Moscow restricts Easter week church service as coronavirus cases mount.

Explanation: Russia on Sunday reported 2,186 new coronavirus cases, the largest daily increase since the start of the outbreak, as authorities announced restrictions on Easter services to contain the spread of the disease.

Moscow and many other regions have been in lockdown for nearly two weeks, but the number of cases reached 15,770 as of April 12, while deaths rose to 130. The Russian Orthodox Church, which observes Easter this year on April 19, ordered churches in and around Moscow to close their doors to large groups during the Holy Week leading up to the holiday. Moscow authorities also clamped down on those venturing outside without a reason, such as to buy food or medicine, get medical treatment, walk the dog or take out the rubbish. The capital issued 1,358 fines for breaking the rules on Saturday, its coronavirus crisis centre said. Around 3.5 million people in Moscow, a city of 12.5 million, left their homes for more that 6 hours on Friday, according to a track analysis of their cellphones, TASS news agency reported on Sunday, citing the crisis centre. Moscow is preparing to introduce digital permits next week to control movement to help enforce the lockdown. An increased number of traffic police accompanied by armed officers were checking cars heading into Moscow on Sunday, a Reuters witness said, and some drivers with non-Moscow plates were refused entry to the capital. Russia will not defeat the coronavirus in time to lift restrictions by May 9, when the capital normally hosts an annual military parade to celebrate victory in World War Two, Deputy Prime Minister Tatiana Golikova told state TV. “Should we be disciplined, able to listen to ourselves and those recommendations applied today, then we’ll successfully get out of this situation and will shake each others’ hands by the summer,” Golikova said in an interview released on Sunday.


The youngest mother on record was a Peruvian girl who give birth at five years old.

Explanation: Lina’s boy, named Gerardo (after Dr. Gérado Lozada, chief physician of the hospital in Pisco where Lina’s pregnancy was diagnosed), did not learn until he was 10 years old that the woman he thought to be his sister was in fact his mother. Gerardo died in 1979, but Lina’s second son, born in 1972 (thirty-three years after his brother), now lives in Mexico. Lina and her husband currently reside in the “Little Chicago” district of Lima, Peru.9

Although we can see a tremendous amount of variety in the plant and animal life all around us, both within and between species, many of us still find extremes in variety among human beings somewhat disconcerting. While an extraordinarily large dog or a cat with an unusually long tail may be regarded as nothing more than a momentarily interesting curiosity or a source of amusement, people who exhibit one of the extremes in human development — whether it be in intelligence, height, weight, or some other feature — have long struggled to avoid being identified as “freaks.” Perhaps the most discomfiting record of this nature involves the youngest person ever to give birth, reputedly a five-year-old girl — not only because such a record posits that a child barely of kindergarten age involuntarily underwent an experience we associate with physical and psychological maturity, but also because it implies the commission of an act now considered to be nothing less than child molestation. Regardless of our squeamishness, we have to note that the claim of a five-year-old girl giving birth is  true. Her name was Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days. Lina’s parents initially thought their daughter had a large abdominal tumor, but after they took her to a hospital in the town of Pisco physicians confirmed that her abdominal swelling was due to pregnancy. Lina was eventually transferred to a hospital in Lima, where she delivered a six-pound baby boy by Cesarean section on 14 May 1939 (coincidentally the date on which Mother’s Day was celebrated that year). Lina’s father was temporarily jailed on suspicion of incest, but he was released for a lack of evidence and authorities were never able to determine who fathered Lina’s child. Lina’s incredible story was documented in contemporaneous reports by Edmundo Escomel, one of Peru’s preeminent physician-researchers of the period and a laureate of the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. Escomel’s first correspondence to the editors of La Presse Medicale1 (which is undated but appeared in the 13 May 1939 issue) noted that Lina first came to the attention of Dr. Gérado Lozada, chief physician of the Hospital of Pisco, when she appeared at that hospital in early April 1939 for evaluation of what was assumed to be a massive abdominal tumor. It soon became obvious to the stunned Lozada, however, that the little girl was pregnant. A medical history revealed that she had been having regular periods since age 3, but that she had stopped menstruating for the past 7½ months. Additionally, she had fully developed breasts. Further examination revealed a fetal heartbeat, and an X-ray confirmed the pregnancy. Escomel stated that Lozada had submitted a report about the case to the Academy of Medicine in Lima. Escomel’s announcement2 (dated 20 May 1939) that Lina had delivered a baby boy (on 14 May) appeared in the 31 May issue of La Presse Medicale. In addition to amending the age at which Lina began menstruating (to an incredible 8 months), Escomel submitted a photograph of the gravid 5½-year-old:  At the end of his piece Escomel noted with some sadness that no one had yet discovered the identity of the father since Lina “couldn’t give precise responses.” He also stressed the importance of getting adequate care for the little girl. Escomel’s final report3 was published in the 19 December 1939 issue of La Presse Medicale. He commented on a biopsy of one of Lina’s ovaries performed on a sample removed at the time of the Cesarean section and provided photomicrographs of the stained tissue sections. In the end, pathologists pronounced Lina to have the ovaries of a fully mature woman. Escomel posited that the reason behind her precocious fertility could not lie in the ovaries themselves but must have stemmed from an extraordinary hormonal disorder of pituitary origin. (As a point of comparison, the average age of first menstruation in the U.S. is 12½.) The U.S. press was also interested in this curious and disturbing story. A United Press report published in the Los Angeles Times on 16 May 1939 noted:  Dr. Hipolito Larrabure, head of the maternity hospital, who aided Dr. [Geraldo] Lozada [director of the Pisco Hospital] during the [Cesarean] operation, said Lina withstood the operation in excellent manner. Medical circles here were astonished at the birth, which they believed without precedent. Dr. Larrabure said the case was “truly astounding” and added that he hoped “some United States scientific foundation will send an investigator to Lima to observe the case and indicate the best manner of caring for the mother and child.”4  The Los Angeles Times also reported their own confirmation of the story that same day:  The possibility of a girl becoming a mother at the age of 5, as reported on Sunday from Lima, Peru, was upheld today by Dr. Joseph B. De Lee, obstetrics authority of Chicago Lying-in Hospital.Dr. De Lee cited the case of a Russian girl who became a mother at the age of 6½. According to the physician who reported the case in a German medical journal, Dr. De Lee said, the mother had the physical development of a girl 10 or 12 years old.5  Six months later, the New York Times reported that an American public health official had verified Lina’s remarkable story:  While in Lima Dr. [S.L. Christian, assistant surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service] examined Lina Medina, the Indian child-mother whose baby was born last May when the mother was about 5 years old. He said that although there was some confusion as to whether the mother was 5 or 6, there was no doubt of the authenticity of the case, which he described as the most amazing thing in his career as a physician.6  The following year the New York Times reported in a follow-up article that a trip was being organized so Lina could be “brought to the United States within a month for examination by a five-man medical commission.” Plans called for the little mother, the baby boy, and the girl’s parents to travel to Chicago, but there was no follow-up indicating that the Medina family ever made the journey to the U.S.7 In 1941, two years after Lina give birth, the New York Times published an account of an American psychologist who had examined Lina while visiting South America:  Another passenger [on the liner Santa Clara, which was returning from South America] was Mrs. Paul Kosak, specialist in child education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Mrs. Kosak is the only child psychologist who has been permitted to make studies of Lina Medina, the Peruvian girl who, two years ago, gave birth to a child at the age of 5 years.Mrs. Kosak said she gave a series of intelligence tests to the child and that on the basis of this study she has no doubt the child’s age was given correctly. “Lina is above normal in intelligence and the baby, a boy, is perfectly normal and is physically better developed than the average Mestiza (Spanish Indian) child,” she said. “She thinks of the child as a baby brother and so does the rest of the family.”8  Jose Sandoval, an obstetrician who took an interest in Lina Medina’s case and authored a book about her in 2002 said that Lina was a psychologically normal child, that she displayed no other unusual medical symptoms, and that she preferred playing with dolls rather than her own child.


It used to be that the only children at school who weren't vaccinated were those who had true medical" conditions. "Now there are 19 states that allow personal belief exemptions.

Health Care, Public Health, PunditFact, Richard Besser,

The measles outbreak linked to Disneyland provided an uneasy backdrop Sunday for talk about another southwestern venue hosting thousands of people from around the country with varying immunization histories: Super Bowl XLIX in Glendale, Ariz. On the news shows, medical experts stressed that the right of parents to choose whether their children vaccinate should not trump the risk that unvaccinated people pose to public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden said on ABC’s This Week that "study after study" has shown there are no long-term hazards with vaccines even though pockets of the population are unwilling to get them. ABC News’ chief health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser lamented how there was once a time where the only children who wouldn’t get vaccinated had immunity issues. "It used to be that the only children at school who weren't vaccinated were those who had true medical contraindications. They may have an immune problem and couldn't get vaccinated," Besser said. "Now there are 19 states that allow personal belief exemptions. And I think that that is wrong." There are two parts to Besser’s statement worth considering. One is that 19 states permit parents to exempt their children from vaccinations because of their personal beliefs. The other is that there was a time when the only children who weren’t vaccinated had true medical conditions. The 19 states Documenting the state-by-state situation is a simple task, so we’ll handle that first. Information compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, among other sources, backs up Besser’s point. While there are laws in every state that spell out vaccination requirements for children entering public school, it is easier to avoid them in some states over others. Every state except for Mississippi and West Virginia provides an exemption for religious reasons. Mississippi’s tough vaccination laws result in high immunization rates in its school children. And as Besser said, 19 states also have exemptions for philosophical, personal reasons. They are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Missouri also has an exemption that applies only to daycare, preschool and nursery school. Experts attribute the growth of personal belief exemption laws to pressure from anti-vaccine organizations on policymakers. They use as one benchmark the year 1998, when a study since condemned by peers and retracted by The Lancet, connected the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine with "leaky gut" and maybe autism. Another popular year is 1982, when NBC ran the story "Vaccine Roulette," which raised concern about the pertussis vaccine. Historian Elena Conis, author of Vaccine Nation, traces the origins of the movement back to the 1960s and '70s, at a time when people were arguing for tighter environmental regulations, additional women's rights and broader consumer protections. In California, a state well-known for its vaccine resistance, more than 17,200 children enrolled in kindergarten with exemptions from vaccinations based on either religious or personal reasons in the 2013-14 school year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (There is no difference in the CDC reporting for personal or religious reasons.) That was the most of any state by far. California lawmakers tried to tighten up the exemption for personal reasons in 2014 so that instead of just signing a piece of paper, they had to first show they met with a physician who described the risks of going without vaccinations. A Los Angeles Times analysis found an overall decline in the state’s rate of vaccine waivers, dropping from 3.1 percent in 2013 to 2.5 percent in 2014 -- the first drop in a dozen years. Data-crunching by the Washington Post found that the rate of parents applying for personal belief exemptions was strikingly high in Disneyland’s Orange County, the southern coast up to San Luis Obispo, and parts of the northern edge of the state. Vaccine opposition was lower in less-affluent parts of the state, Los Angeles, San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. "It used to be that the kids that were not vaccinated were from poor families," said Catherine Troisi, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. "Now we’re seeing the opposite. These are educated parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their kids." Looking back on vaccine exemptions So Besser’s correct on the number of states now offering personal exemptions. But his claim that that there was a time when the only children who weren’t vaccinated had true medical conditions doesn’t ring as true. The debate about the effectiveness and dangers of vaccination has been raging for at least 50 years. As part of that debate, there have always been exemptions beyond those for medical reasons. A 1969 report entitled "State laws on compulsory immunization in the United States," which is available through the U.S. National Library of Medicine, does an excellent job of laying out the issue. In 1969, author Charles L. Jackson reported that only 17 states required measles shots, for instance. And that in most every state, religious exemptions were written into the vaccination laws. Five states, Jackson said, went even further. Missouri, Rhode Island, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois had what Jackson called "voluntary compulsory vaccination." "Each state has provisions in the statute for exempting children if a parent objects in writing to such requirements for any reason," Jackson wrote. So 45 years ago, less than half the states required a measles vaccine, and only 26 states required any type of vaccine, according to Jackson. That changed, of course, over time, and more states began requiring measles vaccines. But they also included exemptions for religious reasons. What’s the net effect? Vaccinations increased dramatically in the 1970s as new laws came on the books. Joseph A. Califano, the United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1977-79,  helped lead a push that saw vaccination rates rise from 60 percent to over 90 percent. By the early 1980s, more than 95 percent of children were completely immunized by the time they entered school. That number has dipped slightly in recent years. According to the CDC, 92 percent of children 19-35 months old received the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in 2013, the most recent year available and the highest percentage since 2008. Federal health officials were content with the national immunization levels but voiced concerns about late first doses, a rise in measles cases not seen since 2000, and slacking coverage in some states. We were not able to connect with Besser to explain his claim by our deadline. Our ruling Besser said, "It used to be that the only children at school who weren't vaccinated were those who had true medical" conditions, but "now there are 19 states that allow personal belief exemptions." Besser, a pediatrician, is right about the number of states that allow exemptions to state vaccination laws for personal beliefs. But his history lesson about vaccination laws of yesteryear is not as accurate. States have consistently provided religious exemptions alongside medical exemptions, and five predominantly Midwestern states allowed parents to seek exemptions for any reason even in the 1960s. His claim is partially accurate. Clarification: This post has been updated to better reflect how Elena Conis said the modern anti-vaccine movement began.


This New Blood Test Could Detect Concussions

Explanation: This brief story discusses a new study published in JAMA Neurology about blood tests for two biomarkers that may assist in the diagnosis of traumatic brain injuries among patients brought to a level-one trauma unit. The story was careful not to exaggerate the potential of the blood markers in assessing the severity of concussions. (Note: See our separate review of the news release here: Another ‘simple blood test’ for concussion PR release over-promises) However, it missed the mark in some important ways: It didn’t tell us how these biomarkers fared on accuracy, and it lacked independent sources, such as a brain injury or concussion expert who wasn’t connected to the research. We saw some of the same limitations in another story we reviewed about the use of flashcards in detecting brain injury. If a simple blood test can accurately predict traumatic brain injury, then patients may be spared the effects of radiation from a diagnostic CT scan, and clinicians– including ambulance and emergency room attendants–might have a more rapid and affordable diagnostic tool in assessing patients. However, a lot more research is needed to know if this is the case. These individuals had enough of an injury to be treated at a level one trauma center. As such, the study may not be able to answer whether the test can be used in the majority of cases, which involve milder injuries. And these results were only applicable to adults, even though the story references drawbacks of CT scans for kids, implying these blood tests could be used for children, too.

Costs are not addressed here. But readers should be informed if there are commercially available tests for the proteins the researchers were measuring, and how much they cost. If not, the costs of tests for similar proteins could possibly be used to give a ballpark estimate. Readers should be informed of how many people with a concussion were accurately identified, and how many people without concussions were accurately ruled out. The story doesn’t tell us, nor any other quantified benefits. The story doesn’t mention any harms, but all screening tests have harms associated with false positive and negative results. In athletes, for example, a false positive test keeps you off the field and creates unnecessary anxiety. A false negative result means you go back on the field with a concussion and potentially suffer another head injury that could have catastrophic consequences. This was a tough call, but we’re going with Satisfactory because the story included descriptions of the study’s design, such as the sample size and the fact that patients without head injuries were included as a control comparison, which to some degree gives readers a sense of the quality of the study. However, the story otherwise had barebones information. What were the benefits and drawbacks to a study like this? For example, the study looked at adults, not children. The commentary of an outside observer could have given readers more context. No obvious disease mongering in this story. Concussions and traumatic brain injury are a serious public health issue. This story included no independent sources, and failed to mention a potential conflict of interest with the only source quoted in the story. As stated in the JAMA Neurology study, lead researcher Dr. Linda Papa was listed as one of several researchers who have consulted or received contract research funding from Banyan Biomarkers, Inc. Banyan is a for-profit biotech company in Florida seeking to commercialize a biomarker for head injury. The story mentions CT scans as the current primary tool for hospital-based diagnosis, so we’ll count this as Satisfactory. However, given that the story does talk about these blood tests possibly being used by athletic trainers, we’d have liked to have seen a brief comparison of what’s currently used in sports settings, such as the Standardized Assessment of Concussion, which measures cognition and a timed tandem gait test of balance. The story implies these tests aren’t yet available, chiefly by calling them “promising.” However, the story should have made it explicitly clear whether these tests are something patients could ask for now. The story establishes the novelty of this study’s premise by letting us know “the research team focused on two blood proteins that have already been linked to brain injury.” The story includes quotes from the lead researcher that did not appear in the news release, so we’ll count this as Satisfactory.


Marijuana dealers are using the popular game app Pokémon GO to hook children on drugs.

Explanation: The number of people missing after California’s deadliest and most destructive wildfire jumped on Saturday to 1,276, despite authorities locating hundreds of people who scattered when the Camp Fire tore through the mountain town of Paradise.

Uncategorized, drugs, marijuana, pokemon go

Forensic recovery teams sifting through the charred wreckage recovered the remains of five more victims, bringing the death toll to at least 76, authorities said. Sixty-three of them have been tentatively identified, pending DNA confirmation. Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea said much of the increase in the number of missing was due to his office’s efforts to comb through a backlog of emergency calls that came in during the first hours of the fire on Nov. 8. He said officials were sifting through the list of missing persons for duplications and people who fled. Some 380 people had been located and taken off the list since Friday, he said. “A lot of progress is being made with regard to that, but this is still raw data,” Honea told a news conference. The sheriff spoke after President Donald Trump visited Paradise, the small community that was home to nearly 27,000 people in the Sierra foothills, 175 miles (280 km) north of San Francisco, before being all but consumed by the blaze. “Nobody could have thought this would ever happen,” Trump told reporters amid the charred wreckage of the town’s Skyway Villa Mobile Home and RV Park. “This is very sad to see. As far as the lives are concerned, nobody knows quite yet,” Trump said. “Right now we want to take care of the people who have been so badly hurt.”  Trump was flanked by California Governor Jerry Brown and Governor-elect Gavin Newsom. Brown said the federal government was doing what it needed to do, including supporting first responders and helping with clean-up and search for victims. The disaster already ranks among the deadliest U.S. wildfires since the turn of the last century. Eighty-seven people perished in the Big Burn firestorm that swept the Northern Rockies in August 1910. Minnesota’s Cloquet Fire in October 1918 killed 450 people. Trump has blamed the recent spate of fires on forest mismanagement, and he said he discussed the issue with Brown and Newsom on the ride into Paradise. Asked whether the scenes of devastation had changed his view on climate change, Trump said: “No. I have a strong opinion. I want great climate and we’re going to have that and we’re going to have forests that are very safe.”  Authorities attribute the high death toll from the blaze - dubbed “Camp Fire” - partly to the speed with which flames raced through the town with little warning, driven by howling winds and fueled by drought-desiccated scrub and trees. More than a week later, firefighters have managed to carve containment lines around 55 percent of the blaze’s perimeter. Besides the toll on human life, property losses from the blaze make it the most destructive in California history, posing the additional challenge of providing long-term shelter for many thousands of displaced residents. With more than 12,700 homes and other structures up in smoke, many refugees have taken up temporary residence with friends and family, while others have pitched tents or were living out of their vehicles. Hundreds of evacuees were being housed in 14 emergency shelters set up in churches, schools and community centers around the region, with more than 46,000 people remaining under evacuation orders, authorities said. Several shelters are full and although authorities say they still have space for everyone, hundreds of people have been camping in tents and cars in the area. The names were being compiled from information received from a special hotline, along with email reports and a review of emergency 911 calls that came in on the first night of the fire, Honea said. Some listed have likely survived but not yet notified family or authorities. Others may not have been immediately listed because of delays in reporting them. Honea bristled at a Friday press conference when asked whether many of those listed, more than a week after the disaster, were expected at this point to end up either deceased or declared missing and presumed dead. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for any of us to sit and speculate about what the future holds,” he said. The sheriff on Saturday emphasized that authorities were largely relying on the public’s cooperation to determine who on the list of missing persons is alive. “I want to tell people that it’s really very important for you to take a look at the list and call us if you’re on the list and let us know.”   Weather conditions have since turned more in the firefighters’ favor, though strong, gusty winds and lower humidity were expected through early Sunday ahead of rain forecast for mid-week. The outbreak of Camp Fire coincided with a series of smaller blazes in Southern California, most notably the Woolsey Fire, which is linked to three fatalities near the Malibu coast west of Los Angeles. Scientists have said the growing frequency and intensity of wildfires in California and elsewhere across the West are largely attributable to prolonged drought that is symptomatic of climate change. The precise causes of the Camp and Woolsey Fires were under investigation, but electric utilities have reported equipment problems in the vicinity of both blazes around the time they erupted.


India's coronavirus cases nears 30, hits major payments firm.

Explanation: The total number of known coronavirus cases in India rose sharply to 29 on Wednesday, including 16 Italian tourists who had tested positive for the disease as well as an employee of a digital payments company who had traveled to Italy.

On Monday, the world’s second-most populous country had only six reported cases of coronavirus, but it is one of the places U.S. intelligence agencies are most closely monitoring due to fears over how it would cope with a widespread outbreak. Authorities are increasing screenings at airports and border crossings, and urging citizens to avoid large crowds. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he would not attend celebrations for the Hindu Holi festival, scheduled to be held across the country next week. “Experts across the world have advised to reduce mass gatherings to avoid the (virus) spread,” Modi said in a tweet on Wednesday. “Hence, this year I have decided not to participate.”  An employee of Paytm - an Indian payments company whose parent firm is backed by Alibaba and SoftBank  - who had vacationed in Italy and is based in Gurugram near New Delhi tested positive for the coronavirus, a spokesperson said late on Wednesday. “We have also advised all our colleagues to work from home for a couple of days while we get our offices sanitized,” the spokesperson said in a statement, adding that daily operations and services would not be impacted. Paytm has six offices around New Delhi, employing more than 3,000 people. An Italian visiting the western desert state of Rajasthan was among those who had tested positive earlier. And on Wednesday, Health Minister Harsh Vardhan said 15 of 21 tourists from Italy - Europe’s worst-affected country - who had been taken to a quarantine facility on the outskirts of New Delhi had tested positive for the virus. Their Indian driver was also placed in quarantine. Indian stock markets slid nearly 2% after the government disclosed the rise in cases, before paring losses late in the day. Vardhan said authorities were taking extra precautions against the spread of the virus after the sharp rise in cases. “We will now screen all international passengers. We will not limit our screenings to 12 countries as we did earlier,” Vardhan told a news conference. More than 93,000 cases have been reported worldwide, and several thousand have died from the flu-like coronavirus, which emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year and has since spread to more than 80 countries. India, the world’s largest supplier of generic drugs, has curbed the export of pharmaceuticals due to fears of coronavirus-related shortages and this has caused “panic” in Europe, the head of the country’s top pharmaceuticals export group told Reuters on Wednesday.


New Data Shows Irreversible Electroporation Nearly Doubles Overall Survival of Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer When Added to Standard Therapy

Explanation: A futuristic-sounding medical treatment is paired with a bold claim of survival benefit in this news release. But the release is missing basic information to back up the headline’s claims and put the treatment’s efficacy into perspective. And an important conflict of interest is not disclosed. Such omissions could help instill false hope in sufferers of pancreatic cancer and their families. [Editor’s note: At the top of this review, we’ve left blank the area where we’d normally put the logo for the organization that issued this new release. This reflects our uncertainty as to who should be considered the source of this news. As we’ve discussed in a blog post, the release is worded to suggest that it originated with the University of Louisville, and it includes a University of Louisville media contact. However, that contact has told us, via email and a comment on this review, that the release originated with MCS Healthcare Public Relations, which was working with a member of the University of Louisville faculty. That faculty member, in turn, suggested to us that the release was in fact cleared and sanctioned by the University. The University of Louisville media contact has refused to provide any further clarification. We’re unsure whom to believe, so we’ve deliberately left blank the area where we’d normally indicate the news release source. The fact that we can’t even tell where this news came from should raise questions about the process that produced it.] Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive forms of cancer, killing nearly three-quarters of victims within a year of diagnosis and about 94 percent within five years. One reason, according to the CDC, is that nearly 80 percent of patients are diagnosed too late for surgery (which can extend median survival by about 10 months). Thus any treatment shown to be effective in treating the disease–especially a minimally invasive, non-surgical method–could possibly reduce patients’ suffering and provide them significantly more quality time with their loved ones.

NanoKnife,pancreatic cancer,University of Louisville

Costs aren’t discussed, but secondary sources suggest each NanoKnife machine (which can be used over and over again) costs between $200,000–$300,000. The one-use needles, which are used to zap or ablate cancerous pancreatic tissue, cost about $2,000 each–but it’s not said how many sessions are required. Nor is the cost of doctors, hospital stay, etc. discussed. Plus, it’s unknown if insurance will cover this. The release clearly states that nearly three-quarters of pancreatic cancer patients die within a year of diagnosis and 94 percent die within 5 years. It then goes on to say the NanoKnife IRE treatment doubles overall survival to 24 months. But the release never provides the absolute numbers from either the treatment or control group to substantiate this. The percentage of patients alive at 24 months may be higher in one group or the other, but the data are not there to tell. In addition, the release states that existing treatment “will only stabilize the disease and not destroy the tumor,” whereas the new treatment “overcomes rapid growth of the tumor by killing all malignant cells at once so they cannot continue to grow and spread.” But it’s not clear that the new treatment does, in fact, do more than “stabilize the disease” or that the cancer won’t “grow and spread” with the new treatment, since a chart in the abstract suggests that the disease unfortunately remains uniformly fatal even with the new treatment. Harms are alluded to, e.g. “[19] percent sustained complications with a median grade of 2 (range 1-3),” but they’re not discussed or explained in sufficient detail. What’s a “median grade 2” complication? It would have helped this release to cite, for example, the American Cancer Society on the side effects of ablative therapies for pancreatic cancer. Generally, according the ACS, those harms can “include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, infection, and blood clots in nearby blood vessels” with a potential for serious complications. We’re told the study results were “compared to standard of care data for Stage III [locally advanced pancreatic cancer],” but the release doesn’t provide any numbers or context with the control group. There are many factors that can affect cancer survival, and so it’s important to know how these control group patients were selected and whether their disease and treatment were truly comparable to those who received electroporation. But details on that issue are missing. It’s also worth noting that, while a median survival of nearly 2 years sounds promising, there’s a chance this claim might be overstated. Four known variations in pancreatic cancer tissue were recently and significantly shown to predict a pancreatic cancer patient’s survival. Those with three or four of the variations showed a median survival of about 9 months; those with only 1-2 survived about 23 months. Although it’s unlikely most of the 200 patients in the study presented by this release fell into the latter category, it’s just one example of how the benefits aren’t put into context and adequately explained. There’s no exaggeration of pancreatic cancer here. Pancreatic cancer is uniformly fatal with or without this new treatment. At great expense it appears survival might be extended (it is not clear for how long) . Adding the number of people who are diagnosed and/or die from the disease every year in the U.S.–about 49,000 and 40,000, respectively–would have made this release stronger. We aren’t told what the funding sources are, nor whether there’s any conflict of interest. This information is also missing from the abstract itself. But by digging just a little bit, we learned that the lead author of the study and the primary source for this release (Dr. Martin) is a paid consultant to Angiodynamics (scroll to the bottom for disclosure info), which makes the NanoKnife system. This is critical information to disclose with these results. A quote from the lead author mentions the alternatives for pancreatic cancer patients, “whose only treatment options until now were chemotherapy or a combination of chemo-radiation therapy” and that–with the NanoKnife IRE treatment’–“these patients now have a surgical treatment option to augment their treatment plan.” We’re told the NanoKnife system “is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the surgical ablation of soft tissue” and that it “is not approved for use in specific cancers.” So does that mean a pancreatic cancer patient could ask for this treatment? It’s unclear. It’s also unclear if insurance will pay for it. Ablative therapy is not new to pancreatic cancer treatment, but if true, extending 1-year survival to nearly 2 years could be a large and significant improvement. The release asserts the NanoKnife IRE treatment can double the survival for pancreatic cancer patients, but it doesn’t lay out potential caveats, nor how this only applies to the 1-year survival category (and not the 5-year survival category). However, since we’ve already dinged them for that deficiency, and there are no other examples of hyperbole, we’ll call this Satisfactory.


U. S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared during the COVID-19 pandemic that Congress would be out of session "unless there is an emergency.

Explanation: What's true: Leaders of both parties announced that the recesses of both houses of Congress would be extended an additional two weeks due to the COVID-19 outbreak, but that legislators would continue to work remotely and would return to the Capitol sooner if needed to vote on emergency pandemic-related legislation. What's false: Nancy Pelosi did not unilaterally declare that Congress would be out of session during a pandemic "unless there is an emergency."

In April 2020, as much of the U.S. economy was at a standstill while the federal and state governments scrambled to deal with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, a meme circulated via social media held that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had declared Congress would be out of session until the following month unless an “emergency” arose:  This meme was a gross distortion of what actually took place, which was not that Pelosi took it upon herself to decide no current emergency required lawmakers’ attention and to adjourn Congress until the following month (a power she does not possess). Rather, bipartisan statements from the majority leaders of both houses of Congress — Republican Mitch McConnell for the Senate and Democrat Steny Hoyer for the House of Representatives — announced that Congress would be extending its current recess by an additional two weeks due to the COVID-19 outbreak, but legislators would continue to work remotely until May 4 unless they needed to return to Washington, D.C., earlier than that to pass emergency measures related to the pandemic. For example, CNBC reported the following of the House Majority Leader’s statement on scheduling: The House will not come back to Washington until at least May 4 unless it needs to pass emergency measures to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office told representatives. The chamber previously expected lawmakers to return on April 20 after an extended absence. House members, most of whom have been in their districts for all of April as Covid-19 spreads, will not have to travel to Washington before May 4 “absent an emergency,” the Maryland Democrat’s office said. It added that lawmakers would get “sufficient notice” if they have to travel to Washington to vote on coronavirus legislation. Similarly, NPR reported the following of the Senate Majority Leader’s statement on scheduling: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the full Senate will not plan to return to the Capitol before May 4 — a delay from a planned return [on April 20]. McConnell said the decision to change the schedule was made “following the advice of health experts” and in consultation with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. McConnell, R-Ky., stressed that Congress continues to work remotely to respond to the economic impact of the coronavirus. “As Senators continue working together from our home states, we must stay totally focused on fighting this pandemic and strengthening our nation. The coronavirus does not take days off and the United States Senate must not either, wherever we are,” McConnell said in a written statement. The move follows a similar announcement a day earlier from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., informing members the House would not return until May 4. Both leaders indicated that if Congress needed to act quickly on something, members would be given at least 24 hours’ notice. Here is the full announcement issued by U.S. Senate Majority Leader McConnell on April 14, 2020, regarding scheduling: Since the Senate passed the historic CARES Act in late March, Senators have been working around the country to monitor its implementation and help our states and nation attack this pandemic. As the country continues working together to flatten the curve, following the advice of health experts, the full Senate is not expected to travel back to Washington D.C. sooner than Monday, May 4th. All members will receive at least 24 hours’ notice if this changes. This bipartisan decision reflects consultation with Leader Schumer and my colleagues in Senate leadership. As Senators continue working together from our home states, we must stay totally focused on fighting this pandemic and strengthening our nation. The coronavirus does not take days off and the United States Senate must not either, wherever we are. For example, the crucial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is literally saving millions of American jobs, will run dry this week if we do not pass more funding. While other CARES Act programs such as hospital funding and assistance for state governments are just beginning to push out money, 70% of the PPP’s funding has been already allotted in just a week and a half. President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, and Senate and House Republicans simply want to add more funding for this job-saving program that both parties designed together. There is no time to insist on sweeping renegotiations or ultimatums about other policies that passed both houses unanimously. Clean funding for worker pay in a crisis should not be controversial. I hope our Democratic colleagues will let Congress act this week. American workers deserve paychecks, not pink slips caused by political games. And here is the scheduling announcement issued by U.S. House Majority Leader Hoyer: Members are advised that absent an emergency, the House is not expected to meet prior to Monday, May 4, 2020. Members are further advised that if the House is required to take action on critical legislation related to the coronavirus response or other legislative priorities, Members will be given sufficient notice to return to Washington, DC. Further information will be provided as it becomes available.


Drugmaker will donate meds for US push to end HIV epidemic.

Explanation: The Health and Human Services Department announced Thursday that California-Based Gilead Sciences Inc. has agreed to donate medications that reduce the risk of HIV transmission for up to 200,000 people a year.

Medication, Alex Azar, Health, Politics, North America, Gilead Sciences Inc, Epidemics, United States, Donald Trump

“Will help us achieve our goal of ending the HIV epidemic in America!” President Donald Trump said in a celebratory tweet. The pledge may last up to 11 years, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. Gilead will donate its Truvada prevention pill until a second-generation version becomes available. The Trump administration has set a goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the U.S. within 10 years. Carl Schmid of the AIDS Institute called the donation “a really significant step,” saying it will make the drug available to uninsured people. It lists for more than $20,000 per patient, per year. Gilead Sciences said in a news release that the medication donation is one of the largest ever made in the United States and is part of the company’s ongoing initiatives to help ensure that everyone who can benefit from the medicine is able to access it. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.


Article lists a variety of household uses for WD-40 brand spray lubricant.

Explanation: What's true: Some of the items on the list were corroborated by the manufacturer, while others were omitted from a modified list they provided. What's undetermined: This doesn't mean WD-40 won't necessarily work for the other purposes originally listed, just that the manufacturer doesn't recommend them.

Inboxer Rebellion, consumer products, Household Hints

The WD-40 brand of spray lubricant (we cover the origins of its name in another article) is one of those ubiquitous products that is both found in a large percentage of households and put to a wide variety of uses (not all of them recommended by the manufacturer). Example: I had a neighbor who had bought a new pickup. I got up very early one Sunday morning and saw that someone had spray-painted red all around the sides of his beige truck (for some unknown reason). I went over, woke him up, and told him the bad news. He was very upset and was trying to figure out what to do probably nothing until Monday morning, since nothing was open. Another neighbor came out and told him to get his WD-40 and clean it off. It removed the unwanted paint beautifully and did not harm his paint job that was on the truck. I am impressed! WD-40Water Displacement #40. The product began from a search for a rust Preventative solvent and degreaser to protect missile parts. WD-40 was created in 1953 by three technicians at the San Diego Rocket Chemical Company. Its name comes from the project that was to find a “water displacement” compound. They were successful with the fortieth formulation, thus WD-40. The Corvair Company bought it in bulk to protect their atlas missile parts. Ken East (one of the original founders) says there is nothing in WD-40 that would hurt you. When you read the “shower door” part, try it. It’s the first thing that has ever cleaned that spotty shower door. If yours is plastic, it works just as well as glass. It is a miracle! 1. Then try it on your stovetop.. Voila! It’s now shinier than it is ever been. You will be amazed. 2. Here are some of the uses: 3. Protects silver from tarnishing. 4. Removes road tar and grime from cars. 5. Cleans and lubricates guitar strings. 6. Gives floors that ‘just-waxed’ sheen without making it slippery. 7. Keeps flies off cows. 8. Restores and cleans chalkboards. 9. Removes lipstick stains. 10. Loosens stubborn zippers. 11. Untangles jewelry chains. 12. Removes stains from stainless steel sinks. Cleans the fronts of Stainless steel appliances (have personally seen the employees of Lowes use it on their appliances in the store to keep them new looking) 13. Removes dirt and grime from the barbecue grill. 14. Keeps ceramic/terra cotta garden pots from oxidizing. 15. Removes tomato stains from clothing 16. Keeps glass shower doors free of water spots. 17. Camouflages scratches in ceramic and marble floors. 18. Keeps scissors working smoothly. 19. Lubricates noisy door hinges on vehicles and doors in homes. 20. Gives a children’s play gym slide a shine for a super fast slide. 21. Lubricates gear shift and mower deck lever for ease of handling on riding mowers. 22. Rids kid’s rocking chairs and swings of squeaky noises. 23. Lubricates tracks in sticking home windows and makes them easier to open. 24. Spraying an umbrella stem makes it easier to open and close. 25. Restores and cleans padded leather dashboards in vehicles, as well as vinyl bumpers. 26. Restores and cleans roof racks on vehicles. 27. Lubricates and stops squeaks in electric fans. 28. Lubricates wheel sprockets on tricycles, wagons, and bicycles for easy handling. 29. Lubricates fan belts on washers and dryers and keeps them running smoothly. 30. Keeps rust from forming on saws and saw blades, and other tools. 31. Removes splattered grease on stove. 32. Keeps bathroom mirror from fogging. 33. Lubricates prosthetic limbs. 34. Keeps pigeons off the balcony (they hate the smell). 35. Removes all traces of duct tape. 36. Folks even spray it on their arms, hands, and knees to relieve Arthritis pain. 37. Florida’s favorite use is: “cleans and removes love bugs from grills and bumpers.” 38. The favorite use in the state of New York — WD-40 protects the Statue of Liberty from the elements. 39. WD-40 attracts fish. Spray a LITTLE on live bait or lures and you will be catching the big one in no time. Also, it is a lot cheaper than the chemical attractants that are made for just that purpose. Keep in mind though, using Some chemical laced baits or lures for fishing are not allowed in some states. 40. Use it for fire ant bites. It takes the sting away immediately and stops the itch. 41. WD-40 is great for removing crayon from walls. Spray on the mark and wipe with a clean rag. 42. Also, if you’ve discovered that your teenage daughter has washed and dried a tube of lipstick with a load of laundry, saturate the lipstick spots with WD-40 and re-wash. Presto! Lipstick is gone! 43. If you sprayed WD-40 on the distributor cap, it would displace the moisture and allow the car to start. 44. It removes black scuff marks from the kitchen floor! Use WD-40 for those nasty tar and scuff marks on flooring. It doesn’t seem to harm the finish and you won’t have to scrub nearly as hard to get them off. Just remember to open some windows if you have a lot of marks. 45. Bug guts will eat away the finish on your car if not removed quickly! Use WD-40! P. S. The basic ingredient is FISH OIL. The above-quoted list seeks to enlighten consumers about a number of unusual uses for WD-40 lubricating spray they might not have considered. As we explain in our article about a similar list of tips about Bounce brand fabric softener sheets, classifying as “True” or “False” e-mails that enumerate the many uses to which a particular household product can supposedly be put is always problematic, for a couple of reasons: We queried the manufacturer of WD-40 about this e-mail to see if they could provide any enlightenment, and their customer service department responded by offering a modified list from which they “removed the tips we do not recommend.” The manufacturer-recommended uses for WD-40 spray that remained after their emendations were as follows: 3. Protects silver from tarnishing. 4. Removes road tar and grime from cars. 10. Loosens stubborn zippers. 11. Untangles jewelry chains. 14. Keeps ceramic/terra cotta garden pots from oxidizing. 18. Keeps scissors working smoothly. 19. Lubricates noisy door hinges on vehicles and doors in homes. 21. Lubricates gear shift and mower deck lever for ease of handling on riding mowers. 22. Rids kids rocking chairs and swings of squeaky noises. 23. Lubricates tracks in sticking home windows and makes them easier to open. 24. Spraying an umbrella stem makes it easier to open and close. 26. Restores and cleans roof racks on vehicles. 27. Lubricates and stops squeaks in electric fans. 28. Lubricates wheel sprockets on tricycles, wagons, and bicycles for easy handling. 30. Keeps rust from forming on saws and saw blades, and other tools. 33. Lubricates prosthetic limbs. 34. Keeps pigeons off the balcony (they hate the smell). 35. Removes all traces of duct tape. 37. Florida’s favorite use is: “cleans and removes love bugs from grills and bumpers.” 43. If you sprayed WD-40 on the distributor cap, it would displace the moisture and allow the car to start. 44. It removes black scuff marks from the kitchen floor! Use WD-40 for those nasty tar and scuff marks on flooring. It doesn’t seem to harm the finish and you won’t have to scrub nearly as hard to get them off. Just remember to open some windows if you have a lot of marks. Wash off after use. 45. Bug guts will eat away the finish on your car if not removed quickly! Use WD-40! Of course, this doesn’t mean WD-40 won’t necessarily work (more or less effectively) for the other purposes originally listed, just that the manufacturer doesn’t recommend them. We welcome comments from readers detailing the results obtained from trying some of these alternative uses for WD-40 spray. As for the claim the “basic ingredient” in WD-40 is “fish oil,” it’s a common rumor and one that is easily propagated (because cans of WD-40 spray include no ingredients list), but a glance at the composition information included in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for WD-40 aerosol indicates the product is primarily petroleum-based, with the main ingredient being “solvent naptha, petroleum, medium aliphatic” (also known as Stoddard Solvent):


Testosterone replacement therapy may slow the progression of COPD

Explanation: This release summarizes an observational study noting a relationship with two groups of men (middle aged and older), their consumption of testosterone replacement therapy and whether they are hospitalized for respiratory problems. It found that testosterone replacement therapy users had a decrease in respiratory hospitalizations compared with non-users. While observational studies such as these are useful and hypothesis generating, they do not have the strength of a randomized, blinded trial and hence one cannot conclude that such associations are causal. Better information about the harms, costs and conflicts of interests of the researchers would have made this a better news release. If testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) slows the progression of COPD in men by producing a positive lung function, this could indeed be a public health advance. Observational studies, however, are problematic in that the two cohorts of men observed (those who take TRT and those who don’t) may be different in other fundamental ways. There could, for example, be a “healthy user bias” in that the TRT cohort of men may be naturally healthier at the start, and that any improvements in COPD function may just be a function of their basic overall health. Studies like these allow us to draw conclusions, but only that there is an association — not that TRT caused a reduction in COPD.

There was no discussion of costs. The benefits were reported in quantitative terms:  “middle-aged testosterone replacement therapy users had a 4.2 percent greater decrease in respiratory hospitalizations compared with non-users and older testosterone replacement therapy users had a 9.1 percent greater decrease in respiratory hospitalizations compared with non-users.”  Even though this suggests that testosterone replacement therapy may slow the progression of disease in men with COPD, one is still left wondering how often that occurs. We aren’t given any baseline numbers so the 4.2% and the 9.1% relative risk numbers lack context. There are known dangers to TRT including raising the risk of prostate cancer but none of the risks are mentioned in the news release. We are told that the study is based on a database of “450 men aged 40 to 63 with COPD who began testosterone replacement therapy between 2005 and 2014,” as well as “253 men with COPD aged 66 and older who initiated testosterone replacement therapy between 2008 and 2013.” It is hard to say whether the size of these study groups are large enough to draw conclusions. As the published study pointed out, the research had several limitations, none of which are pointed out in the news release: The results of our study may have been influenced by several limitations. First, all diagnoses were based on ICD-9-CM codes, which may be inaccurate or incomplete. It is possible that some of the cases we identified may have been based on misclassified data. Second, the pharmacy plans used by both study cohorts did not cover over-the-counter medications. Our database, therefore, did not include information on coadministration of these drugs; some of them, such as n-acetylcysteine, may influence the risk of respiratory outcomes. Third, the claims data used in this study did not permit examination of certain potential confounding factors such as diet, alcohol use, and other health-related behaviors. Fourth, our study cohorts were relatively small and may have lacked adequate statistical power and precision. Finally, our data included the date the prescription was filled but not the date it was obtained by the patient. In view of this, some of the drug exposure periods may have been misclassified. There is no disease mongering here. The release provides context on how many people could be affected globally by COPD. The funders of the study are not named in the release. The lead author, we learn in the full paper, “has received payment, for consulting, from AbbVie, Endo Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals.” Some of these companies manufacture testosterone replacement therapy. This was not mentioned in the news release. There are a range of treatments for COPD, none of which are mentioned in this release. It is pretty obvious that TRT is available to men, so the fact it wasn’t mentioned as available is a moot point. The release notes that there are some previous hypothetical links between TRT and lung function in men and that this is the first “large scale nationally representative study on this association.” There are no examples of egregious and unjustified language here.


Abortion, National, Public Health, Supreme Court, Women, Hillary Clinton,

Hillary Clinton says her opponent Donald Trump wants to take the country back to a time that was bad for women’s reproductive health. "When Donald Trump says ‘let’s make America great again,’ that is code for ‘let’s take America backward.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all," she said in June 10 remarks at a Planned Parenthood event. "Back to the days when abortion was illegal, women had far fewer options, and life for too many women and girls was limited. Well, Donald, those days are over." Clinton went on to note significant moments in history for women’s health, notably the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, Roe vs. Wade. "So young women were no longer dying in emergency rooms and back alleys from botched, illegal abortions," she said. "And this is a fact that is not often heard, but I hope you will repeat it: America’s maternal mortality rate dropped dramatically." We decided to look into Clinton’s factoid: that Roe vs. Wade resulted in a decreased number of women dying as a result of pregnancy complications. Maternal mortality rates, which are the number of deaths per 100,000 live births, were already declining rapidly in the years prior to the January 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, maintained by the Centers for Disease Control. This is also true looking just at mortality rates related to abortion. In 1965, about 32 women for every 100,000 live births died as a result of pregnancy complications, including abortions. It fell steadily every year leading up to Roe in 1973, when the rate was 15.2. The rate continued to decrease in the years after, to 9.6 in 1979. You can see in the graph that there is a slightly bigger drop than previous years in maternal mortality rates between 1972 and 1973, during which the Supreme Court decided Roe. The same pattern is visible for abortion-related deaths, with a rate of 6.3 in 1965, falling to fewer than 1 in the years after Roe. Both overall maternal mortality and abortion mortality were declining in the years leading up to Roe due to better antibiotics, blood banks and other medical advancements, said David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. However, the decline in abortion related-deaths accelerated when abortion started to become legal. It’s also worth noting that before abortion became legal, the number of abortions — and thus the number of abortion-related deaths — were likely underreported. While Roe is a focal point, the decline in maternal mortality as a result of legalized abortion took place over about a decade — from the time states began to legalize abortion on their own in 1966 to when the rest transitioned to complying with the Supreme Court ruling in the late 1970s, said Johanna Schoen, an expert in reproductive rights history and professor at Rutgers University. By the time the court decided Roe in 1973, New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington legalized abortion in nearly all cases, while about 13 other states legalized it in some cases, such as in the case of rape or incest. Legalizing abortion gave medical professionals the okay to conduct the procedure out in the open and to research safer methods, which helped bring overall maternal mortality rates down. So not only were women moving from less-safe illegal abortions to legal ones, the legal abortions were becoming safer. In fact, receiving an abortion now carries a lower mortality risk than moving forward with a pregnancy. "With the legalization of abortion and the simultaneous introduction of medical equipment to perform first trimester abortions with vacuum aspiration machines, a previously clandestine and dangerous procedure became safe, quick, and inexpensive almost overnight," Schoen wrote in her book, Abortion after Roe. The fact that legalizing abortion was able to affect overall maternal mortality rates is a testament to how many women were having abortions at the time, Schoen told PolitiFact. In a stark turn of events, maternal mortality rates are currently on the rise in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. This sets the United States apart from its peer countries, which have generally seen continued declines. Researchers hypothesize that the increase has to do with women getting pregnant while suffering from a chronic illness like diabetes, more women giving birth via higher-risk cesarean sections, or hospitals are getting better at reporting maternal deaths. Our ruling As a result of Roe vs. Wade, "America’s maternal mortality rate dropped dramatically." Rates of women dying as a result of pregnancy complications were already on the decline when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade. But experts told us that a primary reason behind this trend was legalizing abortion nationwide, which took place over a decade, with Roe as a focal point. So Roe solidified this improvement in maternal mortality rates.


U.S. says UCB cough medicine overdose can kill.

Explanation: U.S. health officials warned parents and doctors about Tussionex, the prescription cough medicine, saying it may have fatal side effects if used inappropriately.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Tuesday saying it had received reports that indicate doctors may be over prescribing the cough medicine made by UCB. Some people also are taking the medicine, Tussionex Pennkinetic Extended-Release Suspension. more frequently than every 12 hours, the recommended time interval, or giving it to children under age 6, the FDA said. Tussionex is not approved for children younger than 6 years old. The FDA said it had received numerous reports of health problems and deaths among children and adults who took Tussionex, which contains the narcotic pain reliever hydrocodone. Too much hydrocodone can cause life-threatening breathing problems. Five deaths have been reported among children under 6 who took Tussionex since its approval in 1987, company spokesman Eric Miller said on Friday. He said then that UCB has proposed a stronger warning for the medicine following the reports of the deaths. Miller said on Tuesday the number of deaths reported to the company for that age group remained at five. The FDA urged doctors and patients to follow prescribing instructions and to only use a medical syringe or other device designed to measure liquid medications. Household spoons vary in size and should not be used, the FDA said. “There is a real and serious risk for overdosing if this medication is not used according to the labeling,” Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, acting director of the FDA office that regulates prescription cough medicines, said in a statement. UCB, based in Belgium, will update the Tussionex label to address the concerns, the FDA’s statement said. “The FDA’s alert is fully in line with our efforts to make sure this product is properly used,” a spokeswoman for UCB told Reuters, adding the company had already taken steps to clarify the label of the product in 2007. The spokeswoman said she could not see any reason why UCB would withdraw the product as the FDA alert only addressed an improper use of the medicine. Tussionex sales in the U.S. totaled 114 million euros ($176 million) in 2007, the spokeswoman added. The FDA alert was posted here


Alan Grayson Says Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s cuts to education are the same as his proposed corporate income tax rate reduction.

Explanation: Alan Grayson returns to MSNBC stage, criticizes Gov. Rick Scott's corporate tax cut plan

Education, State Budget, Taxes, Florida, Alan Grayson,

Minutes after Florida Gov. Rick Scott finished delivering his first State of the State address, a trio of Democrats took turns rebuffing the new governor on everything he just said. Senate Minority Leader Nan Rich and House Minority Leader Ron Saunders came first in brief televised remarks, attacking Scott’s plans to cut education funding and make teachers, firefighters and police officers take de facto pay cuts in order to contribute to their own retirement. They were, in many ways, a warm-up act for former Florida U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, who used a national cable platform offered by MSNBC to excoriate Scott's plans. Grayson opened the interview on March 8, 2011, by answering a question about how Scott -- whose former hospital company Columbia/HCA pleaded guilty to 14 corporate felonies and paid $1.7 billion in fines -- could be elected governor in the first place. He said it was par for the course for Florida Republicans. "The last head of the Republican Party of Florida was literally led away in chains and indicted," Grayson said, referring to deposed RPOF chairman Jim Greer. Then Grayson cracked a joke, saying Scott once refused to answer questions during a deposition by invoking his 5th Amendment constitutional rights 75 times. "That’s like pleading the 375th." Grayson closed the interview by criticizing Scott’s plan to cut and eventually eliminate the state’s 5.5 percent corporate income tax, suggesting education spending reductions are funding the corporate tax cut. "He wants to eliminate the corporate income tax and cut corporate taxes in Florida by $1.5 billion," Grayson said. "He wants to cut funding for the schools by $1.5 billion. "He’s taking money out of children’s pockets dollar for dollar so he can stuff it in his own." We knew we’d find a fact check among all the one-liners. We wanted to see if Grayson’s shrewd ledger work is right: Does Scott’s budget reduce education funding by the same amount he would cut corporate taxes? The numbers are fairly easy to find, it turns out. Scott’s budget proposal for 2011-12 reduces the total amount of state K-12 education funding from $18.2 billion, to $16.5 billion -- a total cut of $1.7 billion. That number includes local property taxes the state mandates school boards collect (the required local effort), the state contribution from sales tax revenues and trust funds, and money passing through the state from the federal government. The cuts break down this way (we’re rounding a bit, so everything might not add up exactly):  * The state’s contribution would decrease by about $11 million, but remain largely the same, about $8.9 billion. * Required local education taxes would shrink by about $660 million, and discretionary local taxes would shrink an additional $200 million -- shrinking the local contribution from about $8.4 billion to nearly $7.5 billion. * And the state also would not replace about $873 million in federal stimulus funds. On the other side of the ledger is Scott’s proposed cut to the 5.5 percent corporate income tax. The tax is exactly what it sounds like -- it’s paid as a percentage of the incomes of Florida businesses. Florida already has one of the lower corporate tax rates in the country, but Scott has made eliminating the tax a priority. As part of his 2011-12 budget, Scott proposes reducing the tax rate to 3 percent. His office says the reduction will save corporations $460 million. Put another way, the cut will trim state revenues as part of the 2011-12 budget by $460 million. It doesn’t take an Ivy League mathematics degree to figure out that the numbers don’t begin to line up the way Grayson suggests. The tax cuts represent $460 million, which is less than one third of the $1.7 billion education cut. Part of the issue might be Scott’s budget proposal is actually for two years -- 2011-12 and 2012-13. Over two years -- after factoring in a second reduction of the corporate income tax rate from 3 to 2.5 percent -- corporations would save a total of $1.5 billion, according to the governor’s office. But that’s not being fair -- $1.5 billion over two years doesn’t exactly compare to $1.7 billion over one year. In reviewing Scott’s tax-cutting proposals, it appears Grayson’s error also could have been singling out the corporate income tax as a way to cast Scott as a greedy CEO-type looking out only for his buddies. As we said in a previous item, Scott is proposing a total of $1.7 billion in tax and fee cuts as part of his 2011-12 budget. Scott’s proposal includes cuts to the corporate income tax, a cut to required school district property taxes, and a cut to unemployment taxes. PolitiFact Florida has previously ruled that roughly half of those cuts apply only to businesses, while half apply to homeowners and typical Floridians. Look at the numbers -- a total of $1.7 billion in tax and fee cuts in 2011-12 versus a proposed total education funding cut of $1.7 billion. They match (well, they’re not identical, because of rounding). And there’s one final way to look at this. The corporate income tax is estimated to collect about $2 billion in the current budget year. If it’s eliminated, a goal of Scott’s, that would be $2 billion less the state would receive. That’s on the order of the $1.7 billion K-12 education Scott is proposing for 2011-12. But again, that’s comparing additional budget years beyond even 2012-13 to cuts coming this year. On MSNBC, Grayson targeted Scott’s proposal to cut the corporate income tax, suggesting the cuts for corporate CEOs are being paid for on the back of students. While he’s right that any tax cut results in money not available to be spent on programs like education, he gets his numbers wrong. If Grayson had said the tax cuts and fees being proposed by Scott are being paid for by education cuts, he’d have more of a point. But sticking to what he said.


Lois Kolkhorst Says $500 billion in Medicare cuts are coming.

Explanation: Lois Kolkhorst says $500 billion in Medicare cuts are coming

Defending her own health care measure, state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst answered a colleague’s query about preserving insurance for the elderly of Texas by warning that national cuts loom. The Brenham Republican, who chairs the House Public Health Committee, said during June 15 floor debate: "We know they are reducing the entitlement to Medicare." She added: "We know that we have these cuts coming our way of over half a trillion to Medicare." We do? Some background: PolitiFact teams in Washington and other states have pointed out that it’s incorrect to deem reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, written into the federal health care overhaul signed into law last year by President Barack Obama, as cuts. These reductions are being counted as projected savings compared to what would have happened without the change in law. The program’s overall costs are projected to increase to $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in 2009, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Also, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, tagged Obamacare by critics, doesn’t eliminate benefits. Indeed, portions of the law improve benefits and coverage, according to Tricia Neuman, director of the Medicare Policy Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit health care research organization. Medicare will cover more preventive health care services, such as wellness visits, and recipients won't face the "doughnut hole" gap in prescription coverage imposed under an existing Medicare program. Other provisions reduce the growth in Medicare spending by helping the program operate more efficiently and fund other coverage expansions to the uninsured. Other provisions are designed to improve the delivery of care and quality of care, Neuman has said. To back up Kolkhorst's claim, which was brought to our attention by Democratic activist Phillip Martin, her office passed along a September 2010 Wall Street Journal opinion piece quoting Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, outlining intended cuts in payments to medical providers and hospitals as well as reductions in payments for Medicare Advantage, an optional program where the federal government pays private insurance companies a set rate to treat Medicare recipients. It was hoped that competition between private insurers for Medicare Advantage programs would drive down costs and make the system more efficient, ultimately saving the federal government money. But it has not worked out that way. A June 2009 analysis from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said the Advantage programs cost taxpayers an average of 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. The 2010 health care law will phase out extra payments for Medicare Advantage programs to bring their costs in line with traditional Medicare. The law also calls for slowing increases in payment rates to hospitals and other service providers each year. Also, the law directs a new national board to identify $15.5 billion in savings, though the board — the Independent Payment Advisory Board — is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Kolkhorst’s office pointed us to the Medicare actuary’s April 2010 analysis, which includes a chart suggesting that through 2019, the new law will net Medicare "savings" of $575.1 billion. It also says that 60.5 million Americans will be covered by Medicare in 2019, the same number that would have been covered without a change in law. Foster’s memo says the Medicare savings are to be achieved largely through reduced payments to medical providers including hospitals, tied to raised productivity expectations. It warns, though, that those gains are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis and would also probably prove unworkable and less than projected in some health-care sectors during the law’s roll-out. Moreover, his memo says, health care providers "for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)." It says its own simulations suggest that about 15 percent of providers in the Medicare program specific to inpatient care in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities as well as hospice care and home health services would become unprofitable by 2019 due to the productivity provisions. Kolkhorst’s chief of staff, Chris Steinbach, suggested the projected reductions in rates are tantamount to cuts in Medicare. He said by email: "If there is an entitlement for everyone eligible to receive a pizza, and we are cutting the rate paid to pizza kitchens by x percent, then there will be less of that entitlement for pizza." Similarly, Kolkhorst told us the changes built into the 2010 law will reduce access to Medicare. "You’re splitting hairs to say those are savings; they’re cuts," she said, adding: "Things are going to change ... To say that everything is going to remain as it is today, that’s erroneous." That last point seems reasonable, but it’s not exactly what she told her House colleagues. The referenced $500 billion figure depends on a slowing in the pace of Medicare cost increases. That’s not the same as cutting back. Medicare spending will still grow; benefits will expand. Still, there remains the prospect of some providers quitting Medicare, possibly making it harder for patients to get care. Kolkhorst’s statement has an element of truth, making it Barely True.


A day fighting COVID-19: U.S. hospital staff share hardest moments on shift.

Explanation: The shifts are long and the scenes are heartbreaking inside a Maryland hospital where nurses and doctors have been treating coronavirus patients for weeks, unable to let family inside to visit loved ones on their death beds.

One of the hardest moments of a recent work day for registered nurse Julia Trainor was intubating a patient, and then calling the patient’s husband so he could talk to his wife. He was not allowed in the hospital. “I had to put him on the phone and hold the phone to her ear as he told her that he loved her so much, and then I had to wipe away her tears,” says Trainor, who works in a surgical intensive care unit. “I’m used to seeing very sick patients and I’m used to patients dying, but nothing quite like this.”  The highly infectious COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus has infected more than 580,000 people across the United States and killed nearly 24,000. In Maryland, where residents have been ordered to stay at home since March 30 to stem the spread of the disease, around 9,000 have tested positive for the virus and more than 260 have died. After finishing what for many was a more than 12-hour shift, some nurses and doctors at one hospital shared with Reuters the hardest moments of their days. The hospital asked that it not be named. The medical workers agreed that one of the toughest parts of the job - more than the exhausting schedule or adjusting to work in a new unit - was witnessing the toll on patients and families. Because of the hospital’s no-visitor policy, which was implemented to prevent further spread of the virus, the medical staff must care for the patients’ physical needs and offer as much emotional support as they can muster in the absence of the patients’ families. “The hardest moment during the shift was just seeing COVID patients die helpless and without their family members beside them,” says Ernest Capadngan, a nurse in the hospital’s biocontainment unit. Communicating with the families has weighed heavily on the hospital staff. Staff cannot bend the no-visit rules, even when a family calls in desperation. “I had a patient fall out of bed today and I had to call his wife and tell her and she couldn’t come see him, even though she pleaded and begged to come see him,” says Tracey Wilson, a nurse practitioner. “One of the hardest moments was having to see a family member of a COVID patient say goodbye over an iPad,” says Tiffany Fare, a nurse in the biocontainment unit. “You can’t see your loved one and then they’re gone.”  There are very few opportunities to rest during a shift, although colleagues look out for one another and try to cover for each other when someone needs a break. Cheryll Mack, a registered nurse in the emergency room, says she tries to get outside for 15 minutes during the day to breathe. “It has given me relief, just fresh air,” Mack says. Each shift concludes with a similar decontamination drill. Nurses and doctors must remove their personal protective equipment and shower immediately before coming in contact with their family at home. “I take a very long, very hot shower. And then I usually sit on the couch and... read a book or watch some mindless reality show in order to destress,” says Martine Bell, a nurse practitioner. Laura Bontempo, an emergency medicine physician, says she removes her work clothing and gear in a decontamination tent she has set up outside her home, and then wraps herself in a towel and runs inside to shower. Then she puts the scrubs in the washing machine by themselves to not contaminate any other items. Meghan Sheehan, 27, a nurse practitioner, says she drives home each night without turning on the radio and uses the quiet time to reflect on her shift and her patients. When she gets home, she tries hard not to dwell on the day. “I go home, I shower immediately and try to have dinner with family, and try to not talk about it,” she said. “Nighttime is definitely the hardest because you’re constantly thinking about what the next day will bring.”   For a photo essay see reut.rs/2wFeik7


In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed more prevention services and cancer screenings than abortions, but in 2013, there were more abortions.

Abortion, National, Women, Jason Chaffetz,

Congress may have avoided a government shutdown related to Planned Parenthood funding — at least so far — but the controversy over the women’s health organization looks like it’s here to stay. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sparred with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a high-profile hearing on Sept. 29. One of their face-offs originated with a chart Chaffetz flashed, indicating that Planned Parenthood performed more abortions than "life-saving procedures" in 2013, a complete reversal from just seven years ago. The chart features a pair of lines crossing — one headed upward (abortions) and the other headed downward (cancer screening and prevention services). When referring to the chart in the hearing, Chaffetz said, "In pink, that's the reduction in the breast exams, and the red is the increase in the abortions. That's what's going on in your organization." "This is a slide that has never been shown to me before," Richards responded. "Excuse me, my lawyer is informing me that the source of this is actually Americans United for Life, which is an anti-abortion group. So, I would check your source." "Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that," Chaffetz agreed. Many news outlets characterized the chart as misleading, so we too wanted to get to the bottom of the truth. As it turns out, Richards’ lawyer was correct about the source of the chart -- it comes from an Americans United for Life web post from June 2015. The chart, we found, gives a misleading impression. The numbers listed on the chart are based on actual statistics, but they are small and were hard to read during the televised hearings. The chart’s most prominent feature — the much larger crossed arrows — suggests a conclusion that’s flat wrong. We reached out to Chaffetz’s office but did not hear back. A spokesperson for Americans United for Life told PolitiFact that the graphic is accurate and honest. Experts, however, begged to differ. "That graphic is a damn lie," said Alberto Cairo, who researches visual communication at the University of Miami. "Regardless of whatever people think of this issue, this distortion is ethically wrong." Dueling axes Chaffetz’s chart falls into a category known as a dual-axis chart. On the left side, cancer screenings and prevention services are plotted in the millions. On the right side, abortions are plotted in the hundreds of thousands. But the way the chart was assembled is problematic. For starters, dual-axis charts are particularly susceptible to showing spurious correlations. With two axes, trend lines can be exaggerated and manipulated, as most people ignore the axis labels that put the numbers in context. "It forces your brain to see a relationship that isn’t there," Cairo said. "As economist Gary Smith once said, ‘If you double the axes, you can double the mischief.’ " Second, it’s even more inappropriate to use a dual-axis chart when comparing equivalent measures (in this case, the number of services performed by Planned Parenthood) using different scales, said Enrico Bertini, a professor at New York University who studies data visualization and who called the chart "scandalous." Typically, dual-axis charts are used to compare lines that represent different things — "for instance, abortion rates and cost," said Bertini. "But in this case the unit is the same." "You cannot put two measures, one in the millions and one in the hundreds, without making it explicit," Cairo said. "We map data into visual properties — height, length, color — but we need to keep the proportions. We cannot force the data to adopt a shape we like." Finally, perhaps the most egregious decision was to not label the axes. Experts told us that, given this decision, they cannot rule out purposeful deception. "By claiming to combine these two lines into one graph and then omitting the y-axis, we are being misled into to making a false comparison of two non-equivalent contexts," said Noah Iliinsky, a visualization and information designer based in Seattle. "The graph is absolutely misleading, and intentionally so." Iliinsky also said he saw "propagandized design choices" in the choice of the arrowheads, which suggest a "strong continuation of these trends, which we don’t know to be true." Corrected charts With guidance from the experts, we compiled the number of abortions and cancer screenings/prevention services from Planned Parenthood’s annual reports from 2006 to 2013 (we could not find a report from 2008). Here’s what the chart should look like:  As you can see from the chart, the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood has essentially held steady, with marginal increases and a modest peak in 2009. It is true, however, that the organization now provides fewer cancer screenings and preventive services, though medical experts said that’s more likely due to changing health guidelines than the organization prioritizing abortions. Spokespersons for Planned Parenthood and for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both pointed to changing guidelines for Pap smears, the screening test for cervical cancer. Medical groups used to recommend an annual Pap, but now suggests the test every three or five years for most women. Planned Parenthood also provides an array of other services such as STI/STD testing and treatment — services that have gone up by 50 percent since 2006 — as well as pregnancy tests. Here’s how all of the services have changed from 2006 to 2013: < A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood told PolitiFact that the number of services provided in each category tend to fluctuate from year to year for myriad reasons, ranging from changes in laws and medical practices to the opening or closure of Planned Parenthood clinics. Megan Christin, a spokesperson for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, speculated that the decline in contraception could be due to a growth in the use of IUDs, which last for five to eight years. Overall, if we compare abortions and non-abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood — and if we use standard scales on the axes, we see largely consistent trend lines for both:  Our ruling At the hearing, Chaffetz presented a chart that showed the number of abortions at Planned Parenthood rising higher than the number of preventive services and cancer screenings between 2006 and 2013. But that’s inaccurate, disputed by the chart’s own, hard to read numerical labels. In fact, there were three times as many cancer screenings and prevention services as abortions in 2013. Experts in data presentation said this was an egregious example of using a chart to mislead. We rate the claim .


Hillary Clinton Says Donald Trump "has been talking about the option of using a nuclear weapon against our Western European allies.

Explanation: A Clinton campaign ad claims Trump has talked about the option of using nuclear weapons against America’s western European allies. Experts said his comments on nuclear weapons are imprecise, but they interpreted his comments as vaguely aligned with U.S. policy, at least in the sense that America does not rule out using weapons to protect allies. Trump never explicitly talked about using nuclear weapons against America’s allies in Europe -- but that he he is just leaving the option open. The claim has an element of truth but is misleading. https://www

Donald Trump is "too dangerous" to have access to the nuclear codes, Hillary Clinton emphasizes in a new ad. The ad features soundbites from pundits voicing concern about whether Trump is ready for the responsibilities of the presidency. Speakers include Michael Hayden, former CIA director under George W. Bush; Max Boot, a conservative foreign policy analyst; and Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist. (All have criticized Trump on some occasions.) One clip features Gillian Turner, who worked at the White House National Security Council under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, talking on Fox News. Trump "has been talking about the option of using a nuclear weapon against our Western European allies," the ad shows Turner saying. We wanted to fact-check whether the Clinton campaign accurately portrayed Trump’s comments about nuclear weapons and western Europe. In our view, even though Turner made the statement, it was the Clinton campaign’s decision to pull the clip and advance its "unfit" argument. Is Clinton’s campaign correct in saying Trump has considered using nuclear weapons against America’s western European allies? Not exactly. What Trump has said The comment in question stems from an MSNBC town hall interview in March. Trump was asked by host Chris Matthews if he might use nuclear weapons. Trump: "I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapons, because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame." Matthews: "So, can you take it off the table now? Can you tell the Middle East we are not using the nuclear weapon on anybody?" Trump: "I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table." Matthews: "How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe." Trump: "I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody." Matthews: "You might use it in Europe?" Trump: "No. I don’t think so, but — I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes, but I’m not taking cards off the table." In the same breath, Trump said he would not use nuclear weapons, but he went on to say he wouldn't take it off the table for "anybody," include Europe. He stuck by this phrasing in another interview on The O’Reilly Factor when Eric Bolling asked the same question. "Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we're doing. It's in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that's a bad thing, not a good thing.The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it’s a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible, but I don’t want to take anything off the table." In these two interviews, each held within a day of one another, Trump’s position on nuclear weapons overall and in Europe is convoluted. Yes, he hates the idea, but he doesn’t want to take the option off the table. Experts weigh in Experts we spoke to said Trump’s comments were a departure from previous rhetoric because they’re imprecise, but they noted his refusal to "take options off the table" is vaguely in line with U.S. policy. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, referred to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, which focuses on preventing nuclear proliferation, "Indeed, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces," reads the report. "These nuclear forces will continue to play an essential role in deterring potential adversaries and reassuring allies and partners around the world." Point being, there are some instances where the United States does not rule out using nuclear weapons, he said, which is why Trump’s "cards on the table" policy is somewhat in line with U.S. policy. Jim Walsh, an international security and research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he’s "seen nothing" suggesting Trump would use nuclear weapons against America’s European allies. "What Trump may be trying to say is actually consistent with traditional U.S. doctrine, that is, we are prepared to use (nuclear weapons) to counter a Russian/Soviet invasion of Western Europe with conventional forces," Walsh, who is not a fan of Trump, said. "That's a NATO commitment." The usual rhetoric -- that America would use nuclear weapons against Soviets to protect our allies -- is in line with what previous presidents have said, said Richard Nephew, a research scholar and program director for economic statecraft, sanctions and energy markets at Columbia University. It should be noted that Nephew said he is "repelled by Trump and his rhetoric, including around nuclear weapons." "Previous presidents have spoken about the use of nuclear weapons to threaten the Soviets and others that might attack our allies," Nephew said. "They have talked about battlefield uses only in an extreme crisis and rarely spoken about tactical nuclear weapons at all (which would be what a normal president would be referring to: using nuclear weapons to attack enemy forces invading our Allies)." After speaking to experts, we can conclude that Trump’s comments are vague, but do not translate directly into using weapons against our European allies. We reached out to Gillian Turner to hear how she feels about being used in the ad, but we didn’t hear back from her. Our ruling A Clinton campaign ad claims Trump has talked about the option of using nuclear weapons against America’s western European allies. Experts said his comments on nuclear weapons are imprecise, but they interpreted his comments as vaguely aligned with U.S. policy, at least in the sense that America does not rule out using weapons to protect allies. Trump never explicitly talked about using nuclear weapons against America’s allies in Europe -- but that he he is just leaving the option open. The claim has an element of truth but is misleading.


Marijuana Eases Spasticity in MS Patients

Explanation: This story lacked many of the vital ingredients of any health news story. It didn’t:   offer any independent perspective; quantify harms or benefits of the marijuana extract use; scrutinize the quality of the evidence; challenge the implication that subjective evidence was OK despite limitations in objective measurements. A story like this turns the website (in this case) over to researchers to talk about their work without any challenge from any other expert independent source. News consumers should be cautious whenever they see a story like this. And given the desperation of many people with MS, an incomplete story like this is particularly unfortunate.

If the marijuana extracts are experimental, we could understand why costs might not be mentioned – which they weren’t. But since the story never explained whether these are available products or not, we have no idea of availability nor of cost. Absolutely no numbers were provided to give a sense of the scope of the suggested benefit. How many people who took the extracts benefited? You’d never know from the story. Absolutely no numbers were provided to give a sense of the scope of the potential harms of taking the extracts. All the story said was, "Side effects vary greatly." What were they? How many people had them? The story included this curious quote from the researchers: But science is all about objective measurement, and the story never did anything to address this questionable assertion. There was no exaggeration of the muscle spasm symptoms of MS. A HealthDay story reported: But this WebMD story included no independent perspective – a major shortcoming. The story stated that "many existing therapies for this condition are difficult to obtain, ineffective, or associated with intolerable side effects. But we are not told anything about what these therapies are – nor are we given any details about all of these suggested shortcomings. So readers are not able to make any meaningful comparison based on the story. The story described "marijuana extracts" but never clarified whether they were now available or still experimental. Also, many people would want to know how these extracts – taken by mouth – differ from smoking marijuana – which the story never explained. A HealthDay story quoted a Mayo Clinic neurologist saying, "the idea of using cannabis to treat MS has been around for a long time." No such context appeared in this story. The story discloses that it lifted a quote from a news release. We appreciate that admission. But we judge the story unsatisfactory on this criterion because it clearly relied on a news release without putting any independent perspective in the story – something other stories managed to do easily (See "Source" criterion below.) It’s difficult to see how/if any independent reporting went into this story.


Governor works with broadcasters to address mental health.

Explanation: Rhode Island’s governor and her husband are joining with local broadcasters to launch a mental health awareness campaign.

Rhode Island, Mental health, Health, Gina Raimondo, Campaigns, Providence

Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo and Andy Moffit plan to visit the Rhode Island PBS office in Providence on Monday. Members of the Rhode Island Broadcasters Association partnered with state officials to address mental health and substance use issues. Especially during the holidays, it’s important to raise awareness of mental health issues, Raimondo said. Local television and radio stations plan to simultaneously air a locally-produced, 30-minute special at 7:30 p.m. Saturday. The program will continue on Rhode Island PBS at 8 p.m. It aims to provide resources for people dealing with mental health and substance use issues, and for people caring for them. Reporters from WLNE-TV, WJAR-TV and WPRI-TV worked together on the project.