Explanation: This article summarizes a recent research study comparing the long-term effects of three popular diets: low carbohydrate (Atkins style, unlimited meat and fatty foods), Mediterranean (high in olive oils, whole-grains, fruit, wine), and low fat (conventional American Heart Association diet). This study was done to fill in missing information about these different diets, specifically whether one was better than another for weight loss and to examine whether the non-conventional low carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets are safe. Previously, safety was a particular concern among the medical community as it was thought that weight loss resulting from non-conventional diets might be at the expense of increase heart disease risk. This is a 5-star article. Accurate, balanced, reliable, and well written.

We wish the story would have at least mentioned whether there were any cost differences among the three diets. Was there a cost to the workplace cafeterias to offer these diets in the specialized manner in which they delivered them? We also wish the story had mentioned whether the study subjects had to pay, or were paid, to participate (a criticism of another diet study). This article does a very good job of documenting the absolute and relative benefits of each of the three diets. Also see Evidence comments. This article addressed the safety issue of of the three diets, which was a main outcome of the research study. There had been concern among medical and health professionals that low carbohydrate diets like the Atkins Diet, which allow large amounts of meat and cheese, could cause harmful increases in LDL ("bad cholesterol") and increase the risk of heart disease. An important message of this article is that alternative dietary approaches can be safe and beneficial to reduce serious health risk of overweight and obesity. This article receives high marks for accurate presentation of medical evidence. This article devoted enough space to adequately cover the study methodology, e.g. the study setting, participant characteristics, calories and composition of each of the three diets, etc., which is not always provided in the such stories. This article did a thorough job in presenting detailed results of the three diets for several outcomes in addition to weight loss: blood lipid profiles (LDL "bad cholesterol", HDL "good cholesterol", triglycerides), blood sugar levels, and adherence to the diets. This article article does not pander to popular fad diets. Obesity is a significant health problem that has reached epidemic proportions among all segment of the population. Current dietary guidelines do not appear to be helping Americans maintain a healthy body weight. This study accurately summarized the results of the New England Journal of Medicine article on weight loss with three popular diets. This article provided a good balance of commentary by independent experts representing alternative opinions and interpretation of the results. This article concludes with the bottom line for weight loss, cutting calories and exercising are the key, regardless of the type of diet. The three popular diet plans discussed in this article are widely available and have been used by thousand of people in the U.S. and elsewhere. This article does due diligence in pointing out that the dieters in the study received support in the workplace to help them stick to their diets. In addition, the study dieters had the advantages of purchasing meals in their work cafeteria  with color-coded menu information corresponding to their diet requirements. These diets are not new or novel and are not presented as such in this article. This article is clear that the new information being presented is the comparison of health benefits. Because of the number of sources and perspectives represented, it’s safe to assume this story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.


Newt Gingrich "co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.

Explanation: Newt supported China's one-child policy, Super PAC says

Georgia, Message Machine 2012, Restore Our Future,

There they go again. With Georgia’s Republican presidential primary just a few weeks away, the four remaining candidates and their supporters are expected to blanket the airwaves with attack ads in this delegate-rich state. One that we’ve seen -- scheduled to hit the airwaves Wednesday -- takes aim at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who represented portions of Atlanta’s western suburbs for 20 years in Congress. "He co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy," says the voice in the ad paid for by Restore Our Future. The super PAC is run by supporters of Republican hopeful Mitt Romney. There’s nothing that makes conservatives see more red than a reference to Pelosi, the liberal California congresswoman and House minority leader. Or talking about China for that matter. The ad that will soon be on your TV screens in Georgia is different than what Restore Our Future aired in Florida and South Carolina before their primaries. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Florida looked into this claim. We wondered: Did the group get its facts right this time? Gingrich is ahead in the polls in Georgia, a state where he desperately needs to do well to keep his campaign from becoming an episode of "The Walking Dead." His GOP rivals, particularly Romney, are trying to make Gingrich work hard for every vote here. Romney made a campaign stop in Atlanta last week and took a couple of shots at Gingrich. Restore Our Future has another ad on its website that says Gingrich "is no Ronald Reagan." The Georgia ad contains the same language as the one that aired in Florida and South Carolina. Here’s some more detail about the issue:  Restore Our Future refers to House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on Feb. 22, 1989, before Gingrich became speaker and when Democrats had control of the House of Representatives. The legislation was called the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989. It set national goals to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and encouraged international agreements to address global warming, PolitiFact Florida reported. It required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor global warming and create plans for future action. It supported stricter fuel standards for cars and alternative energy. It also sent money to developing countries to encourage practices that reduce carbon emissions. The bill had several hearings but received unfavorable reviews from the administration of George H.W. Bush and never became law. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Claudine Schneider, a Rhode Island Republican who left Congress in 1991. Yes, Gingrich and Pelosi co-sponsored the bill. In all, there were 144 House members who sponsored the legislation. Most were Democrats, but there were a handful of Republicans in the mix, such as Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jim Kolbe of Arizona. China’s one-child policy generally refers to the government’s efforts to limit population growth to one child per couple. Human rights advocates say the policy has resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions. The Restore Our Future website says the $60 million went to the United Nations Population Fund and that President Ronald Reagan withheld funds from the program after he determined the program, which supports family planning and contraception, was supporting Chinese actions. The bill did propose money for the United Nations Population Fund. But Section 1102, Part C, of the bill prohibits using any of the funds for "the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning." That is the exact opposite of the language in Restore Our Future’s ad about Gingrich. The language is the same in this ad. And the facts haven’t changed.


Bayer says won't tolerate unethical behavior as France probes Monsanto file.

Explanation: Bayer said on Saturday it did not accept “unethical behavior” following a French investigation into a suspected file assembled by the German company’s seed making unit Monsanto to influence various personalities in France.

The French prosecutor said on Friday it had opened the probe after a complaint was filed by daily newspaper Le Monde. According to the newspaper and other French media, Monsanto built up a file of some 200 names that includes journalists and lawmakers in the hope of influencing their positions on pesticides. The file, Le Monde reported, dates from 2016 and was leaked by U.S public relations and marketing agency FleishmanHillard. In an emailed statement, Bayer declined to comment on the investigation, saying it did not know which documents the allegations referred to. “We stand for openness and a fair treatment of all interest groups. We do not accept any unethical behavior in our company,” it said. “That applies obviously for the data privacy regulations in the respective countries as well.”     FleishmanHillard said on Friday it would investigate the allegations in Le Monde. The company will “examine the questions raised by certain media outlets about the lists of stakeholders that included publicly available information,” it said in a statement. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year, faces mounting litigations over its weedkiller Roundup, a systemic, broad-spectrum glyphosate-based herbicide. A U.S. jury in August 2018 found the company liable because Monsanto had not warned users of alleged cancer risks linked to Roundup. Bayer suffered a similar defeat over the weedkiller last month, while more than 13,000 plaintiffs are claiming damages. The company said last month it intended to defend itself in all lawsuits.


Republicans hope Trump amenable to food stamp restrictions.

Explanation: Maine resident Zak McCutcheon says he likes soda but acknowledges he’d drink less of it if his governor convinced Republican President Donald Trump to put restrictions on the approximately $200 a month he receives in food stamps. He thinks it may even make recipients healthier and less overweight.

AP Top News, Health, Augusta, Donald Trump, AP Weekend Reads, Maine, U.S. News

“If I was more restricted to what I could buy, I would become more of a veggie eater,” said McCutcheon, who recently perused grapes and packages of pre-chopped vegetables at an Augusta food bank with his pregnant girlfriend. But another one of Maine’s 180,000 food stamp recipients, Samantha Watson, said she believes a ban from using food stamps on soda and candy won’t make low-income people any healthier. It would take more than that to change eating habits, she said, since food stamps cover only a fraction of the monthly grocery bill for herself and her 3-year-old daughter. Maine Gov. Paul LePage and fellow Republicans in two other states are now renewing their efforts to restrict food stamps in the hopes that Trump will be more amenable than the previous administration. In 2011, former Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration rejected then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban for food stamp recipients and in June, he raised “significant” concerns with LePage’s proposal, saying there’d be no meaningful way to evaluate whether the ban changed the way recipients bought sweets. While Trump’s budget proposal doesn’t include food stamp changes, his choice for secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, of Georgia, has signaled support for overhauling the $71 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which administers food stamps to 44 million recipients. LePage is optimistic the new administration will approve his revived proposal, which he says is backed by common sense and a desire to reduce high rates of obesity and diabetes, the latter of which afflicted his mother. The governor’s efforts in Maine have inspired legislators in Tennessee and Arkansas, who say they won’t give up trying to restrict food stamp purchases. “We don’t allow people to buy alcohol and cigarettes with welfare dollars, why should we allow people to buy junk food that leads to just as many health problems?’” said Tennessee Rep. Sheila Butt, a Republican, who hopes Trump will give states more power over the state-run SNAP program. A study of one leading U.S. grocery retailer released in November by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that in 2011, 20 cents of every dollar spent on food stamps went to sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar. SNAP households spent about 5 cents per dollar on soft drinks and 2 cents per dollar on candy, similar to the spending habits of households not receiving SNAP benefits. Last summer, LePage threatened to cease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program after the USDA raised questions about Maine’s proposed ban. The governor’s renewed request would divert federal funds away from nutrition education — which amounted to $4.3 million in the last fiscal year — and toward food banks, schools and other community agencies to distribute healthy foods. Jim Hanna, the executive director at Cumberland County Food Security Council, said poor people have enough issues to manage without being told what to eat and drink, and that a soda or candy tax would be a better approach than eliminating the state’s SNAP education program. “It seems very contradictory to, on the one hand, limit people’s access to foods that have negative nutrition content and then to limit access to information to support them to make better choices about nutrition,” Hanna said. The debate over restrictions goes back to the 1940s, when the then-orange food stamps couldn’t buy soft drinks, and the 1960s and 1970s, when concern over bureaucracy and figuring out just what counts as junk food hindered attempts to exclude soft drinks. There’s been little change over the ensuing years, although the USDA will soon require stores that accept food stamps to stock more fruits, vegetables and other healthy food. The agency’s also providing farmers market with free equipment to accept SNAP debit cards, and supporting programs that provide “bonus dollars” for purchases at farmers markets. Critics from major medical groups to food policy experts say the existing program promotes chronic illness and amounts to public subsidies for powerful junk food conglomerates that lobby against restrictions. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents companies like Coca-Cola, calls the restrictions a “bureaucratic mess.” Still others wonder what impact the restrictions might have on SNAP long term. Tatiana Andreyeva, a University of Connecticut professor and director of economic initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, fears that proposals such as LePage’s could be the first step to the program’s decimation. “It’s very easy to jump from a restriction on sugary beverages to let’s just cut benefits,” she said.


A photograph shows a child in a famine-stricken country crawling on the ground while a vulture waits in the background.

Explanation: Kevin Carter’s life (and death) was the subject of the 2004 documentary, The Life of Kevin Carter.

If a hundred of the most talented members of the advertising industry were tasked with creating an image to illustrate the concepts of poverty and famine, quite possibly none of them would come up with anything nearly as grippingly and devastatingly effective as a 1993 picture snapped by South African freelance photographer Kevin Carter:  The PHOTO in the mail is the “Pulitzer prize” winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken child crawling towards an United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away. The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat it. This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken. Three months later he committed suicide due to depression. This was found in his diary, “Dear God, I promise I will never waste my food no matter how bad it can taste and how full I may be I pray that He will protect this little boy, guide and deliver him away from his misery. I pray that we will be more sensitive towards the world around us and not be blinded be our own selfish nature and interests.” I hope this picture will always serve as a reminder to us that how fortunate we are and that we must never ever take things for granted. His poignant photograph of an emaciated toddler who collapsed from hunger on her way to a feeding center in famine-ravaged Sudan while a vulture ominously loomed in the background was originally published in the New York Times (which later described it as “a metaphor for Africa’s despair”) and earned Carter the 1994 Pulitzer Prize in the Feature Photography category, and the image has since become widely known as a metaphor for Africa’s despair. As described in Time magazine, the scene Carter captured in his now-famous photograph was one he stumbled across during a trip he made on his own in order to cover the civil strife in war-torn Sudan:  In 1993 Carter headed north of the border with [friend and fellow journalist] João Silva to photograph the rebel movement in famine-stricken Sudan. To make the trip, Carter had taken a leave from the [South Africa] Weekly Mail and borrowed money for the air fare. Immediately after their plane touched down in the village of Ayod, Carter began snapping photos of famine victims. Seeking relief from the sight of masses of people starving to death, he wandered into the open bush. He heard a soft, high-pitched whimpering and saw a tiny girl trying to make her way to the feeding center. As he crouched to photograph her, a vulture landed in view. Careful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would later say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not, and after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl resumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried. “He was depressed afterward,” Silva recalls. “He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter.” After another day in Sudan, Carter returned to Johannesburg. Coincidentally, the New York Times, which was looking for pictures of Sudan, bought his photograph and ran it on March 26, 1993. The picture immediately became an icon of Africa’s anguish. Hundreds of people wrote and called the Times asking what had happened to the child (the paper reported that it was not known whether she reached the feeding center); and papers around the world reproduced the photo. Friends and colleagues complimented Carter on his feat. His self-confidence climbed. But Kevin Carter was also a troubled soul, struggling with issues such as financial insecurity, drug problems, failed relationships, and the horrors of having witnessed multiple scenes of death — enough of a burden for anyone to struggle with, but in Carter’s case a burden made extra-heavy by the critical condemnation heaped upon him for taking the photograph that had made him world-famous:  Though the photo helped draw enormous attention to the humanitarian crisis that was engulfing Sudan, it was criticized by others who felt that Carter should have helped the girl and was instead exploiting her suffering for his gain. The real vulture, they said in vitriolic hate mail, was Carter himself. Some photojournalists might have easily dismissed such criticism, but it hit Carter hard and fed his self-doubts. On 27 July 1994, barely two months after having received his Pulitzer Prize, 33-year-old Kevin Carter could shoulder that burden no more and took his own life:  The Braamfonteinspruit is a small river that cuts southward through Johannesburg’s northern suburbs — and through Parkmore, where the Carters once lived. At around 9 p.m., Kevin Carter backed his red Nissan pickup truck against a blue gum tree at the Field and Study Center. He had played there often as a little boy. The Sandton Bird Club was having its monthly meeting there, but nobody saw Carter as he used silver gaffer tape to attach a garden hose to the exhaust pipe and run it to the passenger-side window. Wearing unwashed Lee jeans and an Esquire T-shirt, he got in and switched on the engine. Then he put music on his Walkman and lay over on his side, using the knapsack as a pillow. The suicide note he left behind is a litany of nightmares and dark visions, a clutching attempt at autobiography, self-analysis, explanation, excuse. After coming home from New York, he wrote, he was “depressed … without phone … money for rent … money for child support … money for debts … money!!! … I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain … of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners … “  Although the purported diary entry (beginning “Dear God, I promise I will never waste my food”) that has been tacked onto this photograph may sound like something Kevin Carter might have written, those words were not recorded in his diary, nor are they known to have been written or spoken by him. They were added to the photograph by an unknown hand after the picture had been circulating on the Internet for several years.


Bioidentical hormones for menopausal symptoms

Explanation: Bio-identical hormone therapy is a poorly-defined term for using a set of hormones that are molecularly identical to natural hormones in the body. Proponents of this treatment claim that bio-identical hormones are safer and more effective than conventional hormone therapy for treating the symptoms of menopause, however there is no evidence to support these claims. Furthermore, hormones are expected to have the same risk and benefits as approved drugs for which there is an evidence base as well as extensive research and regulation. Many medical organizations, both in the US and internationally, have issued statements raising concerns about the claims made about bio-identical hormones. This story does a good job of raising awareness about this issue, although it should have noted that many women don’t experience symptoms in the same way and that treatment with bio-identical hormones or traditional hormones should only be used by women who are bothered by their symptoms and not if they are trying to prevent heart disease. The story could have been greatly improved by coming down harder on the proponents of bio-identical hormones. While the story includes a debate on whether there is evidence to support the use of bio-identical hormones, in doing so, it gives the impression that there really is a debate. Bio-identical hormone supporters claim that there have been dozens of clinical trials showing a benefit. However, a 2007 systematic review found "a dearth of scientific evidence to support these claims". The story should have been more critical of the evidence base to support the use of bio-identical hormones. This is a subject sure to attract attention, given the wide range of troublesome symptoms experienced by many women during the menopausal transition. It is important for women to be aware of the potential risks of uNPRoven therapies, including bioidentical hormone preparations, that may be "prescribed" by alternative health clinics.

The story describes the cost of two bio-identical hormone products. There are many products available so costs may vary widely. The story does not quantify the potential benefits of either bio-identical or conventional hormones. There was much talk about efficacy by the Holtorf Medical Clinic Director, all about patient perception. At the least, the story could have pointed out that patients who self-refer to such alternative care clinics (and often pay out of pocket for these services) may be  more likely to report benefit from the treatment. The story does not quantify the potential harms of bio-identical or conventional hormones. The story does rightly point out that there is no real reason to assume that bio-identical hormones are any safer than conventional hormones. There was some mention of blood clots and uterine issues, but this was not clearly delineated. Harm is one of the major concerns about any estrogen or estrogen-like compounds, and the health risks could be more serious than with other supplements. The story includes a debate on whether there is evidence to support the use of bio-identical hormones. However, in doing so, it gives the impression that there really is a debate. Bio-identical hormone supporters claim that there have been dozens of clinical trials showing a benefit. However, a 2007 systematic review found "a dearth of scientific evidence to support these claims". The story should have been more critical of the evidence base to support the use of bio-identical hormones. This is the biggest drawback to this article, which was otherwise pretty good. The story really didn’t get at the problem of shaky to absent scientific evidence of efficacy. The story doesn’t exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of menopause. However, it should have noted that many women don’t experience symptoms in the same way and that treatment with bio-identical hormones or traditional hormones should only be used by women who are bothered by their symptoms and not if they are trying to prevent heart disease. The story also could have countered some of the suggested symptoms of menopause –  such as "fuzzy thinking" – which are not clearly associated with menopause in epidemiologic studies. For these two reasons, we lean toward an unsatisfactory score on this criterion. The story quotes two independent experts who provide valuable, differing opinions on the value of bio-identical hormones. The story does compare bio-identical hormones with its most important alternative, conventional hormones. Bio-identical hormones are clearly available in many formulations. Bio-identical hormones have been around for some time, although they grew in popularity within the past 10 years, particularly after the publication of the results of the Women’s Health Initiative. The story didn’t make any inappropriate claims of novelty. Because the story quotes two independent experts, the reader can assume the story does not rely solely on a press release.


State sued over involuntary psychiatric boarding.

Explanation: The New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of psychiatric patients being involuntarily held in hospital emergency departments.

New Hampshire, American Civil Liberties Union, Concord, Health, Lawsuits, Class action lawsuits

State law requires involuntary psychiatric patients to get probable cause hearings within three days of admission to determine whether they are a danger to themselves or others. Under the state’s interpretation, the clock starts when someone is admitted to the state psychiatric hospital or other inpatient facility, but the lawsuit points to a Merrimack County court ruling that said the clock should start at the time of emergency room admission. The lawsuit names the Department of Health and Human Services and Southern New Hampshire Medical Center as defendants. The lead plaintiff is a 26-year-old man who was admitted to the emergency room at the Nashua hospital on Nov. 5 after a suicide attempt and was held involuntarily without a hearing for nearly a week until his status was changed to voluntary. The lawsuit was filed Saturday, before his status was changed. “When someone is indefinitely detained against their will without due process, wishes to see their children, and is worried about the financial security of one’s family, such frustration should be sympathized with, especially when the person is kept in a secluded, windowless room,” the lawsuit states. “Here, Plaintiff is desperate to get back to his family and his work. His family needs him. He is entitled to make that case to a Circuit Court judge.” A spokeswoman for Southern New Hampshire Medical Center did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The Department of Health and Human Services referred questions to the attorney general’s office, which did not immediately respond. The lawsuit highlights a problem the state has struggled with for years. A report released Tuesday by the New Hampshire Community Behavioral Health Association notes that the number of adults waiting for inpatient beds has steadily increased since 2015, peaking at a one-day high of 71 adults and 27 children. Aside from a few inmates, they are all waiting in emergency rooms and most, if not all, are deemed to be held involuntarily because the state psychiatric hospital does not accept voluntary admissions, said Ken Norton, executive director of the New Hampshire chapter National Alliance on Mental Illness. He welcomed the lawsuit as a necessary step to what he called the “systemic discrimination” against people with mental illness and said he hopes it will spur a solution to a situation he has long deemed medically, legally, ethically, morally and economically wrong. “None of us want to see people released on a legal technicality, but all other remedies have been attempted, including really good-faith efforts by the commissioner, by the Legislature, by the governor, and all ultimately failed,” he said. “We do think this will draw further attention to the current mental health boarding crisis.” A sweeping bill to reform the state’s mental health system last year included a provision requiring the development of a plan to ensure timely hearings for patients held involuntarily in emergency rooms. But a planned pilot program involving four hospitals was scrapped in part due to safety concerns about essentially setting up mini courtrooms in hospitals. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, asks that the state’s practice of denying due process to such patients be deemed unconstitutional. But Gilles Bissonnette, the ACLU attorney, said he hopes it will also prompt policy makers to take action to address the wider problem. “We’re dealing with a symptom, not the disease. The due process issue is a symptom, the disease is really the underlying waitlist,” he said. Mobile crisis response teams helped 5,052 people avoid emergency room admissions in 2017, according to the report from the Community Behavioral Health Association. But such teams are based only in Concord, Manchester and Nashua, leaving large areas of the state uncovered. Peter Evers, CEO of Riverbend Community Mental Health Center, said he hopes those teams will be expanded, but also believes the state should consider increasing the number of inpatient beds. “You have to ask the question, does New Hampshire really have the appropriate services for people with serious mental illness?” he said. “We’re not really having a proper conversation about the whole continuum of care until we understand that some people need a longer stay in a hospital.”


Official: Montana nursing home virus outbreak appears over.

Explanation: A COVID-19 outbreak that started at a north-central Montana assisted living facility and caused six of the state’s 16 deaths appears to be over, a state health official said Friday.

Health, General News, Business, Montana, Nursing homes, Virus Outbreak, Steve Bullock

Jim Murphy, the health department’s Communicable Disease Control and Prevention Bureau chief, said that while there are still seven active cases in Toole County, those who are ill remain in isolation, and no new cases have been diagnosed in weeks, “well past an incubation period.” Because the outbreak was tied to the Marias Heritage Center in Shelby, state and local health officials have been cautious in confirming that someone has fully recovered, he said. Sometimes it takes up to four or five weeks for a person to test clear of the virus, he said. Meanwhile, thousands of Montana businesses and hundreds of residents applied for coronavirus relief funding that was available beginning Thursday, Gov. Steve Bullock said. He announced $123 million in funding for nine programs on Tuesday, including $50 million for small businesses and $50 million for rent and mortgage assistance. The money comes from Montana’s $1.25 billion share of federal coronavirus relief money. “There’ll certainly be additional funding announced in the upcoming weeks, and we’ll closely monitor the demand for this first round of emergency grants to adjust as needed and ensure that Montanans are getting relief,” the governor said Friday. On Friday, Montana had 22 new active cases of COVID-19, including two new cases in Gallatin County that raised the state’s total to 458. The Gallatin County health department said the new cases involved people in their 20′s and 30′s, in the same family, who were likely infected while traveling out of state. They had limited contact with other people when they returned to West Yellowstone and are self-isolating, the agency said. Another person tested positive in Lake County on Thursday, but because they live out of state, the case was assigned to their home state, officials said. Bullock said almost half of Montana’s COVID-19 cases were discovered through contact tracing. Close contacts of those who tested positive were quarantined for 14 days and tested if they showed symptoms of the respiratory virus. Those efforts helped contain the outbreak because quarantined individuals who got sick were identified early in their illness, which exposed fewer people, Bullock said. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death. In other coronavirus-related developments: — Ballots for the 2020 primary were mailed out Friday. All counties decided to use a mail-only election to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Voters can return only one ballot. The ballots must be received at county election offices by June 2. — A group that is seeking to gather signatures to qualify two recreational marijuana issues for the November ballot will resume its efforts Saturday. New Approach Montana’s petition to allow it to gather signatures electronically was rejected by a state judge. The group has six weeks to gather nearly 51,000 signatures for a constitutional amendment that would allow lawmakers to set a legal age for the consumption of recreational marijuana, the Missoulian reported. They need nearly 25,500 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana use.


Study shows children's best hope for the potassium and fiber missing in their diets is potatoes

Explanation: This news release is about a study funded by and written by the potato industry. And not surprisingly given its provenance, the news release advocates vigorously for the inclusion of more potatoes in children’s diets. Interestingly, though, the study that’s the basis for the release does not deliver the same message. Instead, it says that a broad array of vegetables are not being eaten by children and therefore children’s diets are lacking in calcium, vitamin D, and other nutrients. Potatoes are a big focus of the study, of course, but here’s where the news release falls short, too: The study notes — and the news release ignores — that the potatoes being studied included french fries and potato chips. All potential health harm from these foods is completely ignored. (Such harm is ignored in the study, too.) The potential benefits are not clearly broken out in the study and seem to appear out of nowhere in the news release. Childhood intake of nutrients has been linked to later development of cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as obesity and diabetes. As the release states, childhood eating patterns carry over to adults. Encouraging kids to eat a wide variety of vegetables is therefore important. The argument that potatoes should be particularly encouraged has little foundation in science.

There is no mention of costs. We won’t penalize the release for not including this information since potatoes are a common and relatively inexpensive food. The release could have noted the average cost of a pound of potatoes to give parents a sense of how they might fit into a family grocery budget. The release says that potatoes are the “best hope” for delivering more fiber and potassium to kids. Based on what evidence? The study certainly doesn’t show this. Here’s what the study concludes: “The results suggest that patterns of potassium, [dietary fiber], and vitamin D intake for young children should be studied further in order to develop strategies for increasing intakes of these crucial nutrients. The consumption of a variety of all vegetables, including [white potatoes], is important to increase potassium and [dietary fiber] intakes and should be encouraged.” The most troubling thing about this study and about the release is the inclusion of french fries and potato chips in the study as if they were equal in health value to other forms of potatoes. There is no discussion of the potential harms that come from foods high in sugar, salt, fat, and calories. The release skirts any explanation of how the study was conducted. The study itself appeared to be focused on overall dietary patterns, not potatoes per se. In addition, the study was published as a paid supplement to a journal article. In general, supplements are not peer-reviewed, and so it would be helpful to note specifically whether the papers in the supplement were peer reviewed or not. The release is somewhat cagey on this point, saying that the study was published “in a special supplement of the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition.” The release does not engage in disease mongering. The release notes: The supplement is the outcome of a November 2014 USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine roundtable on vegetable consumption in children. The forum was supported by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to expanding and translating scientific research into evidence-based policy and education initiatives that recognize the role of all forms of the potato–a nutritious vegetable–in promoting health for all age groups. That’s good information as far as it goes, but the release does not acknowledge that the authors of the main study that is the basis for the release are both paid by the Alliance (one is an employee, the other a consultant), which is a membership group for potato growers. There are many comparisons in the study but the release mentions none of the many other dietary sources of potassium and fiber. We think it’s obvious that potatoes are widely available. By claiming that potatoes are the best hope for increasing potassium and fiber intake in kids, we think the release needed to prove the novelty of the research and this finding. But there’s nothing new here. The headline – and use of “best hope” — is unjustified, as far as we can tell.


Global News Service, Education, Foreign Policy, Women, Michelle Obama,

Among the causes First Lady Michelle Obama has championed during her time in the White House is improving the lot of girls and women worldwide. About a year ago, Obama helped kick off Let Girls Learn, an interagency effort focused on educating adolescent girls. "Studies from the World Bank show that one extra year of secondary school can increase a girl's future income by 15 to 25 percent," Obama said in an interview with a U.S. Agency for International Development publication. "And we know that when girls are educated, they are less likely to contract HIV, more likely to delay childbearing and vaccinate their children, and have lower maternal and infant mortality rates. Research even shows that sending more girls to school can boost an entire country’s GDP." We’ve seen that claim about educating girls and a rising GDP before. Is it true? Largely, yes. Research does show that a higher percentage of girls in school correlates with a higher gross domestic product. But those findings are much more limited than many people understand. Behind all the research, there’s uncertainty about whether a stronger economy leads to more girls in school, or if more girls in school leads to a stronger economy. No single rule applies everywhere. A stronger economy, for instance, provides both the resources and incentives to educate more women, who go to school, earn more and boost the economy a little higher. But it doesn’t always work that way. In the Middle East and North Africa, more women might be educated but for social and religious reasons, they can’t work, or must work in jobs that don’t fully reward their level of education. And the biggest sticking point is that what’s been called the "girl effect" seems to be much stronger in middle-income countries. For poorer nations, the effect is more muted. A few key studies and cautions The White House press office backed up the First Lady’s claim by citing policy reports that declared that educating girls and young women would boost a country’s economy. One from the World Bank said "By effectively educating more women -- that is, providing more women with a high-quality education -- more will enter the labor market, and the economy will show the favorable results." Those reports didn’t actually give the underlying research, so we’ll cover the highlights. • A 2009 article in the journal Feminist Economics compared regions of the world and measured gender gaps in both education and employment. That’s worth noting because, while the two generally go hand-in-hand, they are separate. You can educate girls, but if companies won’t hire them, a lot of the economic benefit is lost. This study’s bottom line was that between 1960 and 2000, East Asia’s growth rate was .9 percent higher than the region of the Middle East-North Africa. The difference was due to the higher fraction of girls in school in East Asia. • A 2011 World Bank study took 14 countries and teased out what would happen if every girl finished whatever level of school she was in -- either primary or secondary. Not surprisingly, the economic impact depended hugely on a country’s starting point. India and China, for example, had very low rates of girls not completing school, while on the opposite end, places like Burundi and Senegal had dropout rates over 80 percent. So the study found that getting girls and young women to complete a given level of schooling added a "barely noticeable" amount in India and China, while in the other countries, researchers predicted a hefty rise. One important contribution of this research is it factored in the diminishing returns of educating more women. When more people hit the job market, it tends to drive wages down. There’s still a net gain, but in this study, earnings could be about 20 percent less than you might expect. Tuck that point away and keep it in mind for the next landmark analysis on our list. It provided advocacy groups with a talking point that has gone viral. • In a 1999 World Bank paper Gender inequality, income and growth: Are good times good for women?, economists David Dollar and Roberta Gatti worked with data on 100 nations. The finding that gained the most traction was that "in the countries with higher initial education, an increase of 1 percentage point in the share of adult women with secondary school education implies an increase in per capita income growth of 0.3 percentage points." That might seem like a simple equation, but it actually makes two points that are often overlooked. The economic growth took place only in middle-income countries that already had a higher rate of educating women. "For the poorer half of the observations, there is no relationship between female attainment and income," the authors wrote. The other generally ignored element is that the 1 percent increase in educated women applies to completing secondary education. Simply putting more girls in classrooms at any grade level wouldn’t necessarily deliver the same results. You have to get the girls all the way through high school. Specifics are important when measuring education gains Here’s where many organizations, including USAID, get into trouble. They say -- right now on their website -- that "if 10 percent more girls attend school, a country’s GDP increases by an average of 3 percent." That statement has three flaws. First, it treats all nations the same, whether they are low income or middle income. Second, it treats all education the same, whether it’s primary or secondary. Perhaps most troubling is it scales up the original equation by a factor of 10. Dollar, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told us that doing that "is a bit risky." "You would expect diminishing returns," he said. Which takes us back to that 2011 World Bank study we tucked away. It predicted wages would be about 20 percent lower than you would expect. Less money in women’s pockets means less economic activity, and less economic growth. Our ruling Michelle Obama said that research shows that sending girls to school can boost a country’s entire economy. That’s a fairly broad statement and broadly speaking, it’s accurate. Research from economists at the World Bank and elsewhere suggest that it’s possible that educating more girls produces a stronger economy. But researchers can’t say whether it’s the education of girls that leads to growth, or the growth that leads to more education of women. Plus, women can hit roadblocks in the job market even if they are educated. The research shows that, too. Obama’s statement is accurate but it needs additional information. We rate this claim .


Using toilet paper as a barrier between your derriere and a toilet seat poses more health risks than just sitting down without a barrier.

Explanation: Ultimately, what you put between yourself and the toilet seat is between you and your toilet, but we rate these claims because a.) you are not reducing risk of spreading germs by failing to put down toilet paper, and b.) you are, likewise, certainly not increasing the risk by putting down toilet paper. The risk of germs is omnipresent, and it should, if anything, highlight the importance of washing your hands after using the bathroom.

On 23 June 2016, Hefty.co published an article with the headline “After You Read This, You’ll Never Put Toilet Paper on the Seat Again. Never.” The piece attempted to make the argument that, due to germs released to the air when a toilet is flushed combined with superior germ prevention abilities of toilet seats, there would be more germs on the paper barrier than on the seat itself: For a long time, people thought the seats were covered in germs and nasties and people could pick up all kinds of horrible gastrointestinal infections from them. But given their special shape and their particularly smooth surfaces, toilet seats actually prevent bacteria from settling on them. In addition, germs cannot multiply on bare skin, so mere contact with the toilet seat is not so bad after all. Toilet paper, on the other hand, is a completely different story. It’s common knowledge that (almost) no one puts the toilet lid down after using and flushing the toilet. As a result, all those germs spread around the room and also on the toilet paper. And contrary to the toilet seat, toilet paper is an ideal place for germs to gather. Its surface makes it easy for bacteria to settle on. It is precisely this germ-infested toilet paper that you would reach out to grab with your hands and then, unconsciously, you would touch your face, allowing the bacteria the easiest passageway into your body. There is a glaring logical fallacy in this argument that essentially makes debunking the science behind it unnecessary: Presumably, you will still be touching that same toilet paper with your hands when you reach for it to wipe; as well, you might “unconsciously… touch your face, allowing the bacteria the easiest passageway into your body.” We are not going to take that easy route out, though, because the science presented is not only illogical, it is factually inaccurate. The article’s central argument is that there is unlikely to be any appreciable amount of bacteria on the seat itself and that there would be, comparatively speaking, more on the toilet paper. These are actually questions scientists have addressed on multiple occasions in peer-reviewed journals. For example, a 1975 study (“Microbiological Hazards of Household Toilets”) used both laboratory work and “fieldwork” in public bathrooms to reveal that, while flushing a toilet does allow bacteria and viruses to “remain airborne long enough to settle on surfaces throughout the bathroom”, the samples most consistently showing the most bacteria was the seats of the toilet, not the walls or other surfaces near it. A study published in 2005, using its own experimental data as well as a review of literature on the topic, reached a similar conclusion: Epidemiological studies from recurrent outbreaks of norovirus infection in successive cohorts of guests in hotels and on cruise ships […] suggests spread from infected persons after vomiting by settling of aerosol particles onto surfaces which are then touched by hands. In addition, these studies suggested that splashing or aerosol generation during toilet flushing may spread virus particles onto contact surfaces such as the toilet seat or flush handle. Combined with our experimental data we believe that the potential spread of enteric disease by contact with surfaces in bathrooms harbouring pathogens cannot be ignored and must be regarded as a serious infection risk. So yes, flushing can liberate pathogens into the air and allow them to settle on a variety of bathroom surfaces (pretty much all of them, according to the 2005 study), but given that these pathogens’ most common area of detection is the toilet seat, whatever magical anti-germ power it is supposed to have is not doing its job, or more likely is nonexistent. To that point, experiments have demonstrated that pathogens on non-porous surfaces (such as the toilet seat) are more easily transferred to the skin than from porous ones (such as toilet paper). The post also makes the argument that putting the seat cover down reduces the risks of introducing pathogens to the air and, as a result, bathroom surface; as we now know, this would certainly increase the risk of transferring pathogens to your hands as well. But this claim, as well, flies in the face of the experimental results presented in that 2005 study: Experiments were carried out to establish the dynamics of aerosol formation and surface contamination after seeding the toilet with [both a bacterial and viral pathogen]. Closing the toilet lid had little effect in reducing the number of bacteria released into the air […]. The highest level of surface contamination was closest to the aerosol source, at the toilet seat level […]. The final false claim of this viral (and bacterial!) post is that “germs cannot multiply on bare skin”. Broadly speaking, this is not true. Logically speaking, it is also fairly irrelevant. The mechanism that is discussed throughout the Hefty.co post is not an infection on the skin, but transfer to the mouth from the hands. As you need only a small number of pathogens to enter your gastrointestinal tract, and because many pathogens can survive on a variety of surfaces for extended periods of time, the purported lack of “multiplication” on your skin is no protection from infection if there should be any contact between your hand and your buttocks (or anything else your buttocks may have come in contact with).


Kellogg's is adding traces of peanut flour to its products.

Explanation: What's true: Kellogg's announced that it was adding peanut flour to some of its products. What's false: Kellogg's did not fail to announce this change to the public.

Food, allergies, food warnings, kellogg's

On 5 May 2016, the web site Snack Safely published an article reporting that Kellogg’s was adding “traces” of peanut flour to all of its products: As we predicted, Kellogg’s is now intentionally adding traces of peanut flour to other products beyond their Keebler and Austin Cracker lines. […] To date, the company has issued no press release explaining their decision to add minute quantities of peanut flour, but we can only surmise that we are in the early stage of a plan to add traces of allergens across much of their product line to avoid the complications of complying with the FSMA that were intended to make foods safer for the allergic community, not the opposite. While it is true that Kellogg’s has recently added peanut flour to some its products, the article included some misleading information. The Snack Safely article used Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain “Fruit Crunch” bars as evidence that the company was adding peanut flour to additional products, but those products are no longer available, and already contained peanut flour when they were introduced in 2012. Kellogg’s said in a statement that the information from Snack Safely is inaccurate: The “Fruit Crunch” Nutri-Grain bars mentioned in the Snack Safely blog post have been discontinued and are no longer on the market. Additionally, they always had peanut flour listed as an ingredient since they were introduced in 2012, and there is currently no new product or ingredient change. There have been changes to some products from the company. However, the insinuation that it was done in secrecy and that Kellogg’s has not commented on the ingredients in its products is misleading. At least two statements (one regarding the Austin Cracker line and one regarding Keebler) explained the ingredient updates, and subsequent label adjustments, in April 2016: The Kellogg Company would like you to know that starting in April, 2016 Austin will be changing the allergen statement on four flavors of sandwich crackers under the Austin® label. The flavors, Austin® Cheddar Cheese Cracker Sandwiches, Austin® Grilled Cheese Cracker Sandwiches, Austin® Pepper Jack Cracker Sandwiches and the Austin® Variety Pack Cracker Sandwiches will contain Wheat, Milk, Soy, and Peanut ingredients. While Snack Safely also accused Kellogg’s of adding peanut flour to its products in order to “avoid the complications of complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act,” they provided no evidence to back up that assertion: It is surmised that Kellogg’s is preemptively adding minute quantities of peanut flour to these crackers so the ingredient can be added to the ingredient list. This will allow the company to avoid the costs of complying with directives of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that go into effect this September. Rather than implement the additional requirements of the new FSMA directives, it is believed Kellogg’s is adding trace amounts of the allergen to dispense with the entire process. If this is indeed true, they are making their products more allergenic in order to avoid the costs of complying with directives intended to make product safer. The main critique of the article published by Snack Safely (and the accompanying petition) is that Kellogg’s did not do a good job of alerting the public about the change. While that is a matter of debate, the company does say that parents should always check the packaging, as the ingredients list occasionally goes through changes: Because product formulations may change from time to time, consumers are strongly encouraged to read the package label prior to every purchase. While it is true that Kellogg’s added peanut flour to some of its products in 2016, there’s no evidence that the decision to do so was to “avoid the complications of complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act.” After all, Kellogg’s has announced dozens of ingredient changes over the years. Further, the company also said that it will be releasing an Austin Cracker flavor that does not contain peanut flour this September: As we told you when we first announced the change, we’ve been exploring ways to make a sandwich cracker that parents of children with peanut allergies can buy. Today, I want to share with you that we will be making our Austin Grilled Cheese Sandwich crackers without peanut products. They will be available in stores starting in September. Given the prevalence of peanut and other nut allergies and the strictness of the Food and Drug Administration (not to mention the high-profile public relations nightmare that would ensue after a spate of allergy-related illnesses or deaths) it seems extraordinarily unlikely that any company would alter recipes for popular foods in secret to introduce ingredients that would have a potentially devastating effect on its consumers. On 11 May 2016, Snack Safely published the following retraction: Yesterday, we posted an article entitled “Kellogg’s Now Adding Traces of Peanut Flour Across Product Lines” that asserted that Kellogg’s had recently begun adding trace quantities of peanut flour to Nutri-Grain Apple Cobbler Fruit Crunch Bars, much like their recent addition of peanut flour to the company’s Keebler and Austin cracker varieties. Despite our best efforts to verify the timing of this addition, we were wrong. Though the product information is listed on the company’s website, the product itself has been discontinued. We apologize to you, or readers, and to the Kellogg Company for this error. That said, this does not alter our belief that the company is adding minute quantities of peanut flour – as they have done with the Keebler and Austin crackers – to avoid the complications and cost of complying with new, stricter FSMA directives regarding the handling of allergens that take effect this September. We reiterate our call to the company to explain why they are adding this allergen to products and end the speculation. Kellogg’s dispelled some of the rumors about its recent decision to add peanut flour to a few select products in an article published on the company’s “Open For Breakfast” web site: Myth: Kellogg added peanut flour to some Keebler and Austin sandwich crackers to avoid complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Fact: This is completely false. Food safety is a top priority for us at Kellogg. Our food safety standards are in full compliance with FSMA and FDA regulations issued under FSMA. These products all remain subject to FSMA and are not exempt from regulation. FSMA requires food companies to include allergen control as part of their hazard analyses and to ensure allergen preventative controls are in place where appropriate. Kellogg does all of these things. We carefully identify and evaluate all food safety hazards, including hazards posed by allergens. Guided by our robust hazard analysis, we have controls in place to prevent allergen cross-contact and contamination during shipping, receiving, storage, handling and use of all ingredients. We also have controls in place to ensure proper labeling of allergens on our foods. In many areas, our food safety standards even go above and beyond those required by the FDA.


Brigid Shea Says Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell voted for a toll lane on MoPac.

In a recent Austin mayoral debate, challenger Brigid Shea and incumbent Lee Leffingwell sparred over a plan to expand MoPac Boulevard, with Shea ultimately saying that Leffingwell voted to add a toll lane to the frequently congested north-south expressway. We wondered whether Shea was right about Leffingwell’s record. First, let’s flash back to their exchange during the debate aired April 16, 2012, by KXAN-TV, Channel 36. Shea began by saying the city hasn’t done enough to ease congestion on Austin’s roads. But, she said, one approach she doesn’t support is "putting toll lanes on MoPac." Leffingwell responded that the decision to add a toll lane to MoPac (Loop 1) "has not been made" and that under the plan in progress, no existing lanes would be tolled. The new lane on MoPac "would be a high occupancy lane," Leffingwell said. "It would be reserved for bus rapid transit and express buses and for registered car pools. It would also facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles such as police, fire and EMS vehicles. There has been some discussion of placing a variable toll on that lane only, not on the rest of MoPac, which would make it usable for folks in their private automobiles to use. It would be a variable-type toll depending on the movement of traffic in that lane to make sure it moves quickly. … If the speed goes down, the toll would go up. If the speed goes up, the toll would go down. That’s under discussion right now, and hopefully, that project will begin in 2014." Shea shot back: "All the transportation experts that I’ve spoken with have said you might call it an HOV lane, but it’s really a toll lane. And the mayor has voted for it in the three-year TIP transportation plan." Shea was more blunt in a recent mailer to voters, saying: "Lee voted for a toll lane on MoPac." Over the years, various ideas have been floated to relieve congestion on MoPac, which opened in the 1970s. The current plan — to be built and operated by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, with most of the funding from the Texas Department of Transportation — includes adding an "express lane" to each side of MoPac for the approximately 11-mile stretch from Lady Bird Lake north to Parmer Lane. At the debate, Leffingwell described the additional lanes as "high occupancy." Then again, the MoPac express lanes wouldn’t be the same as the "high occupancy vehicle," or HOV, lanes found in some urban areas. Often called "car-pool lanes," they are typically reserved for vehicles carrying more than one or two people; some allow solo drivers to use them if they pay a toll. But Central Texas never adopted the HOV strategy, according to a Jan. 30, 2012, Austin American-Statesman news article, "and the MoPac express lanes won’t change that." Instead, as Leffingwell indicated, the additional northbound and southbound lanes would be open — for no charge — to transit buses, registered vanpools and emergency and military vehicles. Everyone else who wanted to hop in the express lane would have to pay a toll, the amount of which would change minute by minute depending on the level of traffic in the lane. The article quoted Mike Heiligenstein, executive director of the mobility authority, as saying that the point of the fluctuating tolls is to keep the speeds in each express lane at 50 mph or more. While there are no MoPac toll lanes yet, construction could start as early as 2013, according to an April 2, 2012, Statesman news article. The project is expected to receive final environmental clearance from the federal government around August 2012, which would trigger a six-month period in which approval can be challenged in court. We wondered how Leffingwell factored into the toll-lane plan. Shea told us that she was referring to three votes Leffingwell cast in 2010 as a board member for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. That’s a regional body whose primary jobs, according to its website, are to coordinate regional transportation planning and to approve the use of federal transportation funds within the region. The 19-member CAMPO board is made up mostly of local elected officials from Travis, Williamson, Hays, Bastrop and Caldwell counties. CAMPO director Maureen McCoy told us that Leffingwell, who was elected mayor in 2009 and was a council member before that, joined the board in 2008. To back up her claim, Shea sent us copies of the minutes of CAMPO board meetings that struck us as showing that Leffingwell did vote for toll lanes on MoPac. Let’s look closer:  ** Vote No. 1: On May 24, 2010, the board voted to adopt Central Texas’ 25-year transportation plan, with Leffingwell and 16 others voting "aye." The plan, which is required under federal law, undergoes a top-to-bottom rewrite every five years. Any road or transit project that uses federal money, as most of them do, must be in the plan to qualify for that money. A May 10, 2010, Statesman news article previewing the vote said the proposed CAMPO 2035 plan contained several hundred road, rail, bicycle and pedestrian projects projected to cost nearly $30 billion. It noted that in the plan was $392 million for a new "managed lane" in each direction on MoPac from Parmer Lane in North Austin to Slaughter Lane in South Austin. The plan that the board approved in May 2010 includes the MoPac "managed lanes" project in its "priority project list." And a separate chart in the plan lists the MoPac project in a section labeled "toll roads and toll express lanes." Several months after the vote, in July 2010, state and local officials announced that the proposed MoPac project, with express toll lanes between Parmer Lane and the river, was moving forward after delays of several years, according to a July 8, 2010, Statesman news article. ** Vote No. 2: On Aug. 9, 2010, the CAMPO board voted to adopt the 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program, a short-term document that designates projects to be carried out over the next four years and how they will be funded. (Shea erred slightly in the debate by describing it as a three-year document.) Leffingwell was among the 16 board members who voted for the plan, which included the "managed lanes" project for MoPac between Parmer Lane and the river. In a telephone interview, we asked McCoy, the CAMPO director, whether she considered Leffingwell’s 2010 votes for the long-range plan and the TIP as votes to add a toll lane to MoPac. She said yes, saying that the projects had been discussed for some time. ** Vote No. 3: On Sept. 13, 2010, the board voted 13-4, with Leffingwell’s support, to approve the "terms and conditions" for the MoPac express lane project, as required by state law. According to a summary in the agenda for that meeting, the "terms and conditions," developed by the mobility authority and TxDOT, establish that the project would add an express lane in the Parmer-to-the-river stretch of MoPac "consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the current Transportation Improvement Program." They also establish that the toll rate for the project would be "variable based on traffic demand with a minimum rate of 22 cents per mile" and that emergency, military and transit vehicles would be exempt. Finally, it notes that the toll rates would increase annually based on the "Consumer Price Index for Urban Areas." As we closed out this review, Andy Mormon, Leffingwell’s city chief of staff, said in a telephone interview that to describe the MoPac project’s "managed lanes" as "toll lanes" oversimplifies a complex traffic solution project. He also suggested that Shea’s claim leaves out critical context in that under the regional plan, drivers could continue using MoPac without paying tolls. "When you say toll lane in Austin, there’s a lot of people who get up in arms," he said. Our ruling During the debate, Shea responded to Leffingwell’s description of the plan to add a managed lane to each side of a stretch of MoPac by calling it a toll lane and saying Leffingwell had voted for it in a transportation plan. Our conclusion is that except for a select few kinds of motorists, drivers who use the new lanes would have to pay varying tolls. And Leffingwell voted for this approach thrice. Shea did not say MoPac would be entirely tolled. Her comment had the context already given at the debate by the mayor. We rate her claim .


The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.

Explanation: Obama says under Democratic health plan, family insurance premiums in the individual market would decrease 14 to 20 percent

For many people, the health care issue boils down to this: Are my insurance rates going to go up or down? Not surprisingly then, one of the testiest exchanges at the health care summit on Feb. 25, 2010, came between President Barack Obama and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., over the issue of how the Democrats' health care plan would affect premiums. Interestingly, both cited an analysis of the Senate health care bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to make their case. "The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill," Alexander said. "No, no, no, no," Obama retorted. "This is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight." "Let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate," Obama continued. "Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously. "But they didn't say that the actual premiums would be going up. What they said was they'd be going down by 14 percent to 20 percent. And I promise you, I've gone through this carefully with the Congressional Budget Office, and I'll be happy to present this to the press and whoever's listening because this is an important issue." Alexander later stood his ground, saying, "With respect, you're wrong about -- your bill would increase premiums, I believe. You say it wouldn't. So rather than argue with you in public about it, I'd like to put my facts down, give them to you." "I think it's a great idea," Obama said. "I'd like to get this issue settled about whether premiums are reduced before we leave today, because I'm pretty certain I'm not wrong." This seemed like a good place for us to step in and referee. First, one of the key qualifiers that many people may have lost in this exchange is that they were debating the effects on premiums for people in the individual market. These are the people who do not get their insurance through an employer. This is only a fraction of the overall market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the Democrats' plan were adopted, the individual market would grow to about 17 percent of the American population by 2016. The Democrats' plan calls for the creation of a health insurance exchange in which individuals could shop for insurance with private companies competing for their business. The idea is that it would allow individuals to purchase insurance at lower, group rates. Plans offered by companies participating in the exchange would have to meet government-mandated minimum coverage thresholds. The CBO estimated that the average premium for people in the individual market would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than under current law. Specifically, the CBO estimates the average cost of family policies purchased by individuals would be $15,200 in 2016, as opposed to $13,100 under current law. That's the backing for Alexander's comment. But Obama correctly notes that much of the added cost is tied to people getting better insurance. The CBO said there are three drivers that would cause premiums to rise or fall. And it broke them down as follows: • Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average insurance policy would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to subsidies. • Average premiums would be 7 percent to 10 percent lower because of a net reduction in costs to insurers, mostly from the changes in the rules governing the individual market. • Average premiums would be 7 percent to 10 percent lower because of a shift in the types of people obtaining coverage. Most of that change is tied to an influx of healthier people with below-average spending for health care, who would purchase coverage because of subsidies and a new tax penalty for failing to purchase insurance. Obama gets to his figure by combining those last two cost reductions, but not including the cost increase tied to people essentially getting better insurance. Both Obama and Alexander cited figures independent of the effect of subsidies. But we think it bears noting that under the Senate health plan, about 57 percent of people on the individual market would receive federal subsidies, and those subsidies would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium. One last point, the Democrats' plan would allow people who currently have individual policies to grandfather in their existing policy. According to the CBO, "the premiums for those policies would probably not differ substantially from current-law levels." In other words, if you were to opt to keep the exact same individual plan (an option the CBO doesn't believe many will take because, with subsidies, most could get a better plan cheaper), the CBO doesn't see the cost rising or falling substantially. And again, we are talking here only about premiums for people in the individual market. For most people, who get their insurance through their company, the CBO projects premiums to decline slightly from where they'd go if no health plan is passed. How slightly? In the 0 to 3 percent range, depending on whether you work at a large or small company. We think both Obama and Alexander have selectively chosen from the CBO report to suit their needs. Alexander insists the cost of premiums in the individual market will go up, without acknowledging that that's because most people will be getting better insurance coverage, either because of new government-mandated minimum coverage levels or because many will decide that subsidies will make upgrades to a better plan more cost-effective. Bottom line, people won't be paying more for the same thing. They'll be paying more for better plans. And on top of that, many will get federal subsidies, so they won't be paying the increased cost out of their own pockets. But we also think Obama has put on blinders when citing the CBO report. Yes, the CBO estimated 14 to 20 percent savings due to rule changes in the individual market, and because the plan is expected to infuse a large number of low-risk people into the insurance pool. But he ignores the estimated cost increases tied to more people getting better insurance. Obama tries to gloss over this by comparing costs "for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving." But the fact is, most would not be getting the same kind of coverage. Some of the shift to better coverage would be due to personal choice -- with subsidies, many people would be able to get better coverage at the same cost or cheaper -- but some would be tied to new government-mandated minimum coverage and the threat of tax penalties if you decide not to get insurance. And for those who opt to grandfather in their current individual policies (even if they don't meet the new government minimum standards), the CBO doesn't see much of a change in premiums one way or the other. And so we rule Obama's statement .


Erbitux OK for colorectal cancer patients with genetic marker

Explanation: This report describes a study showing that colon cancer patients whose tumors have a certain genetic mutation don’t benefit from the drug Erbitux. Since that drug is expensive and has serious side effects, it’s important to know which patients will benefit. This study confirms previous research into the question. The story follows nearly all medical journalism best practices, as the ratings show. It could have been improved in two ways:  It might have put the studied treatment in context to other clinical approaches used to treat metastatic colon cancer. In the second paragraph, it says that the drug "doesn’t work" in patients whose tumors have the genetic mutation. But it does not return to verify or elaborate on this point in less vernacular language. For instance, later on the story reports that patients whose tumors do not have the mutation showed significant tumor shrinkage. It would have been useful to reiterate that patients who did have the mutation and took Erbitux saw outcomes no different from those taking the placebo–the core finding that supports the "doesn’t work" formulation at the top of the story. It’s also important to note that tumor shrinkage should not be equated with considerable benefit – which should be expressed in terms of improved survival, lower recurrence or improved quality of life. Overall, though, this story was well done, and it took only 391 words to do such a good job.

The article does an excellent job of comparing the price of Erbitux with the cost of testing for the genetic mutation that indicates whether it will be effective. The article states that adding Erbitux does not work in patients whose tumors have a specific gene mutation. The story reports that 36 percent of the study respondents’ tumors had that genetic profile. It is important to note that the marker of benefit used in the study (tumor shrinkage) may not result in better patient outcomes. The article does a good job of describing the harms of treatment with Erbitux: high costs and serious side effects–and, for people with a specific genetic profile, a lack of efficacy. The article is based on a clinical trial of sufficient size and quality to justify publication of the story. The research was presented at a scientific meeting, however. While the story mentioned this fact, it should also have said that the research has not yet been subjected to peer review. Yet the meeting, ASCO, is an important annual scientific gathering with considerable credibility in the field. All things considered, the article earns a satisfactory rating for this criterion. The article does nothing to exaggerate the benefits of the treatment or the severity of the underlying condition for which it is used, metastatic colon cancer. While the description of the side effect of Erbitux is vivid, it’s useful information that helps explain why it’s so important to know which patients are likely to benefit from the drug. The article quotes one of the study co-authors and interviews a knowledgeable independent source familiar with the research and the condition. The article makes plain that the studied options are standard chemotherapy and standard chemotherapy plus Erbitux. It does not mention whether there are other treatments for newly diagnosed advanced colon cancer, however. Given the context, however, this omission is acceptable. The article makes clear that Erbitux is available, as is the combination treatment examined in this report. The article makes clear that the tested treatment is widely used. It also explains that previous research has been done on this specific question, preventing readers from thinking the conclusions of this research are novel. It does not appear that the story relied on a news release.


Quake amputees embody resilience in broken Haiti.

Explanation: Sprinting on their crutches at breakneck speed, the young soccer players who lost legs in Haiti’s earthquake last year project a symbol of hope and resilience in a land where so much is broken.

A member of an amputee soccer team hits the ball during a training session for an upcoming exhibition match in Port-au-Prince January 8, 2011. REUTERS/Kena Betancur Playing a weekend warm-up match days before the anniversary of the devastating January 12 quake, the players control the ball artfully with their good legs, avoiding “illegal” contact with their crutches. The teams train on a dusty pitch near Cite Soleil, Haiti’s largest slum on the outskirts of the wrecked capital Port-au-Prince. They faced off again on Monday in the National Stadium as part of a low-key yet poignant commemoration of the disaster that killed around a quarter of a million people. “Everything can’t get fixed after the earthquake but life goes on,” said Mackendy Francois, whose friends used a hacksaw to cut off his left leg below the knee when they freed him from the rubble of a shirt factory a year ago. Thousands of people lost limbs in the earthquake, which left more than 1 million Haitians homeless and living in misery in the already poor, calamity-prone Caribbean nation. “Life didn’t end when I lost a leg,” Francois, 23, told Reuters. He said he felt proud to represent his team against opposing side Zaryen, named after the Haitian Creole term for a tarantula because of the way the hardy spider keeps on going even after it loses a leg. The players got treatment, athletic training and prosthetic limbs thanks to a joint effort by Miami’s Project Medishare and the Knights of Columbus, which committed more than $1 million to the prosthetics and therapy program. More than 100 young quake victims have been fitted with limbs in the program so far and hundreds more will begin treatment in the coming weeks and months, Knights of Columbus Senior Vice President Patrick Korten told Reuters in an email. The soccer teams include some players disabled by birth defects and amputees from accidents unrelated to the quake. Despite the uplifting example of the amputee players, initial hopes that a new, more successful Haiti could somehow rise from the rubble with international help are becoming clouded by a sense of pessimism and despair. Even before the quake, about 70 percent of the 10 million people in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest state, lived on less than $2 a day. Conditions for many now seem worse. Zaryen midfielder Bernard Noubert, who lost both his parents in the quake in the same building where he lost a leg, said soccer has helped keep him going. “It’s the best distraction for me to lighten my heart,” he said. LOW-PROFILE COMMEMORATION   Despite billions of dollars in pledged aid and a generous outpouring of world solidarity for Haiti after the quake, the anniversary promises little in the way of celebration. That may be due to a steady drumbeat of criticism from many quarters about how little has been achieved so far in trying to rebuild the capital city. Major streets in Port-au-Prince have been mostly cleared of rubble and tent cities that once held more than 1.3 million people made homeless by the quake have slowly started to thin out. But debris still covers vast tracts of the capital and bodies are still being pulled from collapsed buildings. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, the U.N. special envoy to Haiti who heads a reconstruction commission with outgoing Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, has also faced criticism over the lack of tangible results. Clinton is expected back in Port-au-Prince this week and is likely to call for patience in the grueling rebuilding task. Commemoration events this week include a ceremony on Tuesday marking the reopening of Port-au-Prince’s restored Iron Market, a cultural and architectural landmark in the city’s downtown area. Built by the French in the late 19th Century, the market with its ornate clock tower was badly damaged in the quake after a fire in 2008. Its restoration was funded by Irish-owned telecoms company Digicel, Haiti’s largest private investor. But such schemes are of little interest to Anise Sainee, a 54-year-old grandmother who lives with her husband and 11 children and grandchildren in a tent in a crowded camp in front of the wrecked presidential palace. She holds little hopes for a better future. “I can only count on God,” she said. A strong stench drifted from nearby latrines and from a sewer in front of Sainee’s tent, with its corrugated tin roof and dirty plastic sheeting stamped with the words “U.S. Aid from the American People.”   “I’ve seen no government here. There is no government,” Sainee said. “I’ve seen no progress either. It seems like the situation just gets worse.”   Nine months after the quake, a cholera epidemic hit Haiti and has since killed more than 3,600 people. Even the November 28 presidential and legislative elections failed to give greater credibility to the government, with the outcome of the vote mired in uncertainty after widespread fraud allegations and sporadic street violence. Screeds of Creole graffiti on Port-au-Prince’s walls chronicle Haiti’s chaotic politics. One reads “Aba Okipasyon (Down With the Occupation)” but it is not clear if it refers to the U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti, the reconstruction commission co-chaired by Clinton or the army of foreigners involved in Haiti’s reconstruction. Given this instability, it is not surprising that some Haitians hark back with nostalgia to the rule of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, who from 1971 continued the rule of his late despotic father Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier. Sainee’s 62-year-old husband, Fedor Cine, lost his job as a street sweeper four years ago and is one of those who believes things were better in the Duvalier era. “He was a real president,” Cine said of Jean-Claude Duvalier, who lives in France after being ousted by a popular uprising in 1986 — a rebellion that began Haiti’s still ongoing experiment with democracy.


A man was arrested after sugar from his Krispy Kreme donuts tested positive for methamphetamine during a traffic stop.

Explanation: In October 2016, Rushing sued the city of Orlando and The Safariland Group, which manufactures and distributes the drug testing kits used by Orlando police. He is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

Crime, drug testing, false positives, florida

In December 2015, Daniel Frederick Rushing was arrested when he was leaving a 7-Eleven in Orlando, Florida. That particular convenience store is apparently a locus of illegal activity, and since Rushing had been in and out of it a few times that day, police were suspicious. They pulled him over, found a few flakes of a “rock like substance” that looked suspicious on his floorboard, and — according to the police report — arrested him for possession of methamphetamine after a field test: A silver 4-door Chevy pulled into the 7-11 and parked. A white male, later identified as Daniel Frederick Rushing entered the 7-11 for a very brief moment and then exited the store without making a purchase. Rushing drove away and then returned a few minutes later with a black female employee of the 7-11. Rushing went back into the store and then left with the female a short time later. As Rushing was leaving the parking lot of the 7-11, he made no attempt to stop before entering the roadway to travel East on Colonial Drive (in violation of Florida state statute). Rushing then traveling north onto Parramore Avenue where the speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I paced Rushing at 42 miles per hour (with my certified calibrated speedometer) in the 30 mile per hour zone. For those two infractions I conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle at Parramore and Robinson. When I made contact with Rushing I asked him for his driver license. When Rushing opened his wallet I observed a concealed weapons permit. I asked Rushing if he was armed and he stated that he was. For my safety, I asked Rushing to step out of the vehicle. When Rushing exited the vehicle, I observed in plain view a rock like substance on the floor board where his feet were. I recognized, through my eleven years of training and experience as a law enforcement officer, the substance to be some sort of narcotic. I removed the firearm (a loaded revolver) from Rushing and placed it in my vehicle for my safety. Additionally, I asked Rushing if he had anything illegal in his vehicle and he stated no. I asked Rushing if I could search his vehicle and he stated yes. Officer Vance (17448) and Officer Rolle (18874) arrived to assist me with the traffic stop. I retrieved the substance that I initially saw on the floor board and two other small pieces from the floor board of the driver side. Officer Vance found an additional piece of the same substance in between the driver seat and the door area. I field tested the substance and I received a positive indication for the presence of amphetamines. I conducted a separate test on the substance and received another positive indication for amphetamines. I provided Rushing his rights per Miranda. Rushing stated that he has never done any drugs in his life and he has no idea how the substance got in his vehicle. Rushing stated that the substance is sugar from a Krispy Kreme donut that he ate. Rushing was placed under arrest and charged with possession of amphetamine with a weapon. The “rock-like substance,” as it turned out, really was glaze from the Krispy Kreme donut that Rushing had been eating as he was driving one friend to the hospital for a chemotherapy appointment, before picking up another friend who needed a ride home. Rushing was jailed for ten hours. “It was incredible,” he told reporters:  It feels scary when you haven’t done anything wrong and get arrested. … It’s just a terrible feeling. Several weeks after Rushing’s arrest, the lab reports came back showing no trace of methamphetamines or any other types of illegal substances. He has now hired a lawyer, and plans to sue the city because he was arrested for no reason at all. (Orlando police said that the arrest was lawful.) It’s not the first time field tests have mistaken sugary substances for methamphetamines or crack cocaine. In July 2016, investigative journalist outfit ProPublica found that up to half of the positive results from the $2 drug kits Florida police use for field testing are later invalidated: In one notable Florida episode, Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies produced 15 false positives for methamphetamine in the first seven months of 2014. When we examined the department’s records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result. According to a 2015 story published by The Marshall Project, a reporting initiative about the United States criminal justice system, the tests yield false positives at least five percent of the time: Sage has been mistaken for marijuana; motor oil for heroin; jolly ranchers for meth; and breath mints for crack. In February, a Minnesota man spent months in jail after his vitamin powder tested positive for amphetamines. Soon after the arrest in Tampa, a Hillsborough police lieutenant conducted his own experiment on the NARK II tests, which cost between $15 and $20 for a box of ten. He found that just opening the test bag to the air produced the same shade of purple as exposure to methamphetamine, according to an internal memo. In February, the Hillsborough sheriff’s department announced it had switched to a different field test, made by the same company, which tests for a wider variety of illegal drugs. A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department declined interview requests. In Austin, Texas, the field tests law enforcement was using yielded so many false positives that they stopped relying on field tests for drug-related indictments in 2013, instead returning to far slower lab test results for suspected drug offenses. No central agency regulates what drug tests are used in police departments, and there are no centralized or comprehensive records about their use.


Swabbing ticks with liquid soap is a recommended and effective method for removing them.

Explanation: What's true: Swabbing liquid soap on ticks may sometimes help remove them. What's false: Using liquid soap to remove ticks is not a effective method of tick removal recommended by experts.

In addition to their being repulsive-looking bugs that survive by latching onto warm-blooded victims to suck blood from them, there is another reason to regard ticks with horror: they can deliver a deadly payload of disease to those they are making a meal of. These arachnids feed by burrowing their heads into skin, a method that introduces their body fluids into their victims. If those fluids are disease-laden, those microbes will be passed to the ones being dined upon. However, it generally takes at least 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can spread disease to its host, so speedy removal of these parasites is therefore key to avoiding tick-borne illness, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and Ehrlichia. Household lore is replete with tick removal suggestions that involve covering or coating the embedded arachnid with a substance it will find objectionable. Other long-lived suggestions for removing ticks include touching a lit match or hot needle to the tick’s rear, swabbing the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, and tickling the tick’s underside in an effort to persuade it to release its bite:  A School Nurse has written the info below — good enough to share — And it really works!! “I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it’s some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc. Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on it’s own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I’ve used it (and that was frequently), and it’s much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me. Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can’t see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor’s wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn’t reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, ‘It worked! '”  Although these home remedies are effective in some cases, however, those in the know about tick removal warn against them. Countermeasures of such nature don’t always work to encourage ticks to detach from skin promptly (if at all),  and even if such measures do seemingly aid the process of removing the critters, they may also make matters worse by stimulating the creatures to release additional saliva or regurgitate their gut contents, acts that increase the chance of their transmitting pathogens to their hosts. A 2006 journal article review of published literature on tick removal methods reported that:  One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks. Experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise advises readers to “Avoid folklore remedies such as “painting” the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, or using heat to make the tick detach from the skin. Your goal is to remove the tick as quickly as possible — not wait for it to detach.” Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions:  If a tick is removed within 24 hours, the chances of it transmitting Lyme disease or other infections are much less. Use fine-point tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Pull gently. Avoid squeezing the body of the tick. Clean the site of the bite, your hands and the tweezers with disinfectant. You may want to wear protective gloves. You also may want to place the tick in a small container, like a pill container, and bring it to your vet for identification. Never use a burned match, petroleum jelly, or nail polish to try to remove ticks. These methods are ineffective. A list of “DO NOTS” in a Medline Plus article about tick removal similarly warned:  Do NOT try to burn the tick with a match or other hot object. Do NOT twist the tick when pulling it out. Do NOT try to kill, smother, or lubricate the tick with oil, alcohol, vaseline, or similar material. The recommended procedure for removing ticks is:  To reduce your chances of becoming a tick’s dinner:  After any outdoor excursion into areas where ticks are commonly found, adults should check themselves and their children. Your four-legged friends should be checked for ticks too, because dogs and cats can also be felled by the diseases spread by these blood-sucking creatures.