Maine lawmakers’ bills focus on solar energy, health care.

Explanation: Democrats with newfound control over Maine’s Legislature have proposed bills to expand access to health care, eliminate restrictions on solar projects, forgive student debt and promote firearms safety, according to the titles of over 2,000 bills released by the Legislature.

Legislature, Access to health care, Health, Marijuana, Gun politics, Bills, Maine

Meanwhile, other bills — proposed by Democrats, Republicans and independents — would tackle the opioid crisis, the roll-out marijuana sales and the future of ranking candidates on the ballot. There are also proposals on paid sick leave, an income tax hike, state funding for abortion services and measures to prevent “high-risk” people from obtaining firearms. Few details are available so far about lawmakers’ bills, whose titles were released Tuesday. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who was sworn in last week, leads the state alongside Democrats who now control Maine’s Senate and House. She’s set to release a budget proposal in early February, and lawmakers face a healthy surplus left over from Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s administration. Mills told supporters in an email Tuesday that too many Mainers are facing high health insurance bills while the state’s aging workforce and changing climate must be addressed. The leaders of Maine’s Republican Party called on GOP lawmakers to work against bills that would “take Maine in the wrong direction.” RENEWABLE ENERGY Mills has said promoting renewable energy is one of her top priorities in her first year. At least five bills would eliminate restrictions on solar power projects, while over a dozen other bills tackle other aspects of energy policy, including creating a “Green New Deal for Maine” and promoting investment in renewable energy. Wind power ballooned under former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who criticized subsidies to solar and wind industries. Pete Didisheim, lobbyist for Natural Resources Council of Maine, said he hopes Maine takes more action on climate change under Mills. “We’ve been kind of alone as states all around us have been doing a much better job at reducing their dependence on fossil fuel and aggressively moving forward on renewables,” Didisheim said. ___ OPIOID CRISIS The number of people dying from drug overdoses has continued to increase in Maine, which saw 418 such deaths in 2017. Mills used her first executive order to start expanding Medicaid to as many as 70,000 low-income Mainers, as voters demanded in 2017. She says the expansion will help provide drug treatment to people struggling with substance use. Democrats are pushing to eliminate the two-year limit on Medicaid coverage for opioid use treatment drugs, while also pushing for new treatment programs in rural areas. A Republican bill would make it a crime to “transmit illegal drugs through breast milk.” ___ POT SALES, RANKED-CHOICE VOTING, WAGES Lawmakers are still figuring out the future of measures that voters approved in referendums, such as legalizing marijuana sales, ranking the candidates in some elections and increasing the minimum wage. Adults over 21 can possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. But sales have been delayed until lawmakers approve new regulations. Dozens of new bills tackle marijuana policy, from allowing state-chartered credit unions to serve marijuana businesses to sealing the criminal records of nonviolent offenders convicted of previous marijuana violations. Maine voters can rank candidates in primaries and federal races, but not state-level races. Several Democrats and an independent lawmaker want to amend Maine’s constitution to allow ranking for all races, while some Republicans are pushing to repeal or freeze the voter-approved law. Maine’s minimum wage jumped to $11 an hour this year and will increase again to $12 in 2020. Then, the wage will increase according to a formula tied to the cost of living. Republicans are proposing changes in the hopes of helping smaller businesses and state-funded nursing homes struggling with the increase. ___ ODDITIES Other bills deal with more obscure topics. One bill would examine “the sale and release of balloons.” The title of another proposes changing Maine’s license plate slogan from “Vacationland” to “Staycationland.” Lawmakers have also proposed to allow hunters to shoot bows with crossbows and to allow barbers to use straight edge razors.


Personalized treatment for those in blood pressure 'gray zone'

Explanation: This news release describes an analysis of data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study showing a link between a buildup of calcium in coronary arteries and heart attacks in patients with borderline high blood pressure, referred to here as “prehypertension.” The study asserts that coronary artery calcification (CAC) can be used to guide treatment decisions for these “gray zone” patients. Aside from an overreaching headline and sub-headline, the news release delivers essential information including costs, harms, availability, and study limitations. Nearly 30 percent of U.S. adults have prehypertension, defined as blood pressure between 120 and 139 for the first number (systolic) and/or 80 to 89 for the second number (diastolic). Preypertension is associated with a higher risk of heart attack as well as a heightened risk of developing high blood pressure, which increases the risk of stroke. But the concept of “prehypertension” is somewhat controversial. The most recent hypertension guidelines (JNC 8) do not include this classification. It’s still a leap of faith to imply that identifying this risk group and more aggressively treating their blood pressure would significantly reduce their cardiovascular risk. Patients generally are advised to make lifestyle changes such as exercise and weight loss, but medication is sometimes prescribed. A tool to better determine which patients would benefit from aggressive treatment — as coronary artery calcification scans might prove to be — could help clinicians make better recommendations, improving outcomes and reducing costs.

blood pressure,Johns Hopkins Medicine,prehypertension

The news release says that coronary artery calcium scans “aren’t usually covered by insurance and can range in cost from $100 to $400.” The news release does a good job of explaining the findings with numbers. It says the study shows “heart CT scans can help personalize treatment in patients whose blood pressure falls in the gray zone of just above normal or mild high blood pressure.” It says the study suggests “people with the highest calcium levels would benefit most from aggressive blood pressure treatment, whereas those with little or no calcium may not need to be treated as intensively, depending on their other heart disease risk factors.” It gives some detailed numbers to show the risk differential between people with no calcium buildup and those with a lot of calcium. To paraphrase the release, among participants with borderline blood pressure readings, those with calcium scores of zero and high predicted risk of heart disease had a low actual event rate, of 12.7 events per 1,000 person-years. Those with calcium scores over 100 but a low predicted risk of heart disease ended up with a higher rate of actual cardiac events, 19.7. “Thus,” the release says, “even though their calculated heart disease risk is relatively low and their blood pressure is below traditional cutoffs for treatment, the researchers say people in this category with calcium over 100 are high risk and may benefit from more aggressive blood pressure treatment. Given that the difference in cardiac event rates between people with low calcium scores and those with high calcium scores isn’t extreme, this might amount to a marginal benefit; we would have liked some discussion of how many patients might fall into this “gray zone” and thus benefit from this approach. Basically, the benefits, including the number needed to treat (NNT), cost-effectiveness, as well as harms and costs of obtaining these calcium scores are unknown. All we know is the magnitude of the increased potential risk associated with higher calcium scores, not whether this risk can be reduced. The news release states: “The scans use radiation, so there is a very small cancer risk for susceptible individuals.” While the mention of cancer risk is laudable, we aren’t clear what’s meant by “susceptible individuals.” Also, it does not mention that CT scans are not recommended for pregnant women due to possible risk to the fetus. In addition, harms can also arise from medications prescribed to treat these calcium scores. The news release is forthcoming about study limitations. It states: “The researchers caution that results are from an observational study, and a randomized trial would be needed to confirm the recommendations.” While other limitations are mentioned in the study, these are key ones readers should know about. The news release is accurate when it states that nearly one in three adults in the US. has the range of blood pressure it describes as prehypertension. But we wonder why it mentions that 70 million adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure, since the study results do not directly apply to that population. The news release mentions who funded the study, but it omits one potential conflict of interest that was reported in the study: one of the authors serves on a speakers’ bureau for GE Healthcare, which makes imaging equipment and software designed to detect coronary artery calcification. It’s not a a major concern, but the lack of disclosure means the release doesn’t quite meet our standard here. The news release offers this comparison: “Previously, the appropriate blood pressure treatment for these patients used risk calculations and some guesswork, potentially leaving many vulnerable to heart disease or taking drugs they don’t need.” Previous treatment guidelines (JNC 7) recommended only lifestyle changes for the average-risk prehypertensive patient. (And as noted above, the current guidelines do not include a prehypertensive category.) We would like to see some mention of these recommended lifestyle changes such as exercise, weight loss, dietary changes, and limiting alcohol, which can reduce blood pressure along with providing other health benefits. Though CT scans are widely available, the news release mentions that coronary artery calcium scans aren’t usually covered by insurance. This seems to be an important stumbling block to widespread adoption. Could insurers be persuaded to pay for scans if the cost is outweighed by better targeting of treatments? Addressing this point would have added value to the news release. The news release offers perspective via this quote from a researcher: “Our study, along with others, such as SPRINT and HOPE, positions cardiac risk and coronary artery calcium as helpful ways to determine if a given patient would either benefit from more intensive blood pressure control or do just fine with a more traditional blood pressure target.” According to the study itself, it’s the “first to incorporate information on individual coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden to personalize the risk-based treatment of hypertension.” It should be noted that the release is comparing an observational study with the HOPE and SPRINT trials which were randomized treatment trials. The former examines an association while the latter provides experimental evidence. This is a close call. Overall the tone of this news release is measured. However, the sub-headline jumps the gun when it states the CAC score “gives risk assessment to prevent over- or undertreatment of blood pressure.” The score may be able to help guide treatment decisions when the path is unclear, but as the body of the news release mentions, a randomized trial is needed to find out whether there’s a clinical benefit. Also, we’re wondering whether the term “personalized treatment” is overused. In the past it’s typically referred to treatment approaches directed by genetic variables. But in this case, the term has been expanded to cover variables in calcium buildup, with no known genetic component. The release also states: “the researchers say these calcium scores allow physicians to go beyond the traditionally calculated risk factors to determine which blood pressure treatment strategy may be most appropriate for a particular patient.”  At best, this provides the rationale for conducing a study to determine whether blood pressure treatment is appropriate–it cannot address the issue of which strategy.


In a government shutdown, "what they are really doing is shutting down our military.

National, Federal Budget, Military, Donald Trump,

As a possible government shutdown loomed, President Donald Trump preemptively blamed Democrats for any negative fallout. Trump charged that Democratic intransigence about how to renew Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was preventing an agreement on federal spending that would keep the government open — including the country’s defense forces. "Because of the Democrats not being interested in life and safety, DACA has now taken a big step backwards," Trump tweeted on Jan. 12, 2018. "The Dems will threaten ‘shutdown,’ but what they are really doing is shutting down our military, at a time we need it most. Get smart, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" ....Because of the Democrats not being interested in life and safety, DACA has now taken a big step backwards. The Dems will threaten “shutdown,” but what they are really doing is shutting down our military, at a time we need it most. Get smart, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! We won’t wade into the question of who would be to blame for the shutdown. However, we wondered whether Trump was correct that a government shutdown is tantamount to "shutting down our military." When we checked with the White House, they said that Trump was not using the term literally, to suggest that the entire military will cease to operate. In other tweets, Trump used less sweeping language. In one, for instance, he warned against moves that would "stop paying our troops and government workers." Still, the less cautiously worded tweet attracted nearly 23,000 retweets and almost 91,000 likes, so we thought it was worth a closer look. What is a shutdown? Federal government shutdowns occur when spending bills expire, and Congress and the president find themselves at an impasse. A law known as the Antideficiency Act requires suspending a federal agency’s operations until an appropriation bill is enacted. But there is some leeway to continue certain federal activities deemed essential. A two-week shutdown occurred most recently in 2013, when Barack Obama was president, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Republicans controlled the House. Prior to that, there were two shutdowns in the mid 1990s, when President Bill Clinton squared off against a new Republican majority in the House and Senate. One was for five days in November 1995, and the other was for 21 days, from December 1995 to January 1996. Who works and who doesn’t During the 2013 shutdown, as many as 850,000 workers were furloughed per day, or about 40 percent of the federal workforce (not counting active-duty military personnel and U.S. Postal Service workers). The longstanding guidance is that "employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property" remain on their jobs during a shutdown. The determination of who works and who doesn’t has traditionally been made by senior executives and legal advisors at each agency. This means that the president, as the head of the executive branch, could theoretically order which federal workers must continue to show up for work, said Stan Collender, a budget specialist at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP. During a shutdown, national parks typically shut their doors, government-funded scientific research is halted, and various health and safety inspections — by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration — are put on hold. (Some government functions are not reliant on congressional appropriations, and these can usually continue unimpeded in the face of a shutdown.) But workers responsible for human safety and security will typically remain on the job, and that includes many members of the military. How the military is affected Active-duty military personnel have always been required to work through shutdowns. Army troops don’t abandon their posts and naval ships don’t all return to port. In addition, many civilian workers in the Defense Department have been required to work through shutdowns. Other civilian workers in the Defense Department, however, hold jobs that do not meet the urgency threshold to keep working. In 2013, the government furloughed about half of its civilian workers, or about 400,000 employees, leaving a patchwork of various permissible and impermissible activities, according to Federal News Radio. "We can and will continue to support key military operations," former Defense Department comptroller Bob Hale told Federal News Radio in 2013. "We’re allowed to do that by law, but the law would force us to disrupt many of our support activities. We wouldn’t be able to do most training, we couldn’t enter into most new contracts, routine maintenance would have to stop, and we couldn’t continue efforts to improve contracting and financial management including our audit improvement efforts." The Defense Department, like other parts of the government, will experience some consequences from a shutdown. But experts we interviewed agreed that Trump’s language in this tweet amounted to an exaggeration, especially because the Defense Department is hurt less by a shutdown than most agencies. "All critical military functions will continue," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "There would be some wrinkles, but nothing like other areas of government." Todd Harrison, a defense budget specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the "biggest impact is probably on defense contractors, who will have to stop working." But "troops that are in harm’s way overseas will continue operating as normal and won’t be at any increased risk," he said. Paychecks could be delayed One way that even active-duty troops could feel the shutdown is in their wallets. Employees who are required to work are not paid until a new spending bill is passed— effectively working for free, at least temporarily. Workers who are furloughed have historically been compensated for back pay through subsequent congressional action, though there is no requirement that such a bill be passed. In 2013, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that $2.5 billion in pay and benefits was paid for hours not worked government-wide, said Tyler Evilsizer, research manager for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Usually, paychecks have been sent after a shutdown is over, but for the Defense Department in 2013, Congress and the president agreed to a bill in the middle of the shutdown that paid all active-duty and many civilian Defense Department employees. This enabled Defense Department employees to return to work while the shutdown was still going on for workers in other departments. Delayed paychecks are just one downside of government shutdowns. "A shutdown is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, disruptive of government operations, and simply bad management," said John Palguta, a former federal human-resources official who is now an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. "A shutdown, however, will not put the U.S. in harm’s way by shutting down our military." Even just planning contingencies for a possible shutdown divert time and effort from the government’s duties, said Mallory Barg Bulman, vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service. Our ruling Trump said that in a government shutdown, "what they are really doing is shutting down our military." This is an exaggeration. Based on historical precedent, the Defense Department does stand to see a substantial fraction of its civilian workers furloughed, and employee morale would likely suffer if paychecks are held back. But experts agreed that core military functions would remain operational, including all active-duty military personnel and many essential civilian workers. We rate the statement .


A Muslim immigrant in Michigan can list his second, third or fourth wives as "extended family" and qualify for welfare.

Explanation: Teva Pharmaceutical’s UK unit has recalled some batches of heartburn medicine Ranitidine, Britain’s medicines watchdog said on Thursday, making it the latest drugmaker to pull the product.

Immigration, National, Income, Islam, Welfare, Chain email,

Teva, the world's largest generic drugmaker, is recalling all unexpired stock of Ranitidine Effervescent Tablets in 150 micrograms and 300 micrograms dosages, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said here  Teva did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Rantidine, a copycat of GlaxoSmithKline’s Zantac, is being taken off the shelves after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found “unacceptable” levels of a probable cancer-causing impurity in the drug. GSK last week recalled Zantac in all markets. U.S. and European health regulators said last month they were reviewing the safety of Ranitidine, after online pharmacy Valisure warned of possible contamination with an impurity called NDMA, which has carcinogenic potential. Ranitidine is the latest drug in which cancer-causing impurities have been found. Regulators have been recalling some blood pressure and heart failure medicines since last year.


CT Scans Can Reduce Lung Cancer Deaths, Study Finds

Explanation: This story concisely reports the announcement that the long-anticipated National Lung Screening Trial indicates that heavy smokers who were offered a certain type of CT scan were less likely to die of lung cancer than similar smokers who were offered chest x-rays. It includes valuable comments that help readers understand what was found and, more importantly, some of the limitations on what is known. However, the lead sentence skews the story by highlighting that researchers saw a 20 percent relative difference in lung cancer death rates, while failing to make it clear that the absolute difference in death rates was much less than one percent, because of the small number of few lung cancer deaths in either the CT (354 or 1.32%) or x-ray (442 or 1.65%) group compared to the size of the total trial population (about 53,500). The National Cancer Institute reported that 300 smokers would have to undergo screening in order for one life to be extended. Readers should have been shown that aspect of the results. Putting a spotlight on relative differences in rates usually magnifies the effects of an intervention. Absolute numbers – and the number of people that need to undergo the intervention in order for at least one to benefit – should get at least equal billing in order to put trial results into perspective.

Mixed bag and, in the end, not specific enough to warrant a satisfactory score. The story does say that a nationwide lung cancer screening program would be “enormously costly,” and it does mention that screening leads to additional tests and treatments. But what does “enormously costly” mean? And how much could those additional tests and treatments cost? The story doesn’t tell readers that this type of CT scan costs about $300 (or that the trial participants each received about $900 worth of scans) and that this type of screening is generally not covered by insurance. This story might have met this criterion if not for a misleading lead sentence. Researchers did announce that the heavy smokers in this trial who were offered CT scans had a 20 percent lower rate of death from lung cancer than those offered chest x-rays. The story does report the total number of deaths in the body of the story (354 vs. 442), but it does not point how that because so many smokers were in this trial, the lung cancer death rate in each group was less than 2 percent. That context is important, because while the relative difference in death rates is indeed 20 percent, the absolute difference is less than one-third of one percent (1.32% vs. 1.65%). A letter sent by the National Cancer Institute to trial participants points out that based on these results, 300 heavy smokers would have to be screened in order to extend a single life. Those statistics would have helped readers put the results in perspective. The story does include valuable comments from one of the researchers about how much more analysis and study is needed in order to understand whether and for whom this sort of screening might be beneficial. Another problem with the lead sentence is that it is not quite accurate to say that “annual CT scans” produced this result, since the trial didn’t offer ongoing annual screening, but rather three scans done at one-year intervals and then no more. The final paragraph of the story points out that there is a risk of harms from the radiation used for the CT scans and that the scans cause false positives and may lead to tests and treatments done on people who actually don’t have dangerous tumors. We wish some attempt had been made to quantify these harms – even if it meant drawing from past research – but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story describes the trial, including who was enrolled, that they were screened by either chest x-rays or low-dose CT scans, and that they were followed for up to five years. It also notes that early trials of CT scanning of smokers had failed to demonstrate a difference in death rates. The story reports that this study involved current and former heavy smokers. However, near the end of the story there is a reference to “more than 80 million current and former smokers in the United States.” It is not clear whether this number is meant to be an estimate of the number of people who smoked as heavily as those included in this trial. (The study enrolled only people who had smoked at least 30 pack-years, which is calculated by multiplying the number of years of smoking and the number of packs smoked per day. For example, 30 years of smoking a pack a day or 15 years of smoking two packs a day would each have 30 pack-years of smoking experience.) There is an independent source and the story reports that the trial was government-financed. However, the story does not tell readers that the independent source, Dr. Claudia Henschke, has been a loud critic of this trial. Dr. Henschke has been criticized both for making claims about benefits of CT screening that went beyond the available evidence, for having ties to a leading manufacturer of CT scanners, and for taking funding from a tobacco company. She should have been identified as someone who has frequently clashed with those who have supported this trial. The story reports that no other screening method (including chest x-rays) has been shown to reduce lung cancer death rates among current and former smokers. However, many health experts are concerned that lung cancer screening could lull smokers into a false sense of safety. This story fails to mention quitting smoking as a way to reduce the risk of death. Nonethless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. While it may seem obvious that CT scanning is widely available, this trial used a specific and rigorous protocol for selecting the type of low-dose CT scanners used, how they were maintained and operated, as well as certifying the training and practices of the radiologists who interpreted the scans. The sort of CT machines, operators and radiologists generally available to smokers may not meet the demanding standards of this trial and thus may not be able to match the results. The story recaps some of the history of research on screening for lung cancer and quotes one of the researchers saying, “This is the first time that we have seen clear evidence of a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a screening test in a randomized controlled trial.” The story is not based on a news release.


Surprising news about teens, marijuana, and health issues. It’s all good.

Explanation: The story describes one study of about 400 men who were followed from their teens in the late 1980s until 2010. The researchers found no increased risk of asthma, depression, lung cancer or mental illness, which the story seems to accept as a big reassurance. We felt the story did not squarely address the study limitations as described by the authors themselves in the paper. Instead, the “surprising news” came in a single-source story, lifting quotes from a news release, without any independent perspective or adequate context. Millions of individuals, of all ages, are making current decisions about medical and recreational marijuana use every day. Medical research on the health impacts of that exposure matter for each person and for society as a whole. This story over-valued the conclusion of a single small study based on a sample of only young men. Yes, the study results were interesting and indeed add to a body of knowledge about the use of marijuana by adolescents but it is by no means definitive. Suggesting, “it’s all good” is a misleading leap based on this one limited study.

We’ll rule this Not Applicable. The story didn’t discuss costs, and we acknowledge it would be difficult to pin down marijuana costs from different sources – from the time period in question in the analysis – or today. Although the story is about research examining harms we think that a brief line or two about the reasons for marijuana use would have been informative. Especially when the author is allowed to say that he wanted to “help inform the debate about legalization of marijuana.”  Debates involve tradeoffs of benefits and harms and we heard only one side of it in this story (and incompletely at that). The story provides a list of the potential harms associated with marijuana use but it over-emphasizes the importance of this relatively small study in downplaying them – calling it “surprising news” that is “all good” in the headline. And the second sentence says the study “should alleviate some of the worst fears.”  That is too big a leap. The story tried to describe the context of previous studies on marijuana but used this language “other studies in the past that seemed to allude to marijuana use and later development of psychotic symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations.” As readers, we want to ask – did previous studies conclude there were risks? How can a study “seem to allude?” A recent review (N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2219-222) cited 69 publications examining the potential harms of marijuana use by the general population. This one study is simply an addition to the growing body of evidence. The story provides several hints into the study design. We are told how many subjects were enrolled and the duration of the data collection. We are also told that the 408 really represented 4 separate and distinct groups based on usage with the early chronic users highlighted. This latter group was represented by 86 subjects. The implication is that these young men ingested a good deal of marijuana. Usage was not however uniform. The methods of assessing the presence of absence of the harms under study are not provided (of note: 25 of the original subjects died during the study period with 21 deaths listed as homicides) nor are we told about missing data. The study was conducted only in male teens, so the headline or early sentence should have emphasized the limitation that the “surprising” findings apply only to one gender. This single study relies solely on the reports of the participants and ended in 2010 – based on their reported use of marijuana in the 1980s and 90s. Many observers believe the marijuana sold in the United States has changed dramatically in the past 25 years. Results on exposures from so long ago may not apply to modern marijuana strains for sale. Here’s how one laboratory representative described the potency change, in a CBS story from earlier this year. “We’ve seen a big increase in marijuana potency compared to where it was 20 or 30 years ago,” lab founder and director of research Andy LaFrate, Ph.D., said in a video released by ACS. Based on testing in laboratory equipment, “I would say the average potency of marijuana has probably increased by a factor of at least three. We’re looking at average potencies right now of around 20 percent THC.” THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the psychoactive compound in marijuana that acts on the brain to produce the feeling of being high. Not applicable in this case. There was not a single disease or condition explored in any detail. The story badly needed an independent source. It would have been possible and helpful to choose from among many researchers whose work points to potential harm from chronic marijuana exposure. Again, letting the researcher get away with saying – unchallenged- that he wanted to “help inform the debate about legalization of marijuana” in a single source story is problematic. This is not an applicable category for this story topic. However, it is interesting to consider whether teens who use marijuana are not using alcohol, and whether that may lower their risk of harms from alcohol use. The story leads with the “widespread availability of marijuana in recent years” – especially “thanks to its legalization in a growing number of states.” The story suggests that the study highlighted was novel in that it did not find an association between marijuana use in adolescent and harms seen by other researchers. However, the story did little to provide any context to the differences. Since the intent of this criterion is to establish the true novelty of a finding, we judge the story to be unsatisfactory. The quotes from researcher Bechtold are identical to those in an American Psychological Association news release. The story euphemistically refers to these comments appearing in “a statement.”  Let’s call it what it is:  a news release or press release written by public relations people. Lifting quotes and then not seeking independent perspectives are a double whammy.


Nazi Luftwaffe commander Hermann Goering  proclaimed that although "the people don't want war,"  they "can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders.

Explanation: We note that the validity of this quote is based upon a single source’s report of a private comment (and therefore cannot be independently verified), but it is the only possible source, and Gustave Gilbert was a respected psychologist with no obvious motivation to fabricate a tale such as this. Some sixty-five years on, Gilbert’s book The Psychology of Dictatorship: Based on an Examination of the Leaders of Nazi Germany is still a highly regarded entry in its field.

Another quote in the vein of the apocryphal Julius Caesar warning about political leaders who can all too easily send the citizenry marching eagerly off to war by manufacturing crises that purportedly threaten national security and making popular appeals to patriotism. In this case the sentiment expressed is even more disturbing because it comes not from a venerated figure of antiquity, but supposedly from a reviled twentieth-century figure associated with the most chilling example of genocide in human history: Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief:  “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them  they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials  We may be made somewhat uneasy by the idea that the head of a classic civilization recognized 2,000 years ago that the populace could be manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of their leaders, but perhaps we’re more outraged (and maybe even scared) at the thought of a fat Nazi fascist flunky’s recognizing and telling us the same thing. The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II. He was found guilty on charges of “war crimes,” “crimes against peace,” and “crimes against humanity” by the Nuremberg tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence could not be carried out, however, because Goering committed suicide with smuggled cyanide capsules hours before his execution, scheduled for 15 October 1946. The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking American intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess:  Sweating in his cell in the evening, Goering was defensive and deflated and not very happy over the turn the trial was taking. He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others, and that he had never been anti-Semitic himself, had not believed these atrocities, and that several Jews had offered to testify in his behalf. If [Hans] Frank [Governor-General of occupied Poland] had known about atrocities in 1943, he should have come to him and he would have tried to do something about it. He might not have had enough power to change things in 1943, but if somebody had come to him in 1941 or 1942 he could have forced a showdown. (I still did not have the desire at this point to tell him what [SS General Otto] Ohlendorf  had said to this: that Goering had been written off as an effective “moderating” influence, because of his drug addiction and corruption.) I pointed out that with his “temperamental utterances,” such as preferring the killing of 200 Jews to the destruction of property, he had hardly set himself up as champion of minority rights. Goering protested that too much weight was being put on these temperamental utterances. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not defending or glorifying Hitler. Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering’s observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:  We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.” “There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.” “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”


Researchers use smart phone to make a faster infection detector

Explanation: This news release about a smartphone-based infectious disease testing device confuses speed and device cost with benefits to patients and public health. It oversimplifies infectious disease detection and response. In their published study, the researchers reported an important achievement: comparable accuracy (under ideal conditions) with existing lab devices. However, the release doesn’t point out vital distinctions between performance in the lab and in real-world field use, or between the cost of a device and the total cost of a public health program that uses such a device. The release does not put the status of this device into context with other similar devices being developed by universities and companies around the world. We note that the release does report the funding source and the commercial intentions of the researchers. News releases should include essential context, not just certain facts that put researchers’ work in the most positive light. This release focuses narrowly on accuracy comparisons between an experimental device and existing lab equipment. It leaves reporters and other readers to discover on their own how this device compares to similar experimental products. The release highlights potential real-world health benefits without acknowledging the complex questions that need to be asked before anyone can know whether this device can deliver on the promises. Infectious diseases are still a significant source of mortality and morbidity especially in low and middle income countries. A device that could improve the diagnosis of these diseases would be useful in these settings.

infectious disease,smartphone apps,Washington State University

The news release reports that the device would probably cost less than $50 to manufacture. However, the cost of a lab device is only part of the cost of infectious disease testing. What sort of training is needed to accurately interpret results? Would the device be able to replace conventional lab tests or would it be used as a preliminary test, that would then be checked by conventional tests? It is possible that in real world circumstances, the device could lead many more people into testing, potentially increasing the total cost of testing programs. The health benefit could be worthwhile, but the news release should not claim that a device would reduce costs without evidence of total costs in real world use. The release reports details of a direct comparison between test results produced by this device and standard lab equipment. However, relative accuracy of lab tests is not, by itself, a health benefit. The release says that using conventional lab testing services takes too long “by which time the infection may have become widespread.” The obvious implication is that this hand-held device would lead to more rapid and more effective outbreak detection in the field. Perhaps…but that’s not what was tested. The release should have been clearer that actual human health benefits won’t be known until after testing in the field. Tests, even accurate ones, have downsides which were not mentioned in this release. The release stated that the device “provided false positives only about one percent of the time.” If field workers fanned out across a city and tested 100,000 people, that 1% false positive rate would mean that about a thousand people would be told they were infected when they actually were not. The release did not mention false negatives (telling an infected person that he or she is not infected). The lead sentence of the release claims that this device “works nearly as well as clinical laboratories.” But what was actually reported was just a comparison of this device to standard lab equipment in an ideal laboratory setting as performed by the device’s developers. The release should have made clear that the device was not tested in the field or using people who had only the amount of training that would be available under actual use conditions. The release should have noted the limitations of the study. It would have been more appropriate for the release to state that the researchers made progress demonstrating the potential for their device but that the actual public health benefits won’t be known until after field testing. We will give the release a satisfactory rating on this criterion. However, other than measles, it is not clear that other types of infections used in this study (including mumps, herpes and Lyme disease) are responsible for the type of fast-moving outbreaks that the release says this device could help identify more rapidly. The release reports that the researchers have filed a patent and hope to commercialize their product. It also states that the work was supported by a Washington State University fund to support entrepreneurial endeavors. As noted above, this test was done by the device’s developers under ideal lab conditions. The comparisons to existing devices and speculation about relative effectiveness should wait until field tests are done. The release states that the researchers “hope to move forward with clinical trials that could lead to commercialization.” Although the release does not claim this device is the first or most advanced of its kind, it conspicuously avoids mentioning similar devices. A quick search of PubMed.gov and other online sources reveals a number of reports on similar products being tested at competing institutions including UCLA and Macquarie University in Australia. The release does not explain how this device compares to others. The release includes several speculative claims that this device could perform better than existing devices in reducing public health program costs, health care access and delivery, infectious disease control and more. None of these important goals has been tested.


Lipogen Targets PMS/PMDD Relief, Naturally

Explanation: This news release announces an Israel-based company’s success in obtaining a U.S. patent for a proprietary “phospholipid formulation” called PS Plus, which is purported to treat physical and “emotional” symptoms of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Somewhat misleadingly, the release suggests the formulation was “designed” to address PMS and PMDD, when in fact it appears to be the same single-ingredient supplement already sold to provide “brain support,” “sharpen memory” and ameliorate “stress.” Prevalence statistics presented in the release are contradictory and qualitatively lightweight. There is evidence in the literature of some clinical testing of phosphatidic acid, a natural phospholipid, or fatty acid derivative of soy lecithin, used as a carrier for some experimental drugs, but it is the only active ingredient mentioned on the product website – and not at all in the release — and there is precious little information about other ingredients or costs anywhere. PMS is a very common health condition in women of reproductive age. As such, women in this age group and in many countries may be interested in “natural” remedies to alleviate some of the symptoms. Additionally, Americans are high users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions. Recent studies have noted that in the United States, “approximately 38 percent of adults (about 4 in 10) and approximately 12 percent of children (about 1 in 9) are using some form of CAM.” Moreover, CAM use among adults is greater among women and those with higher levels of education and higher incomes – exactly the population this news release is trying to reach. The supplement industry’s so-called “orthomolecular” therapies, which claim to maintain health with the use of natural compounds, have long been the subject of public health and scientific controversy, and come-and-go fads among consumers who spends millions on supplements for which rigorous evidence of clinical value is at best scant. For an aging population of boomers, in particular, the promise of protecting and boosting brain health (and by inference reducing the risk of age-related dementia), has been especially appealing, particularly if the products claim to be “natural” and with no ill effects. Similarly, for younger women, claims of safe, natural relief for  PMS and related syndromes are appealing, given that the conditions have long been “medicalized,” and such treatments as hormone replacement therapy and anti-depressants — all carrying risks and adverse effects —  have been over-prescribed and costly. Consequently, there is likely to be substantial interest in a product that promises to relieve what the release says are “more than 200 different symptoms” of PMS, and protect and enhance brain function.

industry/commercial news releases,Women's health

Although the release points out the high costs of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other drug treatments for PMS cost $60 to $535 per month, it fails to mention that a 30-day supply of its product costs $54.95. According to a website showing the product patent application,  it appears to be a combination of phosphatidylserine (PS) as the active ingredient along with phosphatidic acid (PA) and magnesium. These products are available from other manufacturers for purchase on the internet for varying costs. Of interest, the patent application (but not the news release) states that various formulations were given “four times a day”…”from three weeks before the expected monthly menstruation until the commencement of menstruation.”  That would amount to more than 80 pills or tablets per cycle, which would be quite expensive compared to daily dosing of other medications. The description of the benefits is very poor, vague and unscientific. No information is given on study participants such as ages, inclusion criteria, type of symptoms, duration, and severity of symptoms at baseline and post-intervention. The release does report that 23 out of a subset of 220 women among 2,000 volunteers who took PS Plus for brain health and stress management over a two-month period, “noticed relief of premenstrual syndromes.” The company claims these are “strong” results. There is no description of potential harms. The company CEO is quoted saying there are “no reported side-effects.” However, a look at a commonly used scientific database for CAM product ingredients reveals there are side effects associated with phosphatidilserine, the active ingredient found in the product. Those include nausea, gastric distress and insomnia. There also may be an increased risk for acquiring infectious diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) if the phosphatidilserine is derived from bovine cortex, according to the database site. As noted above, there is precious little information about the volunteer subjects except that they are women, and under age 40. At one point, the release states that premenstrual syndromes occur in 15 percent of pre-menopausal women ages 25-44, and later that  symptoms “qualify” as PMS in 20 to 30 percent of such women. But there is no citation for these numbers, nor is it clear that they are meant to reflect the experience in the United States or elsewhere. The essential concern here is that there are no published data, based on standard clinical trial protocols, to provide credible evidence of benefits that are consistent and predictable. That has been an issue and challenge for the supplement industry, regulators, and consumers, and one not likely to end anytime soon. The release and the study upon which the evidence is based lumps together two conditions —  PMS and PMDD — which have different diagnostic criteria and severity. Their citations are inaccurate (PMS occurs in women outside of the age range 25-44, for example) and confusing. It is true that PMS can be annoying and disruptive, but many women’s symptoms are not disruptive enough to require any medication interventions. Additionally, lumping PMS it together with PMDD (which is much more severe and intense) is uncalled for and bordering on disease mongering. In addition, the release offered no explanation for how it came up with the claim that “More than 200 different symptoms have been associated with PMS.” It’s clear from the release that Lipogen, the company that issued the release, also funded the study. According to the release: “When the benefits of phospholipids on PMS and PMDD came to light through Lipogen’s research, we immediately explored its potential,” says David Rutenberg, CEO for Lipogen. Other than mentioning anti-depressants, which are not routinely prescribed for PMS, the release does not discuss any of the many other alternatives to managing PMS/PMDD symptom relief. Many interventions have been studied, from exercising (from which there is insufficient evidence) to other CAM therapies. According to a review published in American Family Physician journal, “A 2009 systematic review found 62 studies of herbal supplements, vitamins, and minerals with published claims for PMS symptom relief, only 10 of which were [randomized controlled trials] RCTs.” The review found that data are insufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of ginkgo, saffron, St. John’s wort, soy, or vitamin E, because only one study existed for each. However, results suggested that chasteberry and vitamin B6 may reduce PMS symptoms.”  Other pharmacologic interventions include: SSRIs, oral-contraceptives, GnRH agonists, and anxyolitics. The release might have been strengthened somewhat if there had been some acknowledgement of some other non-pharmalogical interventions. The release doesn’t mention when or in which formulation the supplement might be available in the U.S. market, even though the release is introducing the supplement to a U.S. audience. The release does, albeit somewhat confusingly, make the point that the observation about its purported benefits in PMS were made, apparently serendipitously, during a study of its effects on brain health and stress. That’s newsworthy, but could have benefited from more detail. The claims made were not supported by the evidence provided. Some of the unsupported or misleading claims: “Realizing the significance of this discovery” “Strong results” “Can save significant health costs over medication alternatives” “No reported side-effects” “Lipogen guarantees its customers ingredient systems that are supported by the highest level of scientific data.” What are these “ingredient systems” and why didn’t they include the “highest level of scientific data?”


Medical group: 953 vaccines, tests may be ineffective.

Explanation: A Connecticut medical group recommends more than 900 people get second vaccinations or tuberculosis tests because the first vaccines and tests might have been ineffective.

Health, Connecticut, Hartford, Tuberculosis

Hartford HealthCare Medical Group said Tuesday that the vaccines and tests may not have been stored in accordance with manufacturers’ recommended temperature guidelines. This represents about 1 percent of vaccines given by the medical group. The 953 patients affected are encouraged to receive a second vaccine or tuberculosis test free of charge. The multispecialty group says the temperature fluctuations were found when HHC recently enacted a proactive auditing program for all its locations— Colchester, Vernon and other communities —that provide vaccinations. HHC says the finding allowed it to implement best practices to prevent the incident from occurring again.


After my first year as governor, I was one of the most unpopular governors, maybe the most unpopular governor in the country. ... It changed.

Ohio, Elections, Polls and Public Opinion, John Kasich,

Gov. John Kasich has been repeating an odd talking point lately: He keeps saying how unpopular he was as governor. The Ohio leader and presidential candidate said it in a Republican debate on March 30. On April 24, he repeated it on CBS Face the Nation when host John Dickerson asked if he thought it was possible for a candidate to change negative perceptions about him. "After my first year as governor, I was one of the most unpopular governors, maybe the most unpopular governor in the country," Kasich said. "It takes a long time to change negatives. People have to see that you're actually being fruitful in your work. What happened with me is when people started getting work, and we started balancing budgets and reaching out to people, it changed." Is he right about being the least beloved state leader across the land after his first year in office? An August 2011 poll by Public Policy Polling said that with a 36 percent approval rating, he was the second or third least popular governor in the country. That was at least a few points better than in March 2011, when the same pollsters found Kasich’s approval ratings in the basement at 30 percent, and in May 2011 at 33 percent. Where was the love? In April 2011, his third month in office, Kasich made boatloads of enemies with a stroke of his pen. Kasich signed a massive union reform bill that prohibited forced union membership for state employees, mandated merit pay, outlawed strikes and limited collective bargaining rights for public employees. Unlike a similar reform bill in Wisconsin, Ohio’s SB 5 included police and firefighters. The political backlash was immediate, and a repeal effort quickly coalesced and reversed Kasich’s attempt at reform. Vying for the title of most unpopular governor in 2011 was Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Public Policy Polling found that Kasich edged out Scott for most unfavorable governor in September 2011 with a 53 percent disapproval rating, compared to Scott’s 52 percent. But Kasich said he was (maybe) the country’s most unpopular governor after his first year. If he took office in January 2011, then we’d need to know his approval rating for the first few months of 2012. PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson looked at the cast of rookie governors in February 2012, one year into their terms, for Governing magazine. Kasich made Jacobson’s list of the seven rookie governors who were struggling the most. Here they are, by approval rating: Jerry Brown (D-CA): 47 percent Rick Scott (R-FL): 43 percent Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): 39 percent Scott Walker (R-WI): 38 percent Nikki Haley (R-SC): 35 percent John Kasich (R-OH): 33 percent Lincoln Chafee (I -RI): 22 percent Based on these numbers, Kasich is the second-most unpopular governor after his first year. But Jacobson’s analysis only counted the 26 governors who took office at the start of 2011. Jacobson notes that approval ratings for governors aren’t exactly the holy grail of polling. He had to consult a handful of different polling groups for his comparison. Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, concurred. "Nobody’s done every governor in the country," he said. "There’s no reason to." He said Quinnipiac only polls from nine states. "What you can say is that it’s not possible to determine (whether Kasich was the least popular governor in the country)," Brown said. "But in a general sense, he’s probably right. He was certainly close to the bottom." Rob Nichols, Kasich’s presidential campaign spokesman who was also the spokesman for the governor’s office in 2011, told us, "Well yeah, we had just come from the election with $10 million in negative attack ads against us. So the last thing you saw was all this TV, trashing him." Nichols also gave us this anecdote: In August 2011, his official email inbox was bombarded with form letters that started out, "Dear Gov. Kasich staff member, I wanted Gov. Kasich to know that I voted for him in the Worst Governor Ever contest at www.worstgovernorever.com...." "I got so many that I had to get our IT people to route them to a special mailbox so they wouldn’t destroy my inbox," Nichols said. Ohioans started to warm to Kasich after the turbulent first year. Later in 2012, his rating bumped up to the 40s, and was up to 53 percent approval in 2013. Quinnipiac University had Kasich polling at 62 percent favorability in October 2015. Our ruling Kasich said, "After my first year as governor, I was one of the most unpopular governors, maybe the most unpopular governor in the country." At its lowest, in March 2011, his favorability among the Ohioans who had just elected him was an abysmal 30 percent. That was bad enough to crown Kasich as the least-popular governor in America for a brief period. We rate this claim .


J&J, U.S. states settle hip implant claims for $120 million.

Explanation: Johnson & Johnson and its DePuy Orthopaedics unit have agreed to pay $120 million to resolve deceptive marketing claims by several U.S. states over the company’s metal-on-metal hip implants.

Attorneys general of 46 U.S. states announced the settlement agreement in statements on Tuesday. They alleged DePuy engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in the promotion of its ASR XL and Pinnacle Ultamet hip implant devices. DePuy in a statement said the settlement involves no admission of liability or misconduct on the part of the companies. “DePuy Synthes remains committed to meeting the current and future needs of orthopedic surgeons and patients,” the company said. The states claimed J&J made misleading claims about the longevity of its metal-on-metal hip implants, with patients frequently having to undergo a revision surgery before the company’s advertised timeframe of five years. Under Tuesday’s settlement agreement, DePuy is required to maintain a post-market surveillance program and update procedures to track complaints over the hip implants, according to a statement by New York Attorney General Letitia James. DePuy in 2010 announced a worldwide voluntary recall of 93,000 of its ASR hip implant systems, saying that 12 percent of them failed within five years. Saying it would pay at least $2.47 billion, the company has since settled thousands of lawsuits by patients who had to have the ASR implant removed. In 2013, DePuy ceased selling the Pinnacle devices after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration strengthened its artificial hip regulations. Metal-on-metal hip implants have also come under scrutiny over allegations that the products cause a build-up of metal ions in the blood, causing groin pain, allergic reactions, bone erosion and tissue death. The company faces some 10,400 lawsuits in the United States over its Pinnacle device in connection with those claims. J&J denies consumer claims related to its Pinnacle products, saying the company acted appropriately and responsibly in the development, testing, and marketing of the devices.


Ocean coastline, closed to shellfish harvesting due to toxin.

Explanation: New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services has closed the state’s ocean coastline and Hampton-Seabrook Harbor to shellfish harvesting because of a toxin that comes from what’s known as red tide.

Environment, New Hampshire, Oceans, Harbors

New Hampshire Public Radio reports the DES found high levels of the toxin, which causes paralytic shellfish poisoning. It was recently found in mussel samples. Chris Nash, shellfish program manager at the department, says it comes from toxic algae. The waters will be closed for the rest of May, which will affect soft shell clamming season. Some oyster harvesting areas remain open in Great Bay and Little Bay. The DES says paralytic shellfish poisoning is a life-threatening syndrome. It says the onset of symptoms is rapid, usually within two hours of consumption. Symptoms include tingling, burning, numbness, drowsiness, incoherent speech, and respiratory paralysis. ___ Information from: WEVO-FM, http://www.nhpr.org/


Crime, The 2018 California Governor's Race, California, Guns, Gavin Newsom,

Gun control is a top priority for California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. So, it’s no surprise Newsom, a Democrat and 2018 candidate for governor, promoted the cause on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. He claimed in a statement on Twitter on June 2, 2017: "Americans are 25x more likely to be shot & killed than others in developed countries. We've had enough. #NationalGunViolenceAwarenessDay." This is not the first time we’ve fact-checked a gun claim by Newsom. In November 2016, we rated his assertion that California has seen a "56 percent decline in the gun murder rate" since the 1990s. Earlier that year, his statement that "So far in 2015, there have been more mass shootings than days." In this case, we wondered whether the facts support his claim about the seemingly huge disparity in gun homicide rates between the United States and other developed countries. We’ll fact-check this claim below. First, here’s some background on Newsom and the 2018 California governor’s race. Governor’s race Newsom is among several prominent Democrats as of now competing in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others include former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; California Treasurer John Chiang and Delaine Eastin, the state’s former superintendent for public instruction. Announced Republican candidates include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a Hall of Fame professional football player. As part of our Tracking The Truth series, PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in the 2018 governor’s race. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at [email protected], tweet us @CAPolitiFact or contact us on Facebook. Newsom has supported California’s stringent gun and ammunition laws. In 2016, he proposed and helped pass Proposition 63, a voter initiative that requires instant background checks for the sale of ammunition statewide. Our research We interpreted Newsom’s claim of "shot and killed" to mean gun homicides. These are intentional killings using a firearm, not including suicides. To back up the statement, Newsom’s campaign spokesman pointed to a study published in the American Journal of Medicine in March 2016 called "Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010." The study relied on mortality data from 2010 collected by the World Health Organization. It found the rate of gun homicides was 25.2 times higher in the United States than in 22 other populous and high-income countries for which data was also gathered. A sample of those included South Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. When considering all types of gun deaths, such as homicides, accidental shootings and suicides, people in the United States were 10 times more likely to die from a gun-related death than those in the other countries, the report said. Authors of study weigh in We contacted the co-authors of this study. Both described Newsom’s claim as "accurate." "Yes, what he said seems accurate," David Hemenway, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author, said by email. "I think anyone who looks at the data would agree." Erin Grinshteyn, an assistant professor of health policy at the University of San Francisco and the other co-author, also said the claim was correct. Grinshteyn described the report as "purely an academic study." She said her portion of the work was not funded while Hemenway’s participation was funded, in part, by the Joyce Foundation. On its website, the foundation says it supports "research-based strategies that can prevent gun violence by reducing the easy accessibility of firearms." Related study In 2014, PolitiFact examined a related claim by lawyer and author Lisa Bloom that said "Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries." PolitiFact took this to mean gun homicides. It rated her claim , citing figures collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That data showed the United States had a slightly lower gun homicide rate in 2010 than reported in the American Journal of Medicine Study. That, in turn, meant Americans would be closer to 20 times as likely to die in gun homicides compared with several other "civilized countries." But as PolitiFact noted, much depends on which countries are included in this comparison and the years for which that data was available. Chile and Turkey, both with relatively high gun homicide rates, were included in the United Nations study but not in the report in the American Journal of Medicine. Grinshteyn told us her study only included high-income, populous countries  as defined by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. "If they included Chile and Turkey, which were not included in our comparison group, those will cause the comparison to be skewed," she added. We reached out to the Sacramento-based Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights advocacy group, to ask whether its members knew of any additional and independent reports on this topic. We did not immediately hear back. Our rating Candidate for California governor Gavin Newsom recently said "Americans are 25x more likely to be shot and killed than others in developed countries." Newsom’s spokesman pointed to a study in the American Journal of Medicine that backs up this very sad statistic. It found the gun homicide rate in the United States is about 25 times greater than in other high-income, industrialized countries such as Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. A similar study by the United Nations found America had a slightly lower gun homicide rate but included countries such as Turkey and Chile with relatively high gun homicide rates not included in the American Journal of Medicine report. Their inclusion explains the slightly lower rate. Newsom’s claim is backed by what appears to be a valid study. But another report with credible findings shows the gun homicide rate is not quite as high compared to other nations as Newsom asserts. His statement could have used this additional information. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.


On the first day of Florida’s new texting-while-driving ban, state Sen. Maria Sachs, the Senate Democratic leader pro-tem, was already announcing a proposal to make the law tougher. The new law makes texting while driving a secondary offense, which means an officer can’t ticket a motorist only for typing or reading messages while behind the wheel. Rather, the driver has to first commit another violation, like swerving or running a red light. Sachs, of Delray Beach, has filed a bill to make texting while driving a primary offense, which she argues will make it easier to enforce. The penalties -- $30 for a first violation -- will remain. At a press conference with AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson to announce her proposed changes, Sachs recited several somber statistics. We decided to fact-check this claim: "In 2011, texting surpassed alcohol as the leading contributing factor in teen driving deaths." There’s little doubt that texting is a danger in automobile safety. A 2006 study by David Strayer and Frank Drews at the University of Utah found that people are just as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 percent. The report, which looked at talking on handheld or hands-free cell phones and not texting, concluded that using a cell phone while driving "can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk." But is it true that in 2011, texting surpassed alcohol as the leading contributing factor in teen driving deaths? When we contacted Sachs’ office, her legislative chief of staff said the information came from an op-ed piece AutoNation’s Mike Jackson wrote for the Tampa Bay Times and from news articles about a study done by the Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, N.Y. The statistic quoted by Sachs has appeared in various media outlets, including CBS and Newsday, but the study’s chief researcher, Dr. Andrew Adesman, said the media "wrongly attributed" the drinking-texting conclusions to his team’s studies, a bit of misinformation that has continued to spread. Adesman said his research team analyzed CDC data -- the 2011 "Youth Risk Behavior Survey" The study found that 45 percent of U.S. high school students 16 and up (46 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls) reported texting while driving during the previous 30 days. The study suggested that the number could actually be a lot higher, given that 75 percent of teens now have cell phones. The study, however, didn’t directly compare texting and drinking while driving, which makes Sachs’ conclusion questionable. The study found a "subgroup" of the students who admit to texting while driving also tended to be involved in other risky behaviors on the road, including not wearing a seatbelt, riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol and drinking and driving. These risk takers were also more likely to smoke marijuana, have unsafe sex and "use indoor tanning devices." The correlation of all these factors makes it difficult to determine what is the "leading contributing factor in teen driving deaths." Indeed, certain aspects of the study didn’t provide much support for proponents of texting laws. Researchers found that while texting while driving was slightly less common in states that prohibit it, "the reality is that millions of teens text while driving," Adesman said. The study didn’t consider the strength of the laws or penalties. Adesman did say there’s reason to be alarmed about the number of teens texting. "Kids aren’t drinking on a regular basis on school days, but they are texting daily." (The CDC reports that high school teens drive after drinking 2.4 times a month.) Sachs said she wants to "change the culture" of texting while driving. "I think our culture has turned against alcohol and driving, so we want to say to kids, ‘you know it’s wrong to drink and drive’ and the same thing has to be said about texting." Another problem for Sachs’ claim: The data isn’t perfect. The involvement of cell phones is still underreported in accidents, said Deb Trombley, senior program manager for transportation initiatives for the National Safety Council. "One challenge is that there isn’t good data. Cell phone use isn’t being recorded on crash reports… It goes down as distracted driving." Jackson’s office said that he discovered the information about texting surpassing drunk driving as a cause of teen driving deaths from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website, but staff didn’t have any further details. NHTSA officials said the data they collect suggested the opposite of what Jackson and Sachs claimed. According to the agency, 12 percent of 2,105 teen-aged drivers ages 14 to 18 involved in fatal crashes in 2011 were distracted in some way; 24 percent of those distracted drivers were using a cell phone. By comparison, 20 percent (428) of 14 to 18-year-old drivers involved in a fatal crash in 2011 had some level of alcohol in their system, according to NHTSA. A driving distraction can be anything from adjusting the radio or putting on makeup to eating a burger behind the wheel. With teens, there are often a bunch of noisy friends in the car. Our ruling Sachs’ statistic -- that starting in 2011,  texting began surpassing alcohol as the leading contributing factor to teen driving deaths -- was based on a misinterpretation of a scientific study and information from NHTSA that could not be confirmed. In reality, NHTSA’s analysis of their data found that alcohol was involved in more lethal crashes than distracted driving in 2011. While there’s no question that texting while driving is a danger, it hasn’t supplanted alcohol as "the leading contributing factor in teen driving deaths." However, the figures are imperfect enough that we can't rule out an undercount in deaths associated with texting while driving. We rate the claim .


This is a forwarded self   defense tip that says if you do not have pepper spray to use a can of   wasp spray to stop an assailant. Wasp spray shoots a stream up to twenty   feet and can temporality blind an attacker.

Explanation: Use Wasp Spray to Stop an Assailant as a Criminal Deterrent

The source quoted in the   eRumor for this suggestion of the use of wasp spray for defense is a man   named Val Glinka. He is real and is a self defense instructor at   Sylvania Southview High School near Toledo Ohio. He told an  ABC affiliate that he considers wasp   spray “inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper   spray.”  Glinka said, “This is better than anything I can teach   them.”  Pepper spray is a personal defense weapon that is legal in all 50   states. Each state has various restrictions as to how it is sold and   when it was originally introduced users in some states had to take a   self defense class to be certified for proper use. We have not found any other credible source that recommends using wasp   spray instead of pepper spray. We have not found any studies that   suggest that wasp spray would be effective as a deterrent. There is also a   liability issue to consider. There is the question of whether using   insecticides in such a manner could bring liability issues for the user. Insecticides are controlled by the  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), which prohibits   the use of such products other than the originally intended purpose. The EPA web site has information posted that says insecticides must be   properly labeled to inform users on proper use before they can be sold. The EPA site also says, “The overall intent of the label is to provide   directions for product use while managing risks to human health and the   environment. It is a violation of federal law to use a pesticide in a   manner inconsistent with its labeling.” Police officer   J.D. Dhein hosts an internet radio feature called “Police   On The Scene” and this eRumor was read   to him on his program by his producer. Dhein was taken by surprise by   the advice offered and voiced his concerns about liability issues of   using wasp spray against an assailant. He said that he did   not believe that any police department would suggest the use of wasp   spray as a criminal deterrent. He did offer the church a valuable   tip when counting the offering and that was to lock the door. Updated 06/04/10    Comments


All in vein: New varicose veins treatments work quickly

Explanation: Varicose veins can range from the unsightly to the painful and disabling. In the past, the traditional treatment has been surgery to strip the veins, however newer, less invasive options are becoming more common. Advertising for a variety of laser treatments has proliferated, however not all of these are effective and consumers should be wary of exaggerated claims. This story does a good job of describing different types of varicose veins, the treatment options available, and the different practitioners who provide the treatments. It appropriately warns the reader about laser treatments that are ineffective. Although the story quotes multiple experts, it isn’t clear if any of them are connected financially to any of the companies developing the treatments. The story could have been improved by describing the range of costs of treatment, important information given that insurance coverage varies. It could have more thoroughly described the evidence to support the claims and quantified the benefits of treatment. A consumer considering their options would want to know: Are there any studies available? if so, what are the long term results? How much do these procedures reduce pain? What percentage of patients feel better after each procedure? Do the benefits last a long time or only temporarily?

Although the story mentions that insurance coverage varies, the story should have provided some rough estimate of the range of costs of treatment. This is how consumers get shielded from the true cost of elective procedures. The story doesn’t quantify the benefit of treatment. Although the story mentions some harms of treatment, it does not indicate how often that occurs and how often the procedure itself doesn’t work. The story does not describe the strength of the evidence to support the claims made. A consumer considering their options would want to know: Are there any studies available? if so, what are the long term results? How much do these procedures reduce pain? What percentage of patients feel better after each procedure? Do the benefits last a long time or only temporarily? The story does a good job of describing the difference between painful, disabling varicose veins and others that are only a cosmetic issue. Adding a little more information about how common these conditions are and the potential long term problems if they are not treated would have been useful. The story quotes multiple experts. The story should have indicated whether any of these sources are independent of the company that developed the technology under discussion. The story mentions the various options and what they are intended for. The story is also helpful to the reader in describing the various practitioners involved and warning about treatments that are ineffective. The story adequately represents the availability of the treatments for varicose veins. The story adequately describes the novelty of the treatments. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story didn’t rely on a press release as the sole source of information.


U.S. states, cities sue to block Trump 'conscience' rule for healthcare workers.

Explanation: Two dozen U.S. states and municipalities sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to stop it from enforcing a rule that would make it easier for doctors and nurses to avoid performing abortions on religious or moral grounds.

A lawsuit led by New York Attorney General Letitia James said the expanded “conscience” protections could undermine the ability of states and cities to provide effective healthcare without jeopardizing billions of dollars a year in federal aid. It also said the rule would upset legislative efforts to accommodate workers’ beliefs while ensuring that hospitals, other businesses and staff treat patients effectively. Sterilizations and assisted suicide are other procedures that might be impeded, according to a complaint filed by New York and 22 other states and municipalities in federal court in Manhattan. California filed a similar lawsuit in San Francisco. “The federal government is giving health care providers free license to openly discriminate and refuse care to patients,” James said in a statement. The rule is scheduled to take effect on July 22. It will be enforced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Roger Severino, director of HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement: “The rule gives life and enforcement tools to conscience protection laws that have been on the books for decades. HHS finalized the conscience rule after more than a year of careful consideration and after analyzing over 242,000 public comments. We will defend the rule vigorously.”  President Donald Trump, a Republican, has made expanding religious liberty a priority, and the proposed rule drew  support from anti-abortion activists. Critics, including some civil rights medical groups, have said the rule could deprive some patients, including gay and transgender people, of needed healthcare because they might be deemed less worthy of treatment. The Manhattan lawsuit said the rule could even prevent hospitals from asking applicants for nursing jobs whether they opposed giving measles vaccinations, even during an outbreak. So far in 2019, the worst U.S. measles outbreak in a quarter century has sickened 880 people, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Monday. The plaintiffs in Tuesday’s lawsuits are led by Democrats or often lean Democratic. They also include New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C.; the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin; and Cook County, Illinois. Hundreds of lawsuits by Democratic-leaning states and municipalities have targeted White House policies under Trump. The cases are New York et al v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-04676; and California v. Azar et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 19-02769.


In August 1997, the Baltimore Orioles deliberately created a lighting malfunction before a game to keep Cal Ripken's consecutive game streak intact.

Explanation: Whatever Kevin Costner’s relationship with the Ripkens might have been, Cal and Kelly stayed together long afterwards (they were married for 28 years), and Costner didn’t make some Machiavellian maneuvering on the part of the Orioles necessary to keep Cal from missing a game.

On 6 September 1995, Baltimore Orioles infielder Cal Ripken, Jr. broke a record long thought to be unassailable when he played in his 2,131st consecutive baseball game, surpassing the mark of 2,130 set by Lou Gehrig back in 1939. Ripken would go on to play in a total of 2,632 straight games before finally sitting one out on 20 September 1998. One of the most remarkable aspects of Ripken’s most remarkable of streaks was that he started every game (i.e., his streak included no pinch-hitting, pinch-running, or late-inning defensive appearances), he voluntarily left a game before the seventh inning only four times (in addition to twice being ejected by umpires), and at one point he played every single inning of every single game for a span over five years. In other words, Ripken didn’t even come close to missing a game during his streak — except, as rumor claims, for one evening in August 1997, when Ripken was unable to make it to the park for that day’s game due to the fallout of having caught his wife in bed with another man, and a mysterious malfunction in his home ballpark’s lighting system (allegedly one deliberately created by an Orioles employee) forced the cancellation of the game and thereby preserved Ripken’s streak:  Cal Ripken, Jr. was allowing Kevin Costner, the actor, to stay at his house, following the wrap of “The Postman”. One day, Ripken left for Camden Yards to play in a game. Somewhere between his home and the stadium, Cal realized that he had left something back at his house, and turned back to retrieve it. Upon arriving at his home, he found Kevin Costner in bed with his wife, Kelly. Cal then proceeded to beat the crap out of Costner, to the point that Costner was unable to make any publicity opportunities for a time. Cal then called the Orioles, and told them he wouldn’t be coming in to play that day. Upon hearing this, the owner reminded Cal about his streak, telling him The Streak would end if he didn’t play that day. Cal told him it was impossible for him to come in, so there went the streak. Reportedly, the owner told him not to worry, because he would take care of it. That night, the game was cancelled due to “electrical failure” with some lights on the field. The caller [I heard this rumor from] said that there was no problem with the lights, that everything else, including the hotels and restaurants that are part of Camden Yards, worked perfectly. The next day, the lights were fixed, Cal was able to play, and the streak stayed intact. A game between the Orioles and the Seattle Mariners scheduled for Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore on 14 August 1997 was cancelled due to lighting problems, but there was nothing “mysterious” about the incident. A ground fault interrupt kept tripping the circuit breaker each time the lights in one of Oriole Park’s lighting banks were turned on, and the game’s 7:35 P.M. starting time was pushed back as a crew worked on the problem. (That the businesses surrounding Oriole Park did not experience similar problems is not strange, as the ballpark is on a separate portion of the city’s power grid.) The crew finally got the bank of lights working by 8:45 P.M., but about 20 bulbs in the bank failed to illuminate, and the umpiring crew had to make the decision whether to allow the game to begin. Umpire crew chief Al Clark officially postponed the game at 10 P.M. after determining that shadows at home plate created unsafe playing conditions, a decision influenced by the fact that fireballing pitcher Randy Johnson was scheduled to start for the Mariners. Given that Johnson was a left-hander who threw extremely hard, and the lighting outage occurred on the first-base side of the field (i.e., the side on which batters would be visually picking up the ball from Johnson’s hand as the southpaw threw towards home plate), the risk of serious injury to a batter was deemed too great to allow the game to proceed. The contest was cancelled and made up as part of a double-header the following day. Shortly afterwards, a conspiracy rumor was concocted from this scenario which involved actor Kevin Costner, who had a long-standing friendship with Cal Ripken, and rumors of marital difficulties between Ripken and his wife Kelly. According to that rumor, Ripken caught Costner in bed with his wife on the morning of 14 August 1997, and the shock of that betrayal left Ripken too emotionally distraught and/or too sore and bruised from brawling with Costner to show up at Camden Yards for the Orioles’ game with the Seattle Mariners that evening. (Some versions of the rumor even maintained that Ripken couldn’t make it to the ballpark because he had been hauled off to jail for assault.) In order to preserve the tremendous publicity value of Ripken’s consecutive game steak, Orioles management quickly arranged for someone in the Camden Yards facilities crew to create a ‘malfunction’ that would prevent the day’s game from coming off as scheduled and provide Ripken with a much-needed day off to recover from his ordeal. Kevin Costner and Cal Ripken, Jr. met in 1990 at a premiere of Costner’s film Dances with Wolves and began what Costner described as a “burgeoning friendship.”  Before a game during the 1991 season, Costner took batting and fielding practice with the Orioles, played catch on the sidelines, went through stretching exercises in the outfield, and batted and took grounders with Ripken. Costner was often seen taking in Orioles games from the stands at Baltimore’s Camden Yards, sometimes sitting with Ripken’s wife, Kelly. In late 1997, gossip began circulating to the effect that the Ripkens had separated, Cal was staying with a teammate, and a divorce was imminent. The rumors included claims of infidelities on both sides, with the male interloper named as anyone from “an Orioles trainer” to Costner (who at the time lived about an hour from the Ripkens’ ranch). From such rumors was the “mysterious game cancellation” legend concocted back in 1998. Whether the electrical outage was “mysterious” or not, it wasn’t devised to keep Ripken’s streak alive by forcing the cancellation of a game he would otherwise have missed. News reports of the day’s events prove Ripken was present at the ballpark, suited up and ready to play, and both fans and reporters noted him sitting in the dugout and playing catch along the sidelines that evening. Ripken himself addressed the rumor in a 2008 interview on NPR:  It’s easy to check the facts of that one. I remember it very well. The bank of lights went off and Randy Johnson was pitching for the Seattle Mariners. And we were deciding what to do about that. Was there enough visible light out there to actually see a guy throwing over 100 miles per hour? The bank was just over our dugout. And I physically went out and tested it for the umpire. I was in discussion with the umpires. I was definitely there, I was ready to play. And the funny part about it was we all decided it was better that we play that night, because the next day would have been a Sunday day game, and Randy Johnson would have been throwing out of the stands, and in day games he’s much harder to see. So we all decided that we were going to go. Evidently [Mariners manager] Lou Piniella told Seattle a little different story that the game wasn’t going to go, and they started leaving the ballpark, so we didn’t have that option after all. We scheduled it for the next day, and we played. But I definitely was there. And I’m sure I was on camera a number of times being out on the field. When this legend was repeated by a couple of hosts on Fox Sports Radio in June 2001, an angry Costner called the show the next day to deny it and tell the hosts that if they had claimed the story was true, “I was going to take your heads off.”  Costner maintained at the time that he had met Ripken’s wife only twice in his life, that he had probably spent no more than 10 minutes with her altogether, and that he had never been to the Ripkens’ home. (Since Costner had been noted sitting in the stands for whole games with Kelly Ripken, his “10 minutes” and “twice in his life” claims were probably underestimates).


Fish oil linked to lower Alzheimer’s risk

Explanation: This story reported on the findings from a recent research study that found lower rates of dementia in individuals who had higher levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in their blood. They were also able to show individuals who consumed 2 or more servings of fish per week were found to have higher levels of DHA. The reporting about this study is a good example of where the relative risk reduction sounds impressive but the absolute risk reduction is small. Yet the story provided only the relative risk numbers, not the absolute. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) Although it's good that the story pointed out the harms that are associated with fish oil consumption and the lack of FDA approval of fish oil as a means to prevent dementia, it neglected to mention that there currently are no evidence-based means to reduce the incidence of dementia. The story also ought to have included information about other reasons the authors might have found the results they did (chance, confouding dietary or behavioral patterns, etc). Because it is possible that these and not the fish consumption per se are associated with reduced dementia, it is information that a reader should be aware of. The headline of the story – "Fish Oil Linked to Lower Alzheimer's Risk" – is somewhat misleading because the results of the story demonstrated that fish oil was associated with lower risk of all-cause dementia; when an attempt was made to parse out the effect of fish oil on Alzheimer's disease specifically, its effect was not statistically significant. It should be noted that this story was not the only one to fail to appreciate this distinction. The editorial accompanying this research in the Archives of Neurology was entitled "Docosahexaenoic Acid and Alzheimer Disease" and nowhere in the editorial was the distinction made between Alzheimer's and all-cause dementia.

This story did not include any cost estimates for fish or docosaheaenoic acid (DHA) containing supplements. It also did not include an estimate for the amount of supplements that would be needed to result in the plasma levels of DHA seen to be associated with lower dementia risk. Early in the story, it mentioned that the research involved 899 people and that 99 people developed dementia during the course of the study. This works out to a total incidence of dementia of 11%, something that was not explicitly stated in the story. The piece then went on to discuss that  that two or more servings of fish a week reduced the risk of dementia by 39%. This is a relative risk reduction. Before readers can put that in context, they would really need to have the absolute risk of developing dementia. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) While it is true that the original source piece for this story did not contain this information, the story could have raised the question. The story mentioned potential harms from fish oil consumption and included speculation on potential harms from fish consumption. This story reported on the observations reported in one recently published paper which found that there appeared to be a lower risk of developing demnetia for individuals with the highest level of plasma levels of docosaheaenoic acid (DHA). It mentioned that the study reported on has been published in the Archives of Neurology, that the data were part of the Framingham Heart Study and that the individuals were followed for an average of 9 years. It would have been useful to more clearly describe for readers the design of the prospective study giving rise to the results reported on. A blood sample was taken from people who did not have dementia, a diet history was collected from about half of the people, then they were follwed for an average of 9 years to determine the incidence of dementia that was observed. There did not appear to be a dose response in terms of the protective effect of DHA, but rather a reduced risk for developing dementia was seen only in those with the highest DHA levels. Plasma DHA levels were seen to correlate with the number of servings of fish or the amount of DHA consumed. The story also could have described other potential confounders that may have contributed to the results. There are other behaviors that are associated with reduced dementia that may be more common in those who eat more fish (social activities, better dietary variety, or others). This story did not appear to disease monger. This story was based on information from an original research study and included quotes from the study senior author as well as material from an editorial about the research study. This story did not mention the lack of evidence-based measures to prevent Alzheimer disease. A brief statement about lack of strong evidence would help guide readers in this regard. This story mentioned that omega-3 fatty acid docosaheaenoic acid (DHA) was found in fatty fish, as well as supplements in the form of fish oil or DHA. It was good to point out that neither DHA or fish oild supplements have FDA approval for prevention of dementia. The story curiously mentioned that it was also found in some meats. However, the only tissues in which DHA is found in significant quantities are the brain, retina, and testes – which are not frequently consumed by people. Thus the story ought not to have included 'some meats' as a source of DHA. The story reported that the results of the current study were consistent with earlier data. Does not appear to rely on a press release.