Singapore seizes ivory from nearly 300 elephants in record haul.

Explanation: Singapore said on Tuesday it had seized 8.8 tonnes of elephant ivory, a record haul by authorities in the city-state, which  conservation groups say is a transit point for the illegal wildlife trade.

The elephant ivory, estimated to be worth $12.9 million, came from nearly 300 African elephants, and was heading to Vietnam through Singapore from Democratic Republic of the Congo. The haul also contained the third major seizure of pangolin scales in Singapore this year. The pangolin, a scaly anteater, is one of the most trafficked mammals in the world. Its meat is considered a delicacy in Vietnam and China, and the scales are used in traditional Chinese medicine, though the benefits are disputed by medical scientists. “The seized pangolin scales and elephant ivory will be destroyed to prevent them from re-entering the market,” the Singapore Customs, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the National Parks Board said, adding that the July 21 seizure came after a tip-off from China’s customs department. The ivory haul falls just short of 9.1 tonnes seizure in Vietnam in March, which non-government organization Environmental Investigation Agency said was thought to be the largest ever globally. There has been a flurry of seizures, including of rhino horns, in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Vietnam in recent months. “Singapore has always been inadvertently implicated in the global ivory trade for two reasons: its global connectivity, as well as the presence of a small domestic market where pre-1990s ivory can be legally sold,” said Kim Stengert, chief communications officer for WWF Singapore. “The consistency of these large-scale seizures is strong evidence of organized crime behind illegal wildlife trade coming through or into Singapore.”  Singapore authorities said the latest seizure also contained 11.9 tonnes of pangolin scales, worth about $35.7 million and equivalent to close to 2,000 pangolins. Singapore has seized a total of 37.5 tonnes of pangolin scales since April, including one raid which was the biggest of its kind worldwide in five years. The city-state is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and says it is committed to the global effort to curb the illegal wildlife trade.


The "Wall Street Journal" (or another large news outlet) has published documents leaked from Walter Reed Medical Center which show President Donald Trump's "true" weight and prove a conspiracy to mislead the public.

Explanation: Not only is there no evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the president’s “true” weight and mislead the American public, but the “Girther” theory is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how the human body can vary from person to person.

Politics, donald trump, girther, girther movement

In January 2018, the White House published the results of a routine medical examination performed on President Donald Trump by his then physician, Navy Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Some observers greeted the details of the “periodic physical exam” with skepticism, expressing doubt about Trump’s weight, in particular, which Jackson listed as being 239 pounds, and his height, which he listed as 6’3″. This skepticism, which often comes from individuals who are otherwise critical of the president and his policies, and part of the loosely-defined anti-Trump “Resistance,” has coalesced online into a self-described “Girther” movement, a reference to the “Birther” conspiracy theory which surrounded former president Barack Obama and which was championed by Trump himself. In late April, Jackson was embroiled in controversy after reports emerged of an alleged pattern of drinking to excess while at work, overprescribing medication, and harassing colleagues. As a result of these allegations, Jackson withdrew from consideration for Veterans Affairs Secretary, a position for which Trump had nominated him. Around the same time, the “Girther” movement crystalized into a full-blown conspiracy theory, claiming corrupt practices by the president in nominating Jackson for a cabinet position in return for the favor of — according to the theory — lying about his vital statistics. In the midst of all this innuendo and outright allegation, a viral meme emerged which appeared to some to be the smoking gun. Although the exact wording has varied, the meme typically reads as follows: BREAKING NEWS from [the Wall Street Journal], leaked documents from Walter Reed Hospital shows [sic] [the President of the United States] weight is 289 lbs, [blood pressure] is 154/91, cholesterol is 237. Not quite the healthy person we were told. At 71, Trump could drop dead any time. BREAKING NEWS from WSJ, leaked documents from Walter Reed Hospital shows @POTUS weight is 289 lbs, BP is 154/91, cholesterol is 237. Not quite the healthy person we were told. At 71, #Trump could drop dead any time. pic.twitter.com/rbyAUyVsXi — Tomthunkit™ (@TomthunkitsMind) May 13, 2018  In reality, the Wall Street Journal has not published any leaked documents from Walter Reed regarding Trump’s physical condition. Presidents of the United States are under no legal obligation to make their private health records public, but occupants of the White House (as well as candidates) typically agree to do so as a matter of convention. For someone who has custody over a sitting president’s medical records to disclose those records without the consent of the president would most likely be a serious violation of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a 1996 law signed by then-president Bill Clinton. HIPAA states: A person who knowingly and in violation of this part — (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person shall… …(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than one year, or both; (2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and (3) if the offense is committed with intend to sell, transfer or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone has done this with Trump’s private medical records, nor that the president’s physical condition was not accurately described in Jackson’s January 2018 examination report. The Wall Street Journal has certainly not published anything resembling a “leak” of Trump’s “true” physical examination. Those who attempt to attack the credibility of Trump’s officially-recorded weight by comparing photographs of the president with elite athletes are basing their skepticism on false assumptions about the relationship between height, weight and body fat. Body shapes and types vary from person to person, based on several factors, and not everyone who weighs 239 pounds and is 6’3″ has a muscular build, or is required to have one in order to meet that weight at that height. Dr. Martin Binks is an associate professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University and an expert in obesity and metabolism. While he did not specifically address the case of President Donald Trump, Binks explained the science to us: Observations of weight status made based on a fully clothed individual’s appearance are inappropriate…”Appearance”, when it comes to body composition and health risk, is basically useless (as is weight). Two people of equal height and weight may have vastly different body composition based on relative differences in body fat, bone density, muscle and water retention. Weight by itself is not a “meaningful gauge” of a person’s health, Binks added, and sometimes fat deposits that are not visible to the casual observer can be more strongly associated with health risks than are visible ones: Visceral fat deposits — those for example surrounding and within organs, typically beneath the muscle — are associated with greater health risk. Yet someone may appear to have considerable visible body fat (subcutaneous) immediately beneath the skin, which is associated less strongly with health risk.


Steve McQueen Says 21 million people "still suffer slavery today.

Criminal Justice, Labor, Foreign Policy, Workers, PunditFact, Steve McQueen,

The 86th Academy Awards featured the expected red-carpet pageantry, a few surprise winners, a "selfie" that went viral and a mid-show pizza party, courtesy of host Ellen Degeneres. But it wasn’t until the end of the three-and-a-half hour affair that viewers finally learned this year’s pick for best picture. The award went to 12 Years a Slave, the powerful true story of a black man kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Deep South during the mid-1800s. In accepting the award, director Steve McQueen delivered an emotional tribute. "Everyone deserves not just to survive, but to live. This is the most important legacy of Solomon Northup," McQueen said. "I dedicate this award to all the people who have endured slavery. And the 21 million people who still suffer slavery today." Because we’re PunditFact, we can’t even watch the Oscars without our ears perking up at such a statistic, especially when millions of people potentially heard it, too. So we decided to put McQueen’s claim on the Truth-O-Meter. Modern slavery is often referred to today as "forced labor" or sometimes "trafficking in persons." It’s not as easily defined as the slave trade of the antebellum American South, nor is it simple to identify victims. The United States Trafficking Victims Protection Act defines trafficking in persons two ways. There is sex trafficking "in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age." Then there’s a more general category: "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery." There are many different examples of modern slavery worldwide. The International Labor Organization, a United Nations agency, looks for 11 indicators to identify forced labor: Abuse of vulnerability Deception Restriction of movement Isolation Physical and sexual violence Intimidation and threats Retention of identity documents Withholding of wages Debt bondage Abusive working and living conditions Excessive overtime. Estimates on modern slavery vary because victims are difficult to identify and do not often come forward. The United Nation’s International Labor Organization believes the best way to get statistics on slavery is through national surveys, but so far "only a handful of countries have undertaken special surveys on this topic." As a result "the practice is extremely difficult to research and quantify as it is most often hidden and out-of-sight of law enforcement." Because of this, only 46,570 victims were formally documented by law enforcement agencies internationally in 2012, according to the U.S. State Department’s 2013 Trafficking in Persons Report. Still, overall estimates exist. The International Labor Organization estimated in June 2012 that 20.9 million individuals were in forced labor. This included 15.4 million adults and 5.5 million children. About 55 percent are women or girls. By far, the most common purveyor of forced labor is in Asia, where 11.7 million are in slave-like conditions. Africa is second at 3.7 million. Labor exploitation is most common worldwide with 14.2 million forced laborers, while 4.5 million are exploited for sex. State-enforced labor entraps 2.2 million, the group estimated. The organization has changed how it calculates the figure. As recently as 2005, the estimate for forced laborers was much smaller, at 12 million people, so identifying trends is not possible using their data. Other organizations, however, have estimated that the figure is much higher. Luis CdeBaca, the Ambassador-at-Large in the Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, testified to Congress in 2013 that there were "up to 27 million people living in slavery." A State Department spokesman told us that language was agreed to after consulting with industry experts. The Walk Free Foundation, an international organization committed to ending modern slavery, estimates the figure at between 28.3 million and 31.3 million in its Global Slavery Index. We reached out to McQueen’s representation to see if they could provide a source for his claim. If we hear back, we’ll update the post. Our ruling In his acceptance speech, McQueen said he dedicated his Oscar to the "21 million people who still suffer slavery today." That figure is based on a 2012 estimate from the International Labor Organization, a United Nations agency. Estimates vary across organizations, and a true headcount is nearly impossible to predict with any certainty. Still, McQueen cited the estimate of the international community’s most reliable source. We rate his statement .


Tom Barrett Says "Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research

Explanation: Democratic governor candidate Tom Barrett says Scott Walker would ban stem cell research

Message Machine 2010, Wisconsin, Tom Barrett,

Stem cells hold the potential to treat, and even cure, some of our most deadly and debilitating illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s and diabetes. To make the cells do their magic, research is needed — and the University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of that work. But for many people, there is a tension between conducting such research and protecting the sanctity of human life. The dilemma confronts not only scientists, but politicians, who are able to set government funding priorities and even place limits on the work scientists do. As in 2006, stem cell research has become an issue in the race for governor. Just as outgoing Gov, Jim Doyle did four years ago, Democratic nominee Tom Barrett is running a TV ad that paints his Republican opponent — Scott Walker — as extreme on the issue. The ad features a mother talking to the camera about her son, who has juvenile diabetes. She describes how stem cell research "gives our family hope, hope for a cure," and she continues with a blunt declaration:  "Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research in Wisconsin. That’s right, ban it." It is the mother making the statement. But as the candidate, Barrett is responsible for the content of the ad. Indeed, as the mother speaks, the words "Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research" appear on the screen. Before we can evaluate the accuracy of Barrett’s claim, we need a brief explanation of stem cells and the current state of science. Here are some key points from a primer by the National Institutes of Health:  Stem cells are important for two reasons: As a generic type of cell, stem cells can renew themselves through cell division. Moreover, they can be induced to become specific tissue or organ cells that have special functions. That gives stem cells their potential to treat, and someday even cure, a number of diseases. Scientists work with two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem cells are derived from an embryo, which science defines as the "developing organism from the time of fertilization until the end of the eighth week of gestation, when it is called a fetus." Adult stem cells, in contrast, come not from a developing organism but from the body. Embryonic stem cells have a crucial advantage: With regard to treating diseases, embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. The embryonic-adult distinction is critical, though it is not mentioned in the TV ad. The mother in the ad is Heidi Fallone. She and her husband, Edward, are two of the six members of the board of directors of Wisconsin Stem Cell Now, a group that advocates specifically for embryonic stem cell research. Heidi Fallone’s connection to the group is not mentioned in the ad. She is presented as an average mother, with her message packing an emotional wallop as strong as the words: Walker would ban stem cell research. In truth, Walker’s comments on the topic have expressed support for stem cell research generally — but not if it involves embryos. It is a line that many candidates have drawn, including Mark Green, who was the subject of Doyle’s attack in 2006. In his ad, Doyle used a Verona mother, pictured with her young daughter, who has diabetes. The mother said Green would "outlaw stem cell research." In the 2010 campaign, Walker and his campaign staff have issued various statements, including two in August, that spell out his position. In one, a day after a U.S. district judge shut down federal funding of all research involving embryonic stem cells, a Walker aide said, "We can realize the potential of stem cell research without destroying human embryos or resorting to human cloning. We can both protect the earliest stages of life and find cures." In another statement, also in the wake of the judge’s ruling, Walker himself said that "science has shown us repeatedly that you can have successful stem cell research without destroying a human embryo." As an alternative to embryonic stem cell research, researchers have been developing techniques to reprogram adult cells back to the embryonic state. But recent studies have revealed problems. The reprogrammed cells appear to retain a memory of their previous role — as skin, for example — and differ in subtle ways from embryonic stem cells. In response to questions, the Barrett campaign has defended its TV ad. Campaign spokesman Phil Walzak told the Associated Press: "Embryonic stem cell research is stem cell research, Walker wants to ban it — he wants to ban stem cell research." The statement, though, shifts the debate. No one disputes that Walker opposes embryonic stem cell research. As additional support, Walzak provided PolitiFact Wisconsin two newspaper articles and a survey Walker completed for the group Pro-Life Wisconsin. But the material, like other items cited,  showed only that Walker opposes embryonic stem cell research, not that he wants to ban all stem cell research. In an interview, Walzak said the Barrett ad is accurate because it is widely known that only embryonic stem cell research — not adult stem cell research — is being debated in terms of a research ban. However, since the ad began running, Barrett has altered his message. An e-mail sent by Barrett’s campaign to supporters, signed by Fallone, says Walker would ban "critical" stem cell research. It goes on to criticize Walker’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research. If anything, that underlines how inaccurate the TV ad’s language is. So, where does that leave us? Democrat Tom Barrett is running a TV ad claiming his opponent for governor, Republican Scott Walker, "would ban stem cell research in Wisconsin." In truth, Walker has repeatedly said he supports research involving adult stem cells, but opposes research involving embryonic stem cells. That is a critical distinction in the world of science — and of politics. Barrett’s ad ignores it, presenting Walker as so extreme on the matter that he is "against hope." We rate Barrett’s claim .


Explanation: The story presents almost no information from the research study. We just know it was about MRIs in males with autism and that the researchers found something abnormal. We don’t know what the abnormal findings were, except they were related to how the hemispheres communicate. We don’t know whether the findings fit with a theory about the biology of autism or whether this was simply a fishing expedition. We don’t know how many of the 80 patients had the abnormality, if the MRI required special equipment or software, and if these were findings that any radiologist could detect. That’s simply too many gaps to make the story reliable. Study authors’ comments came from a news release. To its credit, the story did include cautious comments from one observer at the end. The challenge for this story is they are reporting on a basic science study, just one that happens to use MRI rather than bench techniques and one that was published in a specialized, technical journal. Autism is one of the most polarizing subjects in health, and the press can bear a big part of the blame. Reporting on autism tends to rely heavily on celebrity spokespeople, anecdotal profiles and advocacy organizations. It also has relied too much on science that has been improved upon or even discredited. That’s why it is even more important for reporters covering new research in autism to bring a very critical eye to the topic and to make good use of independent experts who can separate the emotions that understandably run high around the disorder from the science behind the research.

It takes until the very end of the story for there to be a comment on costs. An autism activist mentions,"So if there’s no targeted treatment to follow up on the results of this kind of scan, then it’s just another expensive test for parents who are already barraged with so many tests at diagnosis," she said. "And in that case, I see this as just a waste of money." We don’t know enough about the benefits or the harms so it’s hard to say if it’s a waste of money. The cost information about MRIs would not have been hard to find. The benefits are not quantified. The implication here is that these physical defecits are only found in patients with autism and are never found in patients with "normal" brains or with any other disorders. This, of course, is difficult to conclude based on a study of 80 patients. The story does something worse than failing to quantify the potential harms of MRIs. It allows an autism activist to say, "I’m always glad to see there’s more autism research underway, and there’s certainly no risk to having an MRI." No risk? At the very least there is the potential for MRIs to lead to unnecessary procedures. A recent study showed, for example, that there was a direct correlation between the availability of MRIs in an area and the number of back surgeries. The study’s authors concluded, "if increased MRI availability is associated with increased early use of low back MRI as well as with subsequent use of low back surgery, both of which have questionable clinical benefit, then widespread MRI diffusion may put patients at risk of a decrease in the quality of care they receive." Another risk is for renal injury when MRI is performed with contrast dye. The story leaves readers very confused about the study, presenting neither the evidence nor the quality of the evidence. It says that, "Using MRI imaging, the team searched for differences in brain activity patterns in the microstructure of white matter tissue in 80 autism patients between the ages of 10 and 35." This makes it sound like the study only included autism patients, but then it goes on to say, "Communication deficits between the two hemispheres of the brain were, in fact, uncovered by MRI scans — differences that the team said were not found in the brains of people without autism." Does this mean that half the people had autism and half did not? Or was there another control group that is not quantified in the story? There is nothing in the story about the study design, and there is very little about the study’s limitations. The story does a nice job steering clear of the typical suspect statistics about autism prevalence, and in characterizing autism disorders, it does a fairly good job. "The current effort, focused on patients already diagnosed with autism, used MRIs to locate areas of the brain where the left and right hemispheres do not communicate properly. These so-called "hot spots" are central to motor function, attention, facial recognition and social behavior — types of behaviors that are abnormal in people with autism." The story does, technically, bring in an outside source, but the source is not someone with expertise in diagnosing autism disorders or in radiology. The source is "Laura Bono, the Durham, N.C.-based former chair of the National Autism Association and member of the board of directors of the autism advocacy group Safe Minds." It is good that Bono "expressed a certain amount of hesitancy about the prospects for MRI-driven diagnoses." But she may not be the best source to evaluate the results of this study. The story makes no attempt to explain how autism is currently diagnosed or what this new information might do for patients in comparison to existing methods of diagnosing and managing the autism disorders. MRI is FDA approved and has been around for a good while and is available to most of the US population. Still, there is no explicit mention in the story of MRI’s availability in general, nor any specific mention some mention of how much difficulty patients might have seeking an MRI for this use. There is no claim made of novelty here. Nor is there any sense of how this study fits into the broader picture of autism research, whether this is a significant advance or what patients should do with this information. Is this the first study to look at this issue in patients with autism? If not, how does it fit with prior studies? The story relies far too much on a press release from the journal Cerebral Cortex.


Five-Year Follow-Up Study Further Supports Effectiveness and Safety of the Essure® Procedure as a Non-Surgical, Non-Hormonal Option for Permanent Contraception

Explanation: In this news release Bayer HealthCare summarizes a long overdue post-market report on the safety, effectiveness, and tolerability of Essure, an implant and procedure designed to bring about permanent contraception in women. It is the first permanent sterilization alternative to tubal ligation. The Essure implant is a small metal and polyester-like coil that when placed in the fallopian tubes causes an inflammatory response. The resulting scar tissue that develops over a three-month period prevents sperm from entering the fallopian tubes. Given mounting concerns about the safety of this device, it is crucial for any news release addressing safety to present a complete and balanced portrait of clinical research findings. But this news release is unacceptably one-sided. It never mentions that nearly a third of the women originally enrolled in this study dropped out for various reasons that could reflect a bad experience with the device (e.g. adverse events or pregnancy). It also understates the levels of pelvic pain reported by women who did complete the five-year study, and it never discloses that the study’s lead author (and source quoted in the news release) is a paid consultant to Bayer. When Essure was approved in 2002, the FDA required the original manufacturer to monitor the outcomes of women who were enrolled in a clinical trial, upon which the agency’s approval was based, for an additional four years. While this news release summary of the report portrays a successful product and process with few serious side effects, several news stories published days before the news release paint a very different picture. According to articles in the New York Times and other media, thousands of women are now asking the FDA to remove Essure from the market and inform the public about risks associated with the implant. Several others have filed legal action against Bayer, which acquired the implant from Conceptus in 2013. The Times article stated that the FDA has received more than 4,000 adverse event reports on Essure and that the original manufacturer received 16,047 complaints from women who had undergone Essure implants. In addition, ABC News in San Francisco reported that dozens of women staged a protest outside an obstetricians meeting while calling for the implant to be removed from the market. Another ABC affiliate in Arizona reported that the FDA will respond to a “Citizen’s Petition” signed by more than 2,100 women asking that Essure be taken off the market. It’s important that the safety of the device be given a fair public hearing so women considering sterilization can make informed judgments about the implants vis–à–vis tubal ligation. It should be noted that Conceptus, the original manufacturer, failed to report the outcome of the five-year study and that the results were submitted for publication a year after Bayer acquired the device. It’s a disappointment that this summary report was delayed nine long years after the study was completed and 13 years after the FDA approved the device.

There was no discussion of costs associated with the Essure implant procedure. Presumably, the procedure was cost-free for the study participants in this clinical trial, or they received a nominal fee for participating in the trial. However, because the implant has been on the market for 13 years, it would have been beneficial to note the costs and whether the procedure is covered by insurance. An online search revealed the procedure is covered by some, but not all insurance plans. According to Planned Parenthood, costs range between $500 and $2,500. The news release did mention the rates of pregnancies for Essure users in this study — the main purpose of this device being pregnancy prevention. “Among the 364 women relying on Essure inserts….no pregnancies were reported.” But there’s no mention of the fact that women who dropped out of the study may have done so because they got pregnant (more on this below under the Quality of Evidence criterion). And as the study that’s the basis for the release points out, a recent search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database found that “poststerilization pregnancy” accounted for 61 out of 457 (13.3%) adverse events reported by Essure users. The news release glosses over the harms that are more clearly described in the journal article where the five-year outcomes data are published. The news release states: “The following severe events were reported as being possibly related to the Essure inserts or procedure: one woman with irregular menstrual bleeding, another woman with lower abdominal pain and very heavy periods, and a third woman with continuous bleeding. The latter two resulted in hysterectomy.” However, the journal article notes far more instances of side effects, which we describe in more detail under the Quality of Evidence Section below. Notably, 15 hysterectomies were reported in the study overall, and the cause of five them is unknown. The study investigators deemed the other hysterectomies not “definitely or probably” related to the Essure inserts, according to the study. The news release also summarizes one of the side effects claimed by study participants with this sentence: “Throughout the five-year study, pelvic pain was reported in no more than 7% of study participants at any visit.” However, a chart accompanying the published study states that more than one-third of the initial 518 participants experienced some type of pelvic pain (broken down into dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, ovulatory pain and other), with the highest rates of pain occurring soon after the insertion of the implant. The basic parameters of the study are misleading as presented. The news release states: “Among the 364 women relying on Essure inserts who completed the full five years of follow-up, no pregnancies were reported. In addition, the Essure inserts were generally well tolerated.” That statement is accurate but doesn’t give the full picture. According to the journal article, 518 were originally enrolled. In that case, nearly one-third of the original study group dropped out for one reason or another over the five-year course of the study. Sixty-five women were described as “lost to followup throughout the course of the study,” which implies they may have simply stopped supplying data to the study coordinators. But an additional 22 women left for other reasons that were listed including nine who underwent hysterectomies, eight who “voluntarily terminated,” one who had unsatisfactory device placement, and others for various unrelated reasons. Among an additional 25 women followed for “safety assessments only,” 11 experienced unsatisfactory device location and six underwent subsequent hysterectomy after device placement. Given the relatively small number of volunteers in the study, both the drop out rate and the number of adverse events reported deserved further discussion in this news release. The release doesn’t promote fear-mongering. It is summarizing results from a mandated monitoring study. The news release was clearly authored and provided by Bayer. However, the impression given by the news release is that the study is an independent one, which is not the case. One of the authors (and a person whose quote is used in the news release), John E. Nichols, is also a paid consultant for Bayer as disclosed in the agenda for a recent scientific meeting. Nichols’s relationship with Bayer is not disclosed in the news release (or even in the actual manuscript), and he is quoted as the study’s author. Similarly, the third author, Mark Levie, is a paid consultant for Bayer and on the company’s speaker’s bureau, according to a disclosure from a medical conference. This fact is not disclosed in the news release. It is interesting to note that at the end of the actual manuscript, there is an “acknowledgement” of “Editorial support in the form of manuscript writing, styling and submission” by a paid consultant for Bayer, who is not one of the authors of the study. The practice of employing non-bylined commercial writers in the development of academic manuscripts (a practice sometimes referred to as “ghostwriting”) is widely viewed as a threat to the integrity of academic research. According to rules from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the authors themselves are granted the authority to determine who meets the criteria to be listed as an author on an academic paper. This subjective standard makes it possible to downplay the role of commercial writers and exaggerate the contributions of academics. Critics of these rules have pointed to the ease with which they are circumvented by industry. This is, perhaps, more about the manuscript than about the news release. However, it would have been nice to know that in the study itself, at least two of the investigators as well as writers are on Bayer’s payroll. The news release says Essure is “the only available hysteroscopic approach,” which is currently true, though there were, at some point, other commercially available systems and devices. More importantly, the news release does not mention other common forms of permanent contraception such as tubal ligation (both regular and laparoscopic). The news release states that the procedure was approved by the FDA in 2002 and further that “Essure is supported by more than a decade of science and real world clinical experience.” In other words, it has already been on the market for 13 years. The novelty of the implant is described in the release as “the only available hysteroscopic approach, does not require incisions and represents an important contraceptive option for women who have completed their families.” We observed no unjustifiable or sensationalistic language.


California’s new governor says ‘God no’ to run for president.

Explanation: The new Democratic governor in the nation’s most populous state ruled out a challenge to President Donald Trump on Thursday, calling the idea “crazy.”

Gavin Newsom, California, Universal health care, Donald Trump

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has had frequent Twitter wars with the Republican president and recently raised speculation that he might seek the presidency by running Facebook ads in Florida, Ohio and other battleground states opposing Trump’s southern border wall and supporting universal health care But he emphatically denied that he’s considering a run for president. “God no,” he responded to a reporter’s question. “No, no — no, that’s crazy.” The governor’s political consultant, Dan Newman, called the speculation “absolute nothingburger.” “We’ve had same approach for years, running ads to mobilize and organize supporters,” Newman said in an email. He said Newsom understood early on the importance of building a strong online following, including with digital ads that allow people to support his positions. Most of the ads run in California, he said, but some ran in other states that happen to be considered swing states. The ads ask viewers to “sign up” and “add your name” to Newsom’s calls to “Reject Trump’s Wall” and “Join the fight for universal health care.” Newsom, who took office earlier this month, hinted that he’s likely to endorse U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, who joined a crowded field of Trump challengers on Monday. Newsom expressed “enormous respect” for Harris and said they have been friends since before either held elected office. He was San Francisco’s mayor and she was San Francisco’s district attorney for six years before she became the state’s attorney general and he the lieutenant governor. He said he is not yet ready to make an endorsement, but said his praise for Harris “gives you a sense of where I may be going.”


Gallbladder removed through mouth in new surgical technique

Explanation: This is what old news hands used to call a "Hey, Martha!" story, meaning that when someone reads it they will say, "Hey, Martha! Can you believe this?" As such, it makes sense for a news outlet to write about it, but at least some care should be taken to put this experimental procedure into the proper context. Even short items written as blog posts should be well reported, especially from a news organization as large and as influential as the Los Angeles Times. There is this assumption that minimally invasive surgeries are better simply because they require less cutting. In some cases this is true, but stories about minimally invasive techniques need to provide the evidence that they improve patient outcomes and that they are better than alternatives to surgery.This same type of thing happens among consumer electronics reporters. Smaller is always better. Except, who wants to listen to John Adams’ Century Rolls on ear buds that provide the sonic range of a toaster oven? And who wants to watch Avatar on a screen the size of a credit card? Fewer holes in the body doesn’t necessarily equate to better health outcomes.

There is no mention of costs. Finding out how much it would cost to remove someone’s gallbladder through laparoscopy would take a call or two. Finding out how much this new equipment might cost would take a few more calls. The researchers behind the study probably know all the relevant costs because they had to secure funding and find the right equipment. Even a noncommital quote from one of the researchers about whether this would add significantly to the cost of gallbladder surgery would be preferable. One of the stated aims of the study is to compare costs between this new technique and laparoscopy, so there could be some preliminary information to be had. There is no quantification of benefits. Instead, we have hope. "The hope is that natural orifice procedures will reduce the risk of infection and pain as well as abdominal scars." Did even this one gallbladder surgery do that? "The center also performed the first oral appendix removal." And how did that go? Was it an improvement? Other questions to ask would be: Why is this information being released now? How many people are in the study? How long before they publish? How much more research would be required before this procedure was available in most hosptials nationwide? None of these questions are addressed. All of them could be in a paragraph or two. There is no mention of any harm that might be done by the procedure itself or by opting for this uNPRoven technique over proven alternatives. How effective is gallbladder surgery right now? In the case of cancerous tumors in the gallbladder, does it have a 90% cure rate? 50%? If you were to try to remove a cancerous gallbladder and some of the surrounding tissue with this new technique, could you be as effective? No new approach is without risk especially during the early stages of development. By definition, NOTES requires a new set of skills on the part of the surgeon making the most experienced practitioner less adept until a sufficient experience is reached. An open appendectomy is straightforward, whereas a laparoscopic appendectomy requires the surgeon to learn how to use a new set of instruments and view the surgery on a television screen. NOTES requires the surgeon now be proficient with an endoscope as well. The story says nothing about the quality of the evidence. It does, however, make broad statements such as, in referring to laparoscopy, "that type of surgery is a big improvement upon the long, open incisions that patients used to require." Is that true in all cases? Is laparoscopy always the better option? Then the story goes on to say, "However, NOTES spares patients even the tiny abdominal incisions." This presents the surgery as yet another big advance without providing any other information about, among other things, the length of time required under anesthesia for this type of procedure, what has to be done to prep someone for this type of surgery, and the degree of accuracy afforded by this technique versus others. Then the story goes on to say that they’re actually still cutting into people: "In the recent surgery, lead investigator Santiago Horgan made two tiny incisions (not requiring stitches) to pass a camera into the abdomen to increase visibility. However, the gallbladder was removed by way of the mouth." Huh? To monger a disease, one has to mention the disease. There is nothing in the story indicating why one would have one’s gallbladder removed. So we judge this not applicable. The press release says, "Cholecystectomy or gallbladder removal is one of the most common surgeries in the U.S.; approximately 750,000 are performed annually." There are no independent sources in this story and no conflicts of interest noted. It does make this comparison but only in the most superficial way. Here are three studies from the Cochrane Library that cast doubt on the idea that minimal is always better:


Jimmy Carter published an open letter entitled "Losing My Religion for Equality.

Explanation: Carter truly wrote this letter/op-ed. However, the letter is often shared along with the claim that Carter renounced his faith. But that isn’t the case. While Carter rejected the notion that women were subservient and severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, he never turned his back on his own religion. In fact, Carter occasionally taught Sunday school at the Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, long after his viral op-ed was published.

An op-ed entitled “Losing my Religion for Equality” by former President Jimmy Carter occasionally makes its way around the internet, drawing a mix of reactions and questions from readers. Did Carter really write this? Did he really leave the church? Doesn’t he teach Sunday school? Carter, a third-generation Baptist who has taught Sunday school since the age of 18, turned to his faith often during his political career. In 1995, he reflected on how his faith guided him through his presidency, saying that “there’s no doubt that during my time as president I prayed more intensely and more fervently for God’s guidance than at any other time in my life.” In 2000, however, Carter found himself at odds with the Southern Baptist Convention as the group announced its opposition to women pastors. A few years prior, the group also added a declaration to its essential statement of beliefs stating that wives should be submissive to their husbands. Carter announced that he was severing ties with the organization and sent a letter to 75,000 Baptists across the country. According to The New York Times: Jimmy Carter, a third-generation Southern Baptist and the first United States president to call himself a born-again Christian, has reached what he calls ”a painful decision” to sever ties to the Southern Baptist Convention, saying that parts of its ”increasingly rigid” doctrines violate the ”basic premises of my Christian faith.” Mr. Carter’s decision, announced on Thursday in a letter that is being mailed this week to 75,000 Baptists nationwide, comes four months after the Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, declared its opposition to women as pastors. In the same doctrinal statement, adopted last June, the group advocated a literal interpretation of the Bible. Two years ago, the group called for wives to be submissive to their husbands. ”I have seen an increasing inclination on the part of Southern Baptist Convention leaders to be more rigid on what is a Southern Baptist and exclusionary of accommodating those who differ from them,” Mr. Carter said today in a brief interview. ”In the last couple of years, this tendency of the Southern Baptist Convention leadership to ordain their creed on others has become more onerous for me and more difficult for me to accept.” The viral opinion piece “Losing my Religion for Equality” was published later in The Observer in July 2009. The entire op-ed can be read here. We’ve reproduced the first few paragraphs below: Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God. I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries. At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities. The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.


Application of Vicks VapoRub to the soles of children's feet effectively counters nighttime cough.

Explanation: No substantive evidence documents that the application of Vicks VapoRub to the soles of childrens' feet effectively counters nighttime coughs.

This advisory that applying Vicks Vaporub (a brand of mentholated topical cream) to the bottom of one’s feet at bedtime, then covering those feet with socks, will stop persistent nighttime coughs hit the online world big in March 2007. At that time,  the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), the agency touted in the advisory as having “discovered” this cure, sent us a statement denying it extolled the application of Vicks VapoRub to a child’s feet as an effective counter to nighttime cough:   The National Research Council of Canada (also referred to as NRC) has recently learned of an email that is circulating which claims we have proven that Vicks VapoRub can be applied to the feet to cure a persistent cough. We would like to take this opportunity to dispel this suggestion. The e-mail suggests that NRC has conducted research comparing the effectiveness of prescription cough medicines in children to alternative therapies like acupressure. However, our databases indicate that no such studies involving Vicks VapoRub have been conducted at NRC. It is rare for NRC to engage in research into alternate applications of medications. Home remedies, homeopathy and alternative therapies for illnesses are popular areas of interest for Canadians, especially in recent years. Although NRC conducts some research in these areas (NRC conducts research on nutraceuticals and therapeutic attributes of plants), our focus is more frequently on medical and pharmaceutical treatments for illness and disease. Some of our best-known advancements have been in this field, including: the first practical motorized wheelchair, the first artificial pacemaker, the Meningitis-C vaccine, the cobalt bomb and research into food-borne pathogens and water safety, to name a few. However, while the NRC has neither researched the claim slathering VapoRub on a child’s feet will alleviate nighttime cough nor endorses the practice, that particular home cure had been proffered by many people in the health industry prior to the March 2007 e-mail. (That e-mail, by the way, refers to that body as the “Canada Research Council,” but its proper name is the “National Research Council Canada.”) Joe and Teresa Graedon of “The People’s Pharmacy,” a health advice feature run as both a syndicated newspaper column and a weekly show on National Public Radio, included mention of this potential use of the salve in their 2002 “Guide to Unique Uses for Vicks.” Expanding on the 2002 suggestion “Easing chest congestion is standard, of course, but have you considered applying it to the soles of the feet for a persistent nighttime cough?” in February 2007, they wrote: “We also suggest putting Vicks VapoRub on the soles of the feet for a nighttime cough. Put on socks to protect the sheets.” Vicks’ usage instructions state nothing about slathering its VapoRub product on one’s feet; instead, they instruct those looking for temporary relief of cough due to common cold to rub a thick layer of the salve onto their chests and throats. And contrary to the instructions outlined in the e-mailed advisory, some health agencies have warned camphor-containing products should not be used on children and should be used only in accordance with the directions on their labels:  The [New York City] Health Department warned New York City parents and caregivers to keep products containing camphor away from children. Some camphor products can be toxic to children when accidentally ingested or excessively applied to skin. Three recent cases of seizures associated with camphor have been confirmed in the Bronx. All three children have recovered. The Health Department is investigating seven additional cases suspected to be associated with camphor. Camphor, alcanfor in Spanish, is a common ingredient in many products used for colds, pest control, to ward off illness, or as air freshener. Camphor is sold in cubes, or as a balm or ointment. Camphor cubes and tablets are not approved by the FDA for use as cough or cold medicine. Camphor products that are not labeled with ingredients and do not have manufacturer information should not be used; they are unsafe and illegal. Legal camphor products, such as some chest rubs used to relieve congestion, should only be used as directed on the label. (Vicks’ VapoRub product has about a 5.26% camphor content; the unapproved camphor cubes and tablets referenced above may contain higher concentrations of camphor.) Vicks has addressed another VapoRub rumor that postulates using the product to combat toenail and fingernail fungus (an alternate use of the product that has been ballyhooed by a number of folks for years, including author Dr. Peter Gott, whose “Dr. Gott” syndicated health column at one time appeared in more than 400 newspapers.) An automated response at the phone number for VapoRub consumers (800-873-8276) advised: “We do not recommend using VapoRub for the treatment of toenail fungus. Consult your doctor or pharmacist on the best treatment to meet your needs. Thanks for calling.”


Palliative Care Consults for Patients with Advanced Cancers Reduces Hospitalization and Improves Quality of Care

Explanation: This news release reports results of a study that found that patients with advanced cancers who were referred early to palliative care made better use of support services, including palliative chemotherapy, after being discharged and had fewer hospital re-admissions and invasive treatments. Researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital obtained their data through a prospective cohort study (one that follows a group of patients over time to observe specific outcomes). Unfortunately, the absolute numbers — readily available in the study — showing the results were not included in the news release. But the release does provide good context in other areas, particularly in explaining what palliative care is and what it entails for patients. In an era when ethical and economic issues surrounding end-of-life care loom increasingly large, this study addresses a critical issue. As the release points out, palliative care has positive implications for emotional and other quality of life issues for patients. In contrast, extensive time spent on acute-care hospital wards and intensive care units, or receiving invasive procedures, drives up costs and is frequently in conflict with patients’ explicitly expressed wishes. That being the case, it is all the more important that a news release about this issue provide the information readers need to judge the quality of the research method and put the results in context. As the authors of the journal article state: “Our findings are particularly important because multiple studies suggest that patients with advanced cancer often do not understand their actual prognosis or goals of chemotherapy; when they do not, these patients are more likely to receive nonbeneficial interventions, which contribute to increased suffering.” Many patients with advanced cancer are classic cases of those who receive too much care, which is of no benefit. Not only that, it adds to their pain, anxiety, and degrades their and their families quality of life. Its costs can be exorbitant, with some chemotherapy drugs costly upwards of $15,000 per month.

The news release makes several general statements about the costs of not referring patients early to palliative care. It’s not clear whether the cost savings at a large hospital like Mount Sinai would carry over to smaller hospitals across the country that might not have the requisite staff already in place. Additionally, a statement about the implications of costs incurred by patients for early palliative care would improve the release. Readers learn from this announcement that early referral to palliative care “decreased health care utilization and increased use of support services following discharge” for cancer patients at advanced stages of the disease. But how much? Did health care utilization decrease by 1%? 5%? 40%? The specific results of the study are not reported. To be able to interpret the importance of these results, readers need numbers. Without that, the assertion by one of the researchers that hospitals across the country should adopt this practice appears tenuous. The study in the Journal of Oncology Practice provided both relative and absolute risk numbers for the claimed benefits of palliative care (PC) referrals. It would have made the release much stronger had the absolute numbers been included. Among patients that were part of the study in either the control group or the intervention group, 30-day hospital readmission rates decreased from 35% (17 of 48) of patients in the control group compared to 18% (13 of 65) of those receiving the intervention. Referrals to hospice increased from 14% (7 out of 48 patients) among controls to 26% (17 of 65 patients) of the intervention group, and receipt of chemotherapy after discharge decreased from 44% (21 of 48) of controls to 18% (12 of 65) of those in the intervention group. It’s hard to imagine many harms associated with a palliative care consultation. It might be helpful to point out that patients who are recommended for that type of consultation are still free not to choose palliative care. Although the news release includes a description of the inclusion criteria for the study and the content of the palliative care consultation, we are given no information about how many patients were involved, what period of time the study took place, or what defined “early” referral in comparison to the status quo. There’s also no mention that this was an observational study. Observational studies can’t prove cause and effect — something that was suggested in the headline. Without a brief recap of those issues, readers can’t assess the quality of the evidence. The study listed several limitations that were not included in the release. Among them: There is no disease mongering in this news release. The severity of terminal cancer could hardly be exaggerated. The release provides useful background on what palliative care is and what it entailed at this hospital. The funding source is not identified. Alternatives to palliative care for late-stage cancer patients are described clearly. Although this piece makes it plain that palliative care has positive implications for cancer care, it doesn’t tell readers what is currently happening at hospitals around the country. It assumes readers are already aware of palliative care availability but that may not always be the case. The release begins with a straightforward statement that this is the first study to demonstrate benefits of early referral to palliative care for terminally ill cancer patients. There is no sensational language in this release. The tone is objective and factual.


Unfortunately we have documented instances where people defecated in the (Statehouse) building.

Explanation: State Sen. Tom Niehaus accuses protesters of defecating in Statehouse

The lasting image thus far surrounding the controversy over Senate Bill 5, a proposal to restrict collective bargaining rights for organized labor, occurred on Feb. 22 when more than 5,000 union workers staged a raucous protest rally with colorful signs and bullhorns outside of the Ohio Statehouse. The protesters’ target was Republican Gov. John Kasich and the GOP-controlled Senate that is pushing the bill. Even Republican Senate President Tom Niehaus the next day grudgingly expressed admiration for the groups’ ability to coordinate so well and make themselves part of the lawmaking process. But right after comments praising the protesters, Niehaus veered in a totally different direction, painting a different lasting image of the protesters at the Statehouse — one not quite so becoming. "Unfortunately, we have documented instances where people defecated in the building. We have documented instances where they have written on the walls," Niehaus said. "This is the people’s house. I used to say treat it like it’s yours. Well, I don’t want it to be like it’s theirs if that’s the way they treat their own home." Some union groups responded immediately, denying that a group featuring police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses and others unionized workers would commit such vile acts in the storied building. So, what gives? It is clear that Kasich and Statehouse Republicans are frustrated by being upstaged by protesters over SB 5 (Thousands more were expected to rally at the Statehouse on Tuesday, March 1). But PolitiFact Ohio wanted to know whether Niehaus’ accusation would hold up on the Truth-O-Meter. Did protesters really defecate in the Statehouse? We asked Niehaus’ staff about the "documented instances" and were told that several were reported to the senator and that he confirmed them with Statehouse management. That management is handled by the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board. We called the CSRAB, the curators of the Statehouse, for an accounting of any incidents in the building during the protest. "There was defecation in the stairwell to the parking garage," said CSRAB spokesman Gregg Dodd, but not inside the Statehouse. Furthermore, there is no proof it was left by protesters, and Dodd expressed his doubt. He noted that CSRAB has dealt with this issue before when there are no demonstrations taking place at the Statehouse. "Unfortunately it happens from time to time even when there are no events going on, and we think it is either a homeless person or persons, or someone waiting for the bus stop," Dodd said, explaining that this particular stairwell leads up to the street level where there are stops for the Columbus bus system. The top of the stairwell, at the street level, is enclosed by a small, heated shelter house. There are two of these shelters around the Statehouse. They are used by homeless people to congregate and sleep at night. The area is also along a stretch that is a main transfer area for the city’s transit system. Scores of people gather at various times of the day waiting for buses. "So, there is no way to determine if that was in fact someone associated with the rally," Dodd said regarding the human waste left behind in the stairwell. We’ll give Niehaus a small nod for being right about the writing on the walls. Dodd said there was some writing on the walls inside the Statehouse, but he also noted it was with chalk and was easily cleaned up by the Statehouse maintenance crew. There were also some union stickers stuck to Statehouse floors that needed to be scraped up. But Niehaus’ key accusation dealt with defecation.. In the context of his statement, he clearly was suggesting that protesters soiled the floor, and that it happened inside the Statehouse. As Senate president, Niehaus is one of the most influential people in the state government and when he speaks people listen. Yet this claim is beyond inaccurate. It’s a ridiculous assertion that is unsupported by the people who actually take care of the Statehouse. Statements that are both inaccurate and ridiculous get a special rating on the Truth-O-Meter: . Comment on this item.


Over-the-counter painkiller paracetamol is contaminated with the Machupo virus and should be avoided.

Explanation: We were unable to locate any credible reports of paracetamol (or acetaminophen) contaminated by Machupo virus or any other.

Medical, acetaminophen, drug warnings, paracetamol

In early 2017, social media warnings about paracetamol purportedly contaminated with the Machupo virus began circulating. (Use of the term “paracetamol” is a sign the claim originated outside the United States, as in the U.S. the drug is more commonly known as “acetaminophen.”) Be careful not to take the paracetamol that comes written P / 500. It is a new, very white and shiny paracetamol, doctors prove to contain “Machupo” virus, considered one of the most dangerous viruses in the world with high mortality rate Stay away from this paracetamol below. Quickly pass this information to save life pic.twitter.com/jmlaF1onr4 — Olawoyin Edris,anipr (@Olawoyin4u) February 28, 2017  Machupo (also known as “Bolivian hemorrhagic virus” or “black typhus”) is endemic in north and east Bolivia, and is generally spread through air or food. According to the warnings, new “very white and shiny” P/500 paracetamol has become contaminated with the pathogen, posing a severe risk of infection. These warnings typically appear alone, with no news reports or public health agency releases corroborating their claims. There is no truth to the warning, and public health officials have released statements confirming that the rumors were just that, and not credible. Indonesia’s Food and Drug Administration counterpart advised that the claim is a hoax: [Prior to the spread of social media rumors, the agency] never received credible reports that support the claim that the Machupo virus has been found in Paracetamol drug product or other drug products. Machupo virus itself is known is a type of virus that spread can occur through air, food, or direct contact. Machupo virus can be sourced from the saliva, urine, or feces of infected rodents and become a carrier ( reservoir ) of the virus. Head POM, Penny K. Lukito said that POM never find things like that rumored, including Machupo virus content in the drug product. On 8 February 2017, public health officials in Malaysia debunked the rumors as well, reiterating that viruses typically cannot survive the pill-making process: The Malaysian Health Ministry today shot down rumours circulating on social media that P/500 paracetamol tablets in Malaysia contain the ‘Machupo’ virus. Malaysia’s Health director-general Datuk Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah said, just like most viruses, the Machupo cannot live in dry environments such as in paracetamol tablets. “The Machupo virus is categorised in the Arenavirus group which could cause haemorrhagic fever. At the moment, the virus can only be found in South America. “It is spread through the urine or faeces of infected rodents,” he said in a statement today. Noor Hisham said the ministry had not received any reports regarding paracetamol contamination from authorities in manufacturing countries or any other country so far.


Jack Andraka, 15, came up with a “100 percent accurate” cancer-detection method that was “168 times faster, 26,000 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive” than current methods.

Explanation: What's true: As a 15-year-old high school student, Jack Andraka researched and prototyped a tool he billed to be a 100% accurate pancreatic cancer-detection test. What's false: Though his work won him grand prize at the annual Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in 2012, his test’s efficacy and accuracy has yet to be demonstrated, and many claims made by Andraka are now recognized by Andraka and others as overhyped.

On Aug. 22, 2019, The Epoch Times ran a profile of a “15-year-old science buff” who invented a 100% effective diagnostic test for pancreatic cancer. This was a curious editorial decision, as the 15-year-old in question was 22 in 2019, and the more sensational claims he had made years ago had been significantly tempered — facts Andraka himself has acknowledged but that did not make their way into the Epoch Times story. First, here’s what the story gets right. As a 15-year-old, Jack Andraka gained fame for prototyping a potential test for pancreatic cancer that was purportedly quicker and cheaper than existing methods, for which he was awarded the grand prize at the 2012 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. In 2014, then-Forbes healthcare reporter (and current medical reporter at STAT) Matthew Herper described the concept this way: He created a device by dipping filter paper into a solution of carbon nanotubes coated with antibodies for a specific protein that can be elevated in patients with pancreatic cancer. He proved that the device can detect the presence of that protein, mesothelin, in cell culture solutions. He also showed that the sensor could tell the difference between the blood of mice that had human pancreatic tumors grafted onto them and those that did not. Herper, in his capacity as the author of that year’s Forbes 30 under 30 list of promising young scientists, had reviewed a draft of a paper Andraka had written about his test along with six other expert reviewers. In a piece titled “Why Biotech Whiz Kid Jack Andraka Is Not On The Forbes 30 Under 30 List,” he relayed the concerns of five anonymous reviewers and one non-anonymous reviewer: Harvard DNA sequencing pioneer George Church. Church concluded that many of the claims “may not hold up, or at least require more work to be proven.” Others, like the pancreatic cancer researcher who discovered mesothelin in the first place, Ira Paston, had gone further. In a 2015 Sydney Morning Herald piece, Paston stated that the method Andraka proposed “makes no scientific sense,” and that Paston didn’t “know anybody in the scientific community who believes his findings.” Andraka, for his part, has also recognized that the problem is more complex than his earlier statements might have suggested. In an email to Herper in 2014, Andraka wrote: While promising, the project really was extremely preliminary and is by no means as sophisticated as some stories say it is … I realize that in retrospect that it was just a high school science fair project and it was a proof of concept experiment and initially I thought that it could get on the market in 1-2 years however I’ve learned so much over the course of this journey and realized that it will in reality take a lot longer than this. Here we get into the weeds of the claims made (most recently) by The Epoch Times, but which form the basis of other continually recurring clickbait stories. In a 2012 TEDx Talk, among other places, Andraka stated that his test was “168 times faster, 26,000 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive.” Any reporting citing these numbers is merely repeating, uncritically, claims which misrepresent the time and cost of existing technology. One of the few existing methods for pancreatic cancer detection is via ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) tests. Specifically, ELISA tests that identify the presence of a chemical known as CA 19-9 can be evidence of tumors in some cases of pancreatic cancer. According to Church, Andraka’s time comparison overstates the amount of time such ELISA tests take. The comparison Andraka used was 14 hours. ELISA, however, is fairly quick these days. A modern CA 19-9 ELISA panel, for example, takes 1.5 hours to run. Suggesting it takes 14 hours inflates significantly the speed comparison in favor of Andraka’s test. Church also stated that the cost comparison employed by Andraka was flawed because it compared only the manufacturing costs on his invention’s side but included profit and overhead on the ELISA test side: Andraka is comparing the commercial cost for a test – including the manufacturer’s profit and overhead – to his own materials cost. That’s not a fair comparison. He says the only mesothelin test that he found cost $912 per kit. But other ELISA tests are for sale online for $400 per 60 tests or $600 for 96 tests – in other words, about $6.50 per test run. That still compares favorably to Andraka’s $3 per 10 tests, but remember that there would also be a commercial markup if a company decided to sell his tests. As for sensitivity, Church argued that the results presented by Andraka varied too much to say anything about sensitivity (a measure that gets at potential false positives). Andraka was able to spend six months in the lab of a Johns Hopkins Medical Center researcher where he tested his test using blood from mice who had pancreatic cancer compared to those who didn’t. Such tests, even if they produced promising results, would not be the same as demonstrating efficacy as a diagnostic tool for pancreatic cancer in humans. Outside of accuracy — i.e., the ability to correctly identify humans with pancreatic cancer — the early detection of the disease was also central to the project, something Andraka would not have been able to test directly for his work at Hopkins. Ira Pastan, the National Cancer Institutes researcher who discovered mesothelin, the biomarker used in Andraka’s test, told The Sydney Morning Herald that the protein is not actually elevated in the blood in early pancreatic cancer patients and thus could not be indicative of the early stages of the disease. Other scientific studies support Pastan’s objection. A 2013 study into the diagnostic efficacy of mesothelin on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (a form of pancreatic cancer) concluded that the biomarker was “a weak diagnostic classifier on its own” but may be of use as part of a larger panel test. Mesothelin is also present in cases of other cancers as well, including “malignant mesothelioma and … ovarian, and lung adenocarcinomas. In a 2015 statement provided to Sydney Morning Herald reporter Nick Bryant by John Hopkins University, the institution made clear the results were far too preliminary to declare such accuracy or to speculate on its future success: “[Andraka’s’] idea was considered by his mentor to be of scientific interest,” the hospital told me in a written statement, “but his experiments at Johns Hopkins were highly preliminary.” They represented nothing more than “the very earliest stages of determining whether such a test is feasible or likely”. It also noted that his results had not been confirmed, peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal. “Thus, it is unlikely that a test based on his idea will soon be available to people.” Andraka does not hold an international patent on his device. Although he applied for one in 2012, that application was ultimately denied based on lacking an “inventive step.” All told, media outlets like The Epoch Times continue to run with an out-of-date and highly clickable fairytale that has not been accurate since at least 2014. Andraka himself acknowledges the shortcomings of his earlier scientific pronouncements and is thankful for the criticism he has received, telling (for example) The Sydney Morning Herald in 2015 that “I really appreciate their concerns because their concerns made my project better. It was definitely a learning curve.”


“Presidential alerts” are capable of accessing the E911 chip in your phones, which provides the government full access to your location, microphone, camera and every function of your phone.

Explanation: If the government were to have a way of snooping on citizens through their cellphones, it would have to depend on their co-opting some other system and not simply using the presidential alert system as it exists today.

On 3 October 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), conducted a nationwide test of the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) system, an event referred to by many commenters as a “Presidential alert.” On the day of the test, John McAfee, the controversial founder of the McAfee Antivirus software empire and a current cryptocurrency advocate (as well as 2020 U.S. presidential candidate for the Libertarian party), tweeted an alarming statement about the test: The “Presidential alerts”: they are capable of accessing the E911 chip in your phones – giving them full access to your location, microphone, camera and every function of your phone. This not a rant, this is from me, still one of the leading cybersecurity experts. Wake up people! — John McAfee (@officialmcafee) October 3, 2018  In this post, we’ll describe the myriad hurdles McAfee’s argument would need to overcome to be accurate, noting that we could find no independent support for the claims he made in that tweet. What is the Presidential Alert System? The “presidential alert” tested on 3 October 2018 combined a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System, or EAS (which is familiar to people as cacophonous weather and/or natural disaster alerts that might interrupt television or radio broadcasts) and the Wireless Emergency Alert system, or WEA (which is familiar to cell phone users who have received Amber alerts or other local emergency alerts). Typically, the WEA system is used by state and local jurisdictions, but the October 2018 test was the first attempt at trying out a nationwide alert via this system for the purposes of conveying a message from the President. Based on a George W. Bush-era law, anyone with a cell phone can opt out of any WEA notification unless that notification is “issued at the direction of the President and/or his/her designee.” While the law has required the EAS to be tested nationwide for the past three years, October 2018 was the first time such a test had been combined with a test of a nationwide WEA alert. What Is John McAfee’s Argument? In a brief phone interview, McAfee explained to us his view that a nationwide WEA notification could be exploited by the federal government to spy on private citizens. He suggested this could be done by exploiting what he called an “E911 chip”. He characterized the purpose of this chip as something 911 dispatchers can use to find location information for people who call 911 and either hang up or are incapacitated during the call: Let’s say a burglar enters your house, assaults you, you call 911, you pass out during the call. They again turn on your camera, your phone, get your location, dispatch police officers. They can then listen to see if there is anyone else in the room. Is there any noise? The location of the camera, whatever it’s showing, they can see that. Perfect, that’s good. I don’t think anybody would have a problem with that. We will discuss the accuracy of that statement later in this post. However, McAfee’s argument, generally speaking, is that because (he says) the WEA utilizes this “E911 chip,” they too have the ability to turn on your phone and spy on you: The Federal Government has co-opted a local facility (e.g.,. a 911 call center). Let’s say you want to know where you’ve got a bunch of enemies or a bunch of Republicans or some Democrats, you want to know where they are, what they’re doing. When you send an alert it doesn’t have to make a sound. It doesn’t have to display anything because it’s listening, watching you, to find out where you are, where you’re moving. What is an E911 Chip? According to Ted Rappaport, a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at NYU and the founding director of their NYU WIRELESS research center, “There is no such thing as an E911 chip in a cell phone.” Nomenclature aside, McAfee appears to be referring to the technology required by the FCC of modern cellular phones and network providers that assures 911 call centers receive accurate geolocation from mobile phones. The regulations that require such capabilities are broadly referred to as E911 rules. The enhanced 911 (E911) rules were implemented by the FCC in two phases and were aimed at improving “the effectiveness and reliability of wireless 911 services by providing 911 dispatchers with additional information on wireless 911 calls.” Phase I required cell phones to be capable of communicating to a 911 call center which cellphone tower was utilized in an emergency call. Phase II required wireless carriers “to begin providing information that is more precise to [call centers], specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller.” The FCC mandated that the accuracy of that information had to meet certain standards depending upon the type of technology used. Most modern cell phones use a combination of two methods to generate that location information: A “network-based” solution which triangulates a caller’s location from the cell phone towers near it, and a “headset-based” solution which is generally a GPS receiver built into the phone. Most modern cell phones contain a GPS receiver chip. It is this chip, McAfee argued to us, that a presidential alert system could exploit. Does The Wireless Emergency Alert System Use an “E911 Chip”? McAfee asserted that the action of sending out a nationwide alert necessitates access to the GPS or other location services (i.e. the “E911 chip”) that are part of your phone. FEMA, the federal agency that oversees the WEA, disputes this view, with a FEMA spokesperson telling us: The cell phone functions that receive and display WEA messages are not related or connected to E911 functions in any way. The majority of wireless providers in the United States use Cell Broadcast technology to deliver WEA alert messages to cell phones. Cell Broadcast is a one-way communications protocol. Phones that receive WEA messages choose to display the message if the phone is not busy in a phone call or data session. The WEA message display function in a phone does not use the GPS, microphone, or camera functions of the phone. In essence, what happens when any WEA alert (including Amber alerts and severe weather alerts) go out is that the cell towers in the targeted region will broadcast a signal to all cell phones within receiving distance. This is a passive process, and as such the tower does not require, nor does it obtain, information from the phones that receive the message. The only differences between a “Presidential alert” and any other WEA alert a phone might already receive are that 1) cell phones are not capable of opting out of WEA notifications from the President according to FCC policy, and 2) WEA notifications target the entire country, not a smaller geographic region. Could a WEA Alert Exploit Your Phone’s Hardware and Expose Its Location? Because a WEA notification is a passively received signal, it does not add to the list of potential security vulnerabilities in a phone. For that reason, McAfee’s thesis that the presidential alert is itself a security risk does not hold up. That does not mean, however, that your phone and the software it runs on do not have access to a scary amount of personal data, or that it is not constantly tracking your location and recording you. According to Rappaport, the NYU professor, users almost always (without their knowledge) “opt-in” to a variety of services that utilize the kind of information McAfee is concerned with: It is true that various smartphone operating systems, such as Android and iOS, do collect and process the microphone data of unwitting users, and that our locations and voices are indeed being tracked and mined, processed, and known to the cellphone smartphone operating system, and this information, or processed versions of it, are exchanged between the cell phone’s operating system and the end servers across the internet that communicate with the end user applications … A person’s location information and audio recordings (or processed versions of the recordings) are supposed to be only used when a customer has “opted in” to use these applications, and when the application has been downloaded on to its phone). If you read the fine print of both the Android and IOS operating systems … you will be amazed at what users are agreeing to for the use of their data. This type of data is often used by social media sites (Google, Facebook, etc.) to target their advertising to us. As an experiment, you can talk about your pet, and what you feed your pet, and after a few minutes, you will then find a Facebook ad about pet food in your Facebook feed — I have many of my friends try this, and they are amazed and then quite shaken up. Outside of the issue of a WEA alert’s being a passive signal, McAfee’s thesis also requires accepting the notion that 911 operators have access to those same datasets (the ones described by Rappaport) constantly being created by your phone. That portion of the argument is a bit more factual. As an example, Apple’s iOS 12 system, which was released in September 2018, utilizes a service that collects and packages your location data to be sent to a 911 center should you make a call: Apple today announced it will also use emergency technology company RapidSOS’s Internet Protocol-based data pipeline to quickly and securely share [GPS and networked derived] location data with 911 centers, improving response time when lives and property are at risk. RapidSOS’s system will deliver the emergency location data of iOS users by integrating with many 911 centers’ existing software, which rely on industry-standard protocols … In keeping with Apple’s focus on privacy, user data cannot be used for any non-emergency purpose and only the responding 911 center will have access to the user’s location during an emergency call. We reached out to RapidSOS for a comment on the claims made by McAfee but have not received a response. We have found no evidence, though, that this process could be flipped in reverse, whereby a 911 call center (or any other party) could access this information without your first calling 911. In fact, based on RapidSOS’s literature, their data transfer process is effectively a one-way signal as well. In their process, your location data is constantly updated and sent to a NG911 (next generation 911) data clearinghouse which is then (if you make a 911 call) transmitted to a call center and displayed alongside the other location data they would normally receive. These data could theoretically include other sources of information, but a user would have to opt-in to those features explicitly. We asked McAfee how he knows that the government, via the introduction of a nationwide alert system, could gain access to this kind of data in a way that did not previously exist before the alert system, and he told us that while no documented evidence of any legislation allowing for such a process existed, “every great security person knows” it: There is no evidence that any legislation gave the government the power to co-opt the 911 call. It was something that was intended to be activated only if I’m in trouble and call the police. Is now being used by the government to send text messages under the pretext of [a test]. I’m the world’s greatest cyber security specialist, which is basically one of the greatest hackers. I know that because every great cyber security person knows this. People have taken that chip, taken it apart a thousand times. Regardless of what chip McAfee is referring to, his claim rests on the notion that receiving a WEA alert requires governmental access to the geolocation services utilized by 911 centers, a claim which we have found no evidence to support and which FEMA denies. While cell phones do collect data on users (effectively) without their knowledge and do so constantly, we could identify no mechanism by which the perils presented by that reality were in anyway expanded by a presidential alert, since those alerts merely use the same technology that cell phones have employed to receive weather and Amber alerts for years.


Health officials warn of possible Legionnaires’ exposure.

Explanation: Health officials are warning of a potential for Legionnaires’ disease exposure at an outpatient cancer center in Springfield.

Cancer, Health, General News, Legionnaires disease, Springfield

The Springfield-Greene County Health Department says in a news release that two cases of Legionnaires’ disease have been reported since late April among individuals who visited Mercy health system’s outpatient cancer center in Springfield. State and local officials are investigating, along with the health system. People are infected with the severe form of pneumonia by inhaling airborne water droplets containing the Legionella bacterium. Health officials say a species of the bacterium not usually associated with Legionnaires’ has been recovered in water samples. That indicates that conditions are conducive to Legionella growth within the facility’s water system. The release says there’s no guarantee that this was the source of the illness.


Former Vice President Joe Biden received five medical deferments, allowing him to avoid serving in the Vietnam War.

Explanation: Did Joe Biden Receive Five Deferments During the Vietnam War?

Contrary to what critics claim, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s non-combatant status during the Vietnam War was not underreported prior to his 2020 campaign.Regardless, one Facebook user amassed more than 189,000 shares by claiming, “Won’t see this anywhere” above a high school photograph of Biden and the caption, “Lifeguard/football player Joe Biden got five draft deferments for asthma during Vietnam.”Biden publicly discussed his deferments in a Washington Post profile published in June 1987, amid his first presidential campaign:Biden says he received a draft notice after graduating from law school, but failed the physical because of an asthma condition. He had hoped to be a pilot.“My feeling about it at the time was like a lot of things in my life have been: That there must have been a reason for it. I was prepared to go. I was not anxious to go, because I didn’t think, ‘My God, I can hardly wait to go and join the military. '”After Biden was tapped as U.S. President Barack Obama’s running mate in September 2008, their campaign released Biden’s Selective Service records following a request by the Associated Press, which subsequently reported:According to the documents, Biden, 65, received several deferments while he was an undergraduate at the University of Delaware and later as a law student at Syracuse University. A month after undergoing a physical exam in 1968, Biden received a Selective Service classification of 1-Y, meaning he was available for service only in the event of national emergency.“As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager,” said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.In “Promises to Keep,” a memoir that was published last year and became an instant bestseller after he was tapped as Obama’s running mate, Biden never mentions his asthma, recounting an active childhood, work as a lifeguard and football exploits in high school.Biden’s opponent in the 2020 presidential election, incumbent Donald Trump, also received five deferments during the war, one of which he has claimed was due to bone spurs in his heels.But Trump’s account has come under question on several occasions.In December 2018, the daughters of Dr. Larry Braunstein told the New York Times that Braunstein, a podiatrist, had told them prior to his death in 2007 that he did Trump’s father “a favor” in providing him a diagnosis qualifying him for deferment from the war:“What he got was access to Fred Trump,” Elysa Braunstein said. “If there was anything wrong in the building, my dad would call and Trump would take care of it immediately. That was the small favor that he got.”No paper evidence has been found to help corroborate the version of events described by the Braunstein family, who also suggested there was some involvement by a second podiatrist, Dr. Manny Weinstein. Dr. Weinstein, who died in 1995, lived in two apartments in Brooklyn owned by Fred Trump; city directories show he moved into the first during the year Donald Trump received his exemption.Dr. Braunstein’s daughters said their father left no medical records with the family, and a doctor who purchased his practice said he was unaware of any documents related to Mr. Trump. Most detailed government medical records related to the draft no longer exist, according to the National Archives.Two months later, the president’s former attorney Michael Cohen testified to federal lawmakers that Trump admitted to faking the injury. As the Military Times reported:“Mr. Trump claimed [his medical deferment] was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery,” Cohen told members of the House Oversight Committee. “He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment.“He finished the conversation with the following comment: ‘You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam. '”Trump was further criticized following a September 2020 report in The Atlantic saying that he referred to dead U.S. soldiers as “losers” and “suckers.”That same month, Trump was also criticized by Creedence Clearwater Revival singer/songwriter John Fogerty for using his song “Fortunate Son” — which took aim at the abuse of deferments by the rich to avoid serving in Vietnam.“I find it confusing, I would say, that the president has chosen to use my song for his political rallies, when in fact it seems like he is probably the fortunate son,” Fogerty told Rolling Stone.Comments


Study finds computers hinder accuracy in mammography

Explanation: This story reports on the first large scale analysis of whether computer aided detection (CAD) improves the interpretation of mammograms. As was reported in the story, the study found that the use of CAD actually reduced the accuracy of the breast cancer screening. The story included technical detail about how CAD is used and made important points about the real value of experienced mammographers. It covered costs – the additional cost of computer detection and of the machines. And it turned to several sources – some involved in the study and some not. The story might have helped women with a few more questions. What should a woman do with this information? Should she go to a facility that uses computer-aided detection? Should she ask that it not be used? Are there other things she should do to make sure that her screening is a high quality as possible? Overall, though, this story was well done, and in only 638 words.

While the story did not include the overall cost for mammography, it did mention that the use of computer aided detection adds about $20 to the cost of each mammogram. It also mentioned that this charge is covered by Medicare and most insurers. And it discussed the investment many medical centers have made in the machines – $125,000 – 175,000. The benefits of the technology discussed (or lack of benefit) was reported in absolute number of tumors detected. The harm of treatment – undergoing unecessary biopsy was mentioned. However – the increased number of biopsies was presented as a relative increase rather than an absolute value. The story might have mentioned that the use of CAD increased the number of cases of ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS, for which progression to invasive cancer is less certain – meaning that it may not pose a health risk during the woman's lifetime. The benefit of cancer treatment for women with this diagnosis is therefore not clear. Thus enhanced ability to detect DCIS may not affect death from breast cancer. Nonetheless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The evidence that breast cancer detection rates did not differ was presented in terms of the absolute number of breast tumors detected. The story included the source of the study it was reporting. The story did not engage in disease mongering. Multiple sources were used, some directly involved in the study and some not. The story described one option to computer-aided detection of mammograms used at one center. It mentioned one breast center in which every mammogram is read by two radiologists, which was described as more effective at finding cancers than a computer system. It also emphasized the value of experienced radiologists reading conventional mammograms. The story mentioned that about 25% of mammography centers in the US use computer aided detection. The story did not mislead on the novelty (or lack thereof) of this technology, explaining that computer aided decition is used in about 25% of mammography centers. Does not appear to rely on a press release.