More People Should Get Statins, Report Says

Explanation: We always cheer when we see a story take the rare step of spelling out the costs of a treatment as clearly as this one did. We also love the use of hard numbers in talking about the potential benefits of wider statin use and the space devoted to risks, especially in a short story. The NBC coverage was focused on a cost-effectiveness study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A competing story in the New York Times brought in another study, also focused on the new statin guidelines, and used the occasion to do something that this story didn’t quite accomplish: provide a detailed explanation of the quality of the evidence supporting wider statin use. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the USA. The percentage of adults who might be recommended for statins is quite high, and so the costs and effectiveness of these drugs are vitally important to understand both at an individual level and across the population.

While the New York Times skipped the cost question, NBC gave readers the numbers they needed to know. It said that “Statins, which include Lipitor, Mevacor, Crestor and Zocor, are extremely popular. They’re prescribed to about 15 percent of U.S. adults, at a cost ranging from about $4 a month for the cheapest generic version to $600 for a pricey name-brand.” That’s a huge cost range and, multiplied out for the millions more Americans who are being encouraged to take statins, represents a significant potential increase in health care spending. To inform readers even more fully, the story could have looked at what those global costs would add up to for the entire country. It also could have explained what researchers mean when they say that the drugs are “worth it” and how the value of treatment was calculated in the study. The story did quantify benefits using absolute numbers when describing the potential impact on heart attacks from wider statin use. The story said that “if even more people were given statins — if they were given to people with a 3 percent risk of developing heart disease over 10 years — another 160,000 heart attacks and strokes would be prevented, they estimated.” We thought the Times, though, did a better job overall providing context for those numbers. NBC did a better job than the Times in answering the question about risks. NBC wrote that statins “can damage muscle in 5 to 15 percent of patients. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration updated labeling on statins to include warnings about confusion and memory loss, elevated blood sugar leading to Type 2 diabetes, and muscle weakness.” This is a nice addition to the overall coverage of the new statin studies and a step we wish more reporters had taken. Other than noting that the study was published in a journal, there is no examination of the quality of the evidence. The Times did a better job in this regard, mentioning that the study wasn’t a clinical trial and that the prospective Framingham cohort is almost all white. There is no disease mongering in the story. We were surprised that there were no independent sources quoted in the story. There are a lot of people talking about these studies, and the Times did a better job seeking out independent analysis. The story did not address alternatives to statin treatment such as diet and exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely available. They are also paid for by insurance plans. The story mentions that the new report addresses concerns about guidelines issued in 2013, so in that sense it provides enough context for a Satisfactory rating. But we’d note that the story gives the impression that this study’s findings are the definitive word on whether otherwise healthy people should start taking statins. But, as the competing New York Times story notes, there is still serious debate about how important these new findings are. The story does not rely excessively on a news release.


Can't exercise? A hot bath may help improve inflammation, metabolism, study suggests

Explanation: Take a look at the headline and subheading of this news release, because the former is very misleading, and the latter comes closer to the truth: Headline: ‘Can’t exercise? A hot bath may help improve inflammation, metabolism, study suggest’ Sub-head: ‘Hot-water immersion improved inflammatory markers and blood sugar in overweight men’ The subheading is a fairly good summary of the study. But the “Can’t exercise? …” headline promises much more than this small study can support. The research question? How does hot water immersion —  that is, ten 1-hour soaks at 102ºF over two weeks  — affect metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in the blood of 10 overweight and sedentary men. The answer? Some mild, transient changes were noted that could theoretically be beneficial. Just because exercise has been shown to transiently increase inflammatory markers and decrease blood sugar, and hot water immersion does the same thing, doesn’t mean that the latter might substitute for the former. Furthermore, the research into the relationship between inflammation and sugar/insulin levels is mostly in rodents, and extrapolating these benefits to humans is unrealistic. Yes, exercise can temporarily trigger an anti-inflammatory response at the molecular level, as well as decrease sugar/insulin levels. This study suggests repeated, lengthy hot water immersion can do the same thing in 10 overweight men. But that hardly means the two interventions are comparable in any way, or that these blood changes have any meaningful or sustainable clinical benefits.

American Physiological Society,hot baths,obesity

Cost isn’t really applicable here;  but it’s important to point out that probably the best way to access a hot water source that consistently stays around 102ºF would be a hot tub, and that would involve cost for most people. This is a major weakness of the release. We’re told that hot water immersion (60 minutes, daily at 102ºF) elevated levels of: This is nebulous, if not unhelpful language, that suggests (unquantified) benefits that are hard to make sense of. Furthermore, it’s mentioned 10 soaks over 14 days led to: “a reduction of fasting blood sugar and insulin levels as well as improved low-grade inflammation at rest.” Both diabetics and non-diabetics alike would appropriately ask, “really? By how much? For how long?” But that information is not provided. Nor is any context provided for readers wondering how changes in metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers translate into noticeable or measurable clinical effects that matter to them. Harms are not mentioned. Anyone who owns a hot tub, or uses a public bath, is likely familiar with warnings regarding who might want to consult their physician before using one. Prolonged exposure to hot water can lead to increased heart rate, decreased blood pressure, and dehydration … all of which may be ill-advised for some heart patients and pregnant women. The study was extremely small (10 volunteers), short (2 weeks), and because the subjects were only men who were obese or inactive, probably not applicable to the general public. This wasn’t mentioned. Nor is it mentioned that most of the existing research on the relationship between inflammatory biomarkers and glucose/insulin levels — which is strongly touted in this release — is based on animal models. That should have been clarified since the headline of this news release suggests human benefits. That’s speculative at best, and at worst misleading. No overt disease mongering but there’s an inappropriate and baseless implication that those who are unable to exercise — or are obese or sedentary — have problems with blood sugar or ‘inflammation’; and that those two problems are likely related. That’s just not the case and misleading enough to warrant an unsatisfactory rating here. Funding is not mentioned. A review of the published article doesn’t suggest conflicts of interest among the researchers. Alternatives to what? If the gist of this release is that overweight and sedentary men can’t exercise (and hot water immersion might be a good replacement), then this news release never should have been published because the premise and conclusion are both erroneous. But if the gist is that there ARE people — such as those who are frail, disabled, or paralyzed — who might benefit from an intervention that offers the benefits from exercise they can’t do, then this news release is misleading. Because all this study shows is that hot water immersion changes some metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers. Yes, exercise can do that too, but the real benefits and sustainability of these blood changes remain unproven. Not applicable … see “Costs” above. The exact results of this small human study are new but many researchers have been working on theories and rodent studies regarding heat therapy and chronic inflammatory diseases. Much of this was summarized by Ely et al in 2017 in the journal Temperature, “Meta-inflammation and cardiometabolic disease in obesity: Can heat therapy help?“ The headline is both unjustified and inappropriate. First of all, most people don’t bathe for one-hour straight in a bath locked in at 102º F. Second, a study of 10 men over 2 weeks can’t draw any conclusions regarding inflammation and metabolism. Finally,  what’s inappropriate here is that there are plenty of people physically incapable of conventional exercise; why lead with the enticement of “Can’t exercise?” when the referenced study offers no proof that the hot water immersion offers the benefits of exercise?


In 2010, Clinton "said Iran could enrich uranium. In 2014 she said she’s always argued against it.

Explanation: Johnson & Johnson said on Tuesday that 15 new tests found no asbestos in a bottle of baby powder that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says tested positive for trace amounts of asbestos, a finding the agency stands by.

National, Foreign Policy, Mitch McConnell,

The tests are the latest effort by J&J to prove the safety of its widely used consumer product after a test by the FDA prompted J&J to undertake a nationwide recall of one lot of its Johnson’s Baby Powder. FDA officials, in an interview with Reuters, said the agency continues to support the company’s voluntary recall. “They would say the product is free of asbestos based on their testing, and we would say the opposite for that sample,” said Steve Musser, deputy director for scientific operations in the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition. Earlier this month, J&J recalled around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after the FDA found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online. “Rigorous and third-party testing confirms there is no asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder. We stand by the safety of our product,” J&J said in a statement. The company did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the FDA standing by its test result. The different test outcomes could have resulted from the fact that contaminants are not uniformly dispersed throughout talc and there is no standard test for asbestos in talc, FDA officials said. The voluntary recall was limited to one lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said at the time. That move marked the first time the company recalled its iconic baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma. J&J will not reverse the recall of those 22-ounce containers, but its baby powder remains available to consumers in stores, a company spokesman told Reuters. The recall had been the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old U.S. healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal. J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, caused their cancer. (This version corrects spelling of powder in headline)


A state bill would end a longstanding requirement that local governments repair highways and sidewalks -- and block injured citizens from suing over neglected maintenance.

Explanation: Wisconsin Association for Justice says a state bill would end a requirement that local governments repair roads and prevent injured citizens from suing

County Government, Legal Issues, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Association for Justice,

As the 2011 Wisconsin Legislature neared completion of its work, a group of trial lawyers attacked a batch of Republican-sponsored legislation it contends will "erase basic rights." The Wisconsin Association for Justice -- formerly the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers -- railed against limits on attorneys fees in consumer cases, and immunity for doctors and drug makers in injury cases. We previously ruled this rating for a health care advocate's claim that one of the bills "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products." This time we’ll examine the trial lawyers’ claim in an Oct. 31, 2011, news release regarding Senate Bill 125/Assembly Bill 180. The group said the proposal "makes local governments' repair of roads, bridges and sidewalks no longer required by state law, and injured citizens could no longer sue them for bodily or auto damages … The state law has been in place for 162 years." That sounds like a major change of lanes. Let’s pop the hood. First, a bit of history. Over several decades, it’s become much tougher for citizens in Wisconsin to sue and win when claiming negligence by their local units of government. How much tougher? In a 2009 Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion, Justice David Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, said that "so far as government responsibility for torts is concerned, immunity has become the rule and liability has become the rare exception." "Justice," wrote Prosser, "has been confined to a crawl space too narrow for most tort victims to fit." Generally speaking, except in cases involving unheeded warnings over dangers involving actions they absolutely should have taken, public agencies are shielded from liability. That’s because of state laws and court rulings. A notable and longstanding exception to that -- under a state "highway defects" law dating to 1849, a year after statehood -- allows up to $50,000 in civil damages when highways and sidewalks are poorly maintained and lead to vehicle damage or bodily injury. The bill up for debate would eliminate nearly all of that statute. Local governments have sought this for years, hoping to avoid what they see as the "automatic" liability for defects, and get more discretion over when and how to do highway repairs -- as state officials have. Former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a previous attempt. Here’s what’s unique about the defective highways statute (893.83): Plaintiffs don’t have to clear the high legal bar they would in winning a case against the government over other mistakes. They don’t have to show government had an absolute duty to do the specific thing in dispute -- that duty is presumed under that existing law. Notably, the law creates a "right to recover" damages from government. Many of the cases are routinely settled before getting to court -- that’s how strong the law is. If the cases reach trial, jurors have to decide if damages stemmed from known road defects -- and whether the municipality kept the highway "reasonably safe for public travel," according to jury instructions in place since 1974. "With winter conditions, it’s awfully difficult to make sure highways are maintained every second, every hour of every day," said Andrew Phillips, a lawyer representing the Wisconsin Counties Association. Counties do most of the highway work. He’s talking about potholes and defective shoulders, among other things -- problems that have been litigated all the way to the state’s highest courts. The money stakes are not sky high, but significant: over a decade, counties served by Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance paid out $950,000 in these cases. That doesn’t include all counties, or other municipalities. Let’s turn back to the statement. Asked about its claims, the Association for Justice pointed us to the text of the bill. The bill would eliminate the liability provisions except for damages resulting from the accumulation of snow or ice that has existed on a highway for at least three weeks. The chief backers of the bill, the Wisconsin Counties Association, acknowledge that. So would that mean citizens could "no longer sue" and locals would not have a duty to repair, as the association claimed? They couldn’t sue under the highway defects statute -- but still could file a claim under a more general state law, according to Phillips, the lawyer for the counties group. Even Ann Jacobs, a personal injury lawyer speaking for the Association for Justice -- the group making the claim -- agreed. The two sides also agree localities’ legal exposure would drop if the more general state law (893.80) was the only route for plaintiffs. The bottom line: People could still sue, though under less favorable circumstances from the complainant’s viewpoint. The ultimate effect would be decided by judges. What about the second part of the claim? Would the bill eliminate the requirement that local governments repair roads? Jacobs, of the trial lawyers’ group, says it effectively does because enforcement of that duty would all but disappear without the specific liability statute. "What good is a right without a remedy?" Jacobs asked. Even the counties’ attorney, Phillips, acknowledges that county decisions on when and how to repair highways would be more discretionary with the strict liability gone. The Association for Justice, at a public hearing on the bill, made that point using this language: "Local governments would not have a general duty to maintain highways and bridges" if the bill passed. But in its public news release, the group’s claim went well past that -- leaving readers to believe road repairs would no longer be required. Phillips pointed us to Chapter 83.025 of state statutes: "The county trunk system shall be marked and maintained by the county." And for towns, 82.03: "The town board shall have the care and supervision of all highways under the town's jurisdiction." So the locals still would have the obligation to repair. Let’s patch this up and move on. A trial lawyers group contends that a bill would change a 162-year-old state law to "make local governments' repair of roads, bridges and sidewalks no longer required by state law." It continued: "Injured citizens could no longer sue them for bodily or auto damages." The bill could have a big impact on local government liability for highway problems, though just how dramatic remains to be seen. But the group’s news release went too far in flatly claiming citizens could no longer sue, and asserting that highway repairs would no longer be required. We rate this claim .


Europe sees more signs of hope as Italy’s virus curve falls.

Explanation: Europe saw further signs of hope in the coronavirus outbreak Sunday as Italy’s daily death toll was at its lowest in more than two weeks and its infection curve was finally on a downward slope. In Spain, new deaths dropped for the third straight day.

Italy, Understanding the Outbreak, International News, General News, Health, Business, Virus Outbreak, Europe, Spain

But the optimism was tempered by Britain’s jump in virus deaths that outpaced the daily toll in Italy. Angelo Borrelli, the head of Italy’s Civil Protection agency on Sunday, said there were 525 deaths in the 24-hour period since Saturday evening. That’s the lowest such figure in the country since 427 deaths were registered on March 19. Italy now has a total of 15,887 deaths and nearly 129,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases. A day shy of one month under a national lockdown that the Italian government ordered, the lower count of day-to-day deaths brought some encouragement. The number of intensive care unit beds occupied by COVID-19 patients has also showed a decrease in the last few days, including in northern Lombardy, Italy’s most stricken region. Borrelli also noted with a measure of satisfaction that the number of those hospitalized but not in ICU beds also has decreased. Italy recorded 4,316 new cases Sunday. Earlier in the outbreak, daily increases in caseloads topped the 6,000 mark. “The curve, which had been plateauing for days, is starting to descend,″ national health official Silvio Brusaferro told reporters, referring to graphs indicating daily numbers of confirmed cases. But Borrelli warned: “This good news shouldn’t make us drop our guard.” For days, anticipating a possible downward slope in the curve, government and health authorities in Italy have cautioned that restrictions on movement would likely last in some form for weeks. The virus causes mild to moderate symptoms in most people, but for some, especially older adults and the infirm, it can cause severe pneumonia and lead to death. As warm, sunny weather beckoned across Europe, Queen Elizabeth II appealed to Britons to exercise self-discipline in “an increasingly challenging time.” Britain recorded 708 new coronavirus deaths Saturday while Italy reported 631 deaths that day. With 621 more deaths reported on Sunday, Britain has 4,934 virus deaths overall among 47,806 cases. Those coming down with the virus in the U.K. include Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the health secretary, England’s chief medical official and Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. There are wide fears that Johnson’s Conservative government didn’t take the virus seriously enough at first and that beautiful spring weather will tempt Britons and others to break social distancing rules. Restrictions on movement vary from country to country. In Germany and Britain, residents can exercise and walk their dogs, as well as go to the supermarket and do other essential tasks. Swedish authorities have advised the public to practice social distancing, but schools, bars and restaurants are still open. Spain announced 6,023 confirmed new infections Sunday, taking its national tally to 130,759 but down from an increase of 7,026 infections in the previous day. Spain’s confirmed new virus deaths dropped for the third straight day, to 674 — the first time daily deaths have fallen below 800 in the past week. “We are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said. ___ Danica Kirka in London, David Rising in Berlin, and Joseph Wilson in Barcelona, Spain, contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic at http://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak


As CEO of WWE, Linda McMahon "was caught tipping off a ringside physician" about a federal investigation into illegally distributing steroids to wrestlers.

Explanation: DSCC claims Linda McMahon tipped off ringside physician about steroids investigation

National, Candidate Biography, Message Machine 2010, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,

U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon's experience as co-founder, along with her husband Vince, of World Wrestling Entertainment has proved to be a double-edged sword on the campaign trail in Connecticut. While McMahon often touts her experience running the pro wrestling empire to boost her real-world business cred, it also has left her open to accusations that the WWE uses sexist story lines and that there is rampant steroid abuse by some wrestlers. In the final week of the race -- which pits Republican McMahon against Democrat Richard Blumenthal -- the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has begun airing an attack ad that attempts to body-slam McMahon for tipping off a ringside physician about a federal investigation into the illegal distribution of steroids to some of the WWE's wrestlers. "Read this," a female narrator begins, as a legal document scrolls in the background. "It's a memo Linda McMahon wrote. Evidence in a federal trial against her company. McMahon was caught tipping off a ringside physician who was later accused of hiding evidence. It didn't work. McMahon's ringside doctor was convicted of illegally distributing steroids to her workers. That's Linda McMahon. A bad CEO. A worse senator." The memo in question -- marked "CONFIDENTIAL INTEROFFICE MEMO" -- was sent on Dec. 1, 1989, by Linda McMahon to Pat Patterson, a fellow executive at Titan Sports, the parent company of what was then the World Wrestling Federation. It became part of the public record as an exhibit in a steroids-related case against Vince McMahon and Titan Sports in the early 1990s. But the story actually goes back a little further, to an investigation into ringside doctor George T. Zahorian for distributing steroids to some of the WWF's wrestlers. As the 1989 memo from Linda McMahon explains, a government official let slip at a fundraising event that "the State of Pennsylvania is probably going to launch an investigation into the use of all illegal drugs including steroids." "In addition," McMahon wrote, "this fellow mentioned that he was aware of Dr. Zahorian and his relationship with WWF." Zahorian was actually assigned throughout the 1980s to attend WWF exhibitions in Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission. But following deregulation in 1989, promoters like the WWF were required to hire their own licensed physicians to be present at events. Zahorian was scheduled to be the doctor on hand at an upcoming event in Hershey, Pa., but Linda McMahon's memo makes clear the WWF wanted to distance itself from him. "Although you and I discussed before about continuing to have Zahorian at our events as the doctor on call, I think that is now not a good idea," McMahon wrote in the memo. "Vince agreed, and would like for you to call Zahorian and tell him not to come to any more of our events and to also clue him in on any action that the Justice Department is thinking of taking." It's that last part, telling Patterson to "clue him in" about a possible steroids investigation, that forms the basis for the claim in the campaign ad. In 1991, Zahorian was charged with distributing steroids to a number of WWF wrestlers (none of whom were charged because, at the time, it was not a federal crime to use steroids, only to distribute them). He was convicted and sentenced to three years in federal prison. But that wasn't the end of the matter. In the wake of the Zahorian indictment, federal investigators opened a wide-reaching steroids investigation into the WWF. And in 1992, the government filed an indictment against Vince McMahon and Titan Sports, alleging they conspired to "unlawfully provide WWF wrestling performers with steroids to enhance their size and musculature, and thereby to increase the ticket sales for WWF exhibitions and the profits to Titan and McMahon." In its indictment, prosecutors alleged Titan officials learned of a federal investigation into Zahorian's activities and warned him about it. Linda McMahon's memo was entered in the case as Exhibit #2. According to the indictment, shortly after the memo was sent, "a Titan executive known to the Grand Jury had a telephone conversation with Zahorian and directed him to destroy any records of Zahorian's contact with WWF or WWF wrestling personnel." It was later learned from one of Zahorian's attorneys that after Zahorian got the phone call warning him about the investigation, he shipped files on wrestlers to his attorney's office (so they were not part of the evidence seized when investigators raided his office). But according to longtime WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt, the files were never destroyed and were later made available to prosecutors. "Dr. Zahorian didn't destroy anything," McDevitt said. "It was all given to the government." In any event, the government's case against Titan and Vince McMahon failed miserably. Several counts were tossed before the case even went to the jury -- including two counts alleging that Vince McMahon and the company distributed steroids to wrestlers such as Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan), because the judge said prosecutors failed to establish that the alleged conspiracy occurred in the jurisdiction of the New York court where the case was filed. And on the one remaining count, that they had distributed mislabeled anabolic steroids, both Vince McMahon and the company were acquitted. In other words, none of the charges ever stuck. In an extensive story about the issue in Connecticut's The Day, reporter Ted Mann asked McMahon about the memo. "I don't pretend to remember to go back, to revisit all the aspects of that case," McMahon told The Day. "It has been tried, acquitted and done with, and WWE has evolved its total health and wellness policy over the years, and I'm sure will continue to evolve." According to the story:  When asked if her decision to notify Zahorian had led him to destroy records that might have more thoroughly documented his sale of steroids to WWF wrestlers — as prosecutors in 1994 alleged — McMahon's reply was curt. "I can't speak to any of that,' she said. "I have no idea." WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt said he believes the DSCC ad is misleading, because it suggests by innuendo that Linda McMahon sought to obstruct the government's investigation. "There were never any charges against Linda McMahon of any kind," McDevitt said. "There was never any charge of obstruction of justice against anybody." An indictment is nothing more than an allegation, McDevitt said, and the case ended without a conviction against anyone on anything. "You can only gain an acquittal in this country," McDevitt said. "That's all you can do." Everyone agrees Linda McMahon was never charged with or convicted of anything, including obstruction of justice. But the ad from the DSCC doesn't say she was. The ad accuses McMahon of tipping off a ringside physician about a federal investigation into distributing steroids to their wrestlers. How else could one interpret Linda McMahon's direction in the 1989 memo "to also clue him (Zahorian) in on any action that the Justice Department is thinking of taking." It's also  that a government indictment later alleged that, after getting a call from a Titan employee tipping him off to the investigation, Zahorian tried to hide evidence at his attorney's office. But whether Zahhorian tried to "hide" evidence may or may not be . Zahorian sent files to his attorney, but they were not destroyed, and according to WWE's attorney, they were later made available to investigators. Nothing in Linda McMahon's memo suggests she directed the employee to tell Zahorian to hide or destroy evidence. But again, the ad doesn't say she did. The ad merely says she tipped off the ringside physician about an investigation. She did, according to her own memo. And Zahorian was later convicted of distributing steroids to some of her WWF wrestlers. We rate the ad .


Distinguishing fatal prostate cancer from 'manageable' cancer now possible

Explanation: A news release from the University of York describes a new test that uses computer algorithms and genetic markers to distinguish between aggressive and more manageable types of prostate cancer. While the study is informative, the news release summarizes it in confusing terms and analogies that may be difficult for a lay reader to understand. Furthermore, it neglects to mention until the very end of the release that this test has only been done in the laboratory, and is likely still years away from being available to actual patients. Prostate cancer is relatively common. According to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lives. It is also the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American men. Some prostate cancers are more aggressive than others, however. A test that could distinguish between aggressive and more manageable cancer types could help some patients avoid unnecessary and risky radiotherapy and surgery. An estimated 40% of prostate cancers detected by the standard PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test are considered over-diagnosed. For decades, the great majority of these men were aggressively over-treated with surgery or radiation. In recent years, more men with low-risk cancers are opting for active surveillance, a monitoring strategy that involves repeated PSA tests and biopsies. Only men with evidence of cancer progression will be offered curative treatment. However, the current methods for determining low-risk status — PSA and Gleason score — are considered relatively crude. A more accurate test would not only help limit over treatment but would potentially give men more confidence in selecting active surveillance.

This news release does not mention costs. This is likely because, as we said above, the test is still experimental, and not something available to the general public. In comparison, available genomic tests run around $4,000. The news release tries to quantify benefits in two ways. First, it says that “A recent study showed that more than 25 men were being unnecessarily treated with surgery or radiotherapy, for every single life saved.” But how recent was this study? And who published it? Next, the release says that the news test “can pick out life-threatening prostate cancers, with up to 92% accuracy,” although this is not technically correct. In the published study, the authors say that the algorithm resulted in “an AUC of 0.92.” AUC stands for Area Under the Curve, which is not the same measurement as accuracy. The AUC is considered the best measure of whether a test can distinguish between diseased and non-diseased people. In this case, the investigators used their test to differentiate between cancers that were confined to the prostate and those that had spread beyond the prostate among men who had undergone prostatectomy. While these advanced cancers can be life-threatening, that’s a bit of hyperbolic description. Metastatic cancers are clearly the most likely to be life threatening. Additionally, estimates of AUC have 95% confidence intervals. If the AUC, as it appears, was based on results from 4 patients, then 92% is a very imprecise estimate. The news release says that unnecessary radiotherapy and surgery is harmful, but it does not explain any harms of the new tests. Although biopsies are minimally invasive, the Mayo Clinic says that prostate biopsies can cause bleeding and risk of infection. In this test, the tissue was collected only from prostatectomy specimens. Therefore, to actually be useful for preventing over treatment, the test must be assessed in biopsy specimens. The harm would be misclassification — mistakenly telling someone that treatment is unnecessary because the tumor appears to be low-risk when in fact it’s aggressive and would benefit from treatment. Neglecting to provide the number of patients and failing to explain the meaning of 92% accuracy, made this an evidence-free release. (Information on some of the challenges of describing accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests is available in this HealthNewsReview.org toolkit.) After reading the study, it seems that biopsies were only taken from four patients, a very small sample size. The news release also attempted to summarize the methods of the study, but ended up doing so using confusing language and analogies that were hard to parse. The term “life-threatening cancer” was used very loosely. A cancer that has spread beyond the prostate — but not throughout the body–is not necessarily fatal. All funding sources were listed at the bottom of the release. The alternatives to this test include other genomic tests; PSA, Gleason scores from biopsies, and MRI results, none of which are mentioned. The release does say that this test could be an alternative to radiotherapy and surgery (by distinguishing non-aggressive from aggressive cancers), but it doesn’t list any of the harms or benefits of other interventions. It also does not say what treatment options there are should a patient find that they have a non-aggressive form of cancer. At the very end of the news release, the authors write that the next step is, “to take this method out of the laboratory,” and that the researchers hope that they will find a commercial partner to develop the test for general use. But this should have come much sooner, ideally in the first paragraph. The entire release (including the headline) made it sound like this test is already available, likely frustrating patients who felt duped at the end of the release. The news release does attempt to describe the novelty of the test, although the release struggles to describe scientific terms. No sensational or unjustifiable language.


Avandia may help keep arteries clear after surgery.

Explanation: GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s controversial diabetes drug Avandia, that was linked to increased heart attack risk, may prove to be effective in preventing the progression of blockages after heart surgery to repair narrowing arteries, researchers said on Tuesday.

The study, dubbed Victory and presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago, included 193 patients at eight centers in Canada and Spain. It evaluated the benefit and safety of the drug, generically known as rosiglitazone, in preventing atherosclerosis progression in patients with type-2 diabetes one to 10 years after surgery. “Rosiglitazone proved to be safe and was not associated with adverse effects,” Dr. Oliver Bertrand, assistant professor at Laval University in Quebec City, said in a statement. Other studies involving a larger number of patients are also evaluating this drug and will further define its role in patients with type-2 diabetes and coronary disease, he added. The number of patients with type-2 diabetes, the most common form of diabetes, and coronary disease is expected to increase dramatically over the next 10 years. Today, more than 500,000 patients with type-2 diabetes undergo coronary artery bypass grafts each year and most will have one or more bypasses using a vein taken from the leg. However, in 50 percent of patients, these grafts become re-obstructed after 10 years. “Victory is only a moderate size trial, but our results provide reassurance about the safety of rosiglitazone, which has been under fierce attack compared with pioglitazone, the other glitazone compound,” he said. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd’s pioglitazone, is sold as Actos in the United States and Glustin in Europe. Last May, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that they had found Avandia raised the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent, setting off a storm of controversy, and eventually led to regulators requiring that Avandia carry strong warnings about the risks.


If masks prevent coronavirus, governors would have given them to prison inmates instead of releasing them.

Explanation: Experts agree that wearing facial coverings in close settings provides some measure of protection against spreading the coronavirus. Despite a claim on Facebook, New York, Michigan and California prisons all are providing masks to inmates, as well as staff, as part of their COVID-19 response. Certain groups of inmates are being freed early as a way to try to limit the spread of COVID-19. They include pregnant women with less than six months left on sentences for nonviolent offenses, and other inmates who are either over 60 with health issues or months away from being eligible for parole.

Corrections and Updates, Criminal Justice, Crime, Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, California, New York, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

Health officials and governors in states hit hard by COVID-19 are recommending masks to help contain the spread of the virus. But if masks really work, a Facebook post asks rhetorically, why aren’t governors using them more in jails and prisons that have become COVID-19 hotspots? The post — accompanying images of governors Mario Cuomo of New York, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Gavin Newsom of California — claims the three Democrats have "released thousands of dangerous prisoners into the public to kill innocent people and cause stress to our citizens," and that the governors "make" citizens wear masks. "If the masks actually work to prevent COVID-19," the post continues, "then why didn’t we just hand them out to all inmates … instead of releasing them to prevent the spread?" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It is inaccurate on several fronts. Medical experts now agree that face coverings help slow the spread of the coronavirus, and the states cited in the post have distributed masks to inmates. Meanwhile, states that are releasing inmates are considering the potential danger to the public in deciding which ones to release. Across the nation in response to the coronavirus, many more inmates are being released from local jails — which hold people charged with crimes or convicted of low-level crimes — than from prisons, which mostly hold people convicted of felonies. That’s according to the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts think tank that advocates for reducing the American prison population, and the New York Times. (In Florida, an inmate released from the Hillsborough County jail, where he was being held on nonviolent drug charges, was charged with second-degree murder the next day.) Some are being released from prisons. In New York, Michigan and California, thousands of prison inmates have been released in response to the coronavirus. The Facebook claim goes too far in characterizing them all as posing a threat to kill. In New York, Cuomo announced in April that pregnant women with less than six months remaining on their sentences for nonviolent offenses would be released from prison. The state announced in March that up to 1,100 inmates being held in local jails for low-level parole violations and deemed not a danger to the public would be released to stem the flow of coronavirus cases in the correctional system. Michigan is releasing 200 prison inmates per week because of the coronavirus, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, Mich., reported on April 14. The state is looking to first release inmates eligible for parole who are nonviolent offenders older than 60 with health issues, though no offenses are off-limits, the report said. California announced in March that it planned to release as many as 3,500 prison inmates by expediting the transition to parole for nonviolent offenders with 60 days or less left on their sentences. Correctional and detention facilities pose "unique challenges" in combating COVID-19, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. Inmates live, work and eat in close settings, heightening the potential for the virus to spread. The virus can be brought into the facility in many ways, including through staff, medical professionals or others who enter from the outside. And options for isolating inmates are limited, the CDC notes. Across the country, more than 25,000 prison inmates have tested positive for COVID-19, and more than 370 of them have died, according to the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that reports on criminal justice. Staff and inmates are required to wear masks amid large outbreaks: New York: More than 1,200 prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the state. The Department of Corrections requires all staff to wear face masks while on duty and supplies all inmates with surgical-type masks. Michigan: There are more than 2,100 COVID-19 infections among prisoners and Michigan ranks third for the number of prisoner cases, according to the Marshall Project. Each prison employee and inmate has received three masks that can be laundered and worn again, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections. Staff are expected to wear a mask during their entire shift, and prisoners are expected to wear masks except while eating, sleeping or showering. California: More than 430 cases of COVID-19, including five deaths, have been confirmed at the California Institution for Men in Chino, with tents being set up to provide more space and treatment for inmates, the Sacramento Bee reported. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says it provides masks and hand sanitizer to all staff and prisoners. While masks alone cannot stop the spread of the coronavirus, health officials agree that facial coverings, including ones made of fabric, help slow the spread of the virus, as we’ve reported. The CDC recommends that nearly everyone wear a facial covering while out in public and in areas where social distancing isn’t possible. Higher medical-grade masks offer the most protection, but homemade masks are also effective, particularly when they fit snugly and are made of multiple layers. New research since the start of the coronavirus outbreak supports the use of masks. For correctional facilities, a May 15 CDC report recommends cloth facial coverings, along with physical distancing, movement restrictions and other measures. "Prompt identification of COVID-19 cases and consistent application of prevention measures are critical to protecting incarcerated and detained persons, correctional and detention facility staff members, and the communities to which they return," the report said. A Facebook post claimed that if masks prevent coronavirus, governors in New York, Michigan and California would have given them to prison inmates instead of releasing them. Experts agree that wearing facial coverings in close settings provides some measure of protection against spreading the coronavirus. New York, Michigan and California prisons are providing masks to inmates, as well as staff, as part of their COVID-19 response. Inmates in those states are being freed early as a way to try to limit the spread of COVID-19 — mostly nonviolent offenders or those who aren’t seen as a safety threat. We rate the statement . Correction, June 8, 2020: Michigan had more than 2,100 state prisoners with COVID-19, not more than 2,100 state prisoner COVID-19 deaths.


Viral image Says Harvard scientists say the coronavirus is “spreading so fast that it will infect 70% of humanity this year.”

Explanation: An epidemiologist at Harvard University projects 40%-70% of adults could catch coronavirus in the coming year.

Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Viral image,

As more people are infected with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, many are wondering: Am I next? The odds may not be in our favor, according to a recent Facebook post. "Harvard scientists just predicted that it may take many months to find cure for coronavirus," the March 10 post says. "According to them, virus is spreading so fast that it will infect 70% of humanity this year." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Spokespeople for Harvard University did not immediately reply to PolitiFact’s emails asking about the post. But news stories lend some credence to the Facebook post’s claims — and provide more information that the post fails to mention. On March 11, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic that has infected nearly 120,000 people worldwide. More than 4,000 people have died and eight countries, including the United States, are currently each reporting more than 1,000 cases. Mark Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics and an expert on viruses, told CBS News, among other news outlets, that 40% to 70% of the world’s adult population could be infected in the coming year. There are an estimated 7.6 billion people in the world, and an estimated 329 million in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Adults make up about three-quarters of the U.S. population. "That is a projection," Lipsitch said during the March 2 interview, "so we will find out if that’s accurate as things go on. It is the best estimate that I’ve been able to make based on a combination of the mathematical models that we use to track and predict epidemics." Other estimates are similar. The Guardian reported on Feb. 11 that 60% of the global population could be infected if the virus is unchecked. On Feb. 13, Bloomberg reported that Ira Longini, an adviser to the World Health Organization, said two-thirds of the world’s population could catch COVID-19. But the publication also quoted David Heymann, an infectious disease expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, explaining that researchers need more data to get a better idea of how far the coronavirus could spread. "The models will be refined as more information comes to light," he said. Our ruling The Facebook post says Harvard scientists say the coronavirus is "spreading so fast that it will infect 70% of humanity this year." An epidemiologist at the university has said that 40% to 70% of the world’s adult population could be infected in the coming year. But that is a projection, and other projections vary. We rate this post .


An angry mother delivered a scathing response to school officials after her daughter was punished for punching a classmate who snapped her bra.

Explanation: Me: “No. She defended herself against a sexual attack from another pupil. Look at them; he’s nearly 6 feet and 11 or 12 stone. She’s 5 feet and 6 stone. He’s a foot taller than her and twice as heavy. How many times should she have let him touch her? If the person who was supposed to help and protect her in a classroom couldn’t be bothered what should she have done? He pulled her bra so hard it came undone.”

On 19 February 2015, a user-submitted story about a mother’s angry response to her daughter’s being punished for punching a male classmate who snapped her bra was published on the website Not Always Learning. The story, titled “Was Bra-ced for a Different Reaction,” reported that a female student (identified only as “daughter”) was about to be punished for hitting a male student (identified only as “boy”) before her mother stepped in and explained to the teacher that the school should be punishing “boy” instead of “daughter” since “boy” was the one who had sexually assaulted “daughter” when he snapped her bra:  (I’m an A&E nurse. We’re not allowed [to keep] our phones on us; they’re to be kept in our lockers. A call comes into hospital reception on a private line for me.) Phone: “This is [Teacher] from [School]. There’s been an incident involving [Daughter]. We need you to come in.” Me: “Is she ill or injured? Can it wait until my shift is over in two hours?” Phone: “[Daughter] has struck another pupil. We’ve been trying to call you for 45 minutes. It really is very serious.” (I go to the school and am ushered into the head’s office. I see my daughter, her head of year, a male teacher, the headmaster, a boy with blood around his nose and a red face, and his parents.) Head: “Mrs. [My Name], how kind of you to FINALLY join us!” Me: “Yeah, things get busy in A&E. I’ve spent the last hour administering over 40 stitches to a seven-year-old who was beaten by his mother with a metal ladle and then I had to deal with the police regarding the matter. Sorry for the inconvenience.” (After watching him try to not act embarrassed, he tells me what has happened. The boy had twanged my daughter’s bra and she had punched him in the face twice. I got the impression they were more angry with my daughter than the boy.) The details of the above-quoted story are impossible to verify since all names and locations have been redacted. Without this information we have to rely on the source, the content of the article, and basic intuition. While Not Always Learning publishes user-submitted stories that “are based on actual, real events,” the FAQ section explains that some stories are changed from second-hand tales to first-person accounts for dramatic effect:  Sometimes we will need to edit a story slightly to make it suitable for publication. Scene-setting is great, but extraneous detail may need to be cut down a little. Your submission might explain that this didn’t happen to you but to your classmate/colleague/friend, but the audience doesn’t need to know that. Don’t worry, we still aim to keep the spirit of the story alive and ensure it remains as hilarious as ever! The stories published on Not Always Learning are user-submitted anecdotes meant to entertain readers. While the editors supposedly endeavor to ensure stories are based on real events, an amusing story clearly takes precedence over a factual one. Which brings us back to the content of “Was Bra-ced for a Different Reaction.” The story is filled with unnecessary detail to make the mother character the only credible voice; for instance, the story gives plenty of detail about the mother’s heroic work in the A&E (accident and emergency room), while the other characters are painted as ignorant and incompetent:  Me: “Oh. And you want to know if I’m going to press charges against him for sexually assaulting my daughter and against the school for allowing him to do it?” (They all get jittery when I mention sexual assault and start speaking at once.) Teacher: “I don’t think it was that serious.” Head Of Year: “Let’s not over-react.” Head: “I think you’re missing the point.” (The boy’s mother then starts crying. I turn to my daughter to find out what happened.) Daughter: “He kept pinging my bra. I asked him to stop but he didn’t, so I told Mr. [Teacher]. He told me to ‘ignore it.’ [Boy] did it again and undid my bra so I hit him. Then he stopped.” (I turn to the teacher.) Me: “You let him do this? Why didn’t you stop him? Come over here and let me touch the front of your trousers.” Teacher: “What?! No!” Me: “Does that seem inappropriate to you? Why don’t you go and pull on Mrs. [Head Of Year]’s bra right now. See how fun it is for her. Or on that boy’s mum’s bra. Or mine. You think just because they’re kids it’s fun?”  The mother’s quick retorts also seem implausible. The story depicts a very frustrating situation, yet the mother manages to find the perfect words at every turn. While this is possible, it seems more likely that the story was written after the incident as the writer recalled exactly what she should have said. There’s no English word for this concept: the French use the term “esprit de l’escalier,” the Germans know it as treppenwitz, and fans of Seinfeld call it the Jerk Store Paradox. The story concludes with a final speech about sexual assault from this enraged mother as she scolds the teacher and the headmaster, threatens “boy,” and takes “daughter” out of the office:  Head: “Mrs. [My Name]. With all due respect, [Daughter] still beat another child.”


Virus spreads on cruise ship in Japan, U.S. passengers flying home.

Explanation: Hundreds of passengers were preparing to be evacuated from a cruise ship on Sunday after spending two weeks under quarantine off Japan over the coronavirus, with Americans flying home on chartered evacuation planes early Monday morning.

Seventy more people were confirmed with the virus on board the Diamond Princess on Sunday, bringing the number of cases from the ship to 355, the most anywhere outside China. The luxury cruise voyage with more than 3,000 passengers aboard was struck by the virus earlier this month, leaving them and crew in confinement. Two charter flights operated by Kalitta Air carrying a few hundred American passengers from the ship departed from Haneda Airport on Monday morning. The airline was involved in previous U.S. evacuation operations prompted by the virus outbreak in China. Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong and Italy have followed the United States in announcing flights to bring home their citizens from the ship, which has been under quarantine since Feb. 3. Countries have said passengers should be symptom-free to board the flights, and are likely to face quarantine on arrival. Gay Courter, one of the American passengers on one of the chartered flights, told Reuters they were flying to Travis Air Force Base in California, then would be sent to Omaha or San Antonio for another two week of quarantine on U.S. soil. The other flight will land at Kelly Field Air Force Base, Texas, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Courter was on the cruise with her husband to celebrate her 75th birthday. Photographs from inside one of the charter flights showed a portable bio-containment unit and a U.S. health official in a protective suit. “Quarantine is necessary. This flight will be hell. Portapotties,” Courter said, referring to the converted cargo plane she was in. Another American passenger, Matthew Smith, posted photos on Twitter showing a fleet of more than 10 buses that took U.S. nationals from Yokohama port to the airport. Smith said U.S. officials, dressed in full hazmat suits and face masks, had visited his room to check if he would disembark. He said he wanted to stay. The charter flights were the only option for eligible U.S. passengers to fly home until March 4 at the earliest, the U.S. embassy in Tokyo has said. The ship, owned by Carnival Corp., has been held in Yokohama since a man who had disembarked in Hong Kong was diagnosed with the virus two weeks ago. The ship, once bustling with busy restaurants, game nights and Broadway-style shows, has been reduced to silence. Those with the disease have been taken to hospital in Japan and no one from the ship has died. Around half of the guests onboard are from Japan. There were approximately 400 U.S. citizens on the ship, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo had said passengers and crew on board the ship were at high risk of exposure to the virus and it recommended its citizens get off and take one of the flights home. “This is a rapidly evolving situation and we are taking additional steps to assist U.S. citizens,” it said. All passengers were to be screened before being allowed on the chartered flights and everyone would be quarantined for 14 days upon arrival back in the United States. “No symptomatic or infected passengers will be allowed to board,” it said. Clyde Smith, 80, who was taken from the ship to a Tokyo hospital after testing positive for the virus, told Reuters on Sunday he had not been told if he would be allowed on a U.S. evacuation plane. Latest figures from Beijing on Sunday showed 68,500 cases of the illness and 1,665 deaths, mostly in Hubei province. Japan detected six fresh cases of the coronavirus on Sunday, apart from those on the ship, the health ministry said, taking the total number of in-land infections to 59.


Study: Many in Ebola outbreak don’t believe virus is real.

Explanation: One out of four people interviewed in eastern Congo last year believed Ebola wasn’t real, according to a new study, underscoring the enormous challenges health care workers are facing in what has become the second-deadliest outbreak in history.

Africa, Health, Senegal, Infectious diseases, International News

The survey released late Wednesday found that a deep mistrust of the Ebola response resulted in those people being 15 times less likely to seek medical treatment at an Ebola health center, according to the study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal. The study was based on interviews conducted last September, about a month after the outbreak began. It comes as the number of probable and confirmed cases has exceeded 1,000. At least 639 people have died from Ebola since August, according to the World Health Organization. This is the first time the region has experienced an Ebola outbreak. The outbreak’s response has been hampered by a series of deadly attacks on Ebola health centers since the study was completed. As a result, Doctors Without Borders has stopped staffing two health centers at the outbreak’s epicenter. Researchers said their study showed more precisely how individuals’ misinformed views about Ebola were undermining the response and helping to spread the deadly virus. “It really helps us understand how central and fundamental community trust should be as part of the response,” said Patrick Vinck of Harvard University, who led the research. Eva Erlach, the community engagement and accountability delegate for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, called the findings “absolutely interesting” and said they show how the level of trust correlates with preventative behaviors. The organization has had more than 800 trained volunteers working to get out prevention messages amid the region’s security challenges. “There is still a part of the community who do not believe that Ebola is real and we definitely still need to continue focusing on community engagement,” said Erlach, who was not part of the study. “And this is why this report is so helpful even if it’s from September.” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said earlier this month he was encouraged “to see the communities accepting the response more and more.” The new study highlights just how pervasive misinformation has been in places in eastern Congo like Beni and Butembo, where in-person interviews were conducted with 961 people. Some 25.5 percent of those interviewed did not believe Ebola was real. In addition, nearly 45.9 percent of people thought the Ebola outbreak was being fabricated to destabilize the region or for financial gain. Additionally 18.2 percent believed all three of those statements, the study found. Those who didn’t believe Ebola was real were far less likely to agree to agree to the Ebola vaccine or to go to a treatment center. Ebola is spread through the bodily fluids of the sick, and isolation of those infected is key to stopping transmission. This outbreak has been uniquely challenging because of the volatile security situation in the region. Eastern Congo is home to numerous armed groups and the Ebola epidemic has deepened the political and economic grievances of many in the area. The fact that people in Ebola affected areas were excluded from the December presidential election has only heightened conspiracy theories. Tariq Riebl, of the International Rescue Committee, who is currently working in eastern Congo, said the findings released Wednesday mirror what he and his colleagues are seeing on the ground. Concern remains about how Ebola prevention efforts are going because new cases are still emerging. “Once you reach a wider outbreak zone, especially urban zones, the community engagement and prevention side of things is almost more important than the treatment side,” Riebl said. “If you can’t have those messages out successfully, it doesn’t matter if you have all the treatment options available because no one is ever arriving to take advantage of that,” he said. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa


Baxter Alzheimer's drug promising in small study.

Explanation: Baxter International Inc said on  Thursday its Gammagard intravenous plasma-based treatment  helped improve mental function in a small study of patients  with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

The treatment met the primary goals of the six-month,  24-patient trial by proving better than placebo at improving  measures of cognitive function and global impression of change,  the company said, although the study was too small to  demonstrate statistical significance. “This was the first placebo-controlled clinical trial of  Gammagard for Alzheimer’s disease, and the results are clearly  promising,” Dr Norman Relkin said in a statement. Relkin  presented the data at the American Academy of Neurology meeting  in Chicago.


Dr. Ted Noel has said that after evaluating Hillary Clinton from afar, he’s concluded that she has Parkinson’s disease.

Explanation: Hillary Clinton “Probably” has Parkinson’s Disease

Claims that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson’s disease are unproven. Questions about Clinton’s health, her coughing fits and her so-called on-camera seizures (we investigated that one and found it be false) have persisted for months. The most recent (unproven) health claim about Clinton came from Dr. Ted Noel, a board-certified anesthesiologist, who said in a video posted on the Next News Network YouTube channel that he had concluded that Clinton ”probably” has Parkinson’s disease after watching video clips of her exhibiting symptoms like falling, imbalance, coughing, seizure and more: PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC’s instability and frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render the sufferer incapable of proper response. At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse. HRC’s coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That’s bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression. As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired. One of the main problems about Noel’s diagnosis is that he doesn’t appear to have any medical training in degenerative neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease at all. Online medical records state that he’s worked as an anesthesiologist in Orlando for 36 years — which doesn’t appear to give him any kind of expertise in diagnosing neurological conditions. And a quick glance at the progression of Parkinson’s disease seems to conflict with Noel’s diagnosis that Clinton has “advanced” PD. The fourth and fifth stages of PD, which are considered advanced, bring about limited movements that require a walker or wheelchair, advanced stiffness in the legs that makes it impossible to stand or walk, and hallucinations and delusions, Health Line reports. Clinton’s actions on the campaign trail don’t support that idea that she has advanced PD. Her movements would be far more limited, and there’s a good chance she would be unable to walk or stand on her own. In conclusion, there’s no evidence to support claims that Clinton has Parkinson’s disease — but it’s impossible to definitively prove she doesn’t have it from afar. That’s why we’re calling this one unproven.


Study Results Published in JAMA Conclude that 3D MAMMOGRAPHY™ Exams Outperform Conventional Mammography for Women with Both Dense and Nondense Breasts

Explanation: This news release describes the results of a large population-based study comparing several screening outcomes (including recall rates and  cancer detection rates) between digital mammography and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis (i.e., Hologic Genius 3D mammography). Although the published study did find a significant difference between the two screening modalities by breast density tissue, the rates were not significant in women with extremely dense breasts. A point the news release failed to mention. Another caveat is that the original research did not look at healthcare savings or any clinical outcomes. But the manufacturers of the 3D mammography tout the the potential savings and improved outcomes in the news release, suggesting to readers that these outcomes are to be expected when their technology is used. Better detection of breast cancer through newer technology is not the same as improving clinical outcomes. Failing to mention that women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from the newer technology can lead to more confusion for women who may falsely assume the new technology will help them. This release also catches a coat-ride on new legislation adopted by about half of U.S. states that require that women receive notifications of their breast density (BRN) along with their screening mammogram results. These mandated notifications on breast density are not well-regarded by a number of experts since their value to patients is questionable. What are women to do with this information?

Breast cancer,industry/commercial news releases,Screening tests

No discussion of costs or whether the addition of the 3D mammography is covered by insurance policies. This is a huge oversight considering the release touts the potential for significant cost savings. For example, the release states: “This has the potential to provide health systems and insurance companies with significant cost savings, reduce patient stress and expenses, and alleviate challenges for referring physicians who are tasked with relaying mammography results to their patients.” A quick online scan of the cost for this newer technology finds that although the 3D test is FDA-approved, it still isn’t covered by most insurance plans. At least one large clinic using the 3D technology asks patients for an an out-of-pocket payment of $60 and then the 2D portion of the imaging test is billed to insurance. The patient is liable for any outstanding balance after insurance has paid. The news release mentions a 50% increase in invasive cancer detection which on the surface sounds impressive, but they don’t provide enough detail to understand what the 50% increase really means. According to the original study, the digital mammography plus tomosynthesis increased detection of invasive cancers from 3 per 1000 screens to 4.5 per 1000 screens and this high percentage increase was seen in only one of the four groups of breast tissue density. The other two groups had lower increases. (“Mammograms are categorized into four density groups: almost entirely fat, scattered fibroglandular densities, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense,” according to the release.) The news release failed to mention that in women with extremely dense breasts, the 3D mammography was not significantly better at detecting invasive cancer than digital mammography alone. The published study called for caution “in drawing conclusions regarding the performance of tomosynthesis [3D mammography] for the small proportion of women with extremely dense breasts.” We also question the release’s portrayal of 3D mammography providing a “high percentage increase” in detection over conventional mammography. Our calculations show a 0.15% increase in detection rates (0.3% detection rate for conventional vs. 0.45% for 3D). Finally, we need to address outcomes. There is no evidence from the study that finding these additional cancers leads to better outcomes. Finding more cancers with a more sensitive test could be leading to over-diagnosis. Furthermore, the value of finding these cancers earlier is of uncertain value in the absence of outcomes data–which ideally should come from a randomized trial to avoid bias in lead-time. The many broad claims in the release are not fully supported by the evidence. There were no explanations of potential harms of integrating 3D mammography into current breast cancer detection or that this technology does not appear to benefit women with extremely dense breasts. It is unclear if this technology could result in false positives (over-diagnosis) or what the negative predictive value of the test is (the probability that subjects with a negative screening test don’t actually have the disease). If these tests lead to over-diagnosis then women face the harms (and costs) of unnecessary treatment. Although the research letter in JAMA noted that adding tomosynthesis did not produce a significant result in detecting breast cancer for women with extremely dense breasts (one of the four categories of breast density), the news release does not mention this limitation to the study. The news release also takes the evidence from the study and extrapolates to health care savings costs and increased quality of care for women, neither of which were examined in the study. In fact, the original study did not look at clinical outcomes and noted this as a limitation, but the news release does not discuss this caveat. Furthermore, we do not know whether the apparent benefits — in terms of increased cancer detection and decrease in recalls — would be mirrored in routine practice. The results were based on mammograms being performed by high volume sites in a clinical trial. The published research also noted that the study included “insufficient follow-up to determine if increased invasive cancer detection improved clinical outcomes.” The report did not appear to engage in disease mongering. The news release is distributed by the company that makes the 3D mammography so we can assume it played a role in funding the study. What’s troubling is that the release gives no mention of potential conflicts of interest — or the absence of conflict — among the many investigators involved with the study. The published research notes that none of the researchers reported a potential conflict but that five of the researchers received research grant funding from Hologic. Also concerning is a note included with the disclosure section of the study: “The study contracts and data sharing agreements specified that Hologic had the right to review all publications prior to submission, but could not mandate any revision of the manuscript or prevent submission for publication.” At bare minimum the release should have noted that at least some of the researchers received grant funding from the manufacturer. The purpose of study compared digital mammography alone with digital mammography with the addition of 3D mammography. The news release does mention that 3D mammography has been available since 2011 and includes a link to a website where people can enter their zip code to find locations that offer the additional screening test. The claim to novelty is found in this statement in the release: “This new analysis confirms that Genius™ 3D MAMMOGRAPHY™ exams reduce unnecessary follow-up exams in dense-breasted women. This has the potential to provide health systems and insurance companies with significant cost savings, reduce patient stress and expenses, and alleviate challenges for referring physicians who are tasked with relaying mammography results to their patients.” For the reasons stated above, we think the release makes questionable claims and therefore fails the novelty test so we’re rating this not satisfactory. In addition, the 3D screening technology has been available since 2011. While the release generally uses appropriate language, we’re flagging it for the claim that “an estimated 10 million women in the U.S. benefited from a Genius exam.” Even if 10 million women received exams, not all of them benefited. We think the release should have included some backup for a claim this bold.


This is the first time since Roe was decided in 1973 that a court has granted personhood status to the preborn.

Explanation: Abortion foe overreaches in describing context of court ruling

Abortion, Georgia, Children, Dan Becker,

Last month the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision. Essentially, the court ruled that a guilty plea for child endangerment entered by a Colbert County mother should stand. Amanda Kimbrough initially entered the guilty plea after her son Timmy died 19 minutes after birth at 25 weeks in April 2008. A medical examiner determined that Timmy died from "acute methamphetamine intoxication." After Kimbrough pleaded guilty to charges under Alabama’s chemical endangerment of a child statute, she received the minimum sentence of 10 years. Kimbrough later appealed, saying the chemical endangerment statute did not extend to unborn children. The Alabama ruling included acknowledgment of unborn children in the state’s chemical endangerment statute. Anti-abortion advocates immediately praised the decision as a victory for "personhood rights of preborn children." "This is the first time since Roe (v. Wade) was decided in 1973 that a court has granted personhood status to the preborn," Dan Becker, the president of Georgia Right to Life, said in a news release a few days after the Jan. 11 ruling. "I am greatly encouraged that Georgia, which has proven to be pro-life, will now grant the same protection to our innocent children." The personhood issue -- defining human life with full rights at the point of conception instead of birth -- has had a long history in this country’s abortion debate. Abortion opponents in several states have pursued personhood efforts since the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case. So, we wondered: Could the Alabama ruling be a precedent as Becker said? Kimbrough, the Alabama mother, admitted smoking methamphetamine three days before her child was born, according to media reports. Alabama’s chemical endangerment code prohibits a "responsible person" from "exposing a child to an environment in which (the person) … knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia." In the case of a child’s death due to these circumstances, the result is a Class A felony with a minimum prison term of 10 years. A Georgia Right to Life spokeswoman told PolitiFact Georgia that the organization was not aware of a similar court ruling prior to the Alabama case. "The tide is turning. More and more people are rejecting the culture of death that has existed for far too long," spokeswoman Suzanne Ward said in an email. Personhood USA, a Denver-based organization that opposes abortion, supported Becker’s claim. "The only personhood effort state-by-state (Virginia and Mississippi, for example)  that has been done is through Personhood USA, and we haven’t gotten anything to pass yet. So right now there are no personhood laws on the books in any state," said Jennifer Mason, Personhood’s communications director. The Alabama decision centered on a chemical endangerment statute. But the court "said women should not take these drugs knowing that they could endanger the child. So it was both a chemical endangerment decision, but also an affirmation of personhood rights for those babies as well," Mason said. PolitiFact Georgia put the claim to B. Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Law School. Hill disagreed with Becker’s statement and cited several other cases, including some cited in the Alabama ruling, in which courts have granted personhood status to the preborn. Among them, a 1997 criminal child neglect case in South Carolina involving an expectant mother sentenced to eight years in prison after her child was born with the drug in its system. "It’s not that uncommon (among courts)," Hill said. "Various states have said a fetus could be a child under specific statutes, like criminal child neglect, wrongful death or, in the Alabama case, chemical endangerment." Steve Crampton, general counsel for Liberty Counsel, which has partnered with Personhood USA on litigation and has worked with Georgia Right to Life, said the Alabama decision "has great potential application" outside the chemical endangerment statute. What happens next with the Alabama ruling is unknown, said Paul Horwitz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alabama. "I just don’t think it’s a question of a court using the word ‘personhood.’ It’s a question of whether or not there is a right to an abortion and when," he said. "I don’t see that larger constitutional issue as something that is automatically teed up in a useful way because of this court’s ruling." So was Georgia Right to Life President Dan Becker correct in saying that an Alabama Supreme Court case last month was "the first time since Roe was decided in 1973 that a court has granted personhood status to the preborn"? Not really. There have been other cases in other states in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade in which courts have decided that a fetus could be a child. Those cases dealt with specific statutes, including criminal child neglect and wrongful death, which were similar to the Alabama case involving a chemical endangerment statute. But there is no general ruling saying a fetus is a person or granting personhood status to the preborn in all circumstances, according to constitutional and reproductive law experts. Becker claimed that no other court had made personhood rulings, but our research found that that is not the case. We rated Becker’s claim .


Multidrug-resistant malaria spreading in Southeast Asia: study.

Explanation: A strain of malaria resistant to two key drugs has spread rapidly from Cambodia and has become dominant in Vietnam, Laos and northern Thailand, with a “terrifying prospect” that it could reach Africa, scientists warned on Monday,

Using gnomic surveillance to track the spread of drug-resistant malaria, the scientists found that the strain, known as KEL1/PLA1, had also evolved and picked up new genetic mutations that may make it yet more resistant. “We discovered (it) had spread aggressively, replacing local malaria parasites, and had become the dominant strain in Vietnam, Laos and northeastern Thailand,” said Roberto Amato, who worked with a team from Britain’s Wellcome Sanger Institute and Oxford University and Thailand’s Mahidol University. The risk is rising that the new strain could threaten sub-Saharan Africa, where most malaria cases and deaths occur, largely among babies and children. “This highly successful resistant parasite strain is capable of invading new territories and acquiring new genetic properties, raising the terrifying prospect that it could spread to Africa ... as resistance to chloroquine did in the 1980s, contributing to millions of deaths,” said Olivo Miotto of Oxford University, who co-led the work. Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites, which are carried by mosquitoes and spread through their blood-sucking bites. Almost 220 million people were infected with malaria in 2017, according to World Health Organization estimates, and 400,000 succumbed to it. Malaria can be treated with medicines if caught early enough, but evolving drug-resistance - such as the spread of chloroquine-resistant malaria across Asia to Africa from the late 1950s to the 1980 - has hampered efforts to eliminate it. The first-line treatment in many parts of Asia in the last decade has been a combination of dihydroartemisinin and piperaquine, also known as DHA-PPQ. Researchers found in previous work that a strain of malaria resistant to this combination had evolved and spread across Cambodia between 2007 and 2013. This latest research, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, found it had crossed borders and tightened its grip. Miotto said further work was now needed to establish how far this resistance had spread and whether it had evolved further - and eventually to understand which drugs would work against resistant malaria parasites. “Other drugs may be effective at the moment but the situation is extremely fragile,” he said.


U.S. panel outlines how doctors should ration care in a pandemic.

Explanation: A panel of advisers issued recommendations for new crisis treatment standards on Monday advising doctors and hospitals on how they should decide which patients with COVID-19 get lifesaving care and which do not.

The report from a National Academies of Sciences committee offers a framework for treating patients during the COVID-19 crisis that shifts from saving individual patients to a focus on saving the most individuals possible. It was issued at the request of Admiral Brett Giroir, U.S. assistant secretary for health and Robert Kadlec, U.S. assistant secretary of preparedness and response. The new Crisis Standards of Care guidelines come as the United States faces the prospect of rationing ventilators and other essential equipment to cope with a surge of severely ill patients infected with the new respiratory virus that is projected to kill between 100,000 and 200,000 people in the United States. In the report, the panel says that in spite of efforts to forestall the virus, it expects “a growing number of hospitals will face medical needs that outpace the existing supply of ventilators, protective equipment and other essentials, as well as the rate that enhanced supply can be produced, acquired and put into place. These circumstances will require a shift to Crisis Standards of Care.”  The panel says there is “an imminent need to prepare for difficult decisions about allocating limited resources, triaging patients to receive life-saving care and minimizing the negative impacts of delivering care under crisis conditions.”  First issued in 2009, Crisis Standards of Care were used sporadically to help doctors respond to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and doctors were preparing to use them in the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, but never did, experts said. They characterized the government’s request for an updated report - tailored to the COVID-19 pandemic - as both sobering and responsible. “It’s important that we have these ahead of time so that doctors don’t have to decide these things on the fly,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “This is serious business,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “If it’s not done, no one gets good care.”  According to the National Academies, the standards shift the focus from what is best for the individual to what can help save the most lives, especially when equipment, staffing and materials are in short supply. They do not dictate which choices should be made, but provide a framework for making them. They also protect physicians from malpractice lawsuits, said Lawrence Gostin, an expert in global health law at Georgetown University, who helped write the original guidelines in 2009. Gostin said individual states were responsible for setting malpractice standards, but in a pandemic, the hope is that the federal government would implement the standards nationally, which would then be passed along to states and then to local hospitals. Gostin said the fact that U.S. officials requested the report signals “an urgency in trying to prepare hospitals for acute shortages, which will have implications for deciding who can live and who can die.”  Under normal standards of care, doctors in the United States have a duty to provide the highest-quality treatment available. “If someone is in respiratory arrest and the standard of care is a ventilator and there aren’t enough, doctors can be sued,” Gostin said. Dr. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin, said shifting to crisis standards allowed states or healthcare providers to relax or change certain rules, such as using medical devices in ways they were not originally approved for, if they offer a “better-than-nothing option.”  A key principle is that doctors never withhold care solely because of age, disability, race or gender. “These are critical life or death decisions. Doctors and hospitals shouldn’t be making them themselves,” Gostin said.


After Texas defunded Planned Parenthood, both the unintended pregnancy and abortion rates dropped.

Explanation: British American Tobacco Plc unit Reynolds American Inc said on Friday it had filed for a review of its Vuse e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, giving it a lead over its main rival Juul Labs Inc.

The FDA has set a May 2020 deadline for e-cigarette makers to submit a formal application to keep their products on the market amid its efforts to curb the use of e-cigarette among teens. Reynolds, whose Vuse e-cigarettes deliver nicotine via a cartridge-based vapor system, said it had provided the health regulator with over 150,000 pages of documentation, including information on the composition, design and manufacturing process associated with its product, as well as safety data. The company said it had also worked with a team of more than 100 people to prepare the filing, including multiple regulatory experts and scientists. U.S. regulators are exploring ways to monitor the manufacturing and marketing of e-cigarettes following a rise in use of these products among teens, and a recent outbreak of a mysterious lung illness linked to vaping that has claimed at least 29 lives. Vaping devices such as Juul’s, which vaporize liquid containing nicotine, have borne the brunt of the regulatory crackdown globally. The Trump administration also outlined plans in September to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from store shelves, pointing the finger at sweet flavors that had drawn millions of children into nicotine addiction.


Scientists say quarter of all pigs could die of swine fever.

Explanation: Around a quarter of the world’s pigs are expected to die from African swine fever as authorities grapple with a complex disease spreading rapidly in the globalization era, the World Organization for Animal Health’s president said Thursday.

Animals, Health, General News, Animal health, International News, China, Sydney, Asia Pacific

A sharp reduction in the world’s pig population would lead to possible food shortages and high pork prices, and it might also cause shortfalls in the many products made from pigs, such as the blood-thinner heparin that’s used in people, said Dr. Mark Schipp, the organization’s president. The disease’s spread in the past year to countries including China, which has half the world’s pigs, had inflamed a worldwide crisis, Schipp told reporters at a briefing in Sydney. “I don’t think the species will be lost, but it’s the biggest threat to the commercial raising of pigs we’ve ever seen,” he said. “And it’s the biggest threat to any commercial livestock of our generation.” African swine fever, fatal to hogs but no threat to humans, has wiped out pig herds in many Asian countries. Chinese authorities have destroyed about 1.2 million pigs in an effort to contain the disease there since August 2018. The price of pork has nearly doubled from a year ago in China, which produces and consumes two-thirds of the world’s pork. And China’s efforts to buy pork abroad, as well as smaller outbreaks in other countries, are pushing up global prices. “There are some shortages in some countries, and there’s been some substitutions using other sources of protein, which is driving up the prices of other proteins,” said Schipp. Progress had been made toward a vaccine, but Schipp, who is also Australia’s chief veterinary officer, said the work was challenging because the virus itself is large and has a complex structure. He said a big step forward was the announcement last week that scientists had unraveled the 3D structure of the virus. African swine fever is spread by contact among pigs, through contaminated fodder and by ticks. It originated in South Africa and appeared in Europe in in the 1960s. A recent reappearance in western Europe came from wild pigs transferred into Belgian forests for hunting purposes. Its capacity to spread rapidly is shown by its spread from China in the past year, Schipp said. Mongolia, the Korean Peninsula, Southeast Asia and East Timor have had outbreaks as well. He said the spread reflects the global movement of pork and of people but also the effect of tariffs and trade barriers, which sends those obtaining pork to seek out riskier sources. And Schipp said quality control was difficult for products such as skins for sausages, salamis and similar foods. “Those casing products move through multiple countries,” he said. “They’re cleaned in one, graded in another, sorted in another, partially treated in another, and finally treated in a fourth of fifth country. They’ve very hard to trace, through so many countries.” An emerging issue in the crisis is a potential heparin shortage, Schipp said. “Most of it is sourced from China, which has been badly hit. There are concerns that this will threaten the global supply of heparin,” Schipp said. He praised China’s efforts to battle the disease and said the outbreaks would change the way pigs are raised. “In China, previously they had a lot of backyard piggeries. They’re seeing this as an opportunity to take a big step forward and move to large scale commercial piggeries,” Schipp said. “The challenge will be to other countries without the infrastructure or capital reserves to scale up in those ways.”