lowered LDL cholesterol “more than statin drugs.”  Many people at risk of heart disease don’t want to take cholesterol-lowering drugs, can’t take them because of troubling side effects, or don’t achieve their targets on drug therapy alone. Others may have cholesterol levels above target but below the range where statin therapy is indicated. Diet-based interventions such as this “portfolio diet” represent an important potential alternative for these patients.

Will following this special diet cost patients more than what they spend on food today? A look at some of the pricey components — soy milk, tofu, supplemented margarine, etc — suggests that it might. That’s an important consideration that the story doesn’t address. The story is badly flawed by its suggestion that the portfolio diet is more effective than statin drugs for lowing LDL cholesterol. The headline claims that the diet may be the “best” medicine for lowering LDL and the subhead says the diet lowers LDL “more than statin drugs.” In the text, it is suggested that the authors of the study said the diet can lower LDL cholesterol to levels “half that seen by many patients who take statins.” The study authors said no such thing. They said that the cholesterol reduction observed with the diet was about half that seen with some early statin drugs, meaning that the drugs are about twice as effective as the diet for lowering LDL. Newer statin drugs are quite a bit more effective for lowering LDL. This is a critical misreading of the study. The story did not mention potential harms of the diet. Although those on the portfolio diet did not have significantly more adverse events than those on the control diet, some allergy-type reactions did occur that were probably related to the diet components (soy, tree nuts). The story should have made some reference to safety. Mixed bag here, which we’ll ultimately call satisfactory, as there was sufficient detail for the reader to get a sense of the intervention, the participants, and the main results. Also, the story earns high marks for explaining that LDL cholesterol is a surrogate endpoint and that the study did not actually determine whether the diet resulted in fewer heart attacks or other cardiovascular problems. This is a crucial point, because we do have good evidence that statin drugs, given to the right people, help prevent heart attacks. Ultimately, we care a lot more about heart attacks than we do the numbers on a laboratory test. But the story is quite misleading when it suggests that understanding and implementing the portfolio diet in everyday life is “pretty easily done.” Implementing the diet is one thing, but staying on it is another. As the researchers acknowledge in their paper, the diet was “complex” and the study had a “high” attrition rate of 22.6% after only 6 months. That rate surely would have increased with longer duration of follow-up. Many other studies attest to the difficulty people have staying on healthy diets that are arguably less demanding than this plan, which lists “tofu bake with ratatouille” as a representative dinner. And if people can’t stay on the diet, they won’t see the benefit. The story didn’t exaggerate the impact of heart disease or try to sell treatment to those who don’t need it. We applaud the inclusion of comments from two well-known independent experts on diet and heart disease, Steve Nissen and Walter Willett. However, the story did not adequately identify funding conflicts. The study was partially funded by Unilever, which makes margarine containing plant sterols (one of the cholesterol-lowering components of the portfolio). In addition, many of the study authors reported receiving grant funding or had other relationships with Unilever and other organizations with a commercial interest in the study. The study being covered was a comparison of the portfolio diet with standard dietary advice for preventing heart disease. Comparisons with statins (though erroneous) are also made, but since the points for this problem were docked elsewhere, we’ll award a satisfactory here. Although most of the foods consumed by study participants are probably available in most areas, those in poor urban and rural areas may have trouble finding what they need to eat a nutritionally adequate diet when following the portfolio principles. (The diet relies on a lot of soy-based meat replacements.) A bigger problem may be finding a health professional who can instruct patients in how to follow the diet in a healthful way. Doctors in the U.S. are not reimbursed for providing dietary advice, and so don’t have much incentive to counsel patients on this kind of diet plan. Also, many uninsured patients do not have access to a dietitian who could do even the “less intensive” two-session intervention described in the story. The story should have at least mentioned some of these issues. The story doesn’t directly refer to previous studies of the portfolio diet, which have reported similar benefits. And thus it may give readers the impression that this approach is more novel than is actually the case. On the other hand, the story does note that the various components of the diet have well known “cholesterol-busting” properties. A close call here, but since the story is factually correct when it says this was the first study to test the diet in a real-world comparison (even if it doesn’t mention the previous studies), we’ll give the benefit of the doubt. The story was not based on a news release.


Bricks of cocaine washed ashore in Florida after Hurricane Dorian.

Explanation: What's true: A brick of cocaine was found on a beach in Florida as Hurricane Dorian began to impact the area. What's false: A large amount of cocaine was found in a duffel bag on a Florida beach before the storm. What's undetermined: It's unclear if Hurricane Dorian played any part in these drugs washing up on shore.

On Sept. 10, 2019, social media users encountered a video posted by @NowThisNews that reported bricks of cocaine had washed ashore on a beach in Florida after Hurricane Dorian: Hurricane Dorian washed up bricks of cocaine on Florida’s coast pic.twitter.com/ApEtNvR7tb — NowThis (@nowthisnews) September 10, 2019  While the described incident may seem somewhat strange, the video was based on genuine news reports. Days earlier, CNN reported that Melbourne City police found a brick of cocaine on a beach after a beach-goer reported it as a “suspicious package.” The officer had the package’s contents tested and confirmed that they were cocaine:  A beachgoer found the drugs, pointing out a “suspicious package” to a patrol officer monitoring the beach, Melbourne city spokeswoman Cheryl Mall told CNN. The officer took the package into custody, and the contents were tested, confirming the cocaine. This brick of cocaine was found a few days after law enforcement discovered another stash of cocaine on Cocoa Beach. Local news outlet Florida Today reported that officers found a duffel bag containing 15 kilos of cocaine worth about $300,000: Cocoa Beach police are asking beachcombers in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian to be cautious about suspicious packages after a duffel bag stuffed with 15 kilos of cocaine washed ashore over. The find — worth at least $300,000 — came before Dorian’s violent stirrings in the Atlantic led to a single brick of cocaine being found along a beach in Melbourne. “There is a possibility that more will come onshore. Especially now with these conditions. It could be coming from anywhere,” said Manny Hernandez, spokesman for the Cocoa Beach Police Department. “We’re telling people to be cautious and not to grab or handle it because if there is an opening, it can go into your pores and you can overdose,” he said. Cocoa Beach Police Sgt. Manny Hernandez told us that this duffel bag of cocaine was found “pre-Hurricane Dorian” on Aug. 30, 2019. It’s unclear if these two packages were connected. However, as some of the cocaine washed ashore prior to the hurricane.  Here are the facts regarding the cocaine that washed up in Cocoa Beach (Pre-hurricane Dorian): On Friday, August 30, 2019 (pre-hurricane Dorian) at approximately 17:16 (5:16pm), Cocoa Beach Police responded to the Beach End of S. 6th St, Cocoa Beach, FL., in reference to a suspicious package that washed up on shore. The red, travel style duffle bag, was noticed by a beach goer who immediately contacted the police department as the bag appeared suspicious. Responding officers believed the duffle bag contained illegal substance and properly removed it from the beach and transported the bag to the Cocoa Beach Police Department. Upon further inspection, the bag contained 15 small “bricks” that were tightly packaged. However, it was believed the packages may contain an unknown narcotic, possibly cocaine. Cocoa Beach Police contacted the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and notified them of the suspicious bag and contents. A representative/Agent with the agency responded to the Cocoa Beach Police Department the same evening. U.S. Custom and Border Protection Agent inspected the packages and after removing several layers off one of the “Bricks”, the Agent informed the substance to be cocaine. It is unknown who the duffle bags belongs to and unknown where the cocaine is from. There were no further incidents involving the duffle bag. The bag and the 15 “Bricks” (1 Kilo per brick) was turned over to U.S Custom & Border Protection Agent. The street value in the central Florida area is approximately $20K – $30K per “Brick” (Kilo). While these news reports may seem unusual, these incidents were not the first time drugs had washed ashore in Florida. In 2016, law enforcement recovered 20 kilos of cocaine worth about $600,000 near Jupiter Island in Martin County. A similar discovery was made the following year near Melbourne Beach.


Earl Blumenauer Says ending the direct payment farm subsidy program "could save up to $28.4 billion over ten years that could be used to reduce the deficit.

Explanation: Rep. Earl Blumenauer says cutting direct subsidies to farmers would save $28.4 billion over 10 years

Agriculture, Oregon, Federal Budget, Earl Blumenauer,

With Congress’ tendency to sidestep the really difficult questions on spending and deficits, even old statements remain relevant and worthy of examination. That’s what happens when the country is governed in two-month increments. So once again Congress is sweating mandatory, across-the-board spending cuts called "the sequester" unless they are able to intervene between now and March 1. And yes, the matter was supposed to be settled. It remains because Congress enacted only a temporary fix. So for PolitiFact fact checkers everywhere, we express our bemused but sincere thanks for the budgetary gift that keeps on giving. It’s also the reason a statement Rep. Earl Blumenauer made in December is still relevant as Congress looks at ways to avoid $109 billion in automatic spending cuts that begin in March. "This is why I've worked to end the wasteful direct payment farm subsidy program that funnels payments to large corporate agribusinesses. This action could save up to $28.4 billion over ten years that could be used to reduce the deficit," the Oregon Democrat said in a Dec. 21, 2012, news release. That’s a lot of money at a time when Congress is desperate for big numbers. But is the number real? Let’s take a look. Trimming back or totally eliminating farm subsidies is one of the most popular ideas for cutting federal spending. President Barack Obama called for eliminating them in 2011, at a savings of $5 billion a year. Blumenauer has long been one of the most outspoken critics of the payments that provide  federal dollars to recipients. The payments pour forth, according to the taxpayer watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, "regardless of current crop prices, and there’s not even a requirement these crops actually be grown on the land receiving payments." It’s time to change, Blumenauer says, especially now when farm incomes are near record highs and the blunt, inefficient nature of the subsidies qualifies even rich "city slickers" such as investment CEO Charles Schwab for payments. It’s not isolated. Five hundred fifty-one people with Portland addresses collected farm subsidies totaling $2.8 million in 2010, the Environmental Working Group found using federal records. Those recipients are part of an agriculture "safety net" erected in 1996 that, in this case, provides payments to farmers (both genuine and hobby) who raise wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, cotton and peanuts. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that ending those subsidies would save $28.4 billion over 10 years. Blumenauer wants that money diverted from what he says are stable and profitable companies to paying down the nation’s $1.1 trillion deficit. The politics are jumbled since legislation that would trim direct payments passed the Senate last year but never came to a vote in the House. But the number is solid. It was generated by the Congressional Budget Office at the request of then-Rep. (and now Sen.) Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who introduced legislation in 2011 to eliminate direct payments to farmers. If you need help breaking the code, direct payments are federal payments made to qualifying producers "paid at a set rate every year regardless of conditions." The merits of the program can be debated and the politics will remain tangled. But just as farmers return to the field every spring and seeds sprout into crops by summer, Blumenauer’s numbers are certain and correct. For that reason, we are this claim: .


Cervical cancer vaccine up for FDA review

Explanation: This story clearly distinguishes between infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) – which Merck’s new Gardasil vaccine aims to prevent – and the development of cervical cancer, prevention of which is the ultimate goal of the vaccine. However, it fails to explain a few things about the vaccine and its target, such as how many women are infected with the cancer-causing HPV strains, how many women develop cervical cancer, and perhaps most importantly, what researchers know about how well this new vaccine works to prevent cancer or precancerous changes in the cervix. Hearing more about this from an independent expert, rather than from two Merck representatives, would have provided some balance. While it states that cervical cancer is a leading cancer killer in developing countries, the article doesn’t address the potential cost of the vaccine in those areas (or in the US).

There is no mention of the projected cost of the new vaccine. This information may not be available at this time, but an expert could have given an educated estimate. As noted above, the article does not provide numbers of women who were protected from HPV infection in trials of the vaccine. The story notes some questions raised by the FDA about the vaccine’s safety–but gives the last word on the concerns to the Merck spokesman, who downplayed their significance. In addition, the number of birth abnormalities was lower in the vaccine group, but it is reported as if it were higher (“less favorable showing”) and due to chance. The article states that the vaccine was “extremely effective” against the targeted HPV strains, but doesn’t note how many infections it prevented. It also does not mention what, if anything, is known about whether the vaccine does lower the risk of cervical cancer. The article appropriately focuses on the target of the vaccine, the HPV virus, rather than on cervical cancer (many cases of which are linked to infection with the virus). Individuals representing Merck are identified in the story, and an FDA briefing document is described as the source of some information. However, there is no comment from independent medical experts. There is no mention of other methods for reducing the risk of HPV infection or cervical cancer. The story makes it clear that the vaccine is not yet available and explains that FDA advisory panel recommendations are usually, but not always, followed. The article notes that the vaccine under review would be the first of its kind. Does not appear to have relied solely on a press release; however, the article quotes two Merck staffers.


Asthma gene's effect on respiratory symptoms in infancy depends on breastfeeding status

Explanation: The release describes research into a possible link between breastfeeding and infants having a genetic predisposition to asthma. Researchers drew data from medical records on respiratory symptoms and breastfeeding status and compared them with genotype data gathered from study participants. It claims a 27 percent relative risk reduction among predisposed infants who were breastfed compared to those who weren’t, but we have no other data points, no absolute risk reduction information. The release doesn’t provide enough information for readers to be assured that other factors did not play a role in the results. Reviewers (and presumably other interested readers) were unable to access the actual research paper, or an abstract online, at the time of the review. [Editor’s note. Several days after reaching out to the issuing organization, an abstract on the study was provided, but it did not change the outcome of the review.] The relationship between genetic variance and environmental factors in the eventual development of asthma is not crystal clear. Asthma appears to have a strong genetic predisposition. A child with a parent with asthma is three-to-six times more likely to develop asthma than other children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If breastfeeding infants predisposed to asthma could actually reduce their risk of respiratory symptoms by a quarter or more, then that would be a substantial improvement, both to individual and to public health, especially given the growing proportion of children developing asthma and other respiratory problems.

There are two aspects to this release: a genetic mutation which predisposes to asthma and the potential value of breastfeeding in reducing that risk. The release makes no mention of costs in explaining this research. While on the surface breastfeeding carries no economic burden, genetic testing does. The release does not provide any information (as we will note later) about the availability of genetic testing or whether insurance coverage is available. It’s difficult to quantify, but breastfeeding can have financial costs. There is growing awareness that breastfeeding does exact a toll in time and related earning potential, as explained in this New York Times article. The release states that “during the weeks that infants were breastfed, those carrying the asthma risk genotypes, had a 27 percent decreased relative risk of developing respiratory symptoms.” To which we respond: 27 percent of what? We still have no understanding of what the change in absolute risk actually is, a data point that readers deserve and can better use. The release also says that “When infants were not breastfed, those carriers exhibited a trend towards an increased risk of respiratory symptoms,” but provides no data to define that “increased risk” or their perceived “trend.” Harms associated with breastfeeding are admittedly few and far between. Infrequently, a mother may transfer environmental contaminants to a breastfeeding infant. However, the risks associated with genetic testing in general and the association between the chromosomal variant on chromosome 17, called 17q21, and the risk of the development of asthma are not covered. How reliable is the test? Is over- or under-diagnosis a risk factor? How likely is it that the child may eventually develop asthma? How many children with the variant develop asthma? The first statement in this release says that, “Infants who have a genetic profile linked with asthma risk could be protected against respiratory symptoms if they are breastfeed.” But that demonstrative statement exceeds what the design of this study could show — that infants predisposed to asthma can be protected by breastfeeding. Such proof would require a study designed differently than this one. At best, this study may show a correlation between breastfeeding and reduced asthma risk. It cannot show that breastfeeding reduces that risk. There is no disease mongering here. However, we would have liked to have seen some information in the release about the prevalence of asthma in the developed and developing world. The release provides no information as to the funders of this research, nor does it provide any information on possible conflicts of interest involving the researchers, only one of which is mentioned in the release. Additionally, neither the abstract nor the full research paper was available when the news release was published, so other information describing the research was unavailable. There was no information provided pertaining to possible alternatives to breastfeeding that also might lead to a reduced risk of asthma among infants, even though there is a wealth of information linking numerous environmental factors to the exacerbation of asthma. A recent review article names more than 100 genetic variants have been associated with the development of asthma along with a host of environmental factors. Breastfeeding is indeed routinely available but the availability of genetic testing for the chromosome 17q21 variant is not described. Is this test generally available and if so, is it covered by insurance? The release doesn’t say. The release claims that “Our study is the first to show that breastfeeding can modify the effect of asthma-related genetic profiles on respiratory symptoms in the first year of life.” Research into the role of genetics in the development of asthma has been ongoing for years, so there is really nothing novel about this research in that regard. If this research could actually show a protective connection between breastfeeding and infants’ reduced risk of asthma, then that surely would qualify as novel enough to warrant a news release. Unfortunately, this research cannot show that definitively. The release doesn’t employ sensationalistic language, however, as noted above, some statements may not have been justified based on the other information provided. “Infants who have a genetic profile linked with asthma risk could be protected against respiratory symptoms if they are breastfeed [sic]” and “Our study is the first to show that breastfeeding can modify the effect of asthma-related genetic profiles on respiratory symptoms in the first year of life.” What the study did show was a 27 percent relative risk reduction in children who were breastfed as compared to a group who were not.


Kansas Medicaid patients can now get antiviral Hep-C drugs.

Explanation: Medicaid beneficiaries in Kansas infected with Hepatitis C will be able to receive the treatment they need regardless of how far their disease has progressed, according to a settlement.

American Civil Liberties Union, Lawsuits, Kansas, Hepatitis, Medicaid, Antiviral drugs

U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree on Monday signed the agreement in a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas on behalf of enrollees in the privatized Medicaid program, also known as KanCare. The lawsuit filed last year challenged a Kansas policy that restricted the expensive treatment using direct-acting antiviral drugs to only the sickest Medicaid beneficiaries. Without this treatment, a patient’s liver damage grows more severe and the risk of complications from the disease increases, depriving them of a cure, the ACLU had argued in its complaint. The federal lawsuit filed in Kansas is among several nationwide demanding state Medicaid programs cover the costly, direct-acting antiviral drugs that have a 90 percent cure rate. Hepatitis C is a viral infection that attacks the liver and can turn into a chronic disease. It’s spread when the blood of an infected person enters the body of an uninfected person, such as with the sharing of needles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition to the 335 people who asked for Hepatitis C virus drug therapy but were initially denied treatment since 2016, another 2,600 Medicaid enrollees in the state suffer from the disease and will now have immediate access to these drugs, said J. Stan Sexton, an attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon who worked with the ACLU on the case. The severity of Hepatitis C is measured by a fibrosis score, which assesses the health of the liver according to the level of liver scarring. In the settlement, the parties agree the Kansas Medicaid program will treat patients with the direct-acting antiviral drugs, regardless of that score, according to medical guidelines. “We are thrilled that our clients will get the help they need,” said Lauren Bonds, interim executive of ACLU of Kansas. Despite their cost, these drugs are now the standard of care, the ACLU said in a news release. An estimated 2.7 million to 3.9 million people in the United States have chronic Hepatitis C. The U.S. Census Bureau in 2014 estimated that nearly 35,000 Kansans suffer from the disease, according to the lawsuit.


A mandatory gun ownership law in Kennesaw, Georgia, caused the town's crime rate to plummet.

Explanation: Another aspect to consider is whether Kennesaw’s crime rates were observed elsewhere in the state. In the decade bracketing the law’s passage (1976 through 1986) there was a significant drop in murders, burglaries, property crimes, the property crime rate, and the burglary rate in Georgia as whole (despite Kennesaw’s outlier status with the gun law in question). Statewide, the murder rate similarly dropped in a fairly dramatic fashion after 1982 without a statewide law requiring gun ownership.

A mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, revived interest in a number of memes about gun control, among them the above-reproduced claim involving the town of Kennesaw, Georgia. According to the graphic shown here, Kennesaw mandated gun ownership for all households in 1982, and as a result, local crime rates dropped dramatically. But even the most basic element of the claim, about the imposition of mandatory gun ownership in that town, wasn’t quite true. The law in question stated: Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms. (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony. In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns … save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or simply didn’t want to have guns. Essentially, Kennesaw residents were never actually required to own guns, making most assertions about mandatory gun ownership and crime rates in that town highly problematic. That law was a direct response to a (since repealed) ban on the possession of handguns that was implemented in Morton Grove, Illinois, in 1981. An important point of distinction between the two examples was that Morton Grove’s was enforceable while Kennesaw’s was largely symbolic and was never intended to be enforced. The latter, therefore is clearly not an exceptionally good indicator of the effect of such a mandate on crime statistics. As Kennesaw Police Department’s Lt. Craig Graydon explained, gun ownership wasn’t truly compulsory in Kennesaw (nor was it ever intended to be):  Kennesaw’s 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun ban enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw’s law is still on the books. Added Lt. Graydon, “It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.” Homeowners in Kennesaw who don’t buy a gun are not punished. In fact, there are several exemptions, including religious objections, if someone is a convicted felon, has a mental illness or simply can’t afford a weapon. Lt. Graydon’s sentiment was also expressed in an April 1987 New York Times article: Mayor Stephenson says that in the five years since the gun ordinance was adopted the city has never prosecuted anyone for refusing to keep a gun. Officials concede that the ordinance is, for all intents, unenforceable. “We’re not interested in searching people’s houses,” said the Mayor. “Mostly, what we wanted to do was make a statement, to make people sit up and take notice. And they did, and we’re proud of that.” Much of the claim hinged on the passage of time for plausibility. Hard statistics for the crime rate in a small Georgia city before 1982 were difficult to come by in 2015 (more than three decades later), but the author of a 18 March 1982 New York Times editorial titled “The Guns of Kennesaw” squeezed those numbers from the initially “reticent” Mayor Darvin Purdy and Chief of Police Robert Ruble: The jovial officials turn more reticent when talk turns to crime statistics in their community of 7,000. Chief Ruble says overall crime in 1981 was up 16 percent from 1980. But you have to ask to find out the details. Armed robberies did soar — from one in 1980 to four in 1981. Homicides declined, from two in 1980 to none in 1981. Soon afterwards, the narrative claiming a reduction in crime had begun to develop (even as Mayor Stephenson conceded he had no idea how many residents newly became gun owners because of the law): “In 1981, the year before the ordinance was adopted, Kennesaw recorded 55 house burglaries. The next year there were 26, and in 1985 only 11.” As the news excerpt referenced above indicated, a drop in homicides owing to a mandatory gun ownership law would be difficult to measure, as the number of murders that took place in Kennesaw the year prior to the law’s implementation was zero and therefore could drop no lower. And the increased number of armed robberies from 1980 (one) to 1981 (four) represented a sample so low that a subsequent reduction in such crime didn’t provide any meaningful data from which a conclusion about “mandatory” gun ownership and crime rates could be drawn.


Statins and cancer risk: Pay attention, but don’t panic

Explanation: This story reports on research, which while not definitive, is provocative. The story reports that new research found "that the very low levels of cholesterol achieved by high-dose statin therapy are associated with an increased risk of cancer." It did a good job of providing some insight on the limitations of the research reported on. The story raises a question about the absolute merit of striving for ever lower LDL levels. It may help readers to see that statin use is a choice and that consumers should understand both the benefits and potential harms that may be associated with whatever pills they decide to take. However, it should be noted that study examined the prescribed dose levels of statins but did not really measure the effect of aiming for specific LDL levels. It would have been helpful to mention that the mechanism accounting for the increasing incidence of cancer is unclear.

The story did not contain any information about the costs of the various statin medications. Although not entirely germane to the main topic, since individuals might make choices about which specific statin to take based on claims of enhanced LDL lowering, it would seem that cost information should have been included. For balance, an estimate of the benefit of statin use should have been presented. While the story did mention that statin medications provide benefit from heart disease, it did not provide any estimate for the magnitude of this benefit. This story was about a possible harm (increased cancer incidence) that the statin medications may result in. The story did a good job with respect to the evidence in that it reminded readers that ‘an association does not mean causation’. It would have been helpful, perhaps, to spend a little more time explaining this reasoning for those quick to jump on the bandwagon of such findings. The risk for additional cancer cases being seen as the level of LDL decreased (1 per 1,000) was presented. The story described this as a ‘small’ risk, though it would have been useful to readers to provide some context (i.e. present data on the magnitude of some other, better known cancer risk factor increases cancer risk). The story did mention that the results it reported on derive from a analysis of 10 randomized trials in which 41,173 patients taking statins were studied from up to six years. The story did a bit of disease and treatment mongering. Describing these medications as ‘lifesaving pills’ which people take to protect themselves ‘against the ravages of heart disease’ sets a tone that is not conducive to helping readers think objectively about the research results being reported on. The story did mention where the research was conducted and the journal in which it was published. However, it did not contain any obvious input from experts in the field. The story did not comment on other means for lowering LDL cholesterol; this was not, however relevant to the main topic of the story, namely – the potential for increased incidence of cancer seen in individuals who lower their cholesterol. The story contained estimates of how many people are currently taking statin medication. The story included information that the observed association between LDL cholesterol level attained and cancer risk is something that has been previously reported. The story did not include any quotes or comments from anyone either associated with the research or a recognized expert in the field so we can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.


The restaurant chain Whataburger announced that it was closing its doors.

Explanation: An article is being circulated stating that Whataburger will be closing all stores. This article is a hoax, and we aren’t going anywhere.

Junk News, Channel22news.com, facebook, prank

A prank Facebook post that appeared to link to an article reporting that the restaurant chain Whataburger was closing its doors appeared in June 2017:  However, clicking on the link takes you to a fake news story about the restaurant chain’s faux announcement on the prank web site Channel22news.com: The Texas based food chain is shutting its doors effective April 26 due to numerous reports of food poisoning with high concentrations of salmonella found in meat served in the DFW area during the month of April Anyone who has eaten at Whataburger should be tested for salmonella poisoning. Symptoms can show up as many as three weeks out. I doctors [sic] urge all people who have eaten at these restaurants especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to immediately seek medical attention if they have eaten there more than once during past few weeks. The more time you’ve eaten there the higher likelihood of an infection occurring. Lawsuits have already been filed and Whataburger has decided to shut its doors due to the litigation and payouts that it expects to have to make. Filing bankrupt in a downtown Austin courthouse Wataburger spokesman, Jeff smith said “We have taken the advice of our counsel and filed Chapter 7 and have shut our doors.” It is unclear what the future holds for the Texas based chain. One thing for certain, Allyson Heffernan is sure to be disappointed! Channel22News is clearly labeled with various disclaimers and carries a “you got owned” meme in its header:  We do NOT support FAKE NEWS!!! This is a Prank website that is intended for Fun. Bullying, Violent Threats or posts that Violate Public Order are NOT permitted on this Website. Channel22News, as well as other sites of its ilk, allow users to generate their own fake news stories. These stories are then packaged into social media posts that resemble genuine news items. Because many people share links on social media without actually reading the stories, these “pranks” frequently reach large audiences. In response to the prank, Whataburger created a Facebook post of their own:


UAE orders overnight curfew for deep clean, Gulf coronavirus cases rise.

Explanation: The United Arab Emirates directed most of the public and private sectors to have the majority of staff work from home, and imposed overnight curfews as a temporary measure this weekend for a nationwide disinfection to combat the coronavirus.

The regional business hub, which has confirmed 333 cases of the virus and two deaths, has not announced an official curfew or work suspension but has increasingly clamped down on movement. Authorities announced restrictions on movement of traffic and people overnight from Thursday until Sunday for the disinfection drive. The restrictions will last from 8 p.m. (1600 GMT) to 6 a.m.  Only essential service workers would be allowed out and violators will face fines, a security forces spokesman said in a press conference on Thursday. Public transport including trams and metro services will be suspended, while private cars, cabs and delivery vehicles can operate outside those hours. The UAE has slowly followed other Gulf states in suspending passenger flights and closing public venues such as restaurants and malls. Dubai emirate on Wednesday directed the private sector to implement remote working for most staff but exempted a broad spectrum of businesses. On Thursday, the UAE government ordered all federal ministries and establishments and the private sector to limit the number of staff in offices to 30%. It exempted sectors providing essential services including health, finance, energy, telecoms, security, military, cargo and food. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have taken the most drastic steps, including imposing partial nationwide curfews and suspending work at most public and private sector establishments. Kuwait on Thursday banned all taxis, directed the state supply company to cover any basic food shortages and said it would disburse a month’s salary to all Kuwaiti students abroad. The number of cases in Saudi Arabia passed 1,000 after authorities on Thursday announced 112 new infections, most of them in the capital Riyadh and the holy city of Mecca. They also reported a third death from the virus, a resident in Medina who had suffered from chronic diseases. Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar also saw more cases, taking the total in the six Gulf states to over 2,600, with nine deaths. Saudi Arabia has released 250 foreign detainees held on non-violent immigration and residency offences as part of efforts to contain the spread of the disease, the state-backed Human Rights Commission said on Thursday. Bahrain and Kuwait have also announced prisoner releases. Bahrain continued to evacuate several hundred Bahraini pilgrims stranded in Iran, which is an epicentre for the disease in the region. A second repatriation flight of around 60 Bahrainis arrived overnight from the holy Shi’ite Iranian city of Mashhad, operated by Iranian airline Kish, families and a Bahraini official told Reuters. Bahrain earlier this month repatriated 165 people, but a number of subsequent scheduled flights were cancelled. At least 85 of the first batch of evacuees tested positive for the virus. The island state, which has reported 419 coronavirus cases and four deaths, most of them linked to travel to Iran, has longstanding differences with Iran and has criticised the Islamic Republic for not stamping Bahraini citizens’ passports. In Qatar, the government’s crisis committee ordered the closure of all non-vital shops, and cafes and entertainment outlets, and restricted the working hours of all other shops to 6am to 7pm. Pharmacies, grocery stores and delivery services are excluded from these restrictions, the committee said in a press conference broadcast on Qatari channel Al Jazeera. Qatar recorded 12 new cases of the virus on Thursday, taking its total to 549.