Aspirin cuts heart attacks, not deaths or strokes

Explanation: This story demonstrates a careful and contextual analysis of the evidence, making clear what the study did show and what it didn’t. The trials aren’t long enough to show downstream effects on mortality, which is, unfortunately, a problem with most primary prevention trials. The real question here (which is not answered but is discussed) is what is the balance of benefits and harms.

We’ll accept the brief mention – at the very end of the story about aspiring being “cheap” and “cost effective for men over 45.”  We all know it’s cheap. But it doesn’t hurt to include a few words about cost and cost-effectiveness. Appropriate context. With a meta-analysis it is not statistically appropriate to pool absolute risk reductions, so the way the story treated the evidence is as good as can be done (showing the relative risk reduction and an “anchor” in terms of absolute risk. Excerpt: “The researchers found a 19-percent reduction in non-fatal heart attacks among participants who took aspirin compared to those who did not. They don’t mention how many people actually suffered such a heart attack, but an earlier analysis of six of the trials showed that out of every 1,000 people, 18 individuals taking aspirin had heart attacks every year, compared to 23 individuals taking placebo pills. On the other hand, that analysis also found aspirin increased the rate of bleeding from 0.7 to 1 per 1,000 people per year, making the authors conclude the drug was of “uncertain net value.” The story stated “aspirin increased the rate of bleeding from 0.7 to 1 per 1,000 people per year, making the authors conclude the drug was of “uncertain net value.” Excellent analysis of the evidence. No disease mongering in this story. Two independent experts were quoted. And the story noted that the research was funded by Bayer. Embedded in the analysis was at least a nod to other approaches. For example, the story stated: “There is not universal agreement on what is high risk,” he told Reuters Health. “In my mind, if you have diabetes or multiple risk factors for heart disease — such as smoking or obesity — it is reasonable to take aspirin.” In addition, working to eliminate those risk factors by other means will not only slash the risk of heart disease, but also a host of other health problems.” Not applicable. The availability of aspirin is not in question. The story explained that “The new work…pooled the results of the nine trials that have tested the drug in the prevention of heart disease so far, including three that weren’t part of the 2009 USPSTF review.” It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.


Attacks on Planned Parenthood "come at a time when the poverty rate among women is the highest in nearly two decades and 1 in 5 women under 65 don’t have access to health care.

Explanation: Tim Ryan says the poverty rate for women is highest in two decades

Ohio, Health Care, Poverty, Women, Tim Ryan,

Conservatives frequently take shots at Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, even though the controversial procedure is but a small part of what the health care organization provides. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, led by Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns,  launched an investigation in September 2011 into Planned Parenthood by demanding that it provide years of information about its federal funding and its compliance with abortion restrictions. This didn’t sit well with Rep. Tim Ryan, a Ohio Democrat from Niles, who called the investigation a baseless, ideological attack on Planned Parenthood, which he described as a trusted provider of health care to millions of people, "many of whom would otherwise not receive vital services like pre-natal care, well woman exams and cancer screenings." Among those Planned Parenthood treats are the poor, according to Ryan. In a news release Sept. 28, he detailed just how those numbers are increasing in the United States:  "These attacks come at a time when the poverty rate among women is the highest in nearly two decades and 1 in 5 women under 65 don’t have access to health care." We will leave the debate over abortion rights which is at the center of this flap to Ryan, Stearns and others. But PolitiFact Ohio took a look at Ryan’s claims about impoverished women without health care. The stats back up the first part of the claim -- that the poverty rate among women is the highest in nearly two decades. Ryan based his information on an analysis by the National Women’s Law Center of U.S. Census Bureau data. It shows that the poverty rate for women ages 18 to 64 rose to 14.5 percent in 2010, the highest rate in 17 years. Furthermore, the number of women it classifies as living in extreme poverty (with incomes less than half of the federal poverty level) checked in at 6.3 percent, the highest rate over the 22 years the measurement has been taken. What about the second part of Ryan’s claim; that 1 in 5 women (or 20 percent) under 65 don’t have access to health care. Ryan again relied on the National Women’s Law Center analysis, only what the organization more precisely stated is that the number of uninsured women between the ages of 18 and 64 rose to 19.7 percent in 2010. That figure counts only women who had no coverage of any kind, private or public, for the entire year. Ryan’s statement equates not having insurance to not having access to health care. While a woman, or any person for that matter, without health insurance finds it much more difficult or expensive to get medical treatment, there are places they can go, at least in an emergency. Many physicians will see an uninsured patient if they are dogged enough and the ailment severe enough, said Henry Aaron, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington, but that’s asking an awful lot of the patient. And non-profit hospitals are obligated to stabilize patients with serious conditions, he said, but perhaps not to provide follow-up treatment. "The whole thing is your treatment is delayed," he said. Those without insurance also find it more difficult to get simple check-ups and then to find a doctor who will write a prescription, Aaron said. They are often embarrassed to ask for charity or to run the risk of being refused. "(Being uninsured) just leaves barriers, psychological and financial, to acquiring health care," he said. Ryan reinforced that point when we contacted his office. "This economic barrier to health insurance obstructs many women from obtaining the most basic health care," he said. "While these women are legally guaranteed treatment to stabilize emergency conditions at some hospitals, this promise falls far short of the access to medical care most of us depend upon to stay healthy and safe. It's shameful that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have allowed women to reach such a high level of poverty." Planned Parenthood is part of the safety net of health care providers for the indigent, said Tara Broderick, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio. Less than 30 percent of its clients have health insurance. Those who don’t have insurance are billed on a sliding scale, she said. As for abortion services, nationally, only about 10 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients receive an abortion or an abortion pill, Broderick said, and the percentage locally is even smaller. The 50,000 people (primarily women) who visited one of Planned Parenthood’s 13 offices in Northeast Ohio last year were more likely to receive non-abortive birth control assistance or medical check-ups such as pap tests, breast and pelvic exams and blood work for checking cholesterol levels or for evidence of diabetes, Broderick said. So, how do we rate Ryan’s statement? Before returning to Ryan’s statement, we note one other point Aaron made.There is a wide enough difference in the amount of health care that someone with insurance receives compared to someone without insurance that there is "something" about Ryan’s statement that conveys truth, he said. Politifact Ohio would agree. On Ryan’s first point about the rate of poverty for women, census data backs his assertion. On the second part he said 1 in 5 women age 18 to 65 don’t have access to health care. That differs from the census database, which said 1 in five do not have health insurance. That’s a point that needs clarification. And that also consistent with  Ryan’s underlying point, that the number of women in poverty is at a high point, and that getting access to health care would be difficult for many women without services of agencies like Planned Parenthood.


Vice President Mike Pence said that White House aide Rob Porter's purported domestic abuse was supported by the Bible.

Explanation: Before putting out the item about Pence and Porter, Fox News the FB Page had spread similar claims that a statue of Jefferson Davis was to be replaced with one of Barack Obama, that President Obama ordered Mother’s Day be used to “celebrate abortions,” and that Senator Bernie Sanders planned to <a “https://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-plans-to-tax-churches/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>tax churches.

Junk News, fox news the fb page, mike pence, rob porter

After White House senior aide Rob Porter resigned amid allegations of domestic violence in February 2018, a fake news article claimed that Vice President Mike Pence had publicly expressed support for Porter, with the help of some Bible verses. That article, as well as an excerpt from it that worked into a meme form, originated with posts made to pages masquerading as legitimate Fox News accounts:  “Fox News the FB Page” uses the cable news channel’s style and logos in its content, but the page has no affiliation with Fox News, and everything it publishes is parody. Incongruously, “Fox News the FB Page” is also a web site that utilizes the domain www.tdalliance.com. They published the fake news article that this meme is based upon. In reality, Vice President Pence said publicly that he was “appalled” when he learned of the domestic abuse allegations. (He also maintained he did not know about them until Porter’s resignation.) The article used this morsel of truth  as a jumping off point for the false claim that Pence later “softened” his stance on the issue, leaning on Biblical teachings for guidance: Pence has softened his comments about Porter saying his actions if true were “in accordance with Biblical principles” and that women should “submit to their husbands as their husbands are their heads just as Jesus is head of the church.” This passage appears to be a reference to Ephesians 5:22, which reads: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” However, Pence said no such thing in regard to the Porter allegations, nor has he “softened” his stance on that subject.


White House moves toward promoting face masks to fight virus.

Explanation: The Trump administration is formalizing new guidance to recommend that many Americans wear face coverings in an effort to slow the spread of the new coronavirus as the president defends his response to the crisis.

AP Top News, Health, Anthony Fauci, General News, Politics, Infectious diseases, Virus Outbreak, Michael Pence

“Because of some recent information that the virus can actually be spread even when people just speak as opposed to coughing and sneezing -- the better part of valor is that when you’re out, when you can’t maintain that 6-foot distance, to wear some sort of facial covering,” the top U.S. infectious disease official said Friday on “Fox & Friends.”  But Dr. Anthony Fauci also made clear that the aim is not to “take away from the availability of masks that are needed for the health care providers who are in real and present danger of getting infected from the people that they’re taking care of.”  The recommendations were expected to apply to those who live in areas hard hit by community transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. A person familiar with the White House coronavirus task force’s discussion said officials would suggest that nonmedical masks, T-shirts or bandannas be used to cover the nose and mouth people go outside — for instance, at the grocery store or pharmacy. Medical-grade masks, particularly short-in-supply N95 masks, would be reserved for those dealing directly with the sick. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the proposed guidance before its public release. President Donald Trump, who was tested again for coronavirus Thursday using a new rapid test, indicated he would support such a recommendation. The White House said Trump’s latest test returned a negative result in 15 minutes and Trump was “healthy and without symptoms.” Dr. Deborah Birx, the task force’s coordinator, told reporters that the White House was concerned the mask guidance would lead to a “false sense of security” for Americans. She said new data shows the administration’s social-distancing guidelines were not being followed to the extent necessary to keep virus-related deaths to a minimum. The discussions on face masks came as the White House defended its handling of the pandemic, particularly its efforts to speed the distribution of ventilators and protective equipment needed by medical professionals. Trump sent a letter to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York objecting to Schumer’s criticism of the administration’s response. “The Federal Government is merely a back-up for state governments,” Trump wrote. “Unfortunately, your state needed far more of a back-up than most others.” Trump said states should have done more to stockpile medical supplies. Vice President Mike Pence also announced Thursday that the White House was considering direct payments to hospitals to cover COVID-19 treatment costs for the uninsured. The emerging guidance on masks appeared to be more limited than a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention draft that suggested the recommendation apply to nearly all Americans, according to a federal official who has seen the draft but was not authorized to discuss it on the record. Officials were expected to limit the geographic scope to just those areas where the virus was spreading rapidly, the official said. An announcement was expected as soon as Friday. Under the previous guidance, only the sick or those at high risk of complications from the respiratory illness were advised to wear masks. The new proposal was driven by research showing that some infections are being spread by people who seem to be healthy. For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death. On Wednesday, Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, urged his city’s 4 million residents to wear masks when they’re in public. On Thursday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio followed suit in his city, the epicenter of the virus’ spread in the U.S. In response to recent studies, the CDC on Wednesday changed how it was defining the risk of infection for Americans. It essentially says anyone may be a considered a carrier, whether that person has symptoms or not. The virus spreads mostly through droplets from coughs or sneezes, though experts stress that the germ is still not fully understood. U.S. officials have been telling people to stay at home as much as possible and keep at least 6 feet (2 meters) away from others when they do go out. Other advice includes frequent hand washing and not touching your face. But until now federal officials have stopped short of telling people to cover their faces out in public. Scientists can’t rule out that infected people sometimes exhale COVID-19 virus particles, rather than just when coughing or sneezing, but there isn’t enough evidence to show if that can cause infection, according to a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to advise the White House. The question has to do with whether the new coronavirus spreads mostly by droplets that don’t linger for long in the air or also by tinier aerosolized particles. Certain medical procedures, such as inserting breathing tubes, can create those tiny particles, which is why health care workers wear close-fitting N95 masks during such care. The World Health Organization on Monday reiterated its advice that the general population doesn’t need to wear masks unless a person is sick. Since the epidemic began in China, the WHO has said masks are for the sick and people caring for them. WHO’s epidemic chief Dr. Mike Ryan noted the risks from an improperly fitted mask or from someone improperly putting it on or taking it off. ___ Stobbe reported from New York. AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.


Legal pot sales begin in Uruguay under landmark 2013 law.

Explanation: Marijuana aficionados lined up at pharmacies across Uruguay on Wednesday to be among the first in the South American nation to legally buy pot as a law regulating its sale took full effect.

Uruguay, International News, South America, Latin America, Caribbean, Health, Business, Montevideo

Customers sniffed pungent green buds and grinned as they showed off blue-and-white envelopes containing the plant, which is now available as part a 2013 measure that made Uruguay the first nation to legalize a pot market covering the entire chain from plants to purchase. Santiago Pinatares, a 35-year-old construction worker, braved freezing temperatures in the capital, Montevideo, as he waited outside one of the 16 pharmacies authorized to sell marijuana. He said he has been smoking pot since age 14 but had no choice but to buy on the black market until now. “To be able to buy it legally is a huge breakthrough,” he told The Associated Press. “Uruguay is at the forefront of the world on this.” Some customers declined to comment saying they didn’t want their families or employers to know they were buying marijuana. Authorities say nearly 5,000 people have registered as consumers allowing them to buy up to 40 grams per month using fingerprint recognition. About two-thirds of them live in Montevideo. The price is set at the equivalent of $1.30 per gram, with 90 cents of that going to the two businesses chosen to cultivate marijuana. The rest is split between the pharmacies and the government, which will use its share to fund prevention programs. The marijuana comes in packages emblazoned with a seal of authenticity and warnings about the drug’s effects. Uruguay became the first country to regulate a national marijuana marketplace in an effort to fight rising homicide and crime rates associated with drug trafficking. The law also lets licensed individuals grow marijuana plants and form clubs. The country’s marijuana plan was widely applauded globally and seen as going beyond marijuana legislation in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington, but polls showed that most Uruguayans opposed it. Most of the country’s estimated 1,200 pharmacies also decided not to register to sell, stoking a debate over how the drug should be distributed. Experts attributed delays in the implementation of the pioneering plan to the fact that no other country had attempted such an ambitious endeavor. “There was a lot of hard work to finally come to this day,” Drug czar Diego Olivera said. “It is a challenging and complex project, and today we have taken a step forward.”


Republican candidate for governor Nathan Deal "explicitly voted to fund abortions ...

Explanation: RedState.com blogger said Nathan Deal voted to fund abortion

Abortion, Georgia, Women, Erick Erickson,

The bickering over which Republican candidate for governor is a stronger foe of abortion just won't stop. Last week, Georgia Right to Life accused Karen Handel of supporting abortion if a fetus tests positive for Down syndrome. We gave that claim our lowest rating, . Now Handel's opponent, Nathan Deal, stands accused of voting to fund abortions while he was a U.S. congressman in 1993. The Deal-Handel runoff is slated for Aug. 10. The winner will face former governor and Democrat Roy Barnes in November. Erick Erickson, an influential blogger and editor of RedState.com, one of the most popular conservative sites on the Web, was the first to make the claim. It appeared Thursday on RedState.com and Erickson's PeachPundit.com, which focuses on state issues. The Macon city councilman supports former Secretary of State Handel's bid. "In Congress, Nathan Deal Voted for Henry Waxman sponsored legislation to give $500 million to Planned Parenthood to pay for actual abortions," he wrote in identical items on RedState.com and PeachPundit posted after 8 p.m.  Deal? The candidate who won the endorsement of Georgia Right to Life? He voted to fund abortion with our tax dollars? We fired off an e-mail to Erickson, who replied that the issue has "nothing to do with Nathan Deal who I don't doubt is pro-life." It's more about GRTL's conduct, he said. So we took a look at his blog posts. The earliest item we located was "Georgia Right To Life Supports Candidate Who Voted For Major Abortion Funding," which was posted on PeachPundit.com at 8:14 p.m. An identical one appeared on RedState.com at 8:24 p.m.   "Hypocrisy, thy name is Georgia Right to Life," the post began. It then stated a few paragraphs later that Deal voted for the Waxman legislation. Waxman is a Democratic congressman who represents portions of the Los Angeles area. Planned Parenthood runs family planning clinics, some of which perform abortions. Monday, Erickson wrote a 5 a.m. post that repeated the claim. "Deal explicitly voted to fund abortions," it said. Deal voted for the Family Planning Amendments Act of 1993. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives but not the Senate. It never became law. It was an authorization bill, which is a kind of legislation that establishes or re-establishes a government agency or program. It also recommends how much money should be spent on it. This bill would have re-established the Title X program of the Public Health Service Act, which has funded family planning services such as providing birth control since 1970. The beneficiaries are mostly poor women. A portion of those funds go to Planned Parenthood clinics. Title X was authorized in another bill that passed. Amounts set by authorization bills are not binding. The feds don't cut any checks until another type of legislation, an appropriations bill, passes the House and Senate. So the 1993 bill didn't really fund anything at all, much less abortions. Furthermore, the bill had nothing to do with "actual abortions." Title X explicitly states that "none of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." This has been the rule since the program began. If a clinic that receives Title X funding also performs abortions, it must make sure none of that federal money goes to those services. For instance, if women getting abortions share a waiting room with those who receive federally funded family planning services, the clinic can't bill the government for the entire cost of running the waiting room. It must subtract the proportion that goes to pay for patients waiting for abortion services. Whether the 1993 bill was anti-abortion is debatable, said Mary Harned, staff counsel for Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. That year, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order rescinding what was called the "gag rule," which prohibited clinics from discussing the option of abortion with patients. This bill would have made it more difficult for a subsequent administration to reinstate the rule. Deal received 90 percent and 94 percent ratings from the anti-abortion group National Right to Life during the latter half of the 1990s, which means he supported its agenda almost all the time. It's likely that Deal would not have voted for a similar bill later in his career in Congress, a campaign spokesman said. He has since come to believe that if the federal government provides any funding for Planned Parenthood, it frees up their funds for pro-abortion efforts. During his last two terms in Congress, Deal received 100 percent ratings from National Right to Life. Erickson's claim crumbles in the face of the facts. The Family Planning Amendments Act of 1993 didn't fund anything. What it would have done was re-authorize a federal family planning program that is explicitly barred from funding abortions. Funding for actual abortions was never up for debate, and the bill never passed. Erickson earns a .


Emergency rooms account for "2 percent of all health care spending.

National, Health Care, Pundits, Nick Gillespie,

In recent years, advocates for universal health coverage have regularly decried a side effect of having no health insurance -- the use of emergency rooms as a substitute for basic health care services. For instance, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in August 2009, "We have 48 million people with no health care. As a result, they walk into emergency rooms. It's costing every American who is insured $1,100 to pick up the cost of uncompensated care that goes on at the emergency room." We gave Boxer’s claim this rating, largely due to questionable assumptions that undermined the calculations Boxer cited. But other Democrats in favor of a health care overhaul, including Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009, also pointed to the use of emergency rooms by uninsured Americans as an argument for passing a health care overhaul. Given the frequency of this talking point, it came as something of a surprise to hear Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason.com, a libertarian publication, say recently that emergency room costs actually represent a tiny share of health care spending. During the Oct. 22, 2013, edition of CNN’s Crossfire, Gillespie had an exchange with Van Jones, one of the show’s liberal co-hosts. Jones argued that Obama’s health care law should be able to bring uninsured Americans into the health care system in less costly and more efficient ways, cutting the use of emergency rooms for front-line care. Gillespie countered that "emergency rooms (are) 2 percent of all health care spending. It's not a huge amount. That's a big red herring in this." We wondered whether Gillespie was correct. We easily found the source of the statistic -- a calculation publicized by the American College of Emergency Physicians. Obviously, this is a group with a dog in the fight, but the calculation they made was pretty straightforward and is based on federal data. The group used figures from 2008 collected by the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a study undertaken by a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The survey found that the total amount of money spent on emergency care -- including physician and other emergency-room services -- was $47.3 billion. That’s slightly less than 2 percent of the same survey’s $2.4 trillion estimate of total health care expenditures that year. We asked a number of experts in health care economics whether they saw any red flags with that kind ofcalculation. Both Austin Frakt of Boston University and Katherine Baicker of the Harvard School of Public Health said the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey is a credible source of data. Their concerns, to the extent they had any, focused on whether the survey under-reports health care costs. Indeed, there is at least one study that suggests just that. A paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine used different data and an alternative accounting method to determine emergency room costs. The study -- by Michael Lee and Brian Zink of Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School and Jeremiah Schuur of Harvard Medical School -- used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which tallied approximately 130 million ER visits, a much higher number than the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which counted 49 million visits. Based in part on this discrepancy, the authors said the actual percentage may range anywhere from 4.9 percent to 10 percent, rather than 2 percent. The American College of Emergency Physicians stands by its calculations but acknowledges that other calculations can be legitimate. The data that produced the 2 percent figure "comes from reputable sources, and the calculation is correct," said spokeswoman Julie Lloyd. "At the same time, we know that the numbers could be calculated in different ways." Gail Wilensky, who headed Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush, agreed that the percentage of health care spending devoted to emergency rooms could change depending on what figure is used for the denominator. "All these expenditure figures are at best approximations," Wilensky said. "There is no really good, precise way to calculate it." Several experts added that the total amount of money going to emergency care is ultimately less important than making sure that emergency rooms are used for the right type of care. Services provided in the ER do tend to cost significantly more than services provided in a primary-care setting. "Getting anything other than true emergency care in an emergency department tends to be an expensive, fragmented way to receive care and should be avoided if any other reasonable alternative is available," Wilensky said. That said, recent academic studies have suggested that the economics of emergency rooms and the larger health care system are more nuanced than previously thought. For instance, one study by the Rand Corp. suggested that it may be overburdened primary-care doctors -- not patients -- who are driving traffic toward the ER. According to Arthur Kellermann, one of the authors of the RAND paper, doctors described the ER to researchers as their "overflow valve" where they "send complicated patients" for diagnosis. Even Lee, who co-wrote the paper suggesting that ERs could account for as much as 10 percent of health care spending, has said that heavy use of emergency rooms is not necessarily a problem. "Diverting non-emergency care may simply shift costs onto primary care offices and clinics which may not have the infrastructure to accommodate a large volume of unscheduled care," Lee told Science Daily. Our ruling Gillespie said emergency rooms account for "2 percent of all health care spending." Experts told us that’s not the only way to calculate it, but it’s a credible way, and even if that figure is too low, other calculations put it in the single digits. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.


Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ plan reignites health care clash.

Explanation: Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to gradually move the country to a government-funded health care system has further inflamed the debate over “Medicare for All,” likely ensuring the issue will play a significant role in this week’s Democratic presidential debate.

Access to health care, Health, General News, Politics, Election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, AP Top News, Medicare, Massachusetts, Business

The Massachusetts senator announced Friday that her administration would immediately build on existing laws, including the Affordable Care Act, to expand access to health care while taking up to three years to fully implement Medicare for All. That attempt to thread the political needle has roiled her more moderate rivals, who say she’s waffling, while worrying some on the left, who see Warren’s commitment to a single-payer system wavering. The divide could complicate plans by Democrats to turn health care into a winning issue in 2020. The party successfully took back control of the House last year by championing programs that ensure that people with preexisting medical conditions keep their insurance coverage while arguing that Republicans want to weaken such provisions. But the Medicare for All debate is more delicate as advocates including Warren grapple with concerns that a new government-run system won’t provide the same quality of coverage as private insurance — and would be prohibitively expensive. “The Medicare for All proposal has turned out to be a real deal-breaker in who gets the Democratic nomination,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor whose teaching responsibilities include courses on political strategy in health policy and public opinion polling. “This is not just another issue.” Warren’s transition plan indicates she’d use her first 100 days as president to expand existing public health insurance options. That is closer to what has been supported by former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Both Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Medicare for All for wiping out private insurance — something they say many Americans aren’t ready for. Warren insists she’s simply working to expand health insurance in the short term to people who don’t have it while remaining committed to the full plan in the long run. “My commitment to Medicare for All is all the way,” Warren said while campaigning in Iowa over the weekend. Still, the transition signified a step toward pragmatism and an acknowledgement that the government has ways to expand health insurance coverage before embracing a universal system — something that would be difficult for any president to get through Congress. Consider that current entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, were phased in over years, not all at once. “If she’s looked at it and decides the sensible thing to do in order to not cause too much disruption in employment situations and within the medical system is to gear up over three years, she’s probably right,” said Cindy Wolf, a customer service and shipping manager who attended the California state Democratic Convention on Saturday in Long Beach. Still, the move may prove politically problematic for a candidate who has long decried others settling for consultant-driven campaigns seeking incremental changes at the expense of big ideas. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the original architect of Medicare for All and has made fighting for it the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid. He tweeted following the release of Warren’s transition plan: “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation.” Campaigning in Nevada on Monday, California Sen. Kamala Harris said, “I believe that government should not be in a position of taking away people’s choice.” “Especially on one of the most intimate and personal decisions people can make,” Harris said, “which is about how to address their health care needs.” The criticism from others was far sharper. Top Biden adviser Kate Bedingfield dismissed Warren’s plan as “trying to muddy the waters” by offering “a full program of flips and twists.” Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said it was a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem.” It’s easy to see the issue spilling into Wednesday’s debate because Warren rode a steady summer climb in the polls to become one of the primary field’s front-runners — but no longer seems to be rising. Polls recently show her support stabilizing, though not dipping, as focus on her Medicare for All ideas intensifies. The last two debates featured Warren failing to answer direct questions on whether she would be forced to raise middle class taxes to pay for the universal health care system she envisions. That set up a plan released two-plus weeks ago in which Warren vowed to generate $20-plus trillion in new government revenue without increasing taxes on the middle class — but that’s been decried by critics who accuse Warren of underestimating how much Medicare for All would really cost. And, though Warren never promised to begin working toward Medicare for All on Day 1 of her administration, the release of the transition plan, which spelled out that the process will take years, has unsettled some. Una Lee Jost, a lawyer who was holding “Bernie” signs in Chinese and English at the California Democratic Convention, called any lengthy transition to Medicare for All “a serious concern.” “We should have implemented this decades ago,” she said. ___ Associated Press writers Kathleen Ronayne and Michael R. Blood in Long Beach, Calif., and Michelle Price in North Las Vegas, Nev., contributed to this report.


New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was previously named "Warren Wilhelm Jr." and once supported the socialist government of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

Explanation: What's true: De Blasio was born "Warren Wilhelm" but legally changed his named to "Bill de Blasio" in 2001 for personal reasons having to do with his family relationships. He was a supporter and advocate for the revolutionary socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua during the 1980s. What's false: Contrary to claims of subterfuge or secrecy on his part, de Blasio has publicly discussed the deeply personal and somewhat traumatic reasons for his decision to change his name. Furthermore, while he was during the 1980s a strong supporter of the Sandinistas, de Blasio has more recently articulated a measure of criticism of the movement.

In May 2019, a widely shared Facebook post made several interesting claims about the personal background and history of New York mayor Bill de Blasio, who had just announced that he was in the running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president in 2020. On 17 May, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a photograph of de Blasio in his younger days, along with the following caption: “Meet Warren Wilhelm Jr. He worked for the Quixote Center, which strongly supported the Marxist–Leninist ruling government of Nicaragua, the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Warren, better known as Bill de Blasio, is the current mayor of New York … he also announced he’s running for president.”  Much of the post’s content was accurate — de Blasio was indeed once a strong supporter of the revolutionary socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua — but elements of it were somewhat misleading. The Mayor of New York is not “better known” as Bill de Blasio, a framing that might suggest a certain degree of subterfuge or secrecy on his part. Rather, de Blasio was born Warren Wilhelm but legally changed his name to Bill de Blasio for personal reasons having to do with his relationship with his parents. This suggestion of dishonesty was made explicit in another May 2019 Facebook meme which incorporated the text the earlier post but added: “*None* of them are who they say they are” in apparent reference to other Democratic presidential candidates:  While de Blasio was once a strong supporter of the Sandinista regime, he has since resiled somewhat from that support and has criticized aspects of the leftist regime, important contextual information that was left out of the May 2019 memes. Warren Wihelm Jr. The 109th mayor of New York City was born Warren Wilhelm to his parents Warren Wilhem and Maria de Blasio in Manhattan on 8 May 1961. He grew up in Connecticut and later Cambridge, Mass. As a child, he took on the nickname “Bill,” as reflected in a 1979 Boston Globe profile of his accomplishments as a 17-year-old student leader named as “Warren (Bill) Wilhelm Jr.” According to a 2013 New York Times article, which was informed by interviews with de Blasio and his family members, Warren Wilhelm Sr., a Harvard economist who received a Purple Heart in World War II, regularly drank to excess and developed a difficult relationship with his wife and children. In 1969, Maria de Blasio filed for divorce, and in July 1979, Wilhelm Sr., who had terminal lung cancer, shot himself to death in Connecticut. In an interview with the National Public Radio affiliate WNYC in September 2013, de Blasio said he had begun to identify more closely with his mother’s side of the family in the months and years leading up to his graduation from high school and his father’s eventual suicide. As part of that difficult process, he decided to add his mother’s maiden name to his own name in 1979, going by “Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm”: “I had made the initial decision even in the senior year of high school that I was starting to think about the name. … I asked for one of the diplomas or one of the certificates to have de Blasio put in as a middle name. That was in May and he didn’t die until July so already something was deep in me starting to feel like I really wanted to identify myself at least also with my mother’s side.” According to the New York Daily News, court documents show that the future mayor of New York legally changed his name to Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm in 1983. Our search of records from Kings County Civil Court in Brooklyn showed that he legally changed his name to Bill de Blasio in January 2001, although in practice he had already taken on that name for some years, as evidenced by a 1996 news article that named “Bill de Blasio” as Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign director in New York City. The May 2019 memes were correct in claiming that de Blasio had once been named Warren Wilhelm Jr., but despite the deeply personal reasons for his name changes, which relate to a traumatic family history, de Blasio has publicly discussed them, something that undermines any suggestions of subterfuge or secrecy on his part. During the 1980s, de Blasio was a strong supporter of the revolutionary socialist government of Nicaragua, formed by the Sandinista National Liberation Front, commonly known as the Sandinistas. The then-mayoral candidate acknowledged his activities in a September 2013 interview with the New York Times, which outlined his political efforts, including a brief visit to Nicaragua in 1988: Mr. de Blasio, who studied Latin American politics at Columbia and was conversational in Spanish, grew to be an admirer of Nicaragua’s ruling Sandinista party, thrusting himself into one of the most polarizing issues in American politics at the time. The Reagan administration denounced the Sandinistas as tyrannical and Communist, while their liberal backers argued that after years of dictatorship, they were building a free society with broad access to education, land and health care … Mr. de Blasio became an ardent supporter of the Nicaraguan revolutionaries. He helped raise funds for the Sandinistas in New York and subscribed to the party’s newspaper, Barricada, or Barricade. When he was asked at a meeting in 1990 about his goals for society, he said he was an advocate of “democratic socialism.” … The roots of Mr. de Blasio’s progressive brand of politics lie in the shadows of volcanoes, thousands of miles from the city he now hopes to lead, at a decaying health clinic in Masaya, a small Nicaraguan city. Mr. de Blasio, bearded, gawky and cerebral, had arrived in the city as part of a 10-day tour of Nicaragua in 1988, the capstone of the year he spent as an employee of the Quixote Center, a social justice group in Maryland. The center, founded by Catholic leaders, officially did not take sides in the Nicaraguan dispute, though much of its aid went to help families sympathetic to the Sandinistas. … In 1987, Mr. de Blasio was hired as a political organizer, soon after he finished graduate school at Columbia, earning $12,000 a year. He worked inside the Quixote Center’s Maryland office, converted apartments filled with homegrown squash and peace posters. Hunched over his desk with a phone to his ear — his colleagues likened him to “Big Bird with a beard” — he oversaw efforts to solicit and ship millions of dollars in food, clothing and supplies to Nicaragua. He also proved to be a skilled provocateur, twice being arrested during rallies against United States foreign policy that were held in the Washington area. In 1990, after the Sandinistas were voted out of power in Nicaragua, de Blasio (using the name William Wilhelm) reflected on the party’s time in government in an interview with the New York Times: “They gave a new definition to democracy. They built a democracy that was striving to be economic and political, that pervaded all levels in society.” However, speaking to the Times for its 2013 article, de Blasio somewhat downplayed his support for Sandinistas and articulated a measure of criticism of the movement: “… Mr. de Blasio said he was also not blind to the party’s imperfections. He said the revolutionary leaders were ‘not free enough by any stretch of the imagination,’ pointing to their efforts to crack down on dissent by shuttering newspapers and radio stations.” We asked a spokesperson for de Blasio’s 2020 presidential campaign whether the mayor still largely stood by his support and advocacy for the Sandinistas, or whether he had regrets about his activities at that time. We did not receive a response in time for publication.


Judge: Treatment of Tennessee inmates with hep C improving.

Explanation: A federal judge in Nashville ruled this week that Tennessee’s treatment of prisoners with hepatitis C is not grossly inadequate but warned the state to make good on its promises to treat more patients more quickly.

Prisons, General News, Nashville, Hepatitis, Tennessee, Treatment of prisoners, U.S. News, Antiviral drugs

In a Monday ruling, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw noted that Tennessee has made a number of changes to improve treatment of the sometimes deadly disease within the past few months. Despite the availability of antiviral drugs that often cure the disease, prisons across the country have struggled to get funding for the drugs, which cost more than $10,000 per patient. Tennessee prisons saw at least 56 hepatitis C-related prisoner deaths between 2013 and 2017. Prisoners testified at the July trial that even after they became severely ill, and qualified for treatment under Tennessee Department of Correction rules, they were not given the crucial drugs. That’s because a committee must approve all prescriptions for the expensive antiviral medications Around 4,700 Tennessee prisoners are known to be infected with hepatitis C, but until recently the committee only considered the cases of about eight prisoners each month. The department is now working to increase that number to 160 per month. Crenshaw acknowledged the prisoners’ testimony in his ruling but noted the recent changes that corrections officials have made, including new guidelines for care released in May. Under the previous guidance, the committee would not even consider treatment for patients with hepatitis C viral infections, sometimes called HCV, unless they were already very sick. Dr. Zhiqiang Yao, an infectious disease specialist at East Tennessee State University, testified for the prisoners that the current standard of care is to treat anyone infected with hepatitis C with the antiviral medications, regardless of how sick they are. He said waiting to provide treatment can put patients with the infectious, liver-damaging disease at greater risk of cirrhosis, cancer and death. Although the Correction Department’s new rules still prioritize the sickest patients, they do not preclude less sick patients from receiving treatment, Crenshaw wrote. He noted that Yao testified that prioritizing care for the sickest patients is understandable where there are limited resources and staffing. Other states have grappled with how to provide the expensive treatment. After a lawsuit, Michigan agreed to provide antiviral treatment to all Medicaid patients with hepatitis C beginning this month. Louisiana limited antiviral treatment for Medicaid patients and prisoners until earlier this summer. It now offers unlimited access thanks to an agreement with a drug provider where the state will pay a flat fee for unlimited medication for five years. Meanwhile, Crenshaw noted that the Tennessee Department of Correction’s prioritization guidance mirrors that of the federal Bureau of Prisons. New antiviral drugs that promise to cure most hepatitis C patients within weeks have only been available since 2011. Since then, the cost of the drugs has dropped from around $80,000 to about $13,000 for the simplest cases, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Kenneth Williams, the Correction Department’s chief medical officer, testified at trial that he recently requested and received enough funding to treat about 1,800 inmates, or more than a third of Tennessee inmates currently known to be infected with hepatitis C. “Time will tell whether TDOC implements the 2019 HCV Guidance in the dedicated manner it has represented and continues to accelerate approval of inmates for treatment,” Crenshaw wrote. He concluded it would behoove the department to do so “lest treatment that is not grossly inadequate today be subject to that renewed claim in the future.”


Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film "The Man Without a Face.

Explanation: Note: This may well help in the understanding of why Mel Gibson’s love for the Lord is why he has made such a powerful movie “The Passion” that’s coming out February 25th to demonstrate Jesus love and sacrifice for us.

An item that began circulating online in the latter half of the year 2000 was neither an accurate description of actor/director Mel Gibson’s early life nor a transcription of a radio piece by commentator Paul Harvey. Suffice it to say that someone took the framework of Mel Gibson’s biography and built upon it a touching but completely fictitious house of glurge:  Here is a true story by Paul Harvey. Pass it to anyone who you think would find it interesting and inspiring. You will be surprised who this young man turned out to be. (Do not look at the bottom if this letter until you have read it fully.) Years ago a hardworking man took his family from New York State to Australia to take advantage of a work opportunity there. Part of this man’s family was handsome young son who had aspirations of joining the circus as a trapeze artist or an actor. This young fellow, biding his time until a circus job or even one as a stagehand came along, worked at the local shipyards which bordered on the worst section of town. Walking home from work one evening this young man was attacked by five thugs who wanted to rob him. Instead of just giving up his money the young fellow resisted. However they bested him easily and proceeded to beat him to a pulp. They mashed his face with their boots, and kicked and beat his body brutally with clubs, leaving him for dead. When the police happened to find him lying in the road they assumed he was dead and called for the Morgue Wagon. On the way to the morgue a policeman heard him gasp for air, and they immediately took him to the emergency unit at the hospital. When he was placed on a gurney a nurse remarked to her horror, that his young man no longer had a face. Each eye socket was smashed, his skull, legs, and arms fractured, his nose literally hanging from his face, all is teeth were gone, and his jaw was almost completely torn from his skull. Although his life was spared he spent over year in the hospital. When he finally left his body may have healed but his face was disgusting to look at. He was no longer the handsome youth that everyone admired. When the young man started to look for work again he was turned down by everyone just on account of the way he looked. One potential employer suggested to him that he join the freak show at the circus as The Man Who Had No Face. And he did this for a while. He was still rejected by everyone and no one wanted to be seen in his company. He had thoughts of suicide. This went on for five years. One day he passed a church and sought some solace there. Entering the church he encountered a priest who had saw him sobbing while kneeling in a pew. The priest took pity on him and took him to the rectory where they talked at length. The priest was impressed with him to such a degree that he said that he would do everything possible for him that could be done to restore his dignity and life, if the young man would promise to be the best Catholic he could be, and trust in God’s mercy to free him from his torturous life. The young man went to Mass and communion every day, and after thanking God for saving his life, asked God to only give him peace of mind and the grace to be the best man he could ever be in His eyes. The priest, through his personal contacts was able to secure the services of the best plastic surgeon in Australia. They would be no cost to the young man, as the doctor was the priest’s best friend. The doctor too was so impressed by the young man, whose outlook now on life, even though he had experienced the worse was filled with good humor and love. The surgery was a miraculous success. All the best dental work was also done for him. The young man became everything he promised God he would be. He was also blessed with a wonderful, beautiful wife, and many children, and success in an industry which would have been the furthest thing from his mind as a career if not for the goodness of God and the love of the people who cared for him. This he acknowledges publicly. The young man . . . Mel Gibson. His life was the inspiration for his production of the movie “The Man Without A Face.” He is to be admired by all of us as a God fearing man, a political conservative, and an example to all as a true man of courage. Mel Gibson’s father did move his family from New York to Sydney, Australia, when Mel was 12, but the similarities between this piece and Mel’s real life end there. Young Mel wasn’t dreaming of “joining the circus as a trapeze artist”; he was a Catholic high school student mulling over the possibilities of becoming a chef or a journalist and ended up enrolling in the University of New South Wales’ National Institute of Dramatic Art. Young Mel had a role in the low-budget film Summer City while still a student and then appeared in a number of productions with the State Theatre Company of South Australia before the lucky break that catapulted him to stardom: being chosen for the lead role in George Miller’s action film Mad Max. A little bit of truth may have sneaked into the story quoted above at this point. The night before his Mad Max audition, Gibson reportedly came in a poor second in a barroom brawl, ending up with a face “like a busted grapefruit.” He then had to audition for the Mad Max role with a bruised, swollen, discolored, and freshly stitched face — an appearance that, legend has it, helped win over producers who wanted someone weathered and rough-looking to take the part. The beating Gibson received did not, however, leave him with “smashed eye sockets,” fracture his “skull, legs, and arms,” result in the loss of “all his teeth” or a nose that was “hanging from his face” or a “jaw almost completely torn from his skull.” He didn’t spend “over a year in the hospital,” nor did five years pass with Mel in agony before “plastic surgery restored his looks.” His face got smashed up a bit, he required a few stitches to close some open cuts, and a few weeks later he was good as new. (However, some Hollywood pundits maintain that even the milder “barroom brawl” version was a bit of fiction invented by a publicist.) Mel Gibson did direct and star in The Man Without a Face, a 1993 film about a man who became a recluse after his features were disfigured in an automobile accident, but the movie was based upon a novel by Isabelle Holland, not Mel Gibson’s life. Many of our readers have sworn to us they heard Paul Harvey recite this piece, exactly as reproduced above, on one of his broadcasts. Paul Harvey did offer a “Rest of the Story” segment about Mel Gibson on 24 June 2000, and it was a typically (for Paul Harvey) exaggerated version of the truth, but it didn’t come close to the glurge reproduced here. What Harvey reported, verbatim, was this:  In all his years as a cop, Ollie Gerrick had never seen a beating case like the one before him. The boy’s face was smashed in. His partner say he wouldn’t survive. The ambulance arrived and took him to the hospital and when he came to, the doctors told him the rest of the story. He was in the hospital and then he remembered that night in the bar. It was late the next night that the young man remembered he had an important appointment. He realized it was tomorrow. He struggled to get out of bed but the nurse restrained him. The next morning, he got out of bed and looked in the mirror and he didn’t recognize himself. Nevertheless, he went on to the job interview. Despite the bar fight in October of 1977. He showed up for a role in a movie and the producers were looking for someone unknown who was really tough looking. He got the role they were casting for. They were looking for someone to play the rugged role of Mad Max and this Australian with the beaten up face went on to become one of our best modern-day actors. We know him as Mel Gibson, and now you know the rest of the story. And now you know … the real story. The February 2004 release of the film The Passion of the Christ, financed and directed by Mel Gibson, started this legend circulating anew, often with tacked-on codas such as the following:


San Francisco Bay Area Medicare kickbacks scheme charged.

Explanation: Thirty people have been charged with a multimillion-dollar scheme that allegedly bribed doctors and others to steer Medicare patients to the largest home health care provider in the San Francisco Bay Area, federal prosecutors announced Thursday.

San Francisco, Louis Vuitton, Health, General News, Medicare, California, San Francisco Bay

The criminal complaints name Amity Home Health Care and its CEO along with a related company, hospice service provider Advent Care Inc., along with dozens of doctors, nurses, marketers and a social worker. Amity provided $8 million worth of kickbacks for the referrals, ranging from Golden State Warriors tickets, Las Vegas trips and Louis Vuitton handbags to “literal envelopes of cash,” David Anderson, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, said at a news conference. The Medicare patients brought in $115 million in funds to Amity and Advent, authorities said. The complaints said law enforcement officers recorded each defendant offering, approving or accepting illegal payments for patient referrals. “These doctors and health care professionals sold patients like commodities, placing their own financial gains over the well-being of their patients and betraying the basic principles of their profession,” Craig Fair, the FBI’s deputy special agent in charge for San Francisco, said in a news release. However, there’s no evidence that the patients received poor care, Anderson said. Those charged include Ridhima “Amanda” Singh, Amity’s chief executive officer. A telephone message seeking comment was left with Amity. Singh’s lawyer, Chuck Kreindler, declined to comment to the San Jose Mercury News outside court. A woman who answered a call to Advent said she had no comment and would not identify herself. If convicted of taking part in illegal kickbacks, the defendants could each face up to 10 years in federal prison and a $100,000 fine.


Michael Bloomberg Says of President Donald Trump’s actions on the coronavirus: “No. 1, he fired the pandemic team two years ago. No. 2, he's been defunding the Centers for Disease Control.”

Explanation: “Fired” may be a little strong, but in 2018, top national security officials handling pandemics left abruptly and were not replaced by the Trump administration. As for funding, there’s no question that the Trump administration sought to cut key CDC budget categories. But thanks to Congress, that funding was restored and even increased in bills that Trump ultimately signed.

Federal Budget, Public Health, Science, Coronavirus, Michael Bloomberg,

During a CNN town hall before the South Carolina primary, Mike Bloomberg — a former New York City mayor and Democratic presidential candidate — was asked whether he had confidence in President Donald Trump to handle a potential coronavirus pandemic, officially known as the COVID-19 virus. After jokingly saying, "I feel so much better," Bloomberg told the audience, "No. 1, he fired the pandemic team two years ago. No. 2, he's been defunding the Centers for Disease Control. So, we don't have the experts in place that we need. I hope he's right that the virus doesn't come here, that nobody gets sick. That would be a wonderful outcome. But the bottom line is, we are not ready for this kind of thing." Bloomberg had a point that the Trump administration ousted some of its officials dealing with global pandemics, but "defunding" the CDC is more complicated than he let on. "Fired" may be a strong word, but there have been abrupt changes to key national security posts with responsibility for global pandemics. More recently the administration has assigned new officials to take leadership roles. In May 2018, the top White House official in charge of the U.S. response to pandemics left the administration. Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer was the senior director of global health and biodefense on the National Security Council and oversaw global health security issues, a specialty that had been bolstered under President Barack Obama. After Ziemer’s departure, the global health team was reorganized as part of an effort by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a homeland security adviser who recommended strong defenses against disease and biological warfare, was reportedly pushed out by Bolton in 2018. Neither White House official or their teams, which were responsible for coordinating the U.S. response to pandemic outbreaks across agencies, have been replaced during the past two years. In November 2019, a bipartisan group of lawmakers and experts formally recommended that health security leadership on the NSC should be restored. And on Feb. 18, 2020, a group of 27 senators sent a letter to current National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien to ask him to appoint a new global health security expert to the NSC. "The fact that they explicitly dismantled the office in the White House that was tasked with preparing for exactly this kind of a risk is hugely concerning," Jeremy Konyndyk, who ran foreign disaster assistance in the Obama administration, told the Guardian. "Both the structure and all the institutional memory is gone now." Instead, Trump has looked within his administration to fill roles for the coronavirus response. Last month, Trump appointed his Health and Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar, to chair a coronavirus task force. On Feb. 26, he announced that Vice President Mike Pence would be taking charge of the U.S. response to the coronavirus. And the following day, Pence announced he was appointing Ambassador Debbie Birx to assist the effort as "White House coronavirus response coordinator." Birx is a physician and global health expert who is currently responsible for coordinating the State Department's HIV/AIDS task force. The White House said she will be supported by NSC staff in her role. It’s not accurate to say that Trump has been "defunding" the CDC, but he has tried to make cuts in key programs. It’s just that Congress didn’t listen. The Trump administration’s initial proposals for the budgets for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases at CDC — a key player in the fight against coronavirus — have consistently been lower than what was spent the previous year. The administration proposed $61.7 million less in 2018 than 2017; $96.4 million less in 2019 than in 2018; $114.4 million less in 2020 than in 2019; and $85.3 million less in 2021 than 2020. However, Congress reshapes presidential recommendations as they see fit when they craft final spending bills. Every year since Trump has been president, lawmakers have passed bills — bills signed by Trump — that not only exceeded what Trump requested on emerging infections but also exceeded what had been spent the previous year. As the chart below shows, funding increased every year from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2020. (We have not included the 2017 proposal, since that was submitted by the Obama administration. The figures for 2020 are preliminary.) It’s important to note that Trump has asked Congress for a $2.5 billion supplemental budget to help combat the emergence of this coronavirus. House Democrats quickly said the amount was insufficient to meet current threats, and Trump said he was willing to seek more if lawmakers were willing. In addition, the Trump campaign pointed to consistent funding for certain budget sub-categories, such as CDC’s public health emergency preparedness, which helps states and localities deal with public health emergencies, including outbreaks. That program suffered funding losses that predate Trump. Bloomberg said Trump is hampered in the fight against coronavirus because "No. 1, he fired the pandemic team two years ago. No. 2, he's been defunding Centers for Disease Control." On the first point, it’s hard to pin down whether the National Security Council staffers were "fired" in 2018, but they certainly left abruptly and have not been replaced, though other leaders in the coronavirus fight have been named in recent days. On the second point — funding — there’s no question that the Trump administration sought to cut key CDC budget categories that would be involved in emerging infections like coronavirus. But Bloomberg overlooks that, thanks to Congress, that funding was restored and even increased in bills that were ultimately signed by Trump. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details.


Former President Barack Obama's administration was to blame for the shortage of protective equipment like N95 respirator masks in the early months of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Explanation: What's true: The U.S. federal stockpile of N95 protective face masks was largely depleted during the 2009 swine flu outbreak and was not restocked. What's false: However, the Obama administration was not solely responsible for the current shortage of masks. In the intervening years, the stockpile went unreplenished as the Trump administration failed to heed indications that dramatic shortages could occur.

In late March 2020, amid a widening COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump sought to blame previous administrations for the fact that frontline medical workers facing a spike in cases were reporting urgent shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE), notably N95 respirator masks that filter out particles in the air. “So, many administrations preceded me. For the most part, they did very little, in terms of what you’re talking about,” Trump stated during a March 21 press conference when asked by a reporter about protective medical gear shortages. Right-leaning media outlets followed suit, focusing the blame more narrowly on the administration of former President Barack Obama in particular. “Report: Obama Admin Depleted Stockpile of N95 Masks, Never Restored,” a Breitbart.com headline read. “Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News: Federal stockpile of N95 masks was depleted under Obama and never restocked,” Washington Examiner reported. Readers asked Snopes.com to verify the claim that the Obama administration was directly responsible for the shortage of equipment. The reports on pro-Trump websites relied on selectively culled facts from other sources to weave a somewhat misleading narrative. It’s true that both Bloomberg and Los Angeles Times, for example, reported that the national stockpile of N95 masks was largely depleted under the Obama administration during the swine flu epidemic, and that the depletion was not corrected. From the Times’ report on March 20, 2020: After the swine flu epidemic in 2009, a safety-equipment industry association and a federally sponsored task force both recommended that depleted supplies of N95 respirator masks, which filter out airborne particles, be replenished by the stockpile, which is maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That didn’t happen, according to Charles Johnson, president of the International Safety Equipment Assn. But both the Times and Bloomberg pointed out that Congress and the Trump administration bore some responsibility for the current medical equipment shortages as well. Bloomberg reported that Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar told Congress in February 2020 that the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), a reserve of emergency medical supplies, contained “30 million surgical masks and 12 million of the more protective N95 masks. He said there were an additional 5 million N95 masks that may have passed their expiration date” in the stockpile, which at that time had not yet been tapped to deal with COVID-19. But as far back as 2015, government scientists had estimated that “a severe flu outbreak infecting 20 to 30 percent of the population would require at least 1.7 billion of the N95 respirators.” The SNS didn’t have that quantity on hand, even before the swine flu broke out (in 2009 the SNS distributed 85 million N95 respirators). The Times also reported that the Trump administration, which is currently in its third year, ignored alarms raised by various government agencies early on that the U.S. was not prepared for a pandemic: As the current crisis has widened, President Trump has attempted to deflect responsibility for his administration’s poor planning, suggesting the coronavirus outbreak was inconceivable. “Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion,” the president said Thursday. The opposite is true. The [Government Accountability Office], public health experts and others issued a steady drumbeat of warnings that America would sooner or later face a widespread infectious disease outbreak or a major bioterrorism attack and was woefully unprepared.


UNC Hearing Loss Experts Lead Clinical Trials of FDA-Approved Hearing Implant

Explanation: Synchrony EAS (electric acoustic stimulation) hearing implant. Image credit: Med-El USA, the device manufacturerThis news release from the University of North Carolina purports to advise journalists and the public about clinical research from the university that helped gain recent FDA approval for an implantable hearing device designed for adults with a form of moderate to severe hearing loss. But this news release is a not-very-thinly veiled infomercial for the device’s maker, and a promotional piece for and by the head of the university department whose faculty members clearly stand to benefit from marketing it. The release is full of hyperbolic praise for the device (“The technology is remarkable and so were the results…”) and the university’s role in the clinical trials. But it is very light on quantitative data and information about costs, complications and side effects that would help readers judge the pros and cons of an invasive cochlear implant. The release offers no links or references to published, peer-reviewed data; to the manufacturer’s website; or notes on potential conflicts of interest. There is some useful information about the prevalence of hearing loss in the U.S. and about what is novel about the implant. But this releases reads more like a commercial brochure than an informative and educational summary for public awareness. Hearing loss is indeed a significant and growing problem and a threat to an aging population. In recent years, hearing loss has been tied by research to cognitive loss (as described in this 2013 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine), as well as social isolation, traffic accidents and a host of other physical, emotional and social ills. Because Medicare, Medicaid and other insurers do not cover the cost of hearing aids — which can run into the thousands of dollars for state-of-the-art devices — most adults who need them don’t have them. For the most severe, disabling forms of “sensorineural”  hearing loss, cochlear implants can be life-changing, and the device described in this release could have novelty and benefits in addressing both high and low frequency hearing problems. Significantly, most insurance, including Medicare, covers the cost of the device and implant surgery. But the benefits of the implants come with risks, including the need for general anesthesia, damage to facial nerves, infections, tinnitus, and numbness. Adjustment to the devices can take months of habilitative services — and removal rates remain high in some populations. Long-term effects, moreover, still are largely unknown. For all these reasons, news releases and stories about surgical implants should offer context about the benefits, risks, costs and alternatives.

Neither the release nor a company web site, nor a Google search turned up information about the cost of the approved device. There are almost always out-of-pocket costs associated with implants, even when insurance coverage is good. The release claims that 97 percent of participants in the clinical trial at UNC “reported a benefit” from the device within the first year and 90 percent reported overall satisfaction. It says “on average, patients performed more than twice as well on tests of speech understanding” compared to those without the implant. It is not clear if the benefit experienced by 97 percent of participants translated into clinical (real-life) significance for patients. What exactly does “satisfaction” represent in this context? The release doesn’t specify. And how big a benefit is performing “twice as well” as patients who didn’t get the device? The answer depends on what the baseline hearing losses were for each group of participants — something not discussed in the release. There are no data at all on failures, removals, infections, etc. They are not mentioned. The release has zero information about harms, actual or potential. Readers of this release never learn anything about the age, gender, socioeconomic status, educational background, or race of participants. Nothing is learned about the implant procedure, evaluation of the patients, how participants were selected, or how they were followed in after-implant care. In short, the release doesn’t offer any particulars about the clinical research protocol that the university treated “more of” than any other participating hearing center. We can assume that the study involved multiple sites but not much more. There is no mongering and to its credit, the release provides concrete statistics on the prevalence of hearing loss. But there is some evidence of “benefits mongering.” The release needed information about funding sources for the clinical trials. In addition, the release does not explain the quoted source’s relationship to the study (although it is implied that he is helping to lead it). Although the release makes some distinction between the type of hearing loss most likely to benefit from this FDA approved device; and it explains in some detail how the device is an improvement over other cochlear implants, it isn’t clear about the overlapping benefits of newer digital hearing aids and the implants for people in the “moderate” sensorineural hearing loss category. The release notes that the device received FDA approval on September 16.and that it will be available “in coming months.” The release does a good job of explaining what is different about this device compared to other cochlear implants, notably that it is combines two technologies to address both high frequency and low frequency hearing loss. But the release would have been strengthened by noting that newer “open fit”  hearing aids also try to tackle the dual hearing loss problem for many people. The release doesn’t rely heavily sensational language.


New York has the third lowest rate of gun-caused death in America.

State Sen. Brian Kavanagh claimed New York state has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country. "New York has the third-lowest rate of gun-caused death in America," Kavanagh said. Kavanagh, a Democrat who represents the Brooklyn waterfront and Lower Manhattan, has introduced legislation that would allow a judge to temporarily restrict someone’s gun rights. Family members or law enforcement officials could ask for such an order for those they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. Kavanagh said his bill would make New York state an even safer place to live. But is he right that the state already ranks third lowest in gun-caused deaths? Data on gun deaths The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks firearm mortality by state each year. The data includes suicides, homicides and accidental gun deaths. New York state reported that 4.4 of every 100,000 residents died from gun-related causes in 2016. Only Rhode Island and Massachusetts had lower rates. Massachusetts was lowest, with 3.4 gun-related deaths for every 100,000 residents. Alaska had the highest gun death rate, with 23.3 of every 100,000 people dying from gun-related causes in 2016. New York state reported 900 gun deaths in 2016, the 17th highest number in the country. Texas had the most, with 3,353 such deaths. What’s in the data? More than half of those who died from gun-related causes in New York state took their own life in 2016. The state reported 490 suicides. That said, New York had the third-lowest rate of suicidal gun deaths  -- 2.5 for every 100,000 residents. Montana had 15.5 suicide gun deaths for every 100,000 residents, the highest in the country. New York state ranked higher in gun homicides. About two out of every 100,000 people were killed by a firearm assault in New York state in 2016. Seven states had lower rates, and six other states had so few gun homicides that the CDC considered their calculated death rates unreliable. Our ruling Kavanagh said "New York has the third-lowest rate of gun-caused death in America." Government figures confirm Kavanagh’s claim. Only two other states rank lower than New York state in gun deaths. New York state also ranks third lowest in suicidal gun deaths, though the state’s rank climbs when assaults are considered alone. We rate his claim .


Rick Perry thinks "injecting 11- and 12-year-old girls with a controversial drug (the HPV vaccine), without a parent's consent, is a good idea.

Explanation: Lone Star First, funded by the Democratic Governors Association, says Rick Perry endorsed injecting girls with an HPV vaccine without parental consent

Children, Message Machine 2010, Texas, Lone Star First,

Zeroing in on Gov. Rick Perry's long tenure in public office, Lone Star First, an organization that's funded and supported by the Democratic Governors Association, unleashed an attack ad called "Cracks." It features a photo of Perry that splinters more with each charge the association levels against him. "Twenty-five years as a politician changes you," a narrator says in the ad posted on YouTube Sept. 28. "You think injecting 11- and 12-year-old girls with a controversial drug, without a parent's consent, is a good idea. You think it's right to use a government takeover of Texas homes and property so foreign companies can get rich. You spend taxpayer money on a fancy mansion while Texas faces an $18 billion deficit. On the issues, 25 years as a politician has changed Rick Perry, for the worse." We've previously touched on Perry's past advocacy of a toll-road network, his rental digs and the budget shortfall. Now we wondered about Texas girls receiving a "controversial drug" without parental consent. On Feb. 2, 2007, Perry issued an executive order that required the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules mandating that Texas girls entering sixth grade receive a vaccine against the human papillomavirus. Certain types of HPV, a sexually-transmitted virus, can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. Critics said the vaccine, Merck & Co.'s Gardasil, was too new to declare safe. Some said too that Perry's order would infringe on parental rights or give girls a false sense of security, leading them to be sexually active too young. Lawmakers blocked the plans, and earlier this year, Allison Castle, Perry's press secretary, told us that the governor's office considers the mandate "null and void." She said Perry "will not pursue it in the future." At the time, we rated Perry's statement that his executive order didn't make the vaccine mandatory. But did Perry's move mean children would receive shots without parental consent? Brannon Jordan, a spokesman at the Democratic Governors Association, pointed us to three news articles to back up the statement. While the articles quoted parents expressing anger at Perry for requiring something they considered none of his business, none of the clips mention parental consent. The mandate, which was scheduled to go into effect for the 2008-09 school year, included an opt-out "in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care." It ordered the Department of State Health Services to allow parents dissenting for philosophical or religious reasons to request a conscientious objection affidavit form. That form enables parents to enroll their children in public school even if they lack state-required immunizations. It's automatically granted as long as parents provide all required information. Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman at the Health and Human Services Commission, told us that "the child would only get the vaccination if the parent took the child to get it." Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman at the Department of State Health Services, said: "Vaccines cannot be given to children without consent of a parent or a legal guardian." Texas law lists two primary people who can consent the immunization of a child — the guardian and a person authorized under the law of another state or a court — and secondary people if the former are unavailable, including a grandparent, stepparent, or aunt. Janet Realini, a physician and president of Healthy Futures of Texas, a San Antonio-based nonprofit striving to reduce teen and unplanned pregnancies, told us that the mandate would have been no different than state requirements for numerous immunizations that Texas requires children need to attend public school, such as the polio vaccine, measles and hepatitis B. When we checked back with the DGA, spokeswoman Emily Bittner told us that she wasn't familiar with the ad. We asked to speak with someone who was, but no one had gotten back to us as we were wrapping up our research. Where does that leave us? Perry's executive order would have required Texas girls to receive a vaccine against HPV before entering sixth grade. The order included an opt-out for parents who objected to the vaccine. But there's no evidence — not a scintilla of proof — that shots would have been given without parental consent, and saying so preys on the fears of parents who objected to Perry requiring the vaccine. Parents and guardians are gatekeepers for children getting the vaccinations required for students to go to Texas schools. Perry's failed mandate would not have changed that, and the ad sounds like Perry endorsed forcing families against their will to vaccinate their children with a scary drug. We rate Lone Star First's statement .


New Merck osteoporosis drug boosts bone density

Explanation: This story, about results from a Phase II trial of Merck’s new osteoporosis drug odanacatib, should not have been published in a mainstream publication. Phase II results are not necessarily predictive of Phase III results or of FDA approval. Readers looking for new treatments for osteoporosis are likely to assume incorrectly that safety, efficacy and availability are assured. The reporter could have tempered the story by interviewing independent experts with no stake in the drug being studied, who likely would have pointed this out. Further, by talking to an independent clinician, the reporter could have learned about existing treatments for osteoporosis and how this one could–possibly, and at some point in the future–compare. Supplements, diet and exercise have been shown to slow or even halt osteoporosis for some patients. So have some drugs currently on the market. The story also fails to clarify a point that would be valuable to consumers: That risk of fracture, not bone mass density, is the most meaningful outcome for osteoporosis drugs. Because this trial did not look at that outcome, the drug’s practical clinical value remains untested. The report should have plainly stated this caveat. And finally, it is well known that osteoporosis is a "big market opportunity" in the pharma trade. In other words, new drugs in this field, if well-publicized and well-marketed, can be huge revenue and profit drivers for the company. By failing to mention price, and the very strong financial motivation for a company to be first-to-market with a novel drug in this category, the reporter misses an opportunity to help educate readers about a source of rising healthcare costs–and to invite a skeptical view of news about unpublished Phase II results about this drug. Which is why we think this story should not have been published in a newspaper.

The report is silent on the drug’s possible costs. Our general view on HealthNewsReview.org is that if it’s not too early to project benefits, it’s not too early to discuss costs. This is especially appropriate given the high costs of current drug treatments for osteoporosis and the recent patent expiration of Merck’s blockbuster drug in this category. The story reports details about the findings, but fails to put them in context. How do results compare to existing drugs in terms of bone mass density improvements? This study does not appear to take into account the endpoint of fracture risk. If that’s so, the report should have said so. The story properly summarizes the side effects: Over one-third of the women in both placebo and treatment groups had nausea, headache, muscle spasms and rash, about 8 percent serious enough to lead them to stop taking the drug. The story is built around unpublished results of a phase II trial conducted by the company. The story should have explictly said the results have not been peer-reviewed or published, and that Phase III trials often show different results. The story does not falsely dramatize or expand the definition of osteoporosis. The story cites only Merck’s data and researcher. No independent sources are consulted. The story fails to mention the range of drugs and treatment approaches to osteoporosis, and how their results compare to those seen in this Phase II trial. The story indicates the osteoporosis drug odanacatib is still in trials and not yet on the market. It explains that a larger Phase III trial is being conducted, and it does not forecast an availability date. The story explains that the drug under development works by a mechanism that’s different from the current osteoporosis meds. The story does not draw directly from the Merck press release that announces the results.


A list of statistics shows the leading causes of death in the United States through the first half of 2016.

Explanation: None of the entries on the list save for the last involves intentional killing, while nearly every other entry on the list other than the last references some form of medical malady. It’s an inescapable fact that everyone who manages to avoid being killed (intentionally or otherwise) by someone or something else first will eventually die of some sort of medical condition.

Politics Guns, abortion, causes of death, gun deaths

A graphic purportedly showing the leading causes of death in the United States during the first half of 2016 was widely circulated on Facebook in June 2016, its most eye-catching feature being that the number one entry was abortion while the lowest-ranked entry was murder by firearm:   The list was problematic in several aspects, however. First of all, the displayed figures for 2016 are simply projections based on past trends, as up-to-date information of this nature simply isn’t available. The most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concerning causes of death tallies mortality data from 2014. Second, although this list (put together by the web site Romans322.com) relies heavily upon mortality data compiled by the CDC, that organization does not record abortion as a cause of death. The leading causes of death in the United States in 2014, according to CDC, were heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease: During that same year the FBI recorded 8,124 murders by firearms in the United States, a statistic that would indeed rank below all other entries on this list. The usefulness of this information to make a point about gun issues is somewhat questionable, however.


Chicago coyote captured after 2 suspected attacks reported.

Explanation: Authorities on the hunt for coyotes in downtown Chicago after two reported attacks, including one where passersby said they had to pull a wild canine off of a 6-year-old boy who was bitten in the head, captured one animal Thursday night on the city’s North Side.

Wildlife, Animals, Chicago, Coyotes, General News, Science, U.S. News

The reported attacks come amid an increase in sightings of coyotes in the nation’s third-largest city, including one in the city’s Lincoln Park neighborhood that briefly prompted the lockdown of two schools on Thursday. Neither the boy nor a man who showed up at a hospital with what he said was a coyote bite suffered life-threatening injuries. Officials were confident the animal that attacked the boy was a coyote, based on witness interviews, Kelley Gandurski, executive director of the Chicago Animal Care and Control, told reporters. If true, it would mark the first time in the state that a coyote has attacked a human, according to a wildlife biologist with the Urban Coyote Research Project. “The last several times that this occurred, people reported the same thing, that they were bitten by a coyote, and days and weeks later it turned out through DNA analysis of the victim’s clothing it was, in fact, dogs and not coyotes,” said Chris  Anchor, who also works for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, where Chicago is located. The 5-year-old was attacked Wednesday while outside the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum in Lincoln Park. Gandurski said the animal may have been surprised by the boy as the child ran along a path. Two DePaul University track team members were running nearby when the coyote attacked the boy and they helped kick the animal away, according to WBBM-TV. “We just acted. Went over there as fast as we could. Knew something was wrong,” DePaul sophomore Ryan Taylor told the television station. “There was an open CTA bus there. I told him to get on the bus in case the coyote tries to come back for something else.” DePaul sophomore Dominic Bruce added: “I was just trying to make him happy. I told him you’ll have quite the story for story time when you go back to school. Later Wednesday, a man walked into the emergency room at Northwestern Memorial Hospital with a scratch on his behind, police said. He told police a coyote bit him, but Gandurski could not confirm his account because her staff had not yet interviewed him. The animal captured on the city’s North Side was chased by police and animal control officials over several city blocks and finally captured near an intersection just after 10 p.m. Thursday, according to WMAQ-TV. Video showed the animal being loaded into an Animal Care and Control van after it was apparently shot with a tranquilizer: It was not immediately clear if the animal is connected to either of the reported attacks. While coyotes don’t usually bite humans, there have been confirmed minor attacks in other U.S. cities, Stan Gehrt, a wildlife ecology professor at Ohio State University who helped launch the Urban Coyote Research Project with Anchor in 2000. Gandurski said reports of coyote sightings in the city have remained fairly consistent in recent years, but the recent increase may be because of cold weather and a lack of food. Anchor, who monitors the movements of hundreds of coyotes in the region who have been fitted with electronic collars, said it doesn’t mean more of the animals are in Chicago. Instead, said Anchor, coyotes may have changed their behavior in ways that make them more visible. “They are very smart and when they realize there is nothing to fear from humans because they are not trapped, they begin to ignore humans,” he said. Coyotes are adaptable. In Chicago, where the animals have been living for decades after following train tracks and other routes in search of food, they don’t just make their dens in parks and nature preserves, but in nooks and crannies around the city, he said. They will eat “whatever is available,” from small mammals and dead birds to fruit and insects, Anchor added. Chicago Animal Care and Control urged residents to not leave pets unattended outside and to secure their garbage. Gandurski said city and county animal control workers, as well as police and other agencies are taking part in the search for the coyote that attacked the boy. If captured, the animal will likely be relocated outside the city, she said. Dr. Tom Wake, the interim administrator of the Cook County Animal and Rabies Control, said the animal would first be tested for rabies, though he noted it’s unlikely it would have that disease. “There has not been a case of rabies in any other animal except bats since 1954 in Cook County,” he said. __ This story has been corrected to reflect that the boy was 6 years old, not 5, and to correct all references to Chris Anchor’s last name to Anchor instead of Archer.


US choir outbreak called ‘superspreader event’ in report.

Explanation: Disease trackers are calling a choir practice in Washington state a superspreader event that illustrates how easily the coronavirus can pass from person to person.

AP Top News, Understanding the Outbreak, Health, General News, Washington, Virus Outbreak, Public health, U.S. News

The act of singing itself may have spread the virus in the air and onto surfaces, according to a report from Skagit County Public Health published Tuesday. “One individual present felt ill, not knowing what they had, and ended up infecting 52 other people,” said lead author Lea Hamner, calling the outbreak a tragedy. Two choir members died of COVID-19 after attending the March 10 practice of the Skagit Valley Chorale. The rehearsal was held nearly two weeks before the state’s stay-at-home order. Other superspreader events are known: A Chicago cluster of 16 cases, including three deaths, stemmed from a funeral and a birthday party. South Korea is investigating an outbreak linked to nightclubs reopening earlier this month. The singers sat 6 to 10 inches apart in different configurations during the 2 1/2 hour rehearsal at a church in Mount Vernon, Washington, about 60 miles north of Seattle, according to the report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Choir members had no physical contact, although some snacked on cookies and oranges or helped stack chairs, they told investigators. The virus could have spread when exhaled droplets landed on those items. Another theory? A fine mist of virus particles emitted during singing could have contributed, the report suggests. Some people emit more particles than others and such emissions can happen with loud talking or, possibly, singing. The virus is thought to primarily spread through droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. The singers felt their first symptoms — cough, fever, muscle pain or headaches — one to 12 days after the practice. The sick singers’ average age was 69 and most were women, nearly matching the demographics of choir practice attendees. Understanding how the coronavirus spreads is important for preventing and tracking the disease it causes. The CDC recommends avoiding large groups, wearing cloth masks in public and staying at least 6 feet apart from others. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support  from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


A photograph shows a Japanese Giant Emperor Moth.

Explanation: Toys and figurines are confused for real animals at surprising rate.

In April 2019, an image supposedly showing a Japanese Giant Emperor Moth was passed around social media:  Although this photograph has often been presented as if it documented a large species of moth, it actually depicts a figurine made from embroidered fabric by artist Yumi Okita. Okita describes her artwork as “a series of botanical and insect fiber sculptures. Hand painted cotton fabric that is embroidered with layers of threads creates texture and color. I try to capture the realism of nature then manipulated into the world of imagination.” Okita stated this particular piece to be “6 inches tall and 12 inches wide.” The wings are made from hand-painted fabric embroidered with a “layer of thread creating texture and depth and color.” A number of similar “fabric sculptures” can be seen on Okita’s Etsy page:  Although this viral image does not show a Japanese Giant Emperor Moth, it was inspired by a genuine species of moth called the Hemileuca eglanterina, or sheep moth. Okita noted that while she tries to capture the realism of nature, she adds a bit of imagination into her pieces. Here’s a glimpse of an actual sheep moth:  As far as we can tell no species known as the “Japanese Giant Emperor Moth” exists, although the Japanese giant silkworm moth and the Japanese emperor butterfly do. Here’s a look at the silkworm (left) and the butterfly (right):