Austria plans to test all retirement home residents for coronavirus.

Explanation: Austria, one of the more successful countries in Europe at flattening the curve of coronavirus infections, plans to test every retirement home resident as it expands efforts to measure the pandemic’s spread, its health minister said on Thursday.

The Alpine republic acted early in its outbreak to shut schools, bars, restaurants, non-essential shops and other gathering places roughly four weeks ago. It has told the public to stay at home and work from there if possible. So far it has reported just 410 deaths in total, fewer than some larger countries are suffering each day. Health Minister Rudolf Anschober told a news conference the daily increase in cases was now 0.9%, which he said was the lowest rate in Europe. “The very strong focus in the coming weeks will be the testing of all staff and all residents of retirement and care homes. We are talking, ladies and gentlemen, about 130,000 people,” Anschober said. That will take some time. Anschober has said the daily testing capacity in the country of 8.8 million people is more than 10,000 but less than the 15,000 that conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has set as a target. The health ministry said there is no date by which the country’s 918 retirement and care homes must be tested. “The international experience has been that this area is the area where the risk is greatest,” Anschober, who is from the left-wing Greens party, said. The elderly and those with underlying health problems are most at risk of dying of COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus. Austria started loosening its lockdown on Tuesday, letting DIY stores, garden centres and smaller shops reopen. Larger shops and hairdressers are due to follow from May 1. It has said it will be on the lookout for any acceleration in infections and will delay its step-by-step loosening of its lockdown if necessary. It also has some lingering hotspots of infection under quarantine, including the ski resorts of Ischgl, St Anton am Arlberg and Soelden. Retirement homes have been a major source of coronavirus-related deaths in hard-hit countries like Italy, Spain and France, but there is no mention of the facilities in Austria’s data. It reports deaths where the patient previously tested positive for the virus, regardless of whether it caused death. Austria does, however, give a breakdown of COVID-19 deaths by age. Almost all of them were over 65.


2020 Dems’ health care battle is decades in the making.

Explanation: Seventy years ago, before Medicare existed to inspire “Medicare for All,” a Democratic president wrestled with a challenge strikingly similar to what the party’s White House hopefuls face today.

Election 2020, Health care reform, General News, Politics, Health, Medicare, Donald Trump

Harry Truman, then in his fourth year of pressing for a national health insurance system, parried criticism of his approach in terms that a single-payer health care advocate might use in 2019. The plainspoken Missourian wrote in a 1949 message to Congress that his proposal “will not require doctors to become employees of the government” and that “patients will remain free to choose their own doctors.” Truman’s pitch fell short, and Democrats vying to take on President Donald Trump next year are still debating how to give Americans better health care without shattering a system that’s both flawed and familiar. And despite voters’ keen focus on health care, it’s not clear that the Democratic primary — where presidential contenders traded rhetorical blows on the issue last week — will leave its winner with a mandate to enact his or her vision. That’s in part because, although polling shows most Democrats think the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, the party remains divided along age and ideological lines about the best approach. And even as the party’s leading White House hopefuls are bitterly at odds over solutions, congressional Democratic leaders are pursuing more consensus proposals to shore up the Affordable Care Act. Democrats’ existential battle over health care, in other words, isn’t likely to end soon. A single-payer insurance proposal gains appeal “the more dysfunctional and underperforming our current system gets,” said Ezekiel Emanuel, a veteran physician who helped shape the 2010 law known as Obamacare as an adviser in former President Barack Obama’s White House. But, Emanuel advised against limiting Democrats to the most ambitious proposal on the table: the single-payer, government-run insurance plan backed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. There are alternate solutions more politically palatable to swing voters, he says. During last week’s debates, Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren defended their version of “Medicare for All” from centrist critics who argued Americans would be pushed out of private plans offering reliable health care, particularly for union members. Given the likelihood of the GOP tarring any Democratic health care push as socialized medicine — the same label the American Medical Association used to successfully quash Truman’s plan in the 1940s — liberals say the party is better served by going big. “Democrats win when we figure out what is right and we get out there and fight for it,” Warren said at last week’s debate. Yet the singular pursuit of single-payer health insurance risks alienating Democrats who have helped the party claw back power in Congress by winning in swing districts with a more pragmatic message. One of those lawmakers, Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger, warned her entire party against “talking past each other” with litmus tests that deepen health care polarization. “When you hear the conversation is just ‘single payer, yes-no,’ it’s an oversimplification of where we should actually be,” the first-term Spanberger said in a recent interview. Like former Vice President Joe Biden and Buttigieg, Spanberger supports the creation of a Medicare-like insurance plan sometimes dubbed the “public option.” That idea’s more centrist champions in the 2020 primary have resisted the notion that single-payer insurance is the party’s only transformative choice. “There’s nothing moderate about what Barack did in Obamacare. Nothing,” Biden told reporters in Detroit after the debate. Democrats must rely on moderates like Spanberger, however, in order to hold the House and win the Senate next year to make any major health care overhaul possible. That would leave even a single-payer stalwart like Sanders or Warren, if one of them wins the presidency, battling for consensus within their own party as they push for the shift. And any potential Democratic president in 2021 is very unlikely to have a Senate majority as sizable as the one Obama had nearly a decade ago, when his White House had to abandon a public option. For some key architects of Obamacare, the calls for Medicare for All ignore the political gantlet they had to run to enact the current system, which remains under legal threat from the Trump administration. When Obama abandoned his own public option effort in 2010, for example, his party had a sizable Senate majority that any potential Democratic president would be lucky to have in 2021. “I don’t think anything’s changed” about the difficulty of winning congressional support for a public option plan since 2010, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a top health care adviser in Obama’s White House who is now a partner in a health care-focused investment firm. Former Rep. Henry Waxman, who helped shape Obamacare during his four decades in Congress, said that adding a public option would be “a wise step and a doable step, but it’s not going to be easy, even if we had President Biden and a Democratic Congress.” The California Democrat dismissed single-payer insurance as “like a gold ring to be held out in the distance as a desired outcome, just like the coming of the Messiah would be a wonderful opportunity.” Sanders has acknowledged that his single-payer proposal currently lacks support from most Democratic senators but vowed that the party can ultimately find the votes if lawmakers listen to voters. Public polling, however, suggests that Medicare for All’s support dips when Americans are told that it would involve eliminating private insurance plans — and in the highly possible 2021 scenario of a Democratic president with a Republican Senate, single-payer health care would run aground. About half of Democrats under the age of 50 and 57% of those who identify as liberal favored the creation of single-payer health insurance in a Pew Research Center poll last month, while greater shares of older and moderate-to-conservative Democrats favored a government system that preserves the private insurance industry. Given the difficulties of winning congressional approval for even the more modest, yet still significant, “public option,” one health care expert advised voters to interpret the Democratic hopefuls’ health care ideas as ideological markers rather than detailed previews of a White House agenda. “Frankly, no plan proposed today by a candidate is going to be the plan adopted by any Congress, ever,” Kaiser Family Foundation President Drew Altman said. “So what these plans really are is a signal by candidates to voters of who they are, what they stand for, their approach to governing and how they’re different from other candidates.” ___ Associated Press writers Hunter Woodall in Detroit and Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.


New easy-to-use TB test achieves accuracy comparable to IGRAs in Phase III trials

Explanation: This news release summarizes the results of two clinical trials gauging the efficacy of a new test for tuberculosis — C-Tb. The study compared the new test with a more complex, and expensive, alternative and measures whether the new test works better in patients who are HIV-positive and/or who are vaccinated with the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine. The release provides adequate data for readers to trust its claims but doesn’t mention funding sources or address whether there was any potential for conflicts of interest. To its credit, however, the release includes a basic research abstract providing more detailed information on the results from the trials. Tuberculosis is a serious problem worldwide and the World Health Organization (WHO) has a stated goal of controlling, if not eradicating, the disease by 2035. As is noted, the most often used test (TST) is associated with a high false positive rate making inappropriate treatment more likely. Given the increasing resistance of the tuberculosis bacteria, a reduction in unnecessary antibiotic treatment is welcomed. Any new test that is more accurate, less expensive and convenient to use will certainly be an asset to that effort.

Association/Society news release,Diagnostic tests

This release provides a very good discussion of costs, stating, “There is also a dramatic price difference between the two diagnostic tests. According to Dr. Ruhwald, a TST costs about $2; an IGRA is 20 to 40 times more expensive depending on setting.” This gives readers a clear idea of the fiscal advantage of using the new test. The release provides information that the new test — the C-Tb — is almost as effective as the IGRA, or interferon gamma release assays, which are more expensive, require blood samples and complicated lab work. It also explains that C-Tb is less prone to produce false positives than the TST in BCG-vaccinated individuals. News releases on diagnostic tests should also address the balance between sensitivity — which is how good the test is at positively identifying people who actually have the problem – and specificity – how good the test is at ruling out people who don’t have the problem. This release addresses the specificity issue, stating “The specificity of C-Tb, unlike the TST, was not impacted by the BCG vaccine, the partially effective vaccine that many residents in the developing world receive. TST specificity in this group was only 62 percent. The sensitivity of C-Tb was comparable to the IGRA in confirmed TB cases (77 percent vs. 81 percent), indicating similar abilities to detect infection.” There is no mention of potential harms with this new test, leaving readers to assume its safety. Although relatively minor, side effects have been noted in previous clinical trials including: “Local adverse reactions following C-Tb injection included transient itching and discomfort as expected components of the immune response.” In addition, as with most diagnostic tests, there is a risk of false-positive (over-diagnosis) or false-negative (under-diagnosis) results. This should have been mentioned along with data on the test’s reliability. The release discusses the results of two phase-3 clinical trials comparing the new C-Tb test against existing tests for tuberculosis. It provides specific numerical data comparing the new and existing tests in several categories, and identifies both the number of sites where the trials were held and the number of participants in each trial — information that might give readers more confidence in the reported findings. The release does not commit disease mongering. Unfortunately, the release offers no information on either funding sources for these trials or on any possible conflicts of interest that might affect the researchers. Since the release is showing results of comparisons between existing tests for tuberculosis and the new C-Tb test, there clearly are alternatives, so we’ll give it a satisfactory grade in this category. The release informs readers that the test still faces a regulatory and commercial path, which strongly implies it is not yet available: “Regulatory approval for C-Tb is currently being sought and Statens Serum Institute is actively seeking a commercial partner for marketing of C-Tb. The cost of a C-Tb test is to be determined; however, it is expected to be significantly less than an IGRA.” The release basically says that this is a new test that’s cheaper and at least as effective, if not more effective, than existing diagnostic tools — and is less complicated to perform. That certainly qualifies as novel enough for a release. The release does not appear to use any unjustifiable language.


The U.S.'s leading group of pediatricians issued a strong statement condemning tolerance of gender dysphoria in children.

Explanation: What's true: The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), a small and politically-motivated group, issued a statement about their beliefs on children and gender identity. What's false: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did not issue such a statement, nor do the United States' "leading pediatricians" (or even a majority of pediatricians) concur with the ACPeds' position.

Medical, american college of pediatricians, gender dysphoria, not actually a study

On 16 May 2016, talk show host Glenn Beck published a tweet reporting that a pediatricians’ group had said that promoting or tolerating gender dysphoria (i.e., the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite of one’s biological sex) in children constitutes “child abuse”: American College of Pediatricians: Promoting Gender Dysphoria Ideology Is ‘Child Abuse’ https://t.co/5yoPFk2H2u — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) May 16, 2016  Beck’s tweet led many viewers to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had taken that stance on childhood gender dysphoria, but the tweet linked to an article containing quotes from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) not the AAP: The American College of Pediatricians recently issued a temporary position statement on so-called gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria. A full statement will be issued this summer. The temporary statement is prefaced with the following: The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts —  not ideology — determine reality. “They say human sexuality is an objective, biological, binary trait, XY and XX are genetic marks of health, not genetic markers of disorders,” Co-host Pat Gray said on The Glenn Beck Program. “Now that seems to fit in with what, kind of, the politically correct crowd is saying right now, that gender is just a state of mind.” ACPeds is a very small group formed relatively recently in response to political disagreements over same-sex parenting, not out of any specific focus on pediatrics or the wellness of children (and the organization is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center). By ACPeds’ own admission, their original aim was to promote parenting by heterosexual married couples: The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances. The American College of Pediatricians promotes a society where all children, from the moment of their conception, are valued unselfishly. We encourage mothers, fathers and families to advance the needs of their children above their own. We expect societal forces to support the two-parent, father-mother family unit and provide for children role models of ethical character and responsible behavior. Beck’s material linked to a previous statement issued by ACPeds (“Gender Ideology Harms Children”) that some social media users confused with a study. The statement opened with the portion Beck excerpted before issuing an eight-point initial platform on gender identity in children, which stated (among other things) that human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait, puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous, and that rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery. The statement provided citations for its claims, including references to seemingly conflicting information from the respected American Psychiatric Association’s “Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet”: In the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people whose gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This diagnosis is a revision of DSM-IV’s criteria for gender identity disorder and is intended to better characterize the experiences of affected children, adolescents, and adults … DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender. It replaces the diagnostic name “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria,” as well as makes other important clarifications in the criteria. It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.” The APA’s position is that gender dysphoria is “not in itself a mental disorder,”  and that children are a demographic group at risk for compromised clinical care. A part of ACPeds’ citation that bordered on deceptive was the fact that the American Psychiatric Association’s fact sheet discussed changes to diagnostic criteria implemented around 2013, but ACPeds went on to cite studies that were typically more than a decade old and in direct conflict with medical science directives issued several years (and several studies) later. A September 2015 presentation from the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that treatment recommendations are based on the best available evidence. Their guidance defined three approaches to gender dysphoria in children: “corrective,” “supporting,” and “affirming,” with the AAP advising the “affirming” approach to gender dysphoria in children:    In February 2016, the AAP (not ACPeds) published a number of studies and articles about gender identity and pediatrics, including findings that acceptance of gender identity is associated with low risk of depression and anxiety in dysphoric pediatric patients. One AAP article referenced research indicating that familial support and acceptance correlates strongly with positive mental health outcomes: The study, “Mental Health of Transgender Children Who are Supported in Their Identities,” in the March 2016 issue of Pediatrics (published online on Feb. 26) presents new research on the positive mental health outcomes of prepubescent transgender children who socially transition, or begin to live expressing their gender identities. Researchers found that children allowed to exhibit their gender, by changing their names, clothing, pronoun use, and hairstyles, had normal levels of depression, and anxiety levels only slightly above their peers. The study compares a national sample of 73 transgender prepubescent children, ages 3 to 12, with 49 of their siblings and a control group of 73 “typically developing” children of the same ages. While previous research has shown that gender nonconforming youth often have elevated rates of depression and anxiety, this study suggests that familial support can be associated with good mental health outcomes among transgender children. The study authors suggest that further research will be important to evaluate the mental health of transgender children as they move into adolescence. The cited study’s conclusion [PDF] again demonstrated evidence in direct conflict with ACPeds’ assertions: Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group. Especially striking is the comparison with reports of children with GID; socially transitioned transgender children have notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among children with GID living as their natal sex. On 20 April 2016, the AAP formally called for the repeal of recent bathroom bills aimed at preventing transgender individuals (including children) from using the facilities which matched their gender identity. A larger March 2016 study published by the AAP assessed best practices in treating dysphoric patients. ACPeds and the AAP are vastly different groups. The former has an estimated membership of between 60 and 200 pediatricians, while about 64,000 such physicians are aligned with the AAP. ACPeds also explicitly states a mission that is overtly political rather than medical in nature. The “gender ideology” statement wasn’t ACPeds’ first effort to mislead parents. In January 2016, the group issued a statement riddled with false and dangerous information about the HPV vaccine Gardasil.


Under a new law, people can be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder if anyone travels out of Georgia for an abortion.

Explanation: New Georgia Abortion Law Conspiracy to Commit Murder Clause

On May 7 2019, a Facebook user shared the following screenshot of an apparent article (archived here), along with a lengthy comment about extremely restrictive new abortion laws in the state of Georgia:A lengthy comment from the original poster (paragraph breaks ours) extrapolated from the highlighted text in the screenshot, proposing scenarios in particular in which treatment of miscarriages might be affected by the legal restrictions described:For everyone who keeps thinking this bill wont affect them because you can just go out of state good luck. It’s only a small 10 year prison sentence your gambling with. We now live in a state that is not protecting its female citizens and is actively going to be prosecuting them.You can now be charged with murder should you be found to have helped cause your miscarriage. Let’s say smoking, or a drink, or getting in a car with a reckless driver etc. The possibilities are limitless for the ways we can now charge women with murder. Thank you governer for adding yet another reason to why the south is the absolute worst place for me and my family.I have lived and loved here but have never felt truly safe or protected and will ultimately take my skills else where. This state has some of the strictest NP regulations, a majority female profession btw, strictest abortion laws also affecting mostly women. I understand my place and value as a women in this state and it deeply hurts me everyday to realize that my rights are getting smaller everyday. I am in an interacial marriage, a childless career driven woman in ga, and trust me this state is the last place I will call safe or progressive, inclusive or “not racist”.Even if I wanted children why would I bring them into this place, so they can have your corrupted christian biblical scriptures shoved down their throat, fear that should i have a son and his skin be too dark that he might not come home or be protected by our police, have a daughter who as a mixed girl in ga who will have to fight for everyone’s respect and to be treated as an equal in her career, so I can have kids and have a job not hire me because I am a risk compared to my male counterpart with kids. I’m done, im done with this unequal shit.The screenshot appeared to have been taken from a May 7 2019 Slate.com article: “Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.” It began:On [May 7 2019], Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.A paragraphed circled in the image is italicized below. The excerpt was cut off, but the captured section of the article read:drugs while pregnant—would be liable for second-degree murder, punishable by 10 to 30 years’ imprisonment. Prosecutors may interrogate women who miscarry to determine whether they can be held responsible; if they find evidence of culpability, they may charge, detain, and try these women for the death of their fetuses.Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.It is entirely possible that Georgia prosecutors armed with this new statute will bring charges against women who terminate their pregnancies illegally. In 2015, a Georgia prosecutor charged Kenlissia Jones with murder after she self-terminated; he only dropped the charges afterSlate linked to the text of the bill, “HB 481 Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” and its full text was available as a PDF. Other linked items included Georgia’s existing laws regarding “conspiracy,” as well as a Georgia criminal defense lawyer’s page on the charge of conspiracy.None of the cited resources had to do specifically with the abortion law in Georgia, and both references predated the legislation entirely. Their presence in the article was part of the author’s speculation that such a charge would be applied to people attempting to circumvent the restrictive abortion law, but we found no direct line between the legislation and Georgia’s laws about conspiracy to commit a crime.In another portion of Slate’s piece, the author again linked to existing laws and applied their existence to the abortion law signed in 2019:But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.Additional coverage such as an editorial in the Guardian extrapolated similarly from news of the law’s passage, but linked to Slate as its source for the speculative aspects. In that piece, the author noted that it was tempting to consider the law would not be enforced in the manner in which Slate imagined, but that the possibility was nevertheless alarming.Other coverage like a Newsweek article focused on the cadre of similarly restrictive laws being passed or considered in other states, and opposition to the law in general. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pointed out, Georgia’s “heartbeat” bill would not go into effect until January 1 2020. A representative for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia expressed reservations about the bill’s additional “fetal personification” aspects in that article:If this were just a straight, six-week abortion ban the law on that would be clear on its face. This has so many elements to it that have been cobbled together.The Slate piece and numerous aggregations of it speculated that the provisions of the Georgia law could potentially extend to charges of murder and conspiracy for: women seeking abortions despite the ban, women who miscarry and are blamed for the pregnancy loss, women who travel out of state to obtain abortions where abortions are legal, and parties who either contribute to the occurrence of miscarriage or assist a Georgia resident in obtaining an abortion out of state.No such language appears in the bill itself — but as many outlets noted, that alone was not evidence that the claims are unfounded. The Slate article’s premise appeared to hinge largely on Section Two of HB 481, granting unprecedented legal personhood status to embryos:The General Assembly of Georgia makes the following findings: (1) In the founding of the United States of America, the State of Georgia and the several states affirmed that: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men;” (2) To protect the fundamental rights of all persons, and specifically to protect the fundamental rights of particular classes of persons who had not previously been recognized under law, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, providing that, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”; (3) Modern medical science, not available decades ago, demonstrates that unborn children are a class of living, distinct persons and more expansive state recognition of unborn children as persons did not exist when Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade (1973) established abortion related precedents; (4) The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science, recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child above the minimum requirements of federal law; (5) Article I, Section I, Paragraphs I and II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia affirm that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law”; and that “[p]rotection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws”; and (6) It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.Section Three of HB 481 provided that a “detectable human heartbeat” determined the process by which an embryo was bestowed the rights of a person under the 14th Amendment:Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations.Slate’s article, references to it, and social media screenshots of it redirected debate over Georgia’s restrictive new anti-abortion laws to suggest that the law involved the investigation of miscarriages, criminalized out-of-state abortions, and included penalties for anyone who assists a resident of the state in obtaining an abortion.What the bill legislates is extreme, and HB 481 grants unprecedented rights of personhood to embryos. As Slate pointed out, under that law women could be prosecuted for miscarriages or traveling out of state — but the law wouldn’t go into effect until at least January 2020, and no information suggested that prosecutors would seek to charge women who electively abort or miscarry in such a fashion.Although the viral article presented a possibility under the law as written, those provisions themselves were not written into the law. The most critical part had little to do with miscarriage or traveling to obtain abortions, but rather the granting of rights to embryos prior to fetal stages. While the possibility remained that all of the claims about applications of the law could occur under it, they were not coded into the law or implied by it.


Iowa Legislature back to talk taxes, workers, child care.

Explanation: The Iowa Legislature convenes Monday with Republicans firmly in control and in a position to set the agenda for another session on topics ranging from tax policy and education funding to rural child care and mental health for children.

Legislature, Iowa, Mental health, Health, General News, Business, Kim Reynolds, Child care

Amid the state’s nearly $300 million budget surplus, Gov. Kim Reynolds will lay our her priorities Tuesday in her Condition of the State address. Here are some issues expected to come up this year: WORKFORCE Iowa has one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates and highest labor force participation rates, meaning there aren’t many workers seeking jobs. Reynolds and legislative leaders said those trends are hampering business growth. “We need to find ways to get more people in the state to work in our workforce, and we need to find more ways to bring people to our state, too,” said Senate President Charles Schneider. CHILD CARE Child care plays a role in workforce discussions because parents are more likely to take full-time jobs if they don’t have to spend much of their income on day care. Legislative leaders note government programs offsetting child care expenses typically are limited by income. House Democratic leader Todd Prichard said the situation is especially hard for families who have more than one child. Incoming House Speaker Pat Grassley said besides money issues, there are big concerns about ensuring the quality of child care and making it accessible. TAXES Legislators likely will discuss raising the state sales tax by 1% and dedicating some of the money to a water quality program overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 but never funded. The measure created the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund and authorized a sales tax increase of 3/8 cents to fund it. Lawmakers didn’t approve the funding aspect. Discussion is focused on boosting the sales tax by 1 percent to allocate the 3/8 cents for water quality and recreation and discussing how to use the other 5/8 cents. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver said Republicans will only consider tax changes that would lower taxes. MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING Lawmakers last year created the first statewide program for children seeking help for depression and other mental health issues, but they didn’t fund most of the effort. Reynolds has pushed to approve dedicated funds during this session. Whitver said Iowa has historically paid for mental health care with property taxes and questioned whether that should change. “It’s different from the rest of the country,” Whitver said. “I think we should take a hard look at whether we should continue to use property taxes for that purpose.”  He said there may be an opportunity to lower property taxes and find long-term sustainable funding for mental health. Senate Democratic leader Janet Petersen cautioned against taking money from the adult program to fund the new children’s initiative. “We’re going to need to find a different and sustainable revenue source,” she said. FELON VOTING Reynolds has said she will again push lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow felons to vote once they’ve completed their sentences. Iowa is now the only state to require felons to seek voting right restoration from the governor. Senate Republicans declined to act on her proposal last year and Reynolds’ proposal could again face opposition. “There are still several hurdles to get over to get that through the Iowa Senate,” Whitver said. ANIMAL ABUSE Last year the House unanimously approved a measure seeking increased penalties for the mistreatment of pets and more regulation of the pet breeding industry, but the effort stalled in the Senate. Backers of such a measure are expected to try again in this session. “It is closer than it’s ever been,” Whitver said. “I do think there’s a lot of passion from Iowans on that issue and we certainly want to be responsive to the wishes of Iowans and act when needed.” RURAL IOWA Legislators will likely discuss proposals for boosting job prospects and quality of life in rural areas. One of Petersen’s priorities is to address the closure of rural hospitals and specifically labor and delivery services. Iowa has had 35 labor and delivery departments close in recent years and Petersen said 10 more could close soon. Petersen said Iowa’s rate of women dying during pregnancy has more than doubled in the past three years, which she called shameful. Funding for improved broadband coverage in rural areas and tax credits to encourage improvement of housing are other issues expected to get some attention. SOCIAL ISSUES With Republicans facing the potential that the November election could return House control to the Democrats, some conservatives may see that as their last opportunity to change laws regulating abortion and other matters. Legislators approved laws restricting abortion in the past few years but the changes were struck down by the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled the Iowa Constitution protects the right of women to control their own bodies and obtain an abortion. Senate Republicans are expected to propose a constitutional amendment reversing that ruling to say there is no right to an abortion in Iowa. “I expect there will be legislation filed,” Schneider said. Republicans also are expected to introduce a bill requiring Iowans on welfare to work, and GOP lawmakers will likely back a bill allowing capital punishment for someone convicted of the kidnap, rape and murder of a child. Iowa outlawed the death penalty in 1965.


‘Super coral’ scientist dies in Hawaii at age 56.

Explanation: Pioneering coral reef scientist Ruth Gates, who dedicated much of her career to saving the world’s fragile and deteriorating underwater reef ecosystems, has died. She was 56.

Hawaii, North America, Science, Honolulu, Corals, Coral reefs, University of Hawaii

Gates died in Honolulu on Thursday, the University of Hawaii said Tuesday. The researcher, also the president of the International Society for Reef Studies, was diagnosed with brain cancer in May and had been on medical leave since. Gates became known globally for her idea to speed up coral evolution and create more resilient reefs. The Associated Press first wrote about her project to breed ”super coral ” in 2015. Her goal was to develop coral that could withstand the devastating effects of climate change. Her work was featured in the 2017 Netflix documentary “Chasing Coral.” Warmer ocean temperatures can cause corals to go through a process known as bleaching, where the animals become weak and sick. Repeated bleaching events can lead to coral death and the loss of entire reef ecosystems. Gates’ colleague and partner in the assisted evolution project, professor Madeleine van Oppen of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said Gates was “a great inspiration” to many. “She was intelligent, professional and had a wonderful sense of humour,” Van Oppen told the AP in an email. “She was a great ambassador for the reef and a role model for women in coral reef science.” Van Oppen said it’s a shame she will not be able to see the long-term impacts of their research. “But I will work extra hard to try and make it a success in her honour,” she said. Gates was known for her innovative science, but she was also widely admired for her welcoming, energetic and cheerful personality. “Ruth was not only a shining star in coral research, but an indomitable spirit in every aspect of life,” said Judy Lemus, interim director the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology and friend of Gates. “Her enthusiasm was contagious, and she absolutely loved what she did. Her loss will be felt deeply within our own community and throughout the broader research community.” Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch program, said Gates’ death is a loss for the entire scientific community. “Ruth was really a force of nature, I mean she was just an amazingly productive scientist, one of the brightest, most inquisitive minds that we had in the whole field of coral reef science. Her energy was boundless,” Eakin said in a phone interview. Gates faced a “whole suite of criticisms” over her plan to breed stronger corals, but “rather than dismissing those criticisms, she would embrace them” Eakin said. “She is the kind of great leader who has trained so many and left a legacy of students who will be able to pick up and continue this work.” Mariana Rocha de Souza, a doctoral student in Gates’ lab, said in an email to the AP that her mentor was an advocate for women in science. “We are a very gender balanced lab and she encouraged us as PhD students to do the same when selecting the professors in our committee. She motivated us, women in science by telling her experience and encouraging us to fight,” Rocha de Souza said. Gates’ research won the support of philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, allowing her to expand, develop and test her theories in a lab on Oahu’s Coconut Island. “Ruth Gates realized before most others that for corals to survive climate change, their adaptation to warming waters will have to be assisted,” said Lauren Kickham, director of product management at Paul G. Allen Philanthropies. “She believed in their resilience and ultimately offered hope for the future.” Allen, 65, died Oct. 15 from complications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Gates was born in Akrotiri, Cyprus, in 1962 and is survived by her wife, Robin Burton-Gates, and her brother, Tim Gates. ___ Follow AP Hawaii Correspondent on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CalebAP ___ This story has been corrected to show the release date of the documentary “Chasing Coral” was 2017, not 2018.


Older patients with knee pain may benefit from allograft transplant technique

Explanation: The news release focuses on a small-scale study comparing the outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation — a technique that replaces damaged knee cartilage with healthy cartilage from a donor. The researchers used the technique to treat knee pain in two groups of patients: those over the age of forty and those under the age of forty. Specifically, the release reports that osteochondral allograft transplantation — sometimes in conjunction with additional surgery — can be an effective treatment for older adults. However, the release offers little detailed information. For example, it fails to address costs, potential harms, or quantified benefits related to the procedure. It also didn’t explain that the control group used in the study wasn’t really adequate to demonstrate the effectiveness of the procedure. Knee pain is a common complaint that increases with age. In older individuals, symptoms are often related to arthritis due to “wear and tear” over time. Problems with the cartilage that covers the bone are thought to be a common factor that contributes to these arthritic changes. If the cartilage is lost in certain places, the result is bone on bone irritation without the protective surface that the cartilage provides. There are many causes for developing cartilage defects, but one is prior knee surgery, commonly arthroscopic (“scope”) procedures done to repair tears in the pad (meniscus) that cushion the knee bones. That is why most patients in this study had a history of prior surgery. Treatment for cartilage damage has focused on ways to regrow it so that the defects can be repaired. This study reports on one such procedure. The key issue evaluated here is the age of the patient. This is important because with increasing age the cartilage problems get worse and don’t respond to repair attempts. So studies demonstrating similar benefit in older compared to younger patients may be important. But it is also important to know that even in younger patients, such techniques haven’t been shown in high quality studies to really work, especially in longer-term follow-up studies. Thus saying that outcomes were similar in younger and older patients may mislead readers by overlooking the generally limited evidence of success, especially over time, in younger patients.

Costs are not addressed at all. A 2007 article from Orthopedics Today estimated the cost of an allograft at approximately $10,000. The relevant cost may have gone up or down in the intervening years, but is likely still considerable — and well worth mentioning. Benefits are not quantified at all. The release refers only to “statistically significant improvement” for IKDC and “all five KOOS sub-scores.” The release does not tell readers what “statistically significant improvement” means, nor do they explain what IKDC or KOOS stand for — much less what the various sub-scores are. We assume from the language in the release that it is intended largely for an expert audience. However, news releases are ultimately aimed at reporters — that’s what makes them news releases. While some reporters may be familiar with IKDC or KOOS, many reporters (even very good ones) are not. It would be more than worthwhile to include a few additional sentences articulating what the scores are, what the relevant numerical benefits were, and why the researchers deemed the changes in these scores to be important. Potential harms are not discussed at all. No surgery is completely without risks, so this is not an acceptable oversight. For example, as of 2007, Orthopedics Today was still highlighting the fact that “Disease transmission also remains a worry for surgeons using allografts.” The release is so concise, we aren’t really sure what is being done. It appears that the genesis of the study is that this procedure works in younger patients and now the question is whether it works in older ones. But as noted above, the effectiveness of this procedure in younger patients hasn’t been conclusively demonstrated. So the control group of younger patients is problematic for making comparisons. Also left out is the real question of whether this treatment in older patients results in better outcomes compared to a sham or placebo treatment or another active treatment. That would be the control group that could allow for a meaningful assessment of benefit. For all intents and purposes, there is no real control group of similar patients (based upon age here) who were randomly assigned to receive a different treatment. Another problem is that the release misstates the number of patients involved. The release refers to 80 patients — 38 in the study group and 42 in the control group. The abstract for the relevant study says that there were 33 patients in the study group and 35 in the control group, for a total of 68 patients. A difference of 12 patients may not be hugely significant in a large study, but a cohort of 68 patients is 15 percent smaller than a cohort of 80. It’s problematic to make a mistake on a point as basic as this one. There was no disease mongering. However, the story also doesn’t provide any context on what this procedure is supposed to treat or the impact of that condition. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. The release does not say how the research was funded, nor does it address conflicts of interest. To be clear, the research may have been internally funded, and there may well be no conflicts of interest — but it’s important for a release to state that explicitly. Other techniques for addressing knee pain, including oral medications, injectable medications, physical therapy, and other surgical treatment options, are not mentioned. It is not clear from the release how or why osteochondral allograft transplantation may be more advantageous than other options. The release notes that “osteochondral allograft transplantation has traditionally been used in younger active patients with cartilage disorders.” Readers can infer from this that the technique is already available, although it may not be available everywhere and not all insurers will cover these procedures. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of journal articles out there regarding the use of osteochondral allograft transplantation to address knee problems. What sets this one apart? Presumably it is the first to directly compare outcomes between older and younger adults, but the release doesn’t explicitly tell readers that. The release is very careful to use cautious language, such as noting in the headline that “older patients with knee pain may benefit” [emphasis added] from the relevant treatment technique.


Explanation: This is a brief story looking at a systematic review of 146 other studies, concluding that there is likely some reduction in risk of allergy to eggs and peanuts if infants get those foods for the first time between 4-6 months, instead of later. The review lends more evidence to the theory that some allergies can be avoided, paradoxically, by exposing children earlier to the allergen, such as peanuts or eggs. But this is not the final word, and the researchers make that clear in their review, stating, “these systematic review findings should not automatically lead to new recommendations to feed egg and peanut to all infants.” This viewpoint is missing from the TIME story, which headlined this story with a very conclusive statement: “Babies Should Eat Eggs and Peanuts Early to Avoid Food Allergies.”   Food allergies are common and on the rise in the U.S. Parents deserve more context and some of the caveats behind why the researchers caution against a blanket recommendation.

Cost does not apply to in this example of eating habits. However, the story would have been stronger with some context about how much money is spent on treating child food allergies. Even in this short story, we need some metric for measuring the benefit. The story says there was evidence that introducing peanuts earlier to infant diets provided a “risk reduction” of later allergy. How much of a risk reduction? Was the reduction similar between eggs and peanuts? The journal article itself gives some absolute risk numbers. For egg allergy, the study shows a reduction of 24 cases per 1,000 children. For peanut allergy, the risk is reduced by 18 cases per 1,000 children. But the authors warn that the “certainty of the evidence” was downgraded due to some gray areas in how the studies were done. According to the news release, the study authors say that we need “a careful assessment of the safety and acceptability of early egg and peanut introduction in different populations” before rolling this out widely. What are these safety concerns? The story doesn’t say. The story tells us this was a review of past studies including 146 total. It would have been better to describe the systematic review in more detail, including key limitations. For example, while the reviewers looked at 146 studies, they only had five studies that yielded the evidence for eggs and only two studies that yielded the evidence for peanuts. And, we think this viewpoint stressed in the study’s discussion section didn’t quite make it into the news story, which it should have: “These systematic review findings should not automatically lead to new recommendations to feed egg and peanut to all infants.” As we point out in our summary, this seems in direct conflict with the headline on the story (“Babies Should Eat Eggs and Peanuts Early to Avoid Food Allergies”). There was no disease mongering. The story quotes only one scientist, and that is his written comment from an editorial accompanying the study, not an interview. This source, Dr. Matthew Greenhawt, has a potential conflict of interest that wasn’t disclosed: He’s a member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board, among other affiliations clearly stated in the study’s editorial. This story does not seem to require comparison of alternatives, since it isn’t about treatments. The food items are widely available. The story establishes the novelty of the research here: “This is relatively new thinking. Not so long ago, in 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that allergenic foods be kept away from infants until they were at least a year old, and often older. ..That advice has been amended, and newer evidence has shown that introducing foods earlier is actually better for preventing food allergies.” The story doesn’t offer much beyond the news release, but it doesn’t appear to use verbatim phrases or quotes.


Kettlebells swing to a full body workout.

Explanation: Few workout tools are more versatile than kettlebells, the ancient market counterweights that were hoisted by Russian strongmen and now can be found in weight rooms at gyms across the country, fitness experts say.

But kettlebells, which come in varying weights, are often thought mistakenly to be the preserve of strongmen and extreme athletes. Steve Cotter, a former Kung Fu competitor and the founder and director of the International Kettlebell and Fitness Federation, said part of the problem was that the kettlebell was marketed as a hard-core tool that implied intensity. “It prevents beginners from giving it a shot,” said Cotter in an interview. But the San Diego-based author of “Kettlebell Training: 95 exercises for strength, toning, stamina and weight loss,” said novices should not be deterred. “If you only have 30 minutes a day to commit to exercise, the kettlebell is an all-in-one, hand-held gym,” he said. The key to kettlebell training, Cotter added, is incremental progression. He recommends starting off with light weights, using one or two basic moves like the swing, during which the exerciser moves the kettlebell between the legs like a pendulum, forward and up and then back and down. Normal, healthy women might begin with an eight-kilogram (17.6-pound) kettlebell, he said, while men can start with 16-kilograms (35.2 pounds). “It sounds pretty heavy, but it’s not the same approach as a dumbbell because you’re swinging it, relying on inertia,” Cotter explained. “It’s more on the endurance side.”  Because the center of mass extends beyond the hand, the kettlebell allows for ballistic, or fast, swinging motions that combine cardio-respiratory, strength, and flexibility training. The result is an all-around, functional fitness workout that mimics everyday activities such as shoveling snow or working in the garden, he said. Amy Dixon, who teaches Kettlebell Power, a group class at an Equinox Fitness center in Los Angeles, said the workout is beneficial because it puts the body through so many ranges of motion. “Your body is completely integrated, so you’re moving everything,” said Dixon, the creator of “Raise Some Bell - The Ultimate Kettlebell Core Workout” DVD. She calls it “one of the best pieces of equipment that’s been around for centuries.”  For Richard Cotton, spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine, the appeal of the kettlebell is its practicality. “Kettlebells are inexpensive. They don’t take up a lot of space, and they enable a variety of exercises,” Cotton said. Unlike free weights, which tend to be linear, kettlebells work across all planes, he explained. “I think they’re here to stay among a wide population ... I could even see senior kettlebell workouts, so long as they take it easy,” said Cotton, who advises people to progress slowly, starting with light weights. Cotter stresses that there’s nothing mystical about working with kettlebells. But lifting with the back is incorrect, he said. The back should be flat, with creasing at the hips. “There’s no boredom to it,” he said. “Every workout can be different, and it feels almost like dancing.”


Explanation: There’s the punk rocker, the animal lover and the shy performer. A future educator, a taekwondo black belt and an outdoorsman also are part of the group.

Taekwondo, Climate, Animals, Lawsuits, Environment, Punk rock, Financial markets, Climate change, Eugene

All six young people from Eugene are among 21 youth plaintiffs suing the federal government in an unprecedented, constitutional climate change lawsuit that seeks to overhaul the nation’s energy system. The landmark environmental case is scheduled to go to trial at the U.S. Courthouse in Eugene on Oct. 29. The youths’ lawsuit, filed in 2015, asserts the government has for decades promoted fossil fuel production while disregarding dangers associated with greenhouse gas emissions that affect the climate. It seeks a court order requiring the government to make a plan that works to drastically reduce those emissions. The plaintiffs — between the ages of 11 and 22 years old — all say their lives are affected by a changing environment. And they say it makes sense for them to sue because it’s their generation and those in the future who will disproportionately face the impact of climate change. Some of the youths assert a warming planet already has hampered their ability to learn and recreate in nature, while others say it threatens their customs and livelihoods. Others have experienced stress and loss brought on by natural disasters such as flooding, drought and wildfires. And some have expressed concern about the state of the world when it comes time for them to have children. “We’re not talking about our parents’ harms,” lead plaintiff Kelsey Juliana of Eugene said. “We’re talking about our harms.” The group is supported by Our Children’s Trust, a Eugene-based nonprofit organization founded by attorney Julia Olson that has taken similar legal actions against governments in all 50 states. Olson credits Juliana with recruiting many of the youths to join her in suing the federal government. Some of her fellow Eugene plaintiffs signed up after they repeatedly testified in favor of a carbon-reduction climate ordinance passed by the Eugene City Council in 2014. And other young people named in the case who live elsewhere had been involved with environmental groups and Our Children’s Trust-sponsored lawsuits in their home states and communities. One takeaway from interviews with the six plaintiffs from Eugene is this: There’s plenty that’s normal about these young people. But what may separate them from many of their peers is a commitment — to borrow a term — to thinking globally and acting locally in regard to a societal issue that’s far bigger than themselves. “This case is for young people (and) future generations who can’t represent themselves in other branches of government,” Juliana said. ---- Kelsey Juliana Kelsey Juliana says “everybody” figures she’ll someday become a lawyer or politician. But the 22-year-old Eugene resident — who first sued the government over climate change eight years ago — has a different career plan. She wants to teach fifth grade at a public school in her hometown. “I’ve always looked up to teachers,” Juliana said during an interview in the backyard of her family’s longtime home in south Eugene. She recalls fifth grade being somewhat difficult for her, and said she would like to guide children through their last year before entering middle school, which she referred to as “big kid world.” Juliana, who is the oldest and perhaps best-known of the 21 youth plaintiffs in the federal case, said one of her younger cohorts has characterized her as “the cool aunt” of the group. It’s a role she enjoys, and one that comes somewhat naturally to Juliana, who has a younger brother and also baby-sits. “I have so much faith and hope in young people, and I truly see them as leaders,” she said. “Not ‘future leaders.’ I don’t like that term. Youth aren’t the future. We are the now.” The child of environmental activists, Juliana attended the Village School in Eugene from kindergarten through eighth grade. Before starting her freshman year at South Eugene High School, she and another Eugene girl were named as plaintiffs in a climate lawsuit against the state of Oregon. That case is now before the Oregon Court of Appeals. She postponed higher education for a few months in 2014, opting instead to walk across the country as part of the Great March for Climate Action. She then began taking classes at Warren Wilson College, a liberal-arts college in Asheville, North Carolina, which boasts a working farm and a managed forest. But she’s now back home and studying environmental studies at the University of Oregon. After obtaining her bachelor’s degree, Juliana plans to work toward a teaching credential. The move back to Oregon made sense in relation to her career plan as well as her climate work. And of course, she is the lead plaintiff in a major federal case scheduled to go to trial in Eugene later this year. “I realized this is where everything is happening,” Juliana said. ---- Sahara Valentine For a self-described shy person, Sahara Valentine certainly puts herself out in front of people quite a bit. Involvement in the lawsuit, the 14-year-old says, has helped raise her confidence. “I’m finding my voice,” Sahara said last month, one day before she performed with a marimba group at the Zimbabwe Music Festival in Monmouth. She’s also been a member of her school’s track team, a leader at a youth summer camp and spoke about the case — alongside co-plaintiff Avery McRae — to fifth-graders during a trip last year to San Francisco. And, on request, she’s quick to bust out a ukulele and play a song. During a recent Friday morning at her home, the tune she chose was “Eight Days a Week” by The Beatles. The music lover also plays guitar and has begun learning the cello — which she says produces a “dignified” sound. Sahara also attended the Village School, and this month became a South Eugene High School freshman. “I’m nervous because I don’t know what to expect,” she said this summer, echoing the thoughts of countless teens throughout history. She joined the lawsuit after attending a camp led by Olson and Our Children’s Trust, and she testified along with several of her future co-plaintiffs in favor of the city of Eugene’s so-called climate recovery ordinance, which sets a goal for city operations to be carbon-neutral by 2020. As for the federal case, Sahara said it’s bugged her to hear people assume that lawyers and parents are pushing the youth plaintiffs to participate. “Obviously, they’re not,” she said. “This is what we believe in, and we’re choosing to be part of this case.” Sahara said she’s learned much about the issue of human-caused climate change — including its potential effects on the forests and waters she’s always enjoyed — since agreeing to be a plaintiff. It’s also afforded her an opportunity to meet many people while serving as “an icebreaker” for conversations. “Sometimes it feels like a lot to carry, because we have so many people cheering us on,” she said. “But it feels really good to know that so many are with us in this.” ---- Zealand Bell A symbol of Eugene environmentalism spreads out just beyond Zealand Bell’s backyard gate. Zealand, 14, says he’s spent significant time over the years in Madison Meadow, a 2-acre natural area set between homes in the Friendly area neighborhood. “It’s sort of cool to have a giant field in your back yard where you can just go hang out and play,” he said of the meadow, which neighbors a decade ago raised more than $500,000 to keep from being developed into housing. Zealand is all about the outdoors, and said that’s what has driven his interest in climate action. “Climate change just makes it harder to do things outside,” he said. He also sees it as a factor in devastating fires that have become more common across the West in recent years. Zealand’s family spent last winter break in the Santa Rosa, Calif., area, helping his grandmother move into an apartment after her home was destroyed by a wind-driven blaze. “It’s scary,” he said. Zealand — whose parents are public school teachers in Eugene — attended Camas Ridge Community Elementary and Roosevelt Middle schools. This month, he started classes at South Eugene High School. Now nearing a height of 6 feet, Zealand will be part of South’s rowing club and is considering whether to try out for basketball. Entering high school “is not a crazy, big deal,” he said. But his summer vacation was exactly that. Zealand and his family returned to Eugene in early August after a monthlong trip to Australia and New Zealand. The latter nation is where his parents honeymooned and came up with the name for their future son. He said New Zealand residents “thought it was pretty funny” whenever they heard his first name. Upon returning to Oregon, Zealand repacked his bags and attended a weekend retreat at Waldo Lake with other plaintiffs in the federal case. He says it was a rare chance to simply relax with the group — an experience he found to be “way better” than the occasions when they gather for court hearings and other case-related matters. ---- Avery McRae Environmental activism already was old hat to Avery McRae when, at age 10, she agreed to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the government. As a first-grader, Avery threw a fundraising party for the then-endangered snow leopard. She raised about $200, which she donated to the nonprofit Snow Leopard Trust. She hosted similar events for other species the next two years, raising a little more money each time. “I’ve always had a soft spot for animals,” Avery, now 13, said while being interviewed in the backyard of her south Eugene home where her family raises chickens and rabbits. She still thinks often about threatened and endangered species, and said those concerns — along with a worry about the impact of climate change on hers and future generations — are what fueled her desire to join the lawsuit. “Because I can’t vote, the court is a way to get my voice heard,” she said. It’s horses — particularly a “super old” equine named Serendipity that resides in a stable where Avery has spent parts of the summer working and learning to ride — that represent her current obsession. She describes horse riding the way that others might talk about activities such as surfing or rock climbing. “When you’re on a horse, your focus is entirely on what you’re doing,” Avery said. The teenager also has spent time this summer at a Mount St. Helens science camp and taking piano lessons. And, while Avery enjoyed a break from homework over the summer, she was excited to see friends as she entered her eighth-grade year at the Village School. Her classmates and teachers have been supportive of her involvement in the federal case, but she’s not sure school officials will sign off on her hope to attend the trial weekly once it begins. “That’s kind of a big ask for my school. But it’s really going to be important for the judge to see young people there,” said Avery, the second-youngest plaintiff in the suit. The amount of support she and the other plaintiffs have received as the case winds through the courts has been a bit overwhelming, she said. “Sometimes, I’m like, ‘I don’t really deserve this (attention), do I?’” Avery said. “I mean, I really am just a normal 13-year-old.” ---- Hazel Van Ummersen One probably shouldn’t mess with Hazel Van Ummersen. In May, the South Eugene High School freshman earned her black belt in taekwondo, a Korean martial art that emphasizes kicks and power. “Breaking boards is really fun,” Hazel, 14, said. It took nearly seven years for her to achieve the rank of black belt, and Hazel said the training taught her the values of “perseverance and endurance.” That’s been particularly helpful as she patiently awaits the outcome of a big-time court case filed on her behalf when she was 11. “I didn’t know it would take this long,” she said. “I thought at first it could be over in a year.” Hazel has attended Edgewood Elementary and Spencer Butte Middle schools. Her interests include the outdoors, travel and reading, and she may have caught the acting bug after being cast in a production of “To Kill A Mockingbird” put on by the Very Little Theatre in Eugene. Apparently, she’s already somewhat locally known. She recalled a time when a woman who has been following the federal case asked her to autograph a shirt while shopping at a Market of Choice. “I think it’s good that people recognize us,” Hazel said. The experience of being a plaintiff in a lawsuit has her thinking about a career plan. “It would be pretty cool to be a lawyer,” she said, mentioning her ever-increasing interest in environmental and social justice work. But for now, she’s experiencing the normal anxiety and excitement that are so common among teens heading into high school. Hazel remains one of the younger plaintiffs. But the title of “climate kid” doesn’t exactly suit her. Hazel said she and her co-plaintiffs can more accurately be described as “climate justice warriors” who may have at first understood the threat of climate change but now more thoroughly comprehend its potential effects on their generation. She’s already associated it with an inability to ski or sled in the mountains because of declining snowpack and warmer winters, and the bouts of heat exhaustion she experienced in 2015 during a trip to Washington, D.C. “As an 11-year-old I didn’t fully understand what it meant to be involved” in the litigation, she said. “I’m definitely a lot more politically aware of what’s going on in our country now.” ---- Kiran Oommen Kiran Oommen says his family supports his music. It’s just that they don’t all want to listen to it. “My grandma apparently watched the video (of his hardcore punk band) with the sound off,” Oommen, 21, said. The son of a United Christian Church minister and a school teacher, Oommen — one of the oldest plaintiffs in the federal case — is a punk rocker who organizes community events and concerts, and is heading into his senior year at Seattle University. He worked full-time this summer for the university’s garden department while living in a co-op house for musicians in the “folk-punk community” that includes one of his bands, Geophagia. He’s also played in hardcore bands. “It just has an energy and anger that resonated with me” as a teenager, Oommen said of his interest in fast-paced, politically minded punk music. A longtime guitar player, he sings and plays mandolin in Geophasia. Oommen is a Village School product who graduated in 2015 from Churchill High School. It was during his senior year that he was asked to join the lawsuit after he attended a youth climate-justice camp put on by the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene. Oommen now serves as a CLDC board member and says he may consider pursuing a law degree while also being “as active as possible in the environmental movement.” As a teenager, he joined Eugene-based activist group Cascadia Forest Defenders and picked environmentalism as the social movement he wanted to focus on the most. “I think climate change is the biggest issue in the world right now because it really affects everyone,” Oommen said. He said his college experience in Seattle has been great, particularly because of the city’s active music scene. But he hasn’t been able to spend much time recently in his hometown, which has its own charms. “It’s a lot harder to access the outdoors up here,” Oommen said in a phone interview. “One thing I love about Eugene is that I can just get on my bike, ride out and look at the stars.” While it might interfere with school, Oommen plans to be home often once the trial begins. “Personally, I think it’s a little higher priority than the stuff up here,” he said. ___ Information from: The Register-Guard, http://www.registerguard.com


Georgia health agency warns of widespread flu, urges shots.

Explanation: Georgia’s public health agency is urging residents to get flu shots without delay, saying illnesses as widespread across the state.

Health, General News, Georgia, Flu, Public health

The Georgia Department of Public Health has confirmed that more than 200 people statewide have been hospitalized because of flu this season, and two people have died from flu-related sickness. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there have been more than 2.6 million flu-related illnesses nationwide. Everyone older than 6 months should get a flu shot, Georgia’s public health commissioner, Dr. Kathleen Toomey, said in a news release. Toomey said it usually takes two weeks after the shot for a person’s body to develop the antibodies needed to fight the flu. Health officials say people can also reduce flu risks by frequently washing their hands, avoiding touching their faces and by staying home from work or school if they have flu-like symptoms.


Congressional candidate Chris Jacobs “voted against paid leave for COVID-19.”

Explanation: McMurray’s Republican rival, state Sen. Chris Jacobs, did vote against a bill that provides paid sick leave to employees of non-essential businesses. Jacobs argued that while he supports the concept of sick leave for workers with COVID-19, he thought the particular bill offered placed too much of a burden on small businesses.

Workers, New York, Coronavirus, Nate McMurray,

Democratic congressional candidate Nate McMurray recently took to Twitter to attack state Sen. Chris Jacobs, his Republican opponent, over a vote he cast on paid sick leave. McMurray and Jacobs are the two major-party candidates running for the vacant 27th District congressional seat. The vacancy emerged when Republican Rep. Chris Collins resigned following pleading guilty to federal charges in an insider trading case. Collins was sentenced to 26 months in prison. On April 8, McMurray tweeted, "Forbes called my opponents billionaire uncle, ‘The face of corporate greed during the corona.’ My opponent has only about $70M. But true to form, he voted against paid leave for Covid19. Support @Nate_McMurray for Congress. Leadership Matters!" Forbes called my opponents billionaire uncle, “The face of corporate greed during the corona.”My opponent has only about $70M. But true to form, he voted against paid leave for Covid19.Support @Nate_McMurray for Congress. Leadership Matters! https://t.co/u6pS9uEq36 pic.twitter.com/gFgRIu7b0x  McMurray’s campaign confirmed that the tweet referred to a state Senate bill, S8091, which passed the Senate on March 18 and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. It provides for certain employee benefits if the employee is subject to a mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19. Among these benefits is paid sick leave during the government-mandated shutdown of non-essential businesses. Jacobs voted against the bill. He was one of six senators who voted against it. All of the senators voting against the bill were Republicans serving in the Democratic-controlled chamber. Jacobs issued a press release the day before the vote critical of the measure. In the release, Jacobs called the bill a "new burden on New York businesses that will significantly raise costs starting in 2021. These new requirements would mandate small businesses grant paid leave for employees for an extremely broad swath of activities not at all related to being sick, such as ‘immigration’ and to ‘prepare for or participate in any criminal or civil proceeding.’ The COVID-19 crisis will bring many small businesses to their knees." In a May 1 statement to PolitiFact, Jacobs said that he supports paid sick leave for workers coping with COVID-19 but voted against the bill because he thought it should have been presented differently. "S8091 was a poorly written bill because it imposed 100% of the cost onto small businesses, which are already fighting for their very survival during this coronavirus crisis," Jacobs said. " I could not, in good conscience, vote for a bill which would put more financial stress on our already struggling small businesses." Jacobs said that if the bill worsens the environment for small businesses, more of them would close, and in the long run, employees of those businesses would suffer. McMurray said Jacobs "voted against paid leave for COVID-19." Jacobs did vote against the New York Senate bill that provides paid sick leave to employees of                 non-essential businesses. Jacobs argued that while he supports the concept of sick leave for workers with COVID-19, he thought the particular bill offered placed too much of a burden on small businesses. The statement is accurate but needs additional information.


Eagle center struggles to supply American Indians rituals.

Explanation: A wildlife specialist splays the wings of a dead golden eagle shipped in from New Mexico and is pleased by what he sees.

Dennis Wiist, Wildlife Repository Specialist, inspects the feathers around an eagle's foot at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Eagle Repository in Commerce City, Colorado March 26, 2012. REUTERS/Rick Wilking “This one is an awfully good bird,” Dennis Wiist of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says. “There’s not too much damage, which is extremely rare.”   Wiist will bag the eagle, freeze it and then have it delivered to a waiting Native American Indian tribe. Eagles are sacrosanct for many tribes, and Wiist and his colleagues at the National Eagle Repository provide them with feathers, wings and talons - and in some cases whole carcasses - for religious rituals. But the Indians’ demand outstrips the repository’s supply. Each year the repository receives about 2,300 dead bald and golden eagles, gathered by wildlife agents and others. But it gets more than 3,000 requests a year for whole birds or parts. There are some 6,000 entries on the waiting list. “We just don’t have the supply. Our inventory is stretched,” said Bernadette Atencio, supervisor of the program for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The repository, located about 10 miles from downtown Denver, was established in the 1970s to meet the needs of American Indians but some don’t want to rely on it because it can take so long to get a bird, even as the population of bald eagles has largely recovered from the threat of imminent extinction. Quality is another issue. The eagles sent to the repository can arrive in poor shape, sometimes little more than carrion and not suitable for rituals. On this particular day, Wiist removes a decayed golden eagle from a bag with a note attached saying the bird had been found in a water tank, which Wiist says rendered it useless. An adult bald eagle he examines next is in relatively good condition, with just a fractured ankle and some head trauma. It qualifies as a complete bird. The Northern Arapaho tribe of Wyoming requires a “religiously pure eagle” for its summer sun dance but spiritual leader Nelson White has said the repository has sent unsuitable decomposed eagles. In November, the tribe filed a federal lawsuit saying its religious rights were being violated by the eagle regulations. Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a so-called “take” permit allowing the tribe to kill two bald eagles for spiritual purposes. The tribe has since said it wants to negotiate with the government to kill more. The repository tries to meet the need for eagles, and Wiist evaluates 25 to 30 dead bald and golden eagles a day, holding their plumes to the light and meticulously inspecting them from head to talon, jotting down notes on each raptor’s overall condition. Eagle carcasses waiting to be shipped hang on racks in a walk-in freezer adjacent to Wiist’s work station. Bags of usable feathers line the walls. “I always check the wing bones to see if they’re broken or damaged,” Wiist said. “Some (Indians) use the wing bones for whistles.”   Micah Loma’omvaya, a Hopi anthropologist who works for the tribal government in Arizona, said his people see the eagle as a benevolent being that allows them to communicate with other deities. It also represents their ancestors’ spirits, he said. “Eagles are integral to everything we do,” Loma’omvaya said. “Not just for ceremonies, but offerings with eagle feathers are made for fertility, rain, hunting - everything good in life.”   Loma’omvaya, who says his people have used feathers ceremoniously since “time immemorial,” said repository birds sometimes did arrive in rough condition but that his overall experience had been positive. He said that, while Hopis are allowed permits to “take” live golden eagles, not having items from the repository would limit his ability to participate in certain cultural events. U.S. eagle populations once numbered in the hundreds of thousands but were decimated by encroaching human development, unfettered hunting and the pesticide DDT. The bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, dwindled to a mere 400 breeding pairs by the early 1960s. The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, amended in 1962 to include golden eagles, was enacted by Congress to save them from extinction. Since federal protections were imposed to protect bald eagles, their population has soared to some 9,000 pairs, prompting their removal from endangered and threatened lists in 2007. Other federal laws still make it mostly illegal to kill eagles, and it is also illegal for anyone to possess eagle parts without a permit, Native American or otherwise. Meanwhile, some animal-rights groups are unhappy that the Northern Arapaho were granted the kill permit. Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said allowing the killing of bald eagles was “unsettling” and could lead to a flurry of kill permit applications. Peter Reshetniak, director of the Colorado-based Raptor Education Foundation, denounced last month’s eagle killings as a “barbaric act” and said tribes could use molted feathers from live eagles in captivity.


Oklahoma attorney general sues distributors of opioids.

Explanation: Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter on Monday brought a lawsuit against three distributors of opioids after winning a lawsuit against one drug manufacturer and reaching pretrial settlements in other cases.

Opioids, Health, Lawsuits, Oklahoma, Business, U.S. News, General News

Hunter filed the lawsuit in Cleveland County District Court against Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corp. and AmerisourceBergen Corp. “Oklahoma is in crisis. ... The source of this crisis is the flood of prescription opioids that has inundated Oklahoma for the past two decades,” the lawsuit says. “It is a man-made crisis. It was brought into being by the pharmaceutical industry.” The lawsuit said the defendants “distributed what can only be called a major oversupply of opioids into Oklahoma.” Hunter’s spokesman, Alex Gerszewski, said the companies distributed opioids primarily to hospitals and pharmacies and were obligated to have a systems of checks and balances to alert them if there was a sharp, unexplained increase in opioid orders. “We will show that these companies repeatedly ignored red flags and in doing so played a major role in breaking the dam of narcotic conservatism when they flooded the country with opioids,” Hunter said during a news conference announcing the suit. McKesson said in a statement Monday that “any suggestion that (the company) drove demand for opioids in this country reflects a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of our role as a distributor.”  AmerisourceBergen said in a statement that “beyond our reporting and immediate halting of potentially suspicious orders, we refuse service to customers we deem as a diversion risk.” Cardinal Health said in a statement that it is prepared to “vigorously” defend itself at trial, adding it’s “confident that the facts presented will show we take our role and the responsibility that comes with it seriously, work hard every day to get it right, and make changes when we find ways to improve.” The suit comes after Hunter won a lawsuit in August against opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, which was ordered to pay $465 million. Both Hunter and Johnson & Johnson have appealed the ruling. Hunter’s office says the award is only enough to pay for one year of the state’s opioid abatement plan. Johnson & Johnson maintains the award should be reduced by $355 million to offset pretrial settlements reached with other drugmakers. The state reached settlements last year of $270 million with drugmaker Purdue Pharma and $85 million with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceuticals. An $8.75 million settlement was reached last week with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., both subsidiaries of Dublin-based Endo International. The Oklahoma lawsuit comes after Michigan in December sued opioid distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson Health, AmerisourceBergen, and Walgreen Co. Opioids, including heroin and prescription drugs, were a factor in a record 48,000 deaths across the U.S. in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Oklahoma recorded about 400 opioid deaths that year.


New studies say antibiotics are good for infants with confirmed ear infections

Explanation: Two studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine show slight decrease in recurrence of ear infections in children under 2 if antibiotics are given. The story quotes one expert saying the studies are “substantial” but also quotes a second expert who says the results are a “dubious way to say that everybody needs treatment.” The story could have explored the shared decision-making encounter that parents could have with pediatricians based on this new evidence. By comparison, CNN’s story did a much better job helping parents with this angle. Otitis media is the most common illness in children under 3 in the US. (75 percent of all children experience once by age 3.) Parents suffer, children suffer, and money is spent. If the treatment is only marginally effective, it would save parents and society money and time to avoid treatment. At the same time, the problem of antibotic resistance is a huge financial and medical problem in the US. In 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics directly spoke to antibiotic resistance as a threat, and blamed frequent use in otitis media for some of that resistance.www.aap.org/sections/media/earinfection.htm As stated above, we wish the story could have helped readers think more deeply about how/whether these data impact the decision-making process.

The writer did not give a typical cost for a couple of office visits and buying the antibiotic for otitis media treatment. The antibiotic used costs about $75 per treatment. Because the criteria used in both studies may be substantially more stringent than those used clinically for the diagnosis, the costs of office visits also must be considered. In addition, the “cost” in the more abstract sense of how much antibiotic resistance “costs” society would have been a great addition to the story. The writer does a good job of describing what one expert called the “dubious”  benefit of avoiding treatment failure and continued infection for some untreated children. Side effects of antibiotic use are mentioned in the very last sentence, but we think more detail was called for. For example, in the Pittsburgh study, 51% of the children treated with antibiotic developed diaper area rash (as compared to 18% in the placebo group) and 5% developed a fungal infection in the mouth (as compared to none in the placebo group). We welcomed the comment on resistant bacteria but the phrase should have been put into context. What are the implications? The story quotes both experts who applaud the studies and an expert who questions their importance, an attempt by the reporter to analyze the evidence. But the balanced difference of opinion still leaves the reader without any method of evaluating  the quality of this evidence, in comparison to other studies. The story does explain that the definition of the infection is narrower in these studies, and expert Anthony Fauci is quoted saying that makes them “substantial.” Maybe more from Fauci would have helped explain this. Overall, a credible job in describing the state of the art. Credit to this writer for avoiding any mention of dire consequences for middle-ear infections. There can be some, but they are rare. The reporter does contact sources who did not participate in the two research studies under discussion. He does not identify any larger potential conflicts for these experts, such as participation in pharmaceutical research on antibiotics. If children are not treated with antibiotics immediately, they can receive what is called a “wait and see” approach from their pediatrician. The story does mention this. Not applicable. Antibiotics are widely available. The story does not need to say this. We’ll give the story credit for using Dr. Fauci’s summary of what made these studies different from past research: ” “In many cases, [the children] had something that looked like otitis media but really wasn’t,” he said. The new studies “had really precise criteria to be eligible for enrollment,” which makes them “substantial studies.”  There is good original reporting and use of sources in the story.