Prostate cancer blood test could transform treatment, say scientists

Explanation: This story describes a potential advance in precision medicine. Certain cancer therapeutics target tumors that have specific characteristics, such as the so-called PARP inhibitors. A diagnostic test to see if those specific characteristic exist, such as the liquid biopsy test described here, could help select patients most likely to benefit. Unfortunately, this article is essentially a rewrite of the news release, glossing over the measured benefits, the costs, the harms–and much more. There are many details of this study that warrant critical examination. Readers won’t be well-served by this story that parrots the PR promotions.

The article did not mention costs. The story did not quantify the benefits of using the three-in-one liquid biopsy. Readers learned that results of the biopsy were used to initiate (or not) and continue (or not) treatment with a cancer therapeutic drug that targets certain types of prostate cancers in men. Readers did not learn anything about the trial design or how effectiveness of the biopsy was measured. At the very least, it would have been helpful to know what proportion of patients “benefited” (changing drug vs. initiating drug). The story made no mention of potential harms of the liquid biopsy itself or of guiding chemotherapeutic treatment decisions based on results of the liquid biopsy. What about false positives? And false negatives? Erroneous results from a “simple” blood test could lead to a patient stopping the drug prematurely or initiating erroneously. Stories about screening tests must include the false positive and false negative rates for these reasons–they are a real risk. The story does discuss the various ways the liquid biopsy might be helpful. Its descriptor — three-in-one — was explained for readers; its essentially a way to select patients that might benefit from targeted cancer therapy and to monitor response and resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug. But no study results were outlined, other than a brief mention that this was a phase 2 trial with about 49 men in the study. The article did not overhype the risks of prostate cancer. The story quotes two sources: 1) the first author, who’s a researcher at the UK’s Institute of Cancer Research; and 2) the Chief Executive of the very same research institution. No outside sources were mentioned, much less quoted. It was good that funding sources were mentioned, however. The article makes no mention about alternatives. It doesn’t make clear what current standard therapy is for prostate cancer or how patients are currently selected for treatment with the targeted cancer drug. It also didn’t discuss that the drug itself–olaparib–is still being researched for effectiveness. The story does not help readers understand whether this blood test is available now–or if not, when it might become available for wider, non-research use. The article makes clear that this is a new test for circulating DNA that provides specific information about a cancer patient’s individualized cancer profile. However, the only people to say so are the researchers testing the liquid biopsy. This claim would carry more weight if it came from an independent source. It appears that the story heavily relied on this news release from the UK’s Institute of Cancer Research. And without attribution. For example, this quote that appears in the news release appears verbatim in the news story:  “Our study identifies, for the first time, genetic changes that allow prostate cancer cells to become resistant to the precision medicine olaparib. “From these findings, we were able to develop a powerful, three-in-one test that could in future be used to help doctors select treatment, check whether it is working and monitor the cancer in the longer term. We think it could be used to make clinical decisions about whether a PARP inhibitor is working within as little as four to eight weeks of starting therapy. “Not only could the test have a major impact on treatment of prostate cancer, but it could also be adapted to open up the possibility of precision medicine to patients with other types of cancer as well.”


Dale Peterson Says his opponent Dorman Grace brags on his Facebook page about receiving illegal campaign contributions.

Explanation: Dale Peterson squawks about chicken farm campaign funds in Alabama Ag Commissioner race

Agriculture, National, Campaign Finance, Ethics, Message Machine 2010, Dale Peterson,

One of the most talked-about political ads of the primary election season comes courtesy of a relatively obscure race: the Republican primary for the Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries. It's the tough-talking, rifle-toting Dale "Cowboy" Peterson who propels the ad to an instant classic. To date, the ad has been viewed more 1.2 million times on YouTube. In it, Peterson aims his most pointed verbal attack against Republican primary opponent Dorman Grace. "Dorman Grace brags on his Facebook page about receiving contributions from industries he would regulate. Bragging about receiving illegal money on Facebook. Who on earth would support such a dummy?" It's one thing to call your opponent a dummy. It's another to call him a cheat. And so we decided to check out Peterson's claim that Grace was guilty of taking illegal campaign contributions. And then bragging about it on Facebook. Campaign finance reports submitted to the Alabama Secretary of State, and viewable online, show that Grace has taken contributions from several "farms." Among them, deer and poultry farms. And on his Facebook page, Grace thanked some of the supporters who have contributed to his campaign, including some of the farmers in question. So are the contributions "illegal"? In 1998, the Alabama Legislature passed a law "to prohibit the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries or a candidate for the office of commissioner from accepting campaign contributions from persons associated with businesses regulated by the department." The contributions to Grace have given rise to several complaints with the state Ethics Commission -- not by Peterson -- but the commission has yet to rule on them. He's no expert on election laws, Peterson said in a phone interview with PolitiFact, but this seems pretty cut and dry. "You can readily see that industries that we regulate, he's accepting money from them," Peterson said. End of story? Not necessarily. The Grace campaign says it has done nothing wrong because the contributions to the campaign don't come from industries regulated by the agriculture commissioner. Tullie Culverhouse, campaign manager for Grace, contends the law was intended to bar contributions from agencies regulated by the ag commissioner, such as fertilizer and pest control companies which have to come to the department for a permit to operate in Alabama. "Poultry farms are not regulated by the department," Culverhouse said. "They are serviced by the department. The only thing they do is serve the industry with disease control. This is frivolous." So those are the competing opinions of the two campaigns. We spoke with Glen Zorn, the assistant ag commissioner and Democratic candidate for the top agriculture job. Zorn doesn't think it would be accurate to say, for example, that poultry farms are "regulated" by the commissioner. He hasn't taken any money from any poultry farmers, he said, but he would. The law about not accepting contributions from "persons associated with businesses regulated by the department" has never been tested, and remains a gray area, said Jeff Webb, legal advisor to the Agriculture Commissioner. "We can go on anyone's property that is growing hens and make sure they are following all of the mandates to prevent outbreaks of infectious or contagious disease," Webb said. And so, he said, "There is an argument that they are regulated by us." But there's a pretty good argument in the other direction, too, he said. Ray Hilburn, Poultry Program Director for the Alabama Department of Agriculture, said he doesn't view the department's role as a regulator of poultry farms. "We regulate diseases," he said. "We do disease work. We make sure the birds are disease-free. But we don't regulate the poultry growers themselves, in my opinion." Ultimately, it appears the state Ethics Commission is going to have to decide whether these contributions were improper (and it seems unlikely we'll hear a decision before next month's Republican primary). But we think it's fair to say that when the state's poultry program director and the legal advisor to the Alabama Department of Agriculture say the law is untested and unclear, it's a bit of a gray area. And so we rule Peterson's statement .


Canadians can be fined $1,000 for eating while driving.

Explanation: What's true: Canadian authorities may use their discretion to ticket motorists who are eating while driving if they deem those motorists are unable to operate their vehicles safely. What's false: The new distracted-driving law applies only in the province of Ontario, and it is geared toward distractions caused by hand-held devices and not by eating.

On 1 April 2019 the website “Canada Eh?” reported that Canadian motorists would soon run the risk of stiff fines for being caught eating while behind the wheel. The story’s headline was: “Canadians Can Be Fined $1000 for Eating While Driving Starting Next Month.” Although the story was shared widely on social media, it wasn’t quite accurate. One Canadian province, Ontario, did enact stricter penalties for distracted driving, such that first-time offenders could be penalized with a fine of up to $1,000 and a three-day license suspension. But each Canadian province, much like each state in the U.S., has its own motor vehicle code, and the $1,000 fine doesn’t apply throughout all of Canada. Moreover, the new law in Ontario pertains specifically to hand-held devices rather than eating, and it went into effect on 1 January 2019 (not “next month”). As the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported, “Drivers [in Ontario] who are caught talking on their phones, texting, dialing or emailing using a hand-held device, such as a cell phone and other entertainment devices, will be fined up to $1,000 with a three-day licence suspension and three demerit points.” Penalties rack up with each offense, according to the CBC. “Drivers with more than one distracted driving conviction will face a fine of up to $2,000, a seven-day licence suspension and six demerit points, while motorists who have been caught driving distracted more than two times will pay a fine of up to $3,000 and lose their license for 30 days.” According to the Ontario government website, “Ontario’s distracted driving laws apply to the use of hand-held communication/entertainment devices and certain display screens.” Drivers may not: Eating while driving is not a specific part of the law, although motorists can still be ticketed if the act of eating impairs their driving, the Ontario government pointed out: You are allowed to use hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece, lapel button or Bluetooth. You can view GPS display screens as long as they are built into your vehicle’s dashboard or securely mounted on the dashboard. Other actions such as eating, drinking, grooming, smoking, reading and reaching for objects are not part of Ontario’s distracted driving law. However, you can still be charged with careless or dangerous driving. The British Columbian division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) tweeted in 2017 an example of an instance in whic drivers could potentially be ticketed for unsafely eating while driving — slurping hot noodles with chopsticks: #DYK you can’t eat a bowl of soup while driving? Drive without due care= $368 Fine + 6 points #TicketTuesday pic.twitter.com/TlOXWtvgOW — BCRCMP Traffic (@BCRCMPTraffic) September 12, 2017  When asked for a clarification of the tweet, RCMP Constable Melissa Wutke said it was meant to depict an “exaggerated situation,” and that not all instances of eating while driving would result in motorists’ being ticketed. “Each situation is considered on its own merit, there is no blanket statement such as if you eat noodles and drive it will equal this, it’s all very dependent on the situation the officer sees,” she told the local news outlet KelownaNow. “But if you’re able to eat something with one hand that likely isn’t going to distract you from driving, then that probably is not the problem.”


Former Baltimore lawmaker charged with bribery, fraud.

Explanation: Federal authorities on Monday unsealed charges against a former state lawmaker who represented Baltimore for allegedly taking more than $33,000 in bribes in exchange for various legislative actions, including voting to increase the number of medical marijuana grower and processing licenses available to an out-of-state company.

Medical marijuana, General News, Marijuana, Maryland, Baltimore

Cheryl Diane Glenn has been charged with honest services wire fraud and bribery. The veteran Democratic lawmaker, who abruptly resigned her job as a Maryland state delegate Wednesday, had become a leading advocate for legalizing marijuana in Maryland. “The victims are all of us: taxpayers, the people of Ms. Glenn’s district, indeed, all Marylanders who are represented in the General Assembly ... ,” U.S. Attorney in Maryland Robert Hur said at a news conference. “The people of Maryland expect — and they should expect — that elected officials place the interest of their citizens above their own. Unfortunately, the allegations in the charging document unsealed today show that Ms. Glenn betrayed that public trust.” Authorities allege Glenn in March 2018 agreed to vote for a bill that would help an unnamed company obtain a medical marijuana license in exchange for $3,000 in cash. She received the money the following month, after the bill passed both chambers, and used it to pay outstanding property taxes. That bill would end up becoming law. The measure increased the number of grower licenses from 15 to as many as 22. The measure was designed to improve diversity in the state’s medical marijuana industry. The legislation also increased the number of weed processor licenses from 15 to 28. Glenn was charged by information, which is a type of charging document prosecutors use when a defendant has waived being indicted by a grand jury and that may signal a plea deal. The document was signed on July 23 but was not unsealed until Monday. Hur declined to say whether a plea agreement is in the works with Glenn. Her attorney did not immediately return a voicemail seeking comment. The charging document accuses Glenn of splitting a $10,000 bribe with an associate weeks after meeting in June 2018 with a businessperson who wanted to talk about medical marijuana licenses. During the meeting, Glenn allegedly boasted that a medical marijuana company had received a growing license without having high-priced lobbyists because the enterprise knew “God and Cheryl Glenn.” The bribe allegedly came after she agreed to introduce legislation that would give local businesses priority for medical marijuana licenses. Federal authorities have also accused Glenn of prefiling a measure on October 2018 to lower the required years of experience for medical directors at opioid maintenance therapy clinics from 5 to 2. Authorities say she received $5,000 from a businessperson after she formally introduced the bill in January. Glenn allegedly received the heftiest bribe in February, when a businessperson seeking a liquor license for a restaurant in her district gave her $15,000 after she introduced a necessary bill. Authorities say the businessperson had given Glenn an initial payment of $5,000 before the measure was introduced. In total, she is accused of taking $33,750 in bribes. Glenn, 68, is scheduled to appear in federal court in Baltimore on Jan. 22. Hur also would not say if any businesspeople or associates of Glenn could face charges. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in federal prison for the honest services wire fraud charge and five years for the bribery charge. The state’s medical cannabis commission is named after Glenn’s late mother, Natalie M. LaPrade. Glenn, who was first elected in 2006, chaired the Baltimore City delegation and previously headed the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland. She now joins the list of Maryland public officials who have faced accusations of public corruption in 2019. Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh pleaded guilty last month to federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges involving sales of her self-published children’s books. A month earlier, former state Del. Tawanna Gaines, a Prince George’s County Democrat, pleaded guilty to a federal wire fraud charge after admitting to converting more than $22,000 in campaign money for her personal use.


Allen West Says the coronavirus has a “99.9% recovery rate” in Texas.

Explanation: The calculation behind West’s “recovery rate” is not accurate. He looked at people who did not die after contracting COVID-19 and compared that figure to the entire population, not just those individuals who have been infected. Experts said his definition of the recovery rate is also misleading, as it counts any person who did not die as having recovered. In reality, studies have shown lasting health impacts on those who contracted the virus but are no longer infectious.

Texas Republicans selected a new party leader at last month’s virtual state convention, overwhelmingly supporting retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West, a former one-term U.S. House member from Florida as chairman over incumbent James Dickey. West described some state-level actions aimed at containing the spread of the coronavirus in the state as tyrannical during his address to delegates during the convention — a criticism that he has carried over to media appearances following his election. During an appearance on a North Texas radio program on July 27, West talked about the state’s coronavirus response and the recovery rate for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. "When I look at a state like Texas, which has 29 million in population, we’re getting close to I guess about 300,000 or so COVID-19 positive cases — there’s some questions about what a positive case really means — and sadly we’ve lost about 3,900 Texans," West said. "That’s only .01% of our population. If you just want to look at the facts, and I know everyone is concerned about this resurgence of COVID-19, but again we see more testing, more positive cases but yet the death rate is continuing to drop. I don’t want to see us get to the point where we’re imposing draconian measures, measures that go against our fundamental liberties and freedoms and rights over something that has a 99.9% recovery rate." West described the same recovery rate during an interview with a television station in Dallas on Sunday, stating: "99.9% of Texans are able to recover from COVID-19." Is that accurate? West’s numbers for positive cases and deaths are outdated and his figure for the recovery rate is wrong. "The statement that COVID-19 "has a 99.9% recovery rate" is something I would characterize as ," said Cory Zigler, an associate professor of statistics and data sciences and of women’s health at the University of Texas. Coronavirus figures in Texas At the time of West’s statement on July 27, Texas was reporting 385,923 positive COVID-19 test results from molecular tests and 5,713 fatalities connected to the coronavirus. The state has since corrected the number of fatalities for July 27 as 5,489. West said the numbers he used in his calculation were from mid-July. When asked about the formula he used to calculate his recovery rate — recoveries versus the state’s population — he said it was meant to show the impact of the virus in the state. "I chose that comparative means because we would use the same methodology to assess any illness affects against the greater population," he said in a statement (which was later posted to the Texas Republican Party’s Facebook page). But that’s not true. Zigler said calculating the recovery rate would involve a count of the people who have been infected with COVID-19 and the count of those who recover — which in West’s definition is all those who did not die. The latest numbers would put that rate closer to 98.7% Comparing recoveries to the population at-large does not produce a recovery rate. "You don’t recover from something you’ve never had," Zigler said. Diana Cervantes, director of the Master of Public Health Epidemiology Program at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, agreed and said the calculation West used is "poor math." "How can you say someone is recovered if they have never been infected?" she said. Plus, Cervantes said West’s assertion that this methodology would be used to assess the impact of any illness is a stretch. "The reason you collect data on diseases is because you have certain goals, including to understand the burden of the disease and whether control measures are effective," she said. "One of those goals is usually not — because of limited resources — to say ‘what is the recovery rate’ and ‘how many people return to their normal state of health’." "That kind of question is usually beyond the scope of the resources of health departments and even academic institutions to answer that question," she said. Examining what recovery means Another component of West’s claim that needs a closer look is how he characterizes recoveries: all those who tested positive and did not die. Zigler and Cervantes said this is one way of describing recoveries, but another definition may be more common. "One could imagine a different definition of ‘recovery’ to mean ‘did not die and no longer remains sick’ which would decrease the ‘recovery rate’ since there is evidence that many people have lasting problems after infection," Zigler said in an email. While research is ongoing, doctors and researchers have raised concerns about the lasting impact of COVID-19. Studies have found that "recovered" patients continued to have impaired organ function and blood test results did not return to normal after the individual was no longer infectious. The recovery rate has been a point of friction for some public officials, as different states use distinct formulas to calculate the rate. In Texas, the state produces an estimate based on hospitalizations and average stays. "It is misleading and could be a little dangerous," Cervantes said, adding that people may be less cautious in their efforts to stop the spread of the virus if they think their chances of returning to their usual state of health after becoming infected are as high as 99.9%. "It will give people a  impression that most people who get infected, we know that they are now back to their previous state of health and really, there is no way to know that," she said. "We don’t know that unless we survey people and do a more in depth look into this thing, and we’re barely keeping up with contract tracing as it is." Our ruling West gave outdated numbers for the numbers of infections and deaths in Texas. He also said the recovery rate for COVID-19 is 99.9%, based on the number of people in Texas who did not die after testing positive for COVID-19 divided by the entire population of Texas. Experts said West’s calculation here is wrong. Even if you defined all people who were infected with the virus and didn’t die as having recovered, that rate would be 98.7%. But that way of considering recovery would be misleading since studies have shown many people suffer long-term health effects from the virus. We rate this claim .


Voters across Texas have witnessed their votes switch from "straight Republican" to Democrat on compromised voting machines.

Explanation: What's true: A woman in Tarrant County claimed that her vote switched from Republican to Democrat and she caught and corrected the error; a subsequent investigation determined the machine was working properly, and the woman admitted she may have erroneously selected the wrong candidate. What's false: Reports are not flooding in from across Texas about vote switching, and most anecdotes are identical with localities changed.

Politics Ballot Box, election fraud, rigged election, texas

On 25 October 2016, rumors spiked claiming Texas voters (in cities as far-flung as San Antonio, Odessa, Amarillo, and Houston) were witnessing voting machines swap out “straight Republican” line voting with votes for Hillary Clinton. The starting point of the rumor was not clear (many different Texas cities have been cited in otherwise identical versions of the rumor), but a number of inquiries mentioned the City of Arlington as the purportedly affected jurisdiction. We contacted Tarrant County and spoke with an elections official there who told us the rumor was not new, as every election brings along with it claims of “vote switching.” She stated that in all instances where machine or voting equipment malfunctions are reported, a technician physically investigates the machine involved in an attempt to replicate the error (adding that the county has never successfully managed to reproduce a switched vote). The representative stated that someone from the county spoke with the claimant on 24 October 2016 after the machine she had used was tested by a technician. The representative asked the woman whether it was possible she inadvertently hit “enter” using a scroll wheel, and the woman said she might have in fact accidentally selected the wrong candidates herself. But the machine the woman used was found to be properly calibrated and working correctly. San Antonio radio station KISS-FM reported that similar claims out of Potter and Randall County were investigated, and the purported “vote switching” was attributed to “human error”: Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner released a statement [on 25 October 2016]. It said, “There is nothing wrong with any of the machines we use for voting. They do not flip your vote. They do not flip parties. Humans do that.” It goes on to talk about the situation in Canyon: “There was one incident in Randall County where a voter voted straight ticket and when they hit the vote button, it flipped parties … The machine was then checked and nothing was wrong with the machine.” According to the Randall County Elections Office, they were aware of this mistake but addressed it as user-error. They said that there are several voters each year who report that their ballots are mismarked, but they are usually caused by the voter accidentally selecting a different party. We also contacted the Texas Secretary of State to ask about the geographically dispersed rumors, and the representative with whom we spoke stated that Texas comprises 254 different elections, all administrated at the county level. Machines and even voting methods (such as optical scan or wheel) vary from county to county, meaning that a particular form of vote “rigging” would be difficult or impossible to implement all across Texas. She explained that voting equipment used in that state had largely been obtained many years prior to the 2016 election, and that voting machines are not connected to the Internet. According to the Texas Secretary of State’s office, each vote is recorded in three places: on the machine itself, on an external drive, and on a paper printout. Citing the possibility of human error or (relatively rare) miscalibration of voting machines, the representative told us the office encouraged all voters to double check their ballots before submitting their vote. She added that should a voter encounter a malfunctioning piece of voting equipment, it is imperative they report the incident to election officials to ensure the issue can be addressed. However, she was not aware of any official reports of widespread or localized vote switching (despite the rampant rumors on Facebook). All three agencies we contacted affirmed that vote-switching rumors are in no way news to the 2016 general election, and that user error overwhelmingly accounts for reports of switched votes. The County of Chambers in Texas did temporary switch from voting machines to emergency paper ballots while awaiting a software upgrade to fix a problem with the former, but that issue affected both parties equally: On Monday, October 24, 2016, at the beginning of Early Voting it was brought to the attention of the County Clerk, Heather H. Hawthorne, that the Straight Party vote for both the Republicans and Democrats, did not automatically select one race on each ballot. The error was caused in programming by ES&S (Election Systems and Software Inc.), the vendor who programs the election software used in Chambers County. Immediately, Hawthorne contacted ES&S and advised them of the issue. Hawthorne then contacted the Secretary of State’s office, the office overseeing the elections in Texas, and was informed to create emergency paper ballots to be used until the problem could be fixed. ES&S, based in Dallas, informed Hawthorne they would send software to correct the issue. Today, Hawthorne will be in the polling locations to install the corrected software to the votronic machines. Hawthorne is confident that all machines should be ready by the end of today. However, that particular glitch did not appear to affect votes cast for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton: An error in the voting machine programming by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) caused votes for one statewide court of appeals race not to be entered when a voter tried to vote straight ticket in either party according to a release from Chambers County. As local news sources indicated, the malfunction in question did not involve “vote switching,” but rather the machines failure to record downballot votes for “straight ticket” voters. The machines were repaired on 25 and 26 October 2016, and the issue was immediately addressed by the Texas Secretary of State. A number of readers contacted us claiming that a cell video depicted the Texas “vote switching phenomenon”: Does anyone still believe that #VoterFraud doesn’t exist? Here we have a sample from early voting in Texas… https://t.co/8jmTt2S3hO — Logic Doesnt Lv Here (@LD_LH) October 26, 2016  Not that I’m trying to support these claims on voting machines switching votes, but there is a video that seems to show this. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=814936408608816&id=644891892279936 Explain this link. http://viralliberty.com/cell-phone-video-released-showing-vote-machines-changing-votes-democrat/. I’m writing to you about your fact checking on “Dallas Cow-ploys” are you working for clinton as well? There are video showing the machines are changing votes to Hillary, it’s voter fraud! Take a look https://youtu.be/cDyWu0b4T_c and stop reporting media bias for Hillary! I used to think you were reporting/investigating the truth but this is pure BS! When links were included, the videos exclusively depicted a single instance of what appeared to be a malfunctioning voting machine in the state of Virginia (and again not involving candidates for President). The glitch in question involved Virginia Republican Rep. Scott Rigell, the voter appeared unable to select Rigell, and no votes were “switched” in the viral clip. None of the forwarded clips featured candidates in the state of Texas, and the depicted video misleadingly depicted a 2014 race.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has advised young mothers to delay breastfeeding because studies show that it could make vaccines less effective for their babies.

Explanation: CDC Says Mothers Shouldn’t Breastfeed to Make Vaccines More Effective

This claim is false. A number of blog sites have cited a 2010  study titled, “The Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Inactivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines,” in making this claim. The study explored why vaccines are less effective among children in poor, developing countries than in middle income and industrialized countries. According to the study’s abstract: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breastfeeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated. Researchers from the CDC did participate in the study, as the eRumor claimed. But the study does not suggest that women in the U.S. should delay breastfeeding. It suggests that delayed breastfeeding “should be evaluated” in developing countries at the time of the child’s vaccination. In the U.S, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) working group  suggests that young mothers forgo immunizations — not breastfeeding — to avoid complications in their children: Precaution: A condition in a recipient that might increase the risk for a serious adverse reaction or that might compromise the ability of the vaccine to produce immunity. Under usual circumstances, vaccination should be deferred. However, vaccination might be indicated because benefits outweigh risks. In the context of pregnancy and breastfeeding, serious adverse reaction includes maternal, fetal or neonatal serious adverse events linked to the vaccine. Contraindication means that there is direct evidence or strong biologic plausibility and suggestive evidence that the risk of severe adverse event is elevated for at least one of these groups. Precaution means there is no supporting evidence but there is some biologic plausibility; precaution may also mean that there is a lack of data to support safety. For its part, the CDC  encourages that all young mothers breastfeed their babies and  works to increase breastfeeding rates. The CDC  reports: One of the most highly effective preventive measures a mother can take to protect the health of her infant is to breastfeed. However, in the United States, although most mothers hope to breastfeed, and 79% of babies start out being breastfed, only 19% are exclusively breastfed 6 months later. Additionally, rates are significantly lower for African-American infants. The success rate among mothers who want to breastfeed can be greatly improved through active support from their families, friends, communities, clinicians, health care leaders, employers, and policymakers. Given the importance of breastfeeding for the health and wellbeing of mothers and children, it is critical that we take action across the country to support breastfeeding. And “deferred breastfeeding” is a very small portion of global efforts to increase the effectiveness of vaccines in developing countries. One of the biggest hurdles is that vaccines must be kept cold to remain effective, yet children live in remote areas with limited access to electricity and refrigeration, so vaccines often spoil, the humanitarian group Deutsche Welle reports: Health workers have to keep vaccines cool at all times – from the moment of their production until they are administered by injection or in other ways. “This is one of the reasons why we’re still unable to vaccinate many children against diseases, which have been wiped out in developed countries – polio, for example,” says Sebastian Dietrich, a physician working with Doctors without Borders. “We just can’t get the vaccines to very remote areas while keeping them cool.” When Doctors Without Borders vaccinates people in developing countries, they face serious challenges, says Dietrich. Most sensitive vaccines solutions become unusable as soon as their temperature rises above eight degrees Celsius. Dietrich and his colleagues have to get the vaccines through customs before they go bad, and they have to find storage rooms with good refrigeration, or transport the vaccines by car to remote areas, where there may not even be electricity. Deutsche Welle concludes that developing nanovaccines that don’t need refrigeration is the key to increasing effectiveness — not delayed breastfeeding. Comments


Explanation: This article presents the preliminary results from STAR, a large clinical trial comparing tamoxifen and raloxifene in postmenopausal women at increased risk of breast cancer. The study found comparable reduction in breast cancer risk. While the article reported that for the women taking raloxifene, the incidence of uterine cancer, blood clots, and cataracts were less than the women taking tamoxifen, only the difference in cataract was statically significant. This oversight is major as the incidence of uterine cancer and blood clots may be among the factors a woman considers when deciding which, if either breast cancer risk treatment option, is right for her. The other big omission is that the comparability in breast cancer reduction is only for invasive breast cancer; tamoxifen reduced the risk of less aggressive breast cancer (i.e. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) while raloxifene did not. If the risks for all breast cancer events had been compared, the reported outcome of the study may have differed.

No mention of the costs of either tamoxifen or raloxifene was made. Failure to mention the lack of statistical significance for the incidence of uterine cancers and blood clots for women at increased risk of breast cancer taking raloxifene as compared with those taking tamoxifen is an important lack of framework. The story didn’t describe how well either drug prevents breast cancer (i.e. how many would have developed it and how many were prevented from developing it because of treatment. In addition, the reported impact on the quality of life was the same for the two treatments. The increased incidence of other, less-invasive forms of breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ) was not mentioned. The absolute number of cases for the side effects was not presented. The article discussed some recently released data from a large clinical trial comparing tamoxifen and raloxifene in postmenopausal women considered to be at increased risk of breast cancer. Though the study found that the reduction in invasive breast cancer was the same for the two drugs, the article failed to distinguish between differences in side effects that were and were not statistically significant (i.e. that there were 36% fewer uterine cancers and 29% fewer blood clots among women who took raloxifene were not statistically significant while the 21% fewer cataracts were statistically significant). As the purported benefit of raloxifene over tamoxifen is about the prevalence of side effects, this distinction is important. While it was noted within the story that the average five-year breast cancer risk for the women in the study was 3.4%, the overall tone of the article was one of disease mongering. One quoted expert (chairman for one of the studies) is quoted as saying that as many as 10 million postmenopausal women are at increased risk for breast cancer. Failure to present the absolute number of breast cancer cases and side effect cases in each study group serves to amplify concern about cancer risk. The results of this study , its analysis, and interpretation have not yet been peer reviewed or published. Two quotes, one from the executive director of Breast Cancer Action and a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society, contribute valuable cautionary interpretation for the rest of the material presented in the article. The article mentioned tamoxifen, the only medication to date that has been approved by the FDA for reducing breast cancer risk in healthy women. However the article failed to mention that not doing anything, increased screening (such as more frequent mammograms, screening with MRI, ductal lavage) and prophylactic mastectomy are also options to decrease breast cancer risk. Although the article mentions that doctors could prescribe raloxifene for the purpose of reducing breast cancer risk, it is not yet approved by the FDA for this purpose and would therefore represent an off-label use of this medication. The use of raloxifene as a medication to reduce breast cancer risk is new. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release, although the story does appear to rely on information in the STAR study press release.


An April 2020 image shows the United Kingdom's flag projected onto the Matterhorn as a show of solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Explanation: Did a Swiss Town Project the Union Jack Onto the Matterhorn to Show COVID-19 Solidarity?

In early April 2020, images of the United Kingdom’s flag projected onto the Matterhorn began circulating — striking photographs that appeared to perhaps be of questionable veracity:The town of #Zermatt in #Switzerland projecting the Union Flag onto the #Matterhorn in solidarity with the UK, and it looks phenomenal.Thank you Switzerland! 🏔🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/agIwTk1DfI— Jacob Young MP #StayHomeSaveLives (@JacobYoungMP) April 11, 2020In addition to Twitter, the photograph was shared by a notorious karma-farming poster to Reddit’s r/nextfuckinglevel, and it appeared on r/DamnThatsInteresting and r/CasualUK:In the town of Zermatt Switzerland they have been displaying national flags on the Matterhorn to show support during these trying times. Today they did one for the United Kingdom from nextfuckinglevelIn the town of Zermatt Switzerland they have been displaying national flags on the Matterhorn to show support during these trying times. Today they did one for the United Kingdom from DamnthatsinterestingMost variations of the claim consisted solely of an image, not a news article or other information indicating whether the image was anything more than inspired digital editing. Even blog posts and articles gave the same image (none from different angles) along with the same basic description, location (Zermatt, Switzerland), and a date range:Zermatt projected an enormous Union Jack flag onto the Matterhorn [on April 10 2020] as a sign of solidarity towards their “friends from the UK”.The story was picked up by BBC:At an incredible 4,478 metres high, the Matterhorn is one of the tallest mountains in the Alps. It towers over the town of Zermatt, Switzerland. For the last few weeks, a powerful projector aimed at the face of the mountain, has been displaying the flags of the nations affected by the coronavirus. This was the amazing sight of the Union Jack — the flag of the United Kingdom, lighting up the mountain.Another news article — translated here from Greek — included an entire series of images. That April 12 2020 article reported that the projections were in honor of countries hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic:The Matterhorn Mountains in the Alps are illuminated by the landmarks of Europe, which have been hit hardest by the spread of the virus. It is a symbolic move that aims to show that everyone’s thoughts are never far from those who are struggling to get out of this ordeal.That article also included images of the Union Jack on the Matterhorn taken from different angles. On Zermatt.ch, the Zermatt region’s official tourism site, a page explained when the illuminations occurred, and invited people to watch — from home, of course:Light is hope! In this sense, the Matterhorn is illuminated daily during the Coronavirus pandemic. The projections take place [daily] from 21:30 to 23:00 hrs.With this light projection, Zermatt wants to give people a sign of hope and solidarity in these difficult times. The village shows solidarity with all the people who are currently suffering and is grateful to all those who are helping to overcome the crisis.Stay at home — you can follow the spectacle live via webcams.As indicated above, the British flag was projected onto the Matterhorn on April 10 2020 — followed by a graphic marking Easter (April 12 2020) the following day, and a candle on Easter itself. The stunning image is real, and a gallery of additional efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found on Zermatt.ch.


Wyoming records first 2 vaping illness cases.

Explanation: Wyoming has recorded its first two cases of vaping-related illnesses.

Health, Vaping, General News, Wyoming, Mark Gordon

The cases announced Wednesday occurred in Uinta and Park counties around the second week of September. Wyoming Department of Health spokeswoman Kim Deti says both people were hospitalized. The illnesses are prompting the department and Gov. Mark Gordon to warn people to avoid vaping products containing THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Symptoms of vaping illness include coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, fever, vomiting and diarrhea. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports over 1,600 lung injury cases and 34 deaths nationwide. About 80 percent of cases involve THC use. Gordon says he has told the department to investigate ways Wyoming can address vaping-associated illness.


Michael Bloomberg named World Health Organization ambassador.

Explanation: Billionaire philanthropist and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has a new job — as global ambassador for the U.N. health agency with a mandate to help reduce deaths from prevalent diseases, traffic accidents, tobacco, alcohol and obesity.

World Health Organization, New York, Michael Bloomberg, AP Health, Margaret Chan, Health, United Nations, Injuries, Road safety

World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan cited Bloomberg’s longtime support for its efforts to control smoking and tobacco use, improve road safety and prevent drowning in announcing Wednesday that he will be the agency’s Global Ambassador for Non-communicable Diseases. She said Bloomberg will help mobilize national and local political leaders, donors and the private sector to prevent and treat non-communicable diseases which are experiencing a growing epidemic and to reduce injuries from road traffic crashes, burns, falls and drowning. According to WHO, non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and heart and lung disease and injuries are responsible for 43 million deaths each year. They represent almost 80 percent of all deaths worldwide and are the leading cause of premature death in developing countries. Yet, despite their prevalence, non-communicable diseases currently account for only 2 percent of all health funding, the agency said. Road traffic crashes account for a further 1.25 million deaths each year and are the leading cause of death among young people, aged 15-29 year, WHO said. Chan said she is “absolutely delighted” that Bloomberg will be a WHO ambassador, calling him “a valued partner” who will help strengthen the agency’s response to the major public health challenges posed by non-communicable diseases and injuries. Bloomberg said he is “honored ... and excited about the possibilities that are within our reach.” “Cities and countries around the world are making great progress reducing preventable, premature deaths, and by replicating the most effective measures on a global scale, we can save many millions of lives,” he said. WHO said effective strategies to prevent non-communicable diseases include increasing the tax and price of tobacco and alcohol, enforcing smoke-free environments, promoting healthy affordable diets, and discouraging the eating of foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat. Proven actions to prevent the most common injuries include wearing seat belts and helmets, enforcing speed limits, drink-driving legislation, enforcing laws on smoke alarms and hot water temperatures, and covering water hazards and fencing pools, WHO said. Bloomberg took steps to try to improve the health of New Yorkers as mayor including raising cigarette prices, banning trans fats and attempting unsuccessfully to do the same for large sodas. His philanthropic investments in public health include a $100 million commitment to eradicate polio, a $600 million initiative to reduce global tobacco use, and programs to tackle obesity, road safety, maternal health, and drowning, WHO said. The agency said Bloomberg’s position as WHO Global Ambassador is for an initial period of two years and is on a purely honorary basis. In January 2014, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Bloomberg as his first Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, a position he still holds.


Thailand rolls out cannabis clinic based on traditional medicine.

Explanation: Thailand opened its first full-time clinic specializing in traditional and alternative cannabis-based medicine on Monday, as part of a move by the government towards developing a medicinal cannabis industry.

“This is a pilot clinic, because we cannot produce enough doctors with expertise in cannabis,” Public Health Minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, told reporters at the opening ceremony in Bangkok. Patients will receive treatment free of charge for the first two weeks, he added. Thailand, which has a tradition of using cannabis to relieve pain and fatigue, legalized marijuana for medical use and research in 2017 to boost agricultural income. There are already around 25 cannabis clinics attached to general hospitals around the country but, unlike the newly-launched pilot clinic, they operate for just a few days a week due to a lack of specialized staff. The largest producer of medicinal cannabis is currently the health ministry’s Government Pharmaceutical Organization. Kasetsart University’s director of medical cannabis research, Natakorn Thasnas, told Reuters that the university would supply  2,200 kilograms of cannabis leaf to the ministry. Cannabis production, cultivation and sale has been limited to licensed Thai producers for the next four years to protect the domestic industry. Currently, only hospitals and research facilities are allowed to apply for cannabis production and extraction licenses, but the government is reviewing regulations to enable Thai businesses to apply for permits. Last year, Thailand dropped cannabis and hemp extracts from its narcotics list and proposed a draft law that would allow each household to grow six cannabis plants. Four types of drugs, containing different combinations of cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psycho-active ingredient in cannabis, were given to patients to treat migraine, insomnia, neck pain and muscle stiffness, the ministry said in a statement. The pilot clinic, based in the Ministry of Public Health, expects to see between 200 to 300 patients daily. “I was worried at first, but I studied the effects and decided it was better because its natural,” said Waraporn Boonsri, 69, who received four vials of cannabis oil to help her sleep. Nearly 2,200 patients have registered at the clinic until March, a health official told Reuters. Anutin said there were plans for 77 clinics to be opened across the country, with one in every province. (This story fixes minister’s name to “Charnvirakul” in second paragraph)


Mexico official calls diet a factor as coronavirus death toll climbs.

Explanation: Mexican Deputy Hugo Lopez-Gatell said on Saturday that decades of poor eating habits in the country have created an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and other related health complications that make its people more vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

The Mexican health ministry has so far registered a total of 1,890 cases of the novel coronavirus and 79 deaths. “These people, unfortunately, had chronic diseases or were older,” Lopez-Gatell said during a press conference, adding that the country had one of the world’s highest rates of diabetes and obesity. “This is the product of many years, at least four decades, of poor nutrition, a diet that has been created by products of low nutritional quality and very high calories, in particular in processed foods,” Lopez-Gatell said. The World Health Organization has said people with diabetes and its related health complications are among those most vulnerable to severe cases of the highly contagious and sometimes deadly illness caused by the new coronavirus.


Marijuana cigarettes deposit four times more tar into smokers' lungs than tobacco-based cigarettes.

Explanation: In conclusion, although it may be true that marijuana smoke deposits more tar into the lungs than tobacco smoke, current evidence does not indicate that the former results in proportionally greater deleterious health affects.

A somewhat misleading infographic concerning the amount of tar deposited in smokers’ lungs by marijuana is frequently shared on social media sites:  Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes. However, although it may be true that marijuana smoke deposits more tar into a smoker’s lungs than tobacco smoke, the above-displayed photograph does not accurately depict the difference in overall harm caused to a tobacco smoker’s lungs versus a marijuana smoker’s lungs. Marijuana contains many of the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco smoke, but a recent study found no link between marijuana and an increased risk of lung cancer. According to Dr. Hal Morgenstern, a University of Michigan epidemiologist, this factor was likely attributable to the differences between marijuana and tobacco use: When you think about people smoking 20 to 40 cigarettes a day for 40 years, they’re smoking hundreds of thousands of cigarettes. The exposure that marijuana users get is more than a magnitude of difference less. However, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that even heavy marijuana smokers did not have an increased risk of developing lung cancer: We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years, hypothesized that the chemical THC may prevent the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke from negatively affecting the body: The THC in marijuana has well-defined anti-tumoral effects that have been shown to inhibit the growth of a variety of cancers in animal models and tissue culture systems, thus counteracting the potentially tumorigenic effects of the procarcinogens in marijuana smoke. We don’t know for sure, but a very reasonable possibility is that THC may actually interfere with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.


Literally, by the time a child is 18 years of age, they've killed over 100,000 people in video games and other online things.

Explanation: CNN legal analyst: By 18, kids have killed over 100,000 people in video games

The death of a Google executive at the hands of an escort he met online have pundits wondering: Is the digital age one of sex, lies and dark fantasies? To see the moral rupture created by technology, look no further than the reckless slaughtering on video games, said CNN legal analyst Mark O’Mara. O'Mara represented George Zimmerman, the Orlando-area man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. "The perceived anonymity of digital existence makes it much easier to sort of distance yourself for your own morality," said O’Mara on July 16, 2014 on CNN Tonight. "It’s just what happens because it’s so much easier to be somebody you want to be but know you shouldn't be when you’re online. Literally, by the time a child is 18 years of age, they‘ve killed over 100,000 people in video games and other online things." Whether video games lead to real-life violence has been a debate for decades. As for the virtual violence, we were struck by O’Mara’s claim that an 18-year-old has killed over 100,000 people in video games. We wanted to check it out. Shots in the dark While O’Mara’s delivery suggests we’d find our answer in some sort of academic journal, his spokesman told us the statistic was "napkin calculation." More realistically, it sounds like a guess. "(He) may have underestimated that significantly, it could be less than 5 percent of what the real number may be," O’Mara spokesman Shawn Vincent said. "The point is that young people are simulating murders, and witnessing thousands of them on TV." We were unable to find any study or research that approximates the number of video kills of an 18-year-old, and experts in the field said no such research exists. The problems include the types of games children play, how often they play them, how they play them. Plus, while the vast majority of children play video games, not all do. "There's absolutely no way to determine this -- it's too vague," said Entertainment Software Association spokesperson Dan Hewitt. "It's all how a game is played. For example. Grand Theft Auto can be played from beginning to end without harming or ‘killing’ anyone. Same is true with many games. It's all in how an individual plays it and there's no way to even make an estimate." From the gamer’s perspective So while it’s dangerous to make a broad generalization the way O’Mara did, we can get a sense of what’s happening among gamers who play shooting-style games. The take-away: Their virtual personas do a lot of killing. One of the best-selling gaming franchises, Halo, estimates that the first three games amassed 136 billion player-versus-player kills. We reached out to several players either through Facebook groups or through colleagues to hear about their personal stories. Pete Cruz, 22, has a total kill count of player-versus-player 52,459 on one Halo 3 game. He estimates that this is a pretty average or slightly above average count. Cruz has been playing the Halo games since 2004 and says his total kill count was "easily 100,000" when he was 18. "More like 150,000 if not more," he said. "That number can easily be reached during your teenage years or from 10 to 19 (years old)." Jay Manning, 21, estimated he probably reached 100,000 kills in his first six months of playing. Reaching that count by the you’re 18, he agreed, is "easy." Govinda Sessa, 18, has a total kill count of 73,316 over 30 game days in Halo 4. Ben Stuart, 23, put these numbers in context: He averages about 10 to 15 kills per game and has played about 5 or 6 games daily since he was 10 years old. That adds up. Call of Duty, another popular shooting franchise, hasn’t released recent data since its newest game debuted, said spokesperson Kyle Walker. But from the start of the franchise in 2003 to its second newest game, players have "respawned" (come back to life after a player-inflicted death) 1.9 quadrillion times. That’s 15 zeroes. Marty Maldonado, 21, began playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 when he was 16. He estimates spending two or three hours daily on the game in high school, and says he probably reached 100,000 kills by the time he was 18. But Maldonado is wary of saying these kills were of people. "You don't really see them as people, mainly because you're playing a game and you think of the avatar as an extension of the other person's ability," he said. "The only time I would say I felt like I killed someone were emotional games that had good character development like the BioShock series or (the) nuke scene in Call of Duty 4." Different keystrokes Halo and Call of Duty are both first-person shooting games, a category of video games that make up about a fifth of the market, according to a Entertainment Software Association report. All the gamers and experts we talked to point out that it’s hard to compare total kills. "What’d you even consider a kill? Mario stomping? Call of Duty shooting?" said PC Magazine writer David Murphy. In some categories -- action and sports game, for example, which take up about 22 percent and 15 percent of the market respectively -- killing is not even the point. The No. 2 best selling video game of 2012 was Madden NFL 13, a football game in which players aim for touchdowns not deaths. In Assassin’s Creed, a popular action-adventure franchise, the main gameplay involves storylines and missions. Though you do kill in the game, you don't really count the number in an open world game, said player Rahul Prakash. Even in shooting games, total kill counts don’t account for the many variables in video games and differences in players. Time spent on games, time frame per game, game goals, player age, player level, online or offline, single player versus multiplayer -- these factors all matter and are rarely accounted for, said Cruz. "Depending on how that number is constructed, it can definitely lead to misinformation and misconstrue facts about video games," he said. The ruling O’Mara said, "Literally, by the time a child is 18 years of age, they‘ve killed over 100,000 people in video games and other online things." Literally, the stat is a "napkin calculation." Research doesn’t exist on the point and there are too many variables to affect how many people someone might have killed in video game. That said, a range of gamers told us that if you play shooting-style games in your teen years, you’re quite likely to kill 100,000 people or more. While that gives O’Mara’s statement some truth, the lack of definitive information makes this claim somewhat dodgy. We rate it .


The House Democrats' so-called 'stimulus' has been stuffed with an astonishing $335 million to fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases.

Explanation: STD spending is in the economic stimulus plan

National, Economy, Stimulus, National Republican Congressional Committee,

Republicans have large philosophical differences with the $819 billion economic stimulus package that passed the House on Jan. 28, 2009, and they have tried to discredit the plan by singling out relatively small spending proposals they see as inappropriate. One of the most widely cited claims from Republican leaders has been that the stimulus plan includes millions for sexually transmitted disease education. On the day of the the House vote, the National Republican Congressional Committee circulated a news release in the districts of 29 freshman House Democrats, chastising them for supporting a massive spending plan that the NRCC said includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention programs. A version of the news release circulating in Florida, for example, begins, "Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-08) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) are set to cast their vote today on a so-called 'stimulus' package, which has shattered the trillion dollar mark. The question is: Will Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas still support the massive spending bill now that it has become public that the House Democrats' so-called 'stimulus' has been stuffed with an astonishing $335 million to fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases?" Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, had been making the same point for days, including in an interview with Fox News on Jan. 23. But the STD spending issue gained considerable momentum as a Republican attack after the Drudge Report posted an alert about it at the top of its popular political Web page on Jan. 28. So is there really STD prevention spending in the stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Jan. 28? Yes, there is. In a section of the plan that includes funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the bill states that "not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director." In an interview on CBS's  Early Show  on Jan. 29, the day after the House passed the stimulus package, anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi how $335 million in STD prevention would stimulate the economy. Said Pelosi: "I'll tell you how. ... I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have — there's a part of the bill, on the health side of it, that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these prevention measures." We note that while the NRCC news release specifically calls out House Democrats for the STD spending, the Senate version of the bill also includes it — in fact, slightly more. A portion of the stimulus plan approved by the Senate Appropriations committee on Jan. 27 states that "not less than $400,000,000 shall be transferred to the CDC for an additional amount for the screening and prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV." A committee report on the bill backs up the HIV and STD prevention spending with this analysis: "CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States, with 1 in 4 teenage girls currently infected. This epidemic is estimated to cost the U.S. healthcare system $15,000,000,000 annually, all of which is preventable. The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions. The Committee intends that funds be used for grants to States for testing activities, and the prevention of STD infections like chlamydia that have been increasing dramatically in recent years." We're not going to wade into the debate over whether the spending is appropriate for an economic stimulus bill. We're only ruling on whether there is $335 million in the House version of the bill for STD prevention programs. We note that while the proposed $335 million in the House bill includes prevention programs for STDs, it also includes prevention programs HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and tuberculosis prevention programs, which are not always transmitted sexually. So we find the claim .


NUS researchers use AI to successfully treat metastatic cancer patient

Explanation: This news release focuses on a paper from Singapore-based researchers who used artificial intelligence (AI) to treat cancer in a single patient. The release argues that this is a “gamechanger” and a “big step forward” that “is applicable to all diseases and all patients” — which are bold claims to make based on the treatment of only one patient. Unjustifiable language throughout and a lack of attention to key details like harms, cost and an explanation of the severe limitations of the research make this a weak and misleading release. There has been a lot of research focused on the use of AI to help diagnose cancers and develop treatment protocols — and it continues to be an area of great interest. However, it is difficult — if not impossible — to draw far-reaching conclusions from a single case. What costs, benefits and risks are associated with AI-directed treatment for cancers? A study like the one highlighted in this release simply cannot tell us. The release claims the researchers were able to improve treatment efficacy by adjusting treatment dose and presumably still minimizing adverse events. Again — impossible to prove based on a single patient. It is an interesting case study, and we look forward to learning the results of future research, but it is misleading (if not dishonest) to make sweeping claims based on the treatment of a single patient.

artificial intelligence (AI),cancer treatment,National University of Singapore

The AI used in this case is called the “CURATE.AI” platform. It’s not clear if the platform is proprietary. If it is, it is not clear what the cost would be for health care providers to access and make use of the platform. It is also not clear what level of training, and associated costs, would be needed for health care providers to be able to use the platform in a clinical setting. Given that the AI platform appears to be designed to create personalized treatments for each patient, the cost could be considerable. It’s hard to estimate, since the release does not address cost in any way. The release does not attempt to quantify benefits. In fact, it would be impossible for the release to address this issue in any meaningful way, given that the relevant study was of one patient. The release says that the patient was “successfully treated” — but what does that mean? Lower down in the release, readers are told that “disease progression was halted,” meaning that the cancer was not getting worse. Further, no information is given about the tumor’s biology nor can any conclusions be drawn in the absence of a comparator such as enzalutamide alone vs the combination. Readers are told that “patient care guided by CURATE.AI is currently ongoing.” In other words, by the time anyone is reading the release, the patient could be in remission. Or the cancer may have spread. Or the patient’s condition may not have changed at all. We just don’t know. AI is not perfect. AI programs can, and will, make mistakes. What might those mistakes mean in the context of cancer treatment? It’s not clear, and the release doesn’t address this. We know that clinical trials using “CURATE.AI-guided” therapies are underway, and that the patient highlighted in the news release is involved in a clinical trial. But we don’t know how any of those trials are going. Will those trials identify any risks or potential harms? How will medication dosages be adjusted to reduce side effects? That remains to be seen, and the release should not simply ignore the issue. If this single patient’s treatment was sufficient to warrant a news release, any potential harms (or even the absence of potential harms) should also be worth addressing. The release makes clear that it is focused only on one patient’s treatment. But that’s not good enough. The release should make clear that, while this patient’s results were promising, there are severe limitations on the extent to which the patient’s results can be extrapolated to a larger population. Instead, the release does just the opposite, calling a single case a “big step forward.” In addition, as noted above under “Explain Harms,” this patient was part of a clinical trial, and there are other clinical trials under way. Are they phase 1 trials? Phase 2? Phase 3? How many patients are involved? What are the study designs? The release raises more questions than it answers. No disease mongering here. Some context on the prevalence of prostate cancer would have been useful. It is not made clear who funded the relevant study, who funded the creation of CURATE.AI, or whether CURATE.AI has been patented or is under consideration for being marketed as a for-profit medical tool. CURATE.AI is far from the only AI tool that has been considered for use in cancer treatment. For example, HealthNewsReview.org wrote last year about a (failed) attempt to incorporate IBM’s Watson system into cancer treatment at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. And there are hundreds of papers that address various attempts to use AI, machine learning, or artificial neural networks in the context of cancer treatment. Here’s a review paper from 2006 that addresses 396 related papers that had already been published at that time. The release on CURATE.AI does not make clear how this new AI tool is different from or similar to the body of work in the field. We don’t expect a news release to offer a detailed overview of how the new work differs from what came before it, but we do expect a release to provide at least a broad idea of what sets the new work apart. The release does make clear that clinical trials are under way. That’s good. However, the release is written as if the clinical trials have already been completed successfully. For example, the release states that “CURATE.AI is applicable to all diseases and all patients.” There is, as far as can be discerned from everything else in the release, nothing that supports that statement. And despite the sweeping language used in the release, it is not at all clear when CURATE.AI may be available for clinical use. The release says that “a first generation of the [CURATE.AI] platform was previously validated in the clinic for single drug optimisation,” and that this single-patient study “demonstrates that CURATE.AI can optimise multi-drug regimens.” That’s enough to earn it a satisfactory rating here, but we’ll revisit that language under “Unjustifiable Language.” The release uses unsatisfactory language throughout. We’ll provide two examples here. The release tells readers that this study “demonstrates that CURATE.AI can optimise multi-drug regimens.” No, it doesn’t. This study focuses on the experience of one patient. Did the use of CURATE.AI improve the patient’s treatment? It’s impossible to tell — because it is one patient. We simply cannot determine what the cancer’s progression would have been, since we can only the see the data on one individual. The release also states that “CURATE.AI is applicable to all diseases and all patients” — a claim that the release (and related study) cannot support in any way.


U.S. doctors' group says just stop vaping as deaths, illnesses rise.

Explanation: The American Medical Association on Monday urged Americans to stop using electronic cigarettes of any sort until scientists have a better handle on the cause of 450 lung illnesses and at least five deaths related to the use of the products.

The AMA, one of the nation’s most influential physician groups, also called on doctors to inform patients about the dangers of e-cigarettes, including toxins and carcinogens, and swiftly report any suspected cases of lung illness associated with e-cigarette use to their state or local health department. The recommendation followed advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday for people to consider not using e-cigarette products while it investigates the cause of the spate of severe lung illnesses associated with vaping. Many, but not all, of the cases have involved those who used the devices to vaporize oils containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis. CDC officials said some laboratories have identified vitamin E acetate in product samples and are investigating that as a possible cause of the illnesses. Public health experts have not found any evidence of infectious diseases and believe the lung illnesses are probably associated with a chemical exposure. Megan Constantino, 36, from St. Petersburg, Florida, quit vaping six days ago after hearing reports of the illnesses and deaths related to vaping. “It scared me into quitting,” she said. Like many users of vaping pens, Constantino picked up the device after quitting cigarette smoking three years ago, and said, “It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done.”  She added, “I threw the last cartridge away. I took a picture of it and I literally cried.”   Constantino said many people who vape have been “on pins and needles” for the investigation results, and she is concerned that the reports of a link to vaping THC may give people an excuse to ignore the warnings. E-cigarettes are generally thought to be safer than traditional cigarettes, which kill up to half of all lifetime users, the World Health Organization says. But the long-term health effects of vaping are largely unknown. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has faced mounting pressure to curb a huge spike in teenage use of e-cigarettes, a trend that coincided with the rising popularity of Juul e-cigarettes. “We must not stand by while e-cigarettes continue to go unregulated. We urge the FDA to speed up the regulation of e-cigarettes and remove all unregulated products from the market,” AMA president Dr. Patrice Harris, said in a statement. Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, which advocates for cigarette smokers to switch to nicotine-based vaping devices, said the AMA should be “ashamed of themselves for playing politics with people’s health and protecting the profits of drug dealers.”  He criticized the AMA for “fearmongering about nicotine vaping products” while not mentioning “the very real risks of vaping illicit THC products.”  Juul Labs declined to comment. Altria Group Inc owns a 35 percent stake in Juul.


Non-surgical weight-loss treatment found safe, effective for those with limited options

Explanation: More information on potential harms and availability would have made this news release on three medical interventions for weight loss stronger. And addressing the need to complement the procedures with other lifestyle changes would have made the release much stronger. The news release addresses study findings related to the relative success of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) — in which the stomach is sutured via a tool introduced through the mouth — as a less invasive, non-surgical alternative to facilitate weight loss in obese patients. We disagree with the release’s use of the term “non-surgical” to describe the procedure since it involves internal cutting and suturing of internal organs. However, the release does a good job of addressing cost and comparing the outcomes of various procedures. According to the NIH, 35.7 percent of U.S. adults are obese — and obesity increases an individual’s risk for heart disease, stroke, diabetes and other health problems. On top of those health risks, obesity also has an adverse effect on an individual’s quality of life. Patients with obesity may view medical procedures, such as ESG, as effective ways of helping them lose weight — and a study that compares costs and outcomes of several procedures is a useful means of helping patients consider their options. For the most part, the release does a good job here. However, additional insight on the lifestyle choices needed in conjunction with the procedures, and more information on potential harms, would have offered a fuller overview for readers.

Digestive Disease Week,endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty,obesity

The release does a good job here, comparing the average cost of three different procedures: “researchers reported endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty resulted in the lowest-cost, with an average institutional procedure cost of $12,000, compared to $22,000 for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and $15,000 for laparoscopic banding.” However, the release also notes that banding and gastrectomy involve spending more time in the hospital, and it’s not clear if those costs are solely for the procedures, or if they are for both the procedures and the hospital stay. Some clarification there would have been valuable. The release does a direct comparison between the three procedures: “At one-year follow-up, patients who chose laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy surgery achieved the greatest percent total body weight loss at 29.28 percent, compared to 17.57 percent for [ESG] patients and 14.46 percent for laparoscopic banding patients.” That earns it a satisfactory rating. However, based on an abstract of the conference presentation, the researchers also collected data on weight loss 18 months after the procedure. This raises the question: why didn’t they include the 18-month follow-up numbers here? In addition, the release would have been stronger if it had told readers whether there was any significant variation between the patients who had the various procedures. For example, were the patients who had the gastrectomy procedure more obese to start with? Or were there differences in age across groups? In addition, following surgery the patient volunteers all went to a weight-loss “center of excellence” for a full year. The release doesn’t mention whether that made a difference in the results within each group or among the entire group. In any case,  this year-long stay at a weight loss center after a procedure is not likely to be replicated in other studies and in the real word. This is a close one. The release does state that “researchers found that patients who received endoscopic treatment had lower complications (1 percent) than those who received surgical treatment (10 percent for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and 11 percent for laparoscopic banding).” That’s good. However, the release doesn’t tell us what they mean by “complications.” Endoscopy, in general, is fairly low risk — but potential complications can include short-term pain and nausea, infection, organ tearing and bleeding. The release does an adequate job of describing the study. However, there are two things that could have made the release significantly better. First, there could have been some information about the patients involved — including age, sex, and other characteristics that could potentially affect outcomes. (e.g., the conference abstract notes that a lower age was a predictor for weight loss at six months.) Were there any factors that informed physicians to choose one procedure over another? Since this was not a randomized trial, the release could have noted that factors other than the treatment itself likely played a role in how much weight was lost. Second, while the release notes that “patients went to an academic bariatric center of excellence as part of their treatment,” it could have made it clear that changes to diet and exercise are an important factor in determining the outcome of medical interventions for weight loss. The release doesn’t engage in disease mongering. It does refer to the “obesity epidemic” and there’s some difference of opinion as to whether obesity is a disease. The word “epidemic” applies (or should apply) solely to disease. But there’s no question that obesity contributes to a host of health problems and is a significant risk factor for serious diseases, which are discussed near the end of the release. The release includes a reference stating that the researcher actually making the presentation does not have any conflicts of interest to report. However, there is no information on conflicts of interest regarding the other researchers, nor does the release tell readers who funded the research. The release does compare the most common types of medical weight loss interventions that involve making changes to the stomach. However, there is no real discussion of alternatives, such as pharmaceutical interventions, attending counseling or support groups, and lifestyle changes involving diet and exercise. This is an important oversight given that, even with a surgical or endoscopic procedure, these other interventions are likely to play an important role in helping patients keep off any weight that they lose. What would the outcome be for patients who only went to a “center of excellence” weight loss facility for a full year? For someone reading the news release who is unfamiliar with weight loss treatment procedures, ESG may sound like an entirely novel treatment that is not yet clinically available. However, while it is relatively new, it is already in use. The release doesn’t give us any idea of how many facilities perform any of these procedures. The release notes that this is the first study to compare the outcomes associated with these three procedures. The release uses fairly measured language. Although it doesn’t rise to the occasion of sensationalism, we do have concerns over the use of the term “non-surgical” to describe a procedure that certainly sounds like surgery. If it walks and quacks like a duck….


Ten rivals join with NIH to search for new drugs - WSJ.

Explanation: Ten big rival drug companies have formed a pact to cooperate on a government-backed effort to accelerate the discovery of new drugs, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The companies and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will share scientists, tissue and blood samples, and data, to identify targets for new drugs for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, the Journal said. The collaboration, called the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, will cost about $230 million and involves drugmakers such as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. (link.reuters.com/guw56v)  The agreement prohibits participants from using any discovery for their own drug development until the project makes data public on that discovery. The NIH, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers, Sanofi, Takeda, and Johnson & Johnson could not be immediately reached for comments by Reuters.


Thailand reports case of coronavirus from China  .

Explanation: A Chinese visitor to Thailand has been confirmed to be infected with a new strain of coronavirus that has been linked to a pneumonia outbreak in central China, health officials said Monday.

Bangkok, Health, General News, Wuhan, Pneumonia, China, United Nations, Asia Pacific, Thailand, U.S. News, Public health

The U.N.’s World Health Organization said Thai officials have reported that a traveler from the Chinese city of Wuhan has been hospitalized in Thailand with the virus. The outbreak of the virus has been traced to Wuhan, where it affected several dozen people who had been to a major meat and seafood market. Thai Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said it appears to be the first confirmed case of the virus found outside China, the Bangkok Post newspaper and other Thai media reported. He identified the infected tourist as a 61-year-old woman whose symptoms were detected on arrival at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport last Wednesday. Her coronavirus was confirmed Sunday by a laboratory test, Anutin said. She has been treated at an isolation ward at a state health facility outside of Bangkok, and no longer has any fever or respiratory symptoms, he said. Eight other people with possible symptoms have also been held at the facility, he said, but none has been confirmed to have the virus. A statement issued Monday by the Geneva-based World Health Organization said it is working with officials in Thailand and China following the report of the confirmed case outside China. The agency says its director-general is consulting with the agency’s emergency committee, which generally decides whether viral outbreaks merit an expanded response from health authorities. “The possibility of cases being identified in other countries was not unexpected, and reinforces why WHO calls for ongoing active monitoring and preparedness in other countries,” the agency said. “WHO reiterates that it is essential that investigations continue in China to identify the source of this outbreak and any animal reservoirs or intermediate hosts.” The virus is not believed to be spread by human-to-human contact. Officials in Wuhan said over the weekend that a total of 41 people were suffering from pneumonia caused by the new coronavirus and a 61-year-old man had died — China’s first known death from the virus. China says the cause of the Wuhan outbreak remains unknown but has sought to play down speculation that it could be a reappearance of the SARS epidemic, which killed hundreds in 2002 and 2003. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some of which cause the common cold. Others found in bats, camels and other animals have evolved to cause more severe illnesses. Common symptoms include a runny nose, headache, cough and fever. Shortness of breath, chills and body aches are associated with more dangerous kinds of coronaviruses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


“Pelosi’s new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments.”

Explanation: The HEROES Act, a proposal backed by Pelosi, would allow tax-paying immigrants who are in the country illegally to receive emergency relief funds during the coronavirus pandemic. The help would also extend to their family members who are U.S. citizens and green-card holders. Immigrants in the country illegally who pay taxes using an ITIN would also retroactively become eligible for a payment under the CARES Act enacted in late March. A tax policy group estimated that if the HEROES Act became law as written, about $16.4 billion would go toward households of ITIN filers or of mixed status.

Immigration, Economy, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

House Democrats are advocating legislation that would send Americans a new round of checks to help with financial problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic. A Facebook post says that under their proposal, immigrants in the country illegally also stand to benefit, getting billions of dollars. "Pelosi’s new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments," said text over a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding a gavel, with a crowd of people, purportedly immigrants, in the background. The caption on the May 12 Facebook post said the payments "would not just be a one-time check, they would give them past, current any future payments of YOUR money as 33 million Americans are unemployed." The post is from We Build The Wall, Inc., a group that's raising money to build sections of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The 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.) Pelosi does support a bill that would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to get coronavirus emergency aid from the federal government. But the Facebook post needs clarification and additional information. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or the HEROES Act, was introduced May 12 and passed the House May 15, 208-199, with only one Republican vote. Among the key provisions of the roughly $3 trillion bill, it gives nearly $1 trillion to state and local governments, creates a $200 billion hazard-pay fund for essential workers, and provides $75 billion to support coronavirus testing, contact tracing and patient isolation. The bill also offers a new round of direct payments to families — $1,200 per person and up to $6,000 per household. The payments would go out to people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 (and to some who didn’t), with the total amount based on income. For instance, a single person who earned less than $75,000 would get $1,200; those who earned $75,000 or more would receive less. The proposal seeks to augment the financial assistance that started mid-April when one-time checks were sent under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Under the CARES Act, however, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents were ineligible for a check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. ITINs are issued by the IRS to people who don’t have a Social Security number, including immigrants in the country illegally, so they can use it to pay federal income taxes. (Some international students and researchers and their spouses also use ITINs.) The IRS in 2014 said ITIN filers pay over $9 billion in annual payroll taxes. So the proposed HEROES Act includes them in its aid package, and retroactively makes ITIN filers eligible for the CARES Act payment as well. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, using IRS data, estimated that this provision would benefit more than 4.3 million adults and 3.5 million children in households of ITIN filers or of mixed immigration status, paying them a total $16.4 billion ($7 billion under the CARES Act and $9.4 billion under the HEROES Act). The beneficiary figures include ITIN filers as well as their spouses and children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Meg Wiehe, deputy executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said it was difficult to discern from the IRS data exactly how many prospective beneficiaries are immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Julia Gelatt, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said a lot of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can get support through unemployment insurance, stimulus payments, food stamps and other public benefits. ITINs are used for federal tax reporting, but they do not provide legal immigration status, and immigrants in the country illegally are generally ineligible for federal public benefits, such as food stamps. The goal of the HEROES Act, as it relates to unauthorized immigrants and their family members, is to help people who are struggling financially and who have no access to other financial support, Gelatt said. The HEROES Act financial assistance isn’t exclusive to ITIN filers; U.S. citizens and green-card holders who file taxes using a Social Security number would also benefit, with the same aid amounts and income thresholds. The payments to all eligible people are estimated to cost more than $400 billion. A Facebook post said, "Pelosi’s new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments." The HEROES Act, a proposal backed by Pelosi, would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to receive federal relief funds during the coronavirus pandemic. Immigrants who pay taxes using an ITIN would be eligible for an aid payment under the HEROES Act, and retroactively under the CARES Act, which corresponds to the "current" and "past" payments cited in the post. It’s unclear what is meant by "future" payment. We contacted We Build the Wall for comment, but did not hear back. A tax policy group estimated that if the HEROES Act became law as written, about $16.4 billion would go to households of ITIN filers or of mixed status. Beneficiaries would include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who live in a household with an ITIN filer. The post is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it .