Joe Diffie’s death was labeled “as a COVID-19 death and it wasn’t!”

Explanation: Joe Diffie died from complications related to COVID-19.

Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

Country music singer Joe Diffie died on March 29 from complications related to COVID-19, according to news reports from Rolling Stone, among others. But a widely shared Facebook post claims, without evidence, that he died from something else. "I have a friend who is a friend of Joe Diffie," the April 13 post says. "They labeled his death as a COVID-19 death and it wasn’t! So the family asked why it was listed as the COD and the nurse told them they’ve been labeling as many as they can with the virus because that’s how they’re getting funding. So there ya go! Now we know that the numbers are  because many who have passed didn’t die from the virus, but another cause. That’s how they’re getting the $$$$ and that is the truth." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On March 27, Joe Diffie posted a statement on his verified Facebook page that said: "I am under the care of medical professionals and currently receiving treatment after testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19). My family and I are asking for privacy at this time. We want to remind the public and all my fans to be vigilant, cautious and careful during this pandemic." On that same Facebook page, on March 29, a photo of Diffie was posted with the dates 1958-2020. "GRAMMY-winning country music legend Joe Diffie passed away today, Sunday, March 29 from complications of coronavirus (COVID-19)," the post said. "His family requests privacy at this time." Some social media posts have claimed that Diffie died of lung cancer. On Instagram, Diffie’s wife unequivocally disputed that. "My husband @officialjoediffie did NOT HAVE LUNG CANCER," she wrote. "His father passed, same name, November 2018 to stave IV lung cancer. STOP STARTING FAKE NEWS. I’ve seen multiple posts and it’s upsetting to all of us." In addition, we’ve looked into claims that hospitals get paid more for patients who are suffering from COVID-19. While it’s standard for Medicare to pay hospitals more for patients who go on ventilators — and Medicare is paying an additional 20% for the treatment of COVID-19 victims as part of a federal stimulus deal — evidence indicates that COVID-19 cases are being undercounted, not inflated so that hospitals can cash in. We rate this Facebook post .


The U.S. standard railroad gauge derives directly from the width of Imperial Roman war chariots.

Explanation: What's true: The standard U.S. railroad gauge is similar in width to the wheel spacing of Roman chariots. What's false: That similarity is based much more on coincidence and inherent physical limitations than a direct line of imitation.

Here is a look into the corporate mind that is very interesting, educational, historical, completely true, and hysterical all at the same time:     The US standard railroad gauge (width between the two rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That’s an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that’s the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used. Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that’s the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots first formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse’s ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. Thus, we have the answer to the original question. Now the twist to the story . . . There’s an interesting extension to the story about railroad gauges and horses’ behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be  shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through  that  tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses’ behinds. So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a Horse’s Ass! The above-quoted item about the gauge of modern American railroads’ having been slavishly copied from the measurements of ancient Roman war chariots is a concept first expressed at least well over a century ago, as exemplified by this nugget from a 1905 issue of Popular Mechanics:  Many persons no doubt have stood and looked down a railroad track and wondered how such an out of the way measurement as 4 ft. 8-1/2 in. came to be adopted as our standard railway gauge. It would seem that the responsibility for the choice of this measurement rests with George Stephenson, of locomotive fame. While inspecting some portions of the Roman wall through which chariots used to be driven, he discovered that deep ruts had been worn in the stone. Upon measuring the distance between them he found it to be in the neighborhood of 4 ft. 8-1/2 in., and not doubting that the Romans had adopted this gauge only after much experience, he determined to use it as a standard in the construction of his railroads. From that time on this measurement has been the standard gauge in England and the United States. This item is one that, although wrong in many of its details, isn’t completely false in an overall sense and is perhaps more fairly labeled as “Partly true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons.”  Marveling that the width of modern roadways is similar to the width of ancient roadways is sort of like getting excited over a notion along the lines of “modern clothes sizes are based upon standards developed by medieval tailors.”  Well, duh. Despite obvious differences in style, clothing in the Middle Ages served the same purpose as clothing today  (i.e., to cover, protect, and ornament the human body), and modern human beings are very close in size to medieval human beings (we are, on average, a little bit taller and heavier than we were several centuries ago, but not so much), so we naturally expect ancient and modern clothing to be similar in size. So, rather than going into excruciating detail about the history of transportation, we’ll simply note that roads are built to accommodate whatever uses them, and that for many centuries prior to the advent of railroads, what traveled on roads were mostly wheeled conveyances, pulled by beasts of burden (primarily horses), carrying passengers and goods. Physical conditions dictated some of the dimensions of those conveyances (such as the width of their axles) and largely ensured that they would fall within a fairly narrow range of variation: Horse-drawn vehicles, whether they were chariots or carts or carriages, all served similar functions, so practical considerations (e.g., the speed at which horses could travel, the amount of weight horses could pull, the number and arrangement of horses that could be controlled by a single driver) required that they be relatively similar in size as well. That may suffice as an explanation covering the specific combination of horse-drawn vehicles and roads, but what about vehicles that traveled on rails instead of roads (such as trolleys), or that weren’t pulled by horses (such as trains)? Why should they be similar in size to their predecessors? Although we humans can be remarkably inventive, we are also often resistant to change and can be persistently stubborn (or perhaps practical) in trying to apply old solutions to new conditions. When confronted with a new idea such as a “rail,” why go to the expense and effort of designing a new vehicle to use on it rather than simply adapting ones already in abundant use on roadways? Wouldn’t it make sense to put the same type of conveyance pulled by regular horses on the ground behind an “iron horse” running along a rail? That is indeed what was tried in the early days of American railroads, as captured in the following illustration:  (The caption reads: “This locomotive in New York State, like its other early counterparts, pulled passenger cars based on old-fashioned carriages. The technology evolved quickly in the 1840s, however, and the United States played an important role in that evolution.”) Similar thinking occurred in Britain. Historian James Crow, writing about Housesteads, the 3rd century Roman fort built along Hadrian’s Wall, notes that:  The wheel rut and gate stop in the north passage are well preserved, and a number of reused stone blocks formed part of the latest surface to survive. The gauge between the ruts is very similar to that adopted by George Stephenson for the Stockton to Darlington railway in 1837, and a ‘Wall myth’ developed that he took this gauge from the newly excavated east gate. There is a common link, but it is more prosaic, and the ‘coincidence’ is explained by the fact that the dimension common to both was that of a cart axle pulled by two horses in harness (about 1.4m or 4ft 8in). This determined both the Roman gauge and Stephenson’s, which derived from the horsedrawn wagon ways of South Northumberland and County Durham coalfields.2  It is rather inaccurate to claim that “US railroads were built by English expatriates,” but it is fair to say that since the English started to develop railroads slightly ahead of the Americans, some U.S. railroads used equipment purchased from English manufacturers, thus necessitating that the rails on which that equipment ran be the same size in both countries:  England, the innovator in railroad technology, enjoyed an early head start over America. When New Jersey sponsored a bold rail and canal connection between New York and Philadelphia in 1831, they ordered a custom-built locomotive from the English company — the John Bull. The railroad became an immediate success, carrying over 100,000 passengers in 1834.1  And once the Americans caught up, they began selling railroad technology back to England, further establishing a similarity of equipment (and hence track size) between the two countries:  American companies emulated and improved upon the English designs. By 1841, ten American railroad shops had sprung into existence and they produced 375 of the 500 engines in the United States. Those shops soon began changing the English designs, making the engines more powerful and the rails cheaper, better suited to the rough conditions in the United States. The American shops even exported their engines, including to Britain.1  Nonetheless, claims about a direct line descent between ancient Roman chariot tracks and the standard U.S. railway gauge jump the tracks when confronted with the fact that despite some commonality of equipment, well into the 19th century the U.S. still did not have one “standard” railroad gauge. At the time of the Civil War, even though nearly all of the Confederacy’s railroad equipment had come from the North or from Britain (of the 470 locomotives built in the U.S. in 1860, for example, only 19 were manufactured in the South), 113 different railroad companies in the Confederacy operated on three different gauges of track. This lack of standardization was, as historian James McPherson pointed out, one of the many reasons the Union was able to finally vanquish the Confederacy militarily:  The Confederate government was never able to coax the fragmented, run-down, multi-gauged network of southern railroads into the same degree of efficiency exhibited by northern roads. This contrast illustrated another dimension of Union logistical superiority that helped the North eventually to prevail.3  The eventual standardization of railroad gauge in the U.S. was due far less to a slavish devotion to a gauge inherited from England than to the simple fact that the North won the Civil War and, in the process, rebuilt much of the Southern railway system to match its own:  [I]n the occupied South the government went into the railroad business on a large scale. In February 1862 [Secretary of War] Stanton established the U.S. Military Rail Roads and appointed Daniel McCallum superintendent. A former Erie Railroad executive and an efficient administrator, McCallum eventually presided over more than 2,000 miles of lines acquired, built, and maintained by the U.S.M.R.R. in conquered portions of the South.3  In other words, there was nothing inevitable about a railroad gauge supposedly traceable to the size of wheel ruts in Imperial Rome. Had the Civil War taken a different course, the eventual standard railroad gauge used throughout North America might well have been different than the current one. As for the Space Shuttle addendum to this piece, when Thiokol was building the solid rocket boosters (SRB) for the space shuttle, they had to keep shipping considerations in mind, but they didn’t have to alter their design because any particular tunnel that lay between their plant and the Florida launch site wasn’t large enough. Railroads don’t run through tunnels only “slightly wider than the railroad track” unless every one of their engines and all their rolling stock are also only “slightly wider than the railroad track,” and unless all tunnels encompass only a single set of tracks. Data from the U.S. Army’s Rail Transport in a Theater of Operations document, for example, makes it fairly clear that one would be hard-pressed to find railroad equipment anywhere only “slightly wider” than 4 feet, 8.5 inches. Over and above our love of odd facts, this tale about railroad gauges succeeds because of the imagery of its play on words: space shuttle technology was designed not by a horse’s ass (figuratively, some overpaid government know-it-all) but because of a horse’s ass (literally, the width of that particular portion of equine anatomy). People find this notion amusing, feeding the story’s popularity as charmed readers continue to pass it along to others in a cascade of forwards. “Very interesting, educational, historical, completely true, and hysterical”? One out of five, maybe.


Obama's one education accomplishment was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.

Explanation: An absurd claim about a bill that never passed

(Published Sept. 11, 2008) John McCain released an ad this week making the accusation that Barack Obama supports sex education for five-year-olds. Here's what the ad says: "  Education Week  says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education,' that he's 'elusive' on accountability, a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' "Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family." Here, we'll check the claim that Obama wants five-year-olds to learn about sex. We've checked what  Education Week  said in a separate item and found it  Barely True  . The origins of this claim go back to Obama's days as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly. In 2003, the Assembly considered a bill to expand sex education directives from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The legislation required the curriculum to be medically accurate and include information on the prevention of HIV and contraceptives. It also said abstinence must be taught and that students "shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others." Most pertinent to the kindergarten allegation, the legislation states that "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate." Carol Ronen, the now-retired state senator who sponsored the bill, said its main intent was to make sure that teenagers got information that was "medically accurate," a requirement that wasn't then part of the school code. A secondary effect was to expand age-appropriate sex education down to lower grades, to allow things like teaching school children to avoid sex predators, Ronen said. "Barack never had anything to do with it," she said. "This is a lot of hoopla." Obama voted for the legislation in committee on a party-line vote. He was not a sponsor nor a co-sponsor, and the legislation never made it to a full Senate vote. So calling it one of his accomplishments is wrong, since it never became law and it wasn't his bill anyway. This isn't the first time Obama has faced the "sex ed for kindergartners" charge. When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent Alan Keyes used it. "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it," Obama said at a campaign event in 2004. "If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis by local communities and local school boards." Obama said that he did not support telling youngsters about explicit information about sex. The bill specifically mentions that instructional material must be age appropriate. It specifically mentions teaching children how to "say no to unwanted sexual advances" and "nonconsensual physical sexual contact." The legislation was not sponsored by Obama and it didn't pass, so calling it one of his "accomplishments" is absurd. We rate this claim !


Two New Studies Document Improvement in Breast Cancer Treatment with Use of BioZorb Implant

Explanation: BioZorb marker implant. Image: Focal Therapeutics The first study highlighted in this news release (and the focus of this review) describes the use of a three-dimensional bio-absorbable marker implanted surgically during breast cancer surgery. The purpose of the device is to aid surgeons and radiation oncologists in making breast cancer tumor removal more precise (without damaging extra tissue) and leaving a marker in place at the surgical area to aid follow-up examinations and radiation treatment. The release would have been stronger with a mention of study limitations and added details on harms and quantification of benefits. Breast cancer patients and physicians alike want treatment to be the most effective and least toxic possible. Reducing radiation damage and improving followup care are worthy of news coverage. There are, however, a number of inadequately covered issues in this news release.

The news release declares the cost of treatment will be cut “by approximately 25%” without indicating a starting cost for treatment without the implant. But the release does go in to some detail on how cost savings were estimated: During the three-year span of the study, the marker facilitated many physicians to shift from traditional external beam radiation to the shorter course hypo-fractionated radiation therapy, which results in a cost savings. The patient outcomes remain similar, however. Although there were numerous potentially useful benefits stated, there was no attempt in the news release to quantify them. Rather, the claims made were quite general: “less radiation,” “better overall cosmetic outcome,” “marker allowed physicians to be more confident in their targeting.” The release would have benefited from quantified measures of at least some of the benefits listed. There was no indication of harms in the news release. However, the original article did note side effects that arose in two patients. It would have been good to note them in the release. The published study also acknowledged that skin changes and dermal lymphedema (swelling) were a concern among patients but were not specifically tracked. Again, a mention of that in the release would have been helpful to patients. The news release gave a brief overview of the three-year case series that was published. The study focused on 108 patients with early-stage breast cancer, with the surgical device implanted during reconstructive lumpectomy. The size of the study is considered reasonable for this type of device. It is not clear how long these patients were followed, but for the purposes of this study (to determine usefulness for radiation therapy) long-term follow up is not needed. However, the release earns a Not Satisfactory for neglecting to point out the limitations of a case series with no control group. Without a control group, what basis is there to conclude that there were benefits such as a “better overall cosmetic outcome?” What were they comparing it with? The release doesn’t say. The release didn’t engage in disease mongering. The news is provided by Focal Therapeutics, maker of the implant. There is no mention in the news release of any potential conflict of interest, but the published study noted one of the authors had a financial arrangement with Focal. This is a novel device and there aren’t any similar devices it can be compared with. We aren’t told where the device is available or whether it’s covered under most insurance plans. It was noted that the implant has received clearance by the FDA. The release states that the implant is the first and only device of its kind, and there do not appear to be any similar products on the market. It should be noted that the surgical clips placed by the surgeon at the time of lumpectomy are helpful but do not always accurately reflect the area most at risk for recurrence, especially when oncoplastic surgical techniques are used. The release doesn’t employ unjustifiable language.


A photograph shows two children holding a 'F*CK Donald Trump' sign at a Chicago rally.

Explanation: On the east side of Houston, the white plumes of the Texas oil and chemical refineries are a constant backdrop for residents of the Manchester neighborhood.

Late at night or early in the morning when plants burn off excess gases, the flames light up the whole sky in the neighborhood. Some residents say the air has a chemical-based smell that they find hard to describe but disappears once they drive a few miles away from the homes that stretch along the Houston Ship Channel, a waterway connecting the plants to the ocean. They claim that the pollution is taking a toll on their health, although the scientific evidence does not prove that. “I want to get out of here and go to the country and find some cleaner air,” said Eugene Barragan, a 56-year-old electrician who has lived most of his life by the refineries. “It would be better for me and the kids.”  Doctors have found four lumps in his lungs and now more growths, according to the chest X-rays and medical records he showed Reuters. The first ones were not cancerous. Barragan says he has not been able to afford imaging of the new growths. He hopes they are benign so he can watch his children grow up. “When I work hard, I start coughing and coughing and can’t stop,” he said. “I know a lot of people who have problems like that.”  Lillian Riojas, Valero Energy Corp’s chief spokeswoman, said the company has worked to reduce pollution at its refinery since purchasing it in 1997. In the 22 years since Valero took over the refinery, ambient benzene levels have dropped 63% to 0.34 parts per billion, according to data from 1997 to 2019 from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “There’s a narrative that air quality is getting worse, but that’s not what the emission data is showing,” Riojas said. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which enforces federal and state environmental laws, gives Valero’s refinery the top compliance level possible, said Andrew Keese, a spokesman for the agency. The other nearby refineries and chemical plants earned a compliance rating of satisfactory. Of the other plants bordering Manchester, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co has the second highest-rating for compliance with environmental regulations, Keese said. Goodyear “implemented several changes that resulted in lower emissions from our facility,” said Connie Deibel, a company spokeswoman. LyondellBasell Industries, TPC Group [TPCL.UL] and Flint Hills Resources, which operate facilities near Manchester, did not reply to requests for comment about pollution in the area. A 2007 study, the most recent available, of nearly 1,000 childhood cancer cases by the University of Texas found children living within 2 miles (3 km) of the Houston Ship Channel had a 56% higher risk of contracting acute lymphocytic leukemia than children living within 10 miles (16 km) of the Ship Channel. Researchers’ analysis suggests an association between childhood leukemia and air pollution. However the study, funded by Houston’s health department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, could not prove the pollutants caused the illnesses. For years, Dennys Nieto wanted to leave the neighborhood but was only recently able to afford to move her and her family to a different part of Texas. “I suffer from asthma and pain in my lungs. It feels like I’m being hit in the lungs,” Nieto said of her old neighborhood. “Headaches, inflammation and pain in my throat. And also I have erratic blood pressure and heartbeat.”   She checks her blood pressure and listens to her heart beat regularly. “In the air I feel it’s this we’re all breathing. This is why I want to leave from here,” Nieto said of the Manchester area. “I want to go somewhere that is far from the refineries so that I can repair my life, repair my health and live better.”  (See related photo essay here here)


Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of the Fort Hood shootings, "was an ADVISOR to the Obama Administration.

Explanation: Chain e-mail links supected Fort Hood shooter to Obama

National, Military, Terrorism, Chain email,

Since the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2009, we've been inundated with e-mails about a purported link between President Barack Obama's administration and Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist suspected of the shootings. Here are a few lines from one of the many versions of the e-mail we received:     "It’s been a pretty incredible week and I don’t mean in a good way. But today we have been given a glimpse into the New World Order and it’s pretty scary," the e-mail begins. After complaining that Obama is pursuing a Muslim agenda, the e-mail says, "Did you know that Major Hassan was an ADVISOR to the Obama Administration? No? Neither did I until my wife found information on line and followed the evidence to the source documents!" Our friends over at National Public Radio  already checked out  a version of this claim. The rumor, NPR concluded, started with Jerome Corsi, a writer for World Net Daily and author of  The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality  . The e-mails we were sent linked to the Corsi story as well. "Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document," Corsi wrote. (We've checked  three Corsi claims  before and rated two False and one .) The story links to a document published by the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., titled "Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration." It is the proceedings from a series of meetings of the organization's Presidential Task Force. On page 29 of the paper, Hasan is listed as a participant; he was one of more than 300 officials, reporters and Capitol Hill aides who signed up for the conference. In a statement, the think tank confirmed that the Hasan listed as a participant is the same Hasan accused of the Fort Hood shootings. But the statement also makes an important point: Hasan registered for the event on his own. He was not invited, and he attended only as an audience member in his capacity as a psychiatry fellow at the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine. "All of these events were open to the public," the statement reads. "At no time has Nidal Hasan been affiliated with [the Homeland Security Policy Institute] or The George Washington University." So, Hasan chose to attend a conference relevant to his field, much like a doctor would attend a conference about diabetes, for example. But here's the more important point: The task force has nothing to do with the White House, according to Sharon Cardash, associate director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute. "HSPI's Presidential Transition Task Force is not and was not affiliated at all with the White House," she wrote us in an e-mail. "The Task Force was created prior to the election; and was not formed at the request of any administration." Indeed, HSPI established the transition task force in April 2008, before Obama was in office, let alone the Democratic presidential nominee. In a city where policy papers are published nearly every day, the work done by the group no more advised the Obama administration than any of the other papers that came out before or after GWU's. Corsi actually makes this point farther down in his story, which contradicts his headline: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity." And in an editor's note to the story, Corsi writes that, "Hasan is being reported as a participant in the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute's Presidential Transition Task Force, not as a member, noting the group was a university think-tank, not part of the Obama administration official transition team." But it appears that disclaimer came later, and that it failed to stop the avalanche of e-mails spreading the inaccurate report. Hasan attended a meeting on a subject relevant to his profession, that much is clear. But beyond that, there's nothing to back up the chain e-mail's accusation that he somehow was "an ADVISOR" to the Obama administration or that GWU's task force was involved in the new White House. In fact, the group's work began long before Obama took office and is in no way affiliated with the White House. Another chain e-mail, another !


Boy with rare disease gets brand new skin with gene therapy.

Explanation: Doctors treating a critically ill boy with a devastating skin disease used experimental gene therapy to create an entirely new skin for most of his body in a desperate attempt to save his life.

AP Top News, Health, Gene therapy, Genetic Frontiers, Germany, Science

Two years later, the doctors report the boy is doing so well that he doesn’t need any medication, is back in school and even playing soccer. “We were forced to do something dramatic because this kid was dying,” said Dr. Michele De Luca of the University of Modena in Italy, who got a call for help from the German doctors treating the boy. The boy, then 7, was hospitalized in June 2015 with blisters on his limbs, back and elsewhere. He quickly lost about 60 percent of the outer layer of his skin and was put into an induced coma to spare him further suffering. Doctors at Children’s Hospital at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, tried skin grafts from his father and donor skin, but all failed. “He was in severe pain and asking a lot of questions,” the boy’s father said in a video provided by the hospital “Why do I suffer from this disease? Why do I have to live this life? All children can run around and play, why am I not allowed to play soccer? I couldn’t answer these questions.” The boy’s parents asked about experimental treatments, and De Luca and his colleagues were contacted. They had previously used gene therapy to produce a small piece of skin in a similar case. They told the family that the boy’s precarious state meant that he might not survive the complicated surgeries needed to save him. “It was a tough decision for us, but we wanted to try for (our son),” the boy’s father said. The family asked that their names not be used to protect the boy’s privacy. The boy had a rare, incurable skin disease called junctional epidermolysis bullosa, caused by genetic mutations. People with the disease lack critical proteins that attach the outer layer of the skin to the inner layer, resulting in fragile skin with almost constant blisters and open sores. To fix that, the doctors took a small piece of the boy’s skin from an area that was OK. In the lab, they added a normal version of his bad gene to his skin cells. They grew sheets of the boy’s skin, in much the same way skin grafts are grown for burn victims. In total, they grew close to a square meter of skin (9 square feet.) The lab-grown skin was then transplanted onto the boy in three operations, ultimately covering 80 percent of his body. Ten days later, the new skin was already beginning to grow, De Luca said. After eight months, the doctors said that nearly all of the boy’s skin had been generated by the modified stem cells. So far, no problems have been detected. De Luca said the boy will be monitored closely for skin cancer and other potential issues. “This kid is back to his normal life again,” one of the German doctors, Dr. Tobias Rothoeft, said Wednesday. “That’s what we dreamed of doing and it was possible.” Details of the case were published Wednesday in the journal Nature. “This takes us a huge step forward,” said Dr. Peter Marinkovich of Stanford University School of Medicine, who has done related work. He said it was impressive that De Luca and colleagues were able to make such large amounts of viable skin after correcting the genetic defect. But he noted the approach might not help in more serious cases, which often have tricky complications, like skin blistering in the lungs. Marinkovich said many patients don’t survive beyond age 2 and that using the treatment for babies could be even riskier. Dr. Holm Schneider warned that some severely ill patients might have an extreme reaction to skin transplants with an added gene. “The immune system might recognize this new gene as something foreign to be attacked and destroyed,” said Schneider, of the University Hospital Erlangen in Germany. Still, he said the approach was worth trying in dying patients. The boy and his family later visited De Luca and the other Italian doctors involved in his treatment. “The parents are very grateful and say their life has completely changed,” De Luca said, recalling how the boy spontaneously began taking off his clothes. “The boy was so happy with his new skin that he wanted to show off.” ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Nike donated three times more to Republicans than Democrats during the 2018 federal election cycle, up to August 2018.

Explanation: What's true: Individuals who listed their employer as Nike did contribute vastly more to Republicans than to Democrats during the 2018 federal election cycle. What's false: Those contributions were not made by Nike itself as a company and were dominated by donations from Nike's billionaire co-founder Phil Knight, who is no longer actually an employee. Nike's political action committee donated fairly evenly to both Democratic and Republican candidates during the same period.

Nike’s announcement of a commercial deal with free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick prompted intense debate and controversy in the fall of 2018, given that Kaepernick is one of the leaders of the national anthem demonstrations conducted by National Football League players who seek to protest against racial injustice and police brutality. Nike’s association with what is widely perceived as a progressive movement prompted renewed scrutiny of the sportswear giant’s ethical track record, including allegations about the low pay and poor working conditions of Nike factory workers in Asia. In September 2018, as mid-term Congressional elections drew closer, attention turned to the political donations made by Nike and its employees after the publication of a report by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which operates the OpenSecrets.org web site: Nike has been making headlines recently for its controversial advertisement with Colin Kaepernick which many perceive to be promoting a socially conscious message with progressive values. When it comes to political spending, however, Nike and its employees have spent more than three times as much supporting Republicans compared to Democrats in this election cycle. That report formed the basis of subsequent articles by Yahoo! Sports and The Root, the latter of which carried the headline “Nike donates millions to Republicans while making billions from Kaepernick endorsement.” Who is ‘Nike’? Taken as a whole, Nike’s political action committee (Nike Inc. Federal PAC), as well as individuals listed as employees of Nike, contributed $547,107 in campaign donations during the 2017-18 election cycle, up through 31 August 2018. Of that total, 78 percent ($424,600) went to Republicans and 22 percent ($122,449) went to Democrats. On this basis, the Center for Responsive Politics wrote that “Nike gave 78 percent of political contributions to Republicans this cycle.” If you take “Nike” to constitute Nike Incorporated, the company itself, then this isn’t accurate. Those donations came not from the company, but rather from its political action committee and individuals listed as employees, the latter of whom — like employees of any company — are constitutionally entitled to make whatever political donations they wish. However, this is not a mere error on the part of the Center for Responsive Politics, but rather part of their broader policy on how to categorize campaign contributions associated with particular industries and businesses. In an explanation of their methodology, the Center for Responsive Politics stated that “The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.” The Center for Responsive Politics explains this broad categorization in another section of their web site: Since corporations and other organizations are prohibited from making political contributions from their treasuries, one must look at the contributions from people associated with the institution to gauge its political persuasion and how it might be trying to exert influence in Washington … We know that not every contribution is made with the donor’s economic or professional interests in mind, nor do we assert that every donor considers their employer’s interests when they make a contribution. But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees. So, the Center for Responsive Politics has a note elsewhere on their web site which makes it clear that when they say “Nike gave 78 percent of political contributions to Republicans this cycle,” they actually mean, in effect: “Nike’s political action committee and company employees gave 78 percent of political contributions to Republicans this cycle.” And the group has explained its reasons for this categorization. However, the nature of this re-definition, and the nuances involved in it, were not as clearly outlined in some news articles as they were by the Center for Responsive Politics itself. The role of Phil Knight Furthermore, the inclusion of contributions by Phil Knight, the billionaire co-founder of Nike and a prolific Republican donor, significantly skewed the partisan breakdown of campaign donations by individuals who listed their employer as Nike. According to Federal Election Commission records, during the 2017-18 federal election cycle Knight contributed exclusively to Republican campaign committees and candidates, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan (before his decision not to seek re-election), Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, and Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Cory Gardner of Colorado. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, contributions made by Knight and his wife Penelope made up almost half the total donations from Nike employees and the Nike PAC. It is arguable that Knight and his wife’s donations should not be included at all, on the grounds that Knight is not a Nike employee. In a statement, a company spokesperson confirmed to us that Knight had retired as a Nike employee in 2006, adding: “Contributions from the Nike PAC are entirely separate from personal contributions made by individuals, including Mr. Knight.” Knight is listed as an employee of Nike in Federal Election Commission records, but he no longer has an active role in the company, serving instead as a non-voting Chairman Emeritus of Nike’s Board of Directors. It’s not clear why Knight still listed Nike as his employer in 2017 and 2018. Nike, Inc. Federal PAC As for the company’s political action committee (as opposed to Nike’s employees), its contributions were much more evenly split between the two main parties. In a statement, a Nike spokesperson told us: Using the data posted by Open Secrets, the Nike PAC has contributed $88,700 during the 2018 political cycle to Democrats and $79,400 to Republicans. This is consistent with our history as a non-partisan company that engages on a range of issues including tax, trade, sustainability and digital developments. According to our own analysis of Federal Election Commission data (as of 26 September 2018), the Nike Inc. Federal PAC had donated $79,500 to the campaign committees of Democratic candidates and $64,000 to the campaign committees of Republicans, a ratio similar to that claimed by Nike itself. However, when we add the donations made by Nike’s PAC to other political action committees as well as to campaign committees, the ratio flips, with Nike’s PAC donating $104,000 to Republican PACs and candidates and $96,500 to Democratic PACs and candidates. Either way, the partisan split in federal campaign donations by Nike’s PAC has been fairly close to 50/50 during the 2018 election cycle. Conclusion It’s true that during the 2018 federal election cycle, donors who listed Nike as their employer did contribute vastly more to Republican candidates than to Democrats. However, that does not mean that Nike, as a company, made these contributions. Furthermore, these figures are significantly skewed by the inclusion of donations made by the company’s co-founder Phil Knight, who is no longer an employee of Nike. Finally, Nike’s political action committee, as opposed to the company’s individual employees, spent roughly the same on Democratic and Republican candidates, up to August 2018.


Washington state cannabis retailer opens in defiance of county ban.

Explanation: Sealed bags of marijuana dangle behind a counter, curved glass pipes glimmer on shelves, and a steady trickle of middle-aged customers gleefully buys cannabis strains nicknamed Charlie Sheen and Godzilla.

“The Gallery” is similar to more than 100 other lawful state-licensed marijuana retail shops and hundreds of medical dispensaries in Washington state, with one exception: It is operating in defiance of local law. Its opening on Sunday set up a potential showdown with authorities in Pierce County, about an hour outside Seattle, which has effectively banned recreational pot shops in unincorporated areas so long as the drug remains illegal under federal law, even as medical pot businesses flourish virtually unregulated. “We didn’t do this to pick a fight with the county,” said co-owner Tedd Wetherbee, 47, in between chatting up customers in his shop in Parkland, in unincorporated Pierce County. “But at the same time we are state-licensed legitimate businessmen that want to do what the county seems to let other people do without any license.”  Since Washington state legalized recreational marijuana in a landmark 2012 vote that ushered in licensed retail pot shops in July, scores of municipalities have passed laws curbing their operations, from constricted zoning to outright bans. That has frustrated would-be pot entrepreneurs, such as Wetherbee, who are keen to capitalize on what they call a glut of recreational-use marijuana products with few stores licensed to sell it. Fifty-four percent of Pierce County voters backed marijuana legalization. “This act of theater will either embolden a bunch of other people to do it, or it will create really great PR for him,” said Dominic Corva, executive director at the Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy. Wetherbee has argued in lawsuits that local pot-business bans that scuttled his retail plans in two other towns violate state law, and says it makes little sense to ban tightly regulated retail establishments while allowing medicinal shops to operate unchecked. State lawmakers are weighing proposals to license medical-use stores to, among other things, ensure their products are safe, a move entrepreneurs say would help level the regulatory playing field. Amid that uncertain landscape, Pierce County authorities say they have visited The Gallery for several inspections and advised Wetherbee he lacked proper permitting. Pierce County, which had objected to Wetherbee’s application for a state retail pot license but failed to block it, could issue noncompliance and cease-and-desist orders as early as Thursday that could cost up to $1,000 in daily fines if ignored. Washington state’s top lawyer has said the recreational marijuana law does not prevent local governments from banning pot businesses. But state regulators who grant the licenses do not consider local laws in their review process. “We have issued other state licenses in places where there are bans and moratoriums, though he is the only retailer that I have heard of, but there may be others,” said Liquor Control Board spokesman Brian Smith. There was no sign of controversy on Tuesday in Wetherbee’s shop, where pot products are displayed beside sculptures and abstract art. Its nondescript entrance contrasts sharply with the bold signage of a gun shop next door. A cut-out of former President Bill Clinton invites shoppers to “please feel free to inhale.” A security guard checks that patrons are at least 21 years old. Sealed bags of cannabis strains sell for about $14 to $24 per gram. Among the patrons was a construction worker who uses marijuana to “kick back” and a 29-year-old former U.S. Army medic battling insomnia and anxiety since returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. “I was going to a store down in the city (Tacoma), but this is a lot closer to my house,” said the former soldier, who gave his name only as Josh. “I like the environment a lot better too, the gallery feel.”


Doctor Challenges Cause Of MS And Treatment

Explanation: This story explores the controversy surrounding a new surgical procedure, similar to balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries, that purportedly treats multiple sclerosis. The story’s emphasis on skeptical perspectives is appropriate for a treatment that hasn’t been rigorously studied and whose biological basis remains questionable. And in a story where it would have been all too easy to profile someone with a “miracle” recovery following the procedure, the writer defies convention and focuses on the disappointed patient who didn’t derive the expected benefit. For all its appropriate caution, the story lacks the exploration of evidence that we feel is the core of any good health story. It talks a lot about conflicting studies and quotes various expert opinions, but it never provides a run down of what kinds of studies have been performed and what they’ve found so far. This kind of information is critical for informed decision-making about treatments. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that rightly instills fear in patients who have been diagnosed with it. Despite this fear, for many the course of MS is slow and not associated with significant impairment. However, for some it is a relapsing and remitting condition that inexorably progresses to disability. Though there are FDA approved treatments for MS, the treatments have modest benefit and real side effects. Thus, any new treatment that offers a cure or can slow down or reverse the course would be of tremendous interest to those affected. The problem is that in the desperate search for a cure, patients, family and providers can seek out risky and expensive treatments that haven’t been adequately studied.

The story mentions that some patients have flown to Europe and spent their life savings on the procedure, and an expert calls the procedure “costly to patients.” So we can probably assume that the procedure is unlikely to be covered by major insurers or Medicare (who would cover those with chronic disability), and that the costs will run into the tens of thousands of dollars or more. This is important information for the typical patient who isn’t wealthy enough to carry this kind of cost burden. The story could have been more explicit about all of this and provided more specifics about the financial aspects of the procedure. However, we think the main point to convey here is that the surgery is expensive and patients will have to pay their own way. The story does this — though barely — so we’ll award a satisfactory. We should start here by recognizing this story’s unusual choice of patient to profile in the opening paragraphs. The convention with a “miracle” treatment like this is to lead with a patient who experienced a dramatic benefit which is often unrepresentative of typical results. In this case, though, the story primes us to expect something miraculous and then delivers the mundane truth: “it didn’t work.” We wish more stories focused on patients who represent the complicated reality of health care instead of pumping up best case scenarios. With that being said, we feel the story should have done more to describe the range of outcomes that have been reported with this procedure as well as the need for better studies. For example, it didn’t take our reviewers long to identify preliminary case series data  that could have been cited. Though uncontrolled studies like this one are prone to bias that can lead to inflated estimates of benefits, we think these published results — if carefully and responsibly explained — could have helped readers better understand the excitement surrounding the treatment. Alternately, the story could have sought out the perspective of doctors who have performed the procedure to get their take. As it stands, the coverage is dominated by the perspectives of a single unsuccessfully treated patient and a skeptical researcher, so it’s difficult for readers to grasp why there has been such a heated public debate about the surgery. The story mentions life-threatening blood clots are a risk of the procedure, and notes that people have died from the surgery. It also quotes an expert who calls the procedure “unsafe.” It would have been nice to have some statistics on adverse effects to help readers weigh these risks for themselves, but it may be too early in the game to expect this kind of systematic data. At this point in the development of an experimental treatment, the priority for a story like this is to make sure potential harms are given adequate emphasis — something this story accomplished handily. This story cites conflicting studies about whether vein blockages play any role in MS, and it allows one researcher to confidently proclaim that these problems are “not the cause of MS.” However, the story never discusses any actual data or tells us how this researcher arrived at his conclusions. The story does note that differences in technical training between investigative groups may explain the discrepancies observed in different studies, but what about the other criteria upon which scientific evidence is supposed to be judged — i.e. the type of study (observational or intervention), number of patients, blinding, use of control groups, size of the effects observed, etc.? These factors should have been addressed more explicitly to establish the basis for competing points of view. A second and arguably more important question is whether treating vein blockages actually improves symptoms in patients with MS. Again, the story sets a skeptical tone but doesn’t justify it with a discussion of evidence (or lack of evidence). Although there was no overt disease-mongering, the story focuses exclusively on the story of a patient who had an aggressive case of the disease. MS can manifest itself in a variety of different ways, and his experience is not representative of patients with mild and slowly progressing MS.  Also, not everyone with MS has the vascular abnormalities discussed in this story, and so would presumably not benefit from this procedure. Finally, the story should have explained that MS is a condition characterized by flare-ups that often get better by themselves, so it’s hard to tell if “miraculous” recoveries are attributable to the surgery or are just the natural course of the disease for these patients. A bit more context on these issues would have been helpful, but we don’t think the story deserved to be flagged for not including it. The story quotes two experts who are involved in studies of vein abnormalities and potential links to MS, and their perspectives are a valuable addition to the story. However, both of these researchers (Dr. Robert Fox and Dr. Robert Zivadinov) have reported relationships with companies that make drugs to treat MS. To avoid the appearance of any conflict, the story should have alerted readers to these relationships. The study focuses exclusively on this novel surgical procedure. It should have at least mentioned that there are FDA-approved drug treatments for MS. The article implies that there aren’t yet a lot of doctors performing this procedure, but it isn’t clear. Early in the story we learn of a patient who recently had the procedure performed in New York, but later on the story says that Canadians and Americans are going to Europe to have the surgery. Are there not enough doctors in North America who are trained to perform this procedure? Or are there regulatory, legal, or financial issues that are preventing patients in North America from getting it done here? The story should have told us. The story tells us that the idea behind the procedure was first proposed in 2008, making the concept quite novel. It noted that despite the catchy name, the “liberation procedure” is actually very similar to balloon angioplasty performed regularly on coronary arteries. The story is clearly not based on a news release.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an actress playing a congresswoman to push the agenda of Justice Democrats.

Explanation: The claims made by "Mr. Reagan" in the "Brains Behind AOC" viral video illustrate a lack of knowledge about political action committees.

In March 2019, our inbox started to fill with queries from readers who had heard that U. S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was an “actress” who was playing the role of congresswoman in order to further the agenda of a political group. These questions were based on a popular video entitled “The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” by YouTube user “Mr. Reagan.” The video, which can be viewed at the end of this article, hits on a number of issues in its 23 minutes, but the essential argument is that Ocasio-Cortez was “cast” by the group Justice Democrats into the “role” of congresswoman, and that she is merely a figurehead (or “puppet congresswoman”) pushing the group’s agenda. Here’s the opening statement from Mr. Reagan: Mr. Reagan: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is not really the congresswoman of new york’s 14th congressional district. She is essentially an actress. She’s merely playing the part of a New York Congresswoman. I know this sounds crazy. But bare with me. In 2017, a group called the Justice Democrats held auditions for potential congressional candidates that would run on their platform for various congressional seats throughout the country. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ brother Gabriel submitted her for the role. Now I’ve auditioned for many acting roles in my day. I’ve also cast many of my own projects. I know how this works. If you find somebody with star power, even if they don’t 100% fit the part, you go with it. Obviously AOC has star power. Just look at her. She’s a superstar. The most famous person in congress, maybe ever. Their casting was perfect. Now I didn’t have to go digging for evidence for this, because they freely admit it. They brag about it. Cut to Alexandra Rojas. Executive Director Justice Democrats, saying: Back in 2016, we put out a call for nominations. We got over 10,000 nominations, out of those 10,000 nominations we found Alexandria. Cut to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying: My brother told me that he had sent my nominations in the summer but I was like literally working out of a restaurant and I was like there’s no way. Back to Mr. Reagan: A casting call. They had a casting call. They cast Alexandria Ocasio Cortez in the role of congresswoman. And they did this so they could promote their own agenda. Mr. Reagan repeatedly used words such as “role,” “audition,” “casting call” and labeled Ocasio-Cortez “essentially an actress” in this video in an apparent attempt to paint the congresswoman with the same conspiratorial brush used to promote “crisis actor” and “paid protester” conspiracy theories. Ironically, the only actor in this scenario is Chris Kohls, who plays the character of Mr. Reagan. Kohls told us in an email that “the use of the word ‘actress’ was illustrative.” He continued: “I did not mean to suggest that this was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s actual profession or an official role. I thought this was clear.” While Kohls admits that the congresswoman was not an actress in the literal sense, he said that he still believes she “audition(ed) for the role of congress woman as a response to an open casting call by Justice Democrats.” Kohls elaborated on this point via email:  AOC did, however, audition for the role of congress woman as a response to an open casting call by Justice Democrats. I have never heard of an organization holding auditions, open to the public, for congressional seats. Perhaps I am naive about that. I have never heard of this, and the response to my video suggests that most Americans find it inappropriate as well. The “Brains Behind AOC” video correctly states that Ocasio-Cortez was recruited by the Justice Democrats to run for office. However, this fact is presented in the video as if it were an unprecedented act of political malfeasance. In reality, it is quite common for Political Action Committees (PACs) to recruit candidates for office. The Justice Democrats made no attempt to hide this effort and openly discuss their recruitment process on their website and in videos published to their public YouTube page: PACs, which have been around since the 1940s, are organizations that raise money to help run campaigns for or against political candidates. While these groups may throw their support behind existing candidates who they believe will further their cause, they also recruit like-minded candidates and help them get elected to office. We conducted a brief search for other PACs that publish recruitment material and found numerous of organizations that actively seek candidates for political positions, such as  Brand New Congress, Run for Something, Emily’s List, BRAT-PAC, The National Federation for Republican Women, Winning for Women, American Possibilities, Elevate-Pac, The Collective Pac, and Principled Pac. In the case of the Justice Democrats, their main platform ideas are Medicare for All, protecting the environment, and racial justice. Mr. Reagan would have viewers believe that Ocasio-Cortez had no interest in politics before she was “cast” by the Justice Democrats, and that she was only taking up these causes because she was a “puppet congresswoman.” But that isn’t the case. Before Ocasio-Cortez ran for office, she volunteered for Bernie Sanders‘ 2016 campaign (a candidate who supports the same issues as the Justice Democrats). She was also involved in the Standing Rock protests and talked about issues such as civil rights, social change, and income equality before receiving support from the Justice Democrats. The fact that she shares these beliefs is not proof that Justice Democrats are “controlling” her. It’s merely evidence that AOC and the Justice Democrats were a good fit. While Mr. Reagan argues in “The Brains Behind AOC” that Ocasio-Cortez is a “puppet congresswoman” controlled by the Justice Democrats, Kohls told us, again, that this was pure speculation: My assertion is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is presenting ideas to congress and to the public as of they are her own, but that they are not her own. They are the idea of the Justice Democrats and that this group, in particular Saikat Chakrabarti, are drafting everything for her. When I say “everything” I mean her official proposals to congress, her answers to questions by the media, her tweets and her unofficial propositions to the public. I also believe that she is directed on how to vote, but this is pure speculation. Mr. Reagan argues in “Brains Behind AOC” that Ocasio-Cortez “does not make her own policy decisions… decides which way she votes on legislation” but that “she defers completely to her team.” In addition to admitting in his email that these claims are based purely on speculation, this argument also appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how politicians operate. While the public may be more familiar with the names and faces of senators and representatives, lawmakers have teams of people behind them that help guide them through interviews, debates, public messaging, and other political responsibilities. In short, it is not uncommon for a lawmaker to prepare for an interview or speech with the help of her staff. Saikat Chakrabarti, the congresswoman’s chief of staff, pushed back on the “Brains Behind AOC” video and said that Ocasio-Cortez does more than most lawmakers when it comes to her own messaging: The right-wing actually cannot believe that a working class latina like @AOC is smart, talented, and capable. They are creating entire conspiracy theories to try to disprove her intelligence. So here’s some @AOC facts to show y’all just how good she is. 1) @AOC runs her own Twitter/IG. This is VERY rare in Congress. Most politicians have staff come up with what to say/figure out how to frame things. But @AOC’s knowledge of issues is so deep that she does the communicating/framing herself. 2) @AOC writes all her own speeches. Though, TBH, most of her 🔥 speeches are off the dome. Just watch Coates interview her. She can talk in depth on policy issues for hours (unlike most politicians) because she REALLY knows what she’s talking about. 3) Unlike most MoCs [members of Congress], @AOC sits through full committee hearings and will often improvise on questions based on what she’s observing. Nobody prepped her to “play a game” in the HR1 hearing, and her entire staff watched it live with jaws dropped. 4) @AOC is one of the smartest & hardest working people I’ve ever known. Right wingers not comprehending this is peak racism/sexism — and also fear. If @AOC can do this, what’s to stop other talented working-class women of color from vying for power? Must keep ’em up at night. For those unfamiliar with political action committees or political advisers, “The Brains Behind AOC” may appear to be a well-produced video featuring a convincing narrative of how a political group “cast” a “star” into the role of congresswoman in order to further their agenda. However, the arguments made in this video are pure speculation and seem to largely be based on a misunderstanding of how PACs operate. It’s actually rather common for PACs, such as Justice Democrats, to seek out candidates, such as Ocasio-Cortez, who share their core beliefs, and even more commonplace for politicians to seek out the advice of their staff. You can watch the “Brains Behind AOC” video in full below:


Italy will stop caring for elderly patients who are infected with novel coronavirus strain COVID-19.

Explanation: Has Italy Stopped Treating COVID-19 in the Elderly?

As Italy grappled with the spread of COVID-19,  American Facebook users took that as their opportunity to insult a national health service. “Italy has decided NOT to treat their elderly for this virus !!!! That, my friends, is Socialized Healthcare!!! !”one such user wrote on March 14 2020:The post produced the usual amount of “funny” responses:But in reality, the post is a distortion of the effect of the disease on Italy, which reported 24,747 cases and 1,809 deaths as of March 15, 2020, a 25 percent increase in fatalities over the day before. According to Reuters, a quarter of the country’s population is age 65 and older, the highest percentage in Europe.The post was an apparent response to guidelines issued by the Italian College of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) predicting an increase in patients requiring intensive care “of such magnitude as to cause an enormous imbalance between the real clinical needs of the population and the actual availability of intensive resources.”The group also acknowledges that the pandemic presents extraordinary circumstances forcing providers closer to practicing “catastrophe medicine,” where the regular criteria of first-come first-served for patients may not apply and therefore, providers should try to prioritize patients with the “greatest life expectancy.” According to SIAARTI:It may be necessary to place an age limit on entry into intensive care. It is not a question of making choices merely of value, but to reserve resources that could be very scarce to those who are primarily more likely to survival and secondarily to those who can have more years of life saved, with a view to maximizing of benefits for most people.But what Hand’s post also failed to consider was that similar choices were also being discussed in capitalist countries, such as the United States, where — as the Washington Post reported — 3,244 infections and 62 deaths had been confirmed as of March 15 2020.According to the newspaper, pandemic strategy plans in several states, many of them written in the aftermath of the SARS outbreak of 2002 and Hurricane Katrina a year later, address the question of rationing care:Hospital officials and doctors interviewed in several states emphasized that rationing is a last resort, and they have begun to experiment with other ways to increase capacity.Initially, they said, patients probably would be transferred from more crowded, urban facilities such as Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia, which routinely operate at 80 to 90 percent capacity, to community or rural hospitals that may have more intensive care beds.If the number of victims surges beyond that capacity, they say, they may try novel approaches such as having two patients on one ventilator. Tubing for ventilators, which is usually thrown out, could be sanitized and reused. Other types of hospital equipment, such as those used for sleep apnea, could be repurposed as makeshift ventilators. Only if those strategies fail and the sick continue to exceed capacity would rationing protocols be put into place.However, approaches vary by state and even by hospital.“Most plans include a list of serious conditions that would exclude someone from getting a ventilator if rationing were in effect, and many conditions are more common in the elderly, such as severe cardiac issues, kidney failure and metastatic cancer,” the report said.Despite this, the misleading post and countless others just like it were shared thousands of times on Facebook as of March 16 2020.


Blogger Says Nancy Pelosi was “caught trying to include abortion funding in bill to combat coronavirus.”

Explanation: The U.S. House passed a measure that provides federal funds to people affected by the coronavirus. There’s no evidence Pelosi added or tried to add abortion funding to the bill. The bill covers reimbursement laboratory costs for COVID-19 testing. Some raised concerns that language was needed to specifically ensure abortion services weren’t eligible to receive funds. The language was amended by Democrats to limit reimbursements to COVID-19 expenses.

Abortion, Congress, Coronavirus, Bloggers,

The U.S. House passed a measure to help mitigate the economic toll of the coronavirus by providing financial assistance to people affected by the pandemic. The legislation passed overwhelmingly (363-40 on March 14) and provides billions of dollars so Americans can get free tests and, in some cases, receive two weeks of paid leave. As debate about the bill began, we noticed claims going around that said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got "caught" trying to sneak abortion funding into the package. This is . There’s no evidence that Pelosi was sneaking any funding toward abortion services in the bill. Knowing the facts has never been more important. Please consider donating to PolitiFact today. A March 12 story by anti-abortion website "Life News" makes the claim. Its headline says: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caught Trying to Include Abortion Funding in Bill to Combat Coronavirus." We saw many other examples of the same basic headline. The story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It cites a report by the Daily Caller, which also makes the claim and cites multiple unnamed "senior White House officials." It says: "Speaking to the Daily Caller, those officials alleged that while negotiating the stimulus with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Pelosi tried to lobby for ‘several’ provisions that stalled bipartisan commitment to the effort. One was a mandate for up to $1 billion to reimburse laboratory claims, which White House officials say would set a precedent of health spending without protections outlined in the Hyde Amendment." When we reached out to Pelosi’s staff, they declined comment. The Hyde Amendment, which was enacted in 1997, is a budgetary rider that prohibits the federal government from covering the costs of abortions except in very rare cases. The issue was that the bill’s original draft didn’t explicitly include Hyde Amendment language that would make sure that reimbursement of laboratory claims couldn’t apply to abortion services. The concern raised in the Daily Caller story was that the lack of language would create a loophole that abortion service providers could try to use in the future to get reimbursed with federal funds. That’s certainly more hypothetical than the matter-of-fact headline, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caught Trying to Include Abortion Funding in Bill to Combat Coronavirus." House Democrats submitted a "manager’s amendment" on March 12 that says reimbursement funds could only be used for COVID-19 related costs. "Claims reimbursed under this section would be limited to those for uninsured individuals not eligible for other COVID-19 testing and services assistance included in the bill," a summary of the amendment says. A website claims Pelosi was "caught trying to include abortion funding" in the bill. This is inaccurate. A section in the bill seeks to reimburse insurers for COVID-19 related laboratory claims. Concerns were raised that the bill’s language could inadvertently open up federal funds for abortion services, but it’s unclear exactly how. No draft of the legislation had funding for abortion in it.


California’s Prop 55 "prevents $4 billion in new cuts to our schools.

Recent radio and TV ads claim California’s K-12 public schools face dire cuts if voters fail to approve Proposition 55, a measure on November’s ballot that would extend an income tax hike on wealthy residents. The ads by the Yes on 55 campaign paint a dark picture. They cite past spending cuts that led to thousands of teacher layoffs, eliminated art and music programs and increased class sizes a few years ago. California, the ads claim, doesn’t have to repeat history. "Prop 55 prevents $4 billion in new cuts to our schools simply by maintaining the current tax rates on the wealthiest Californians," says the Yes campaign’s "Can’t Go Back" TV ad. The claim about "$4 billion in new cuts to our schools" is made at the 0:17 minute mark in this video. We wondered whether the choice is that stark: Does California really face $4 billion in new school cuts if Prop 55 fails? Our research Before diving in, here’s some background on the temporary tax increase Prop 55 asks voters to extend. In 2012, California voters approved Prop 30, which was promoted as a temporary solution. That measure raised income tax rates on high-income residents and sales tax rates through 2018 to pay for schools. Supporters at the time described it as a way to stave off additional deep education cuts from the state’s financial crisis and Great Recession. Prop 55 asks voters to continue that higher income tax rate for 12 additional years, through 2030, but not the sales tax increase. It would apply to earnings more than $250,000 for single filers and $500,000 for couples. If the measure fails, the higher income tax rate would phase out in 2018. Less money for schools? There’s no doubt the failure of Prop 55 would result in less money for public schools. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office projects Prop 55 would raise between $2 billion and $4.5 billion annually for K-12 schools and community colleges, depending on the economy. But even if Prop 55 fails, school funding would continue to increase through 2019-2020, according to Department of Finance figures. That’s in part because revenue from Prop 30 continues through the 2018-2019 fiscal year. It doesn’t run out right away. By 2019-2020, however, school costs would outpace total revenue by $4 billion, based on the end of Prop 30 and expected inflation, according to the state Department of Finance and an interview with Ana Matosantos, the department’s former director. Matosantos supports Prop 55 and spoke in favor of it at a recent public forum. "Costs will rise faster than funding," Matosantos said in the interview. "The big issue is inflation." Competing outlooks There could be even greater pressure on school funding under one financial outlook, Matosantos said. That's because the state projects a separate $4 billion operating shortfall for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. That deficit is cited in the state Department of Finance’s multi-year budget outlook, and would account for the rising costs of everything from prisons to debt payments to health care, she said. Source: California Department of Finance, General Fund Multi-Year Forecast, June 2016 There’s no specific law that would require the state to cut school spending to close these shortfalls. It could take money from other services. But more than likely, Matosantos said, schools would experience cuts. Not everyone sees a bleak financial forecast. The Legislative Analyst’s Office expects California will have a nearly $2 billion operating surplus in 2019-2020, the same year the state Department of Finance forecasts a $4 billion operating shortfall. Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office, Multiyear State Budget Outlook, May 2016 The Yes on 55 campaign "is using the figures that are convenient to them," said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Wolfe spoke against Prop 55 at a recent forum. Steve Boilard, a Sacramento State University political analyst, expressed skepticism earlier this year over some Yes on 55 statements, including the campaign’s earlier claim in May that the measure’s failure could lead to $5 billion in cuts to schools. "Looking at the numbers, I can see how they come up with dollar amounts that they do," Boilard, who spent years crunching budget numbers for the state’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, said in a Capital Public Radio article, at the time. "But I think it’s framed in a way that seems much more dire than it should otherwise be interpreted." A Sacramento Bee fact check recently rated the Yes on 55 claim as "iffy." It found "the ad’s warning of $4 billion in cuts if the measure does not pass relies on an optimistic assumption of how much money the tax will raise, as well as an overly simplistic characterization of school funding estimates. Our ruling The Yes on 55 campaign claimed in recent ads that "Prop 55 prevents $4 billion in new cuts to our schools." There would certainly be less money for schools if the tax extension fails. But the advertisements say nothing about the fact that Prop 30 was a temporary measure, and that its revenue was not promised forever. Nor do they mention that school budgets will continue to go up for several years until the Prop 30 revenue runs out after 2018. Supporters of 55 point to an estimated $4 billion school funding deficit by the 2019-2020 fiscal year, if the measure fails. They also cite a separate $4 billion operating shortfall for all its services by the same year. Another respected financial outlook, however, projects a $2 billion operating surplus for California that same year. That estimate paints a very different picture. If the ads had said Prop 55’s failure could lead to eventual school funding hardships, years from now, they would have been more accurate. But they leave the impression that the measure’s failure will lead to deep school cuts much sooner. And that’s not the case. We rate the Yes on 55 claim . – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.


Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was building another mansion with elevators and 25 bathrooms at the same time part-time Whole Foods employees lost health benefits.

Explanation: Did Jeff Bezos Cut Whole Foods Workers Benefits as He Bought a Second Mansion?

On November 4 2019, former United States Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted that Jeff Bezos was building a mansion in Washington, DC — while at the same time, part-time Whole Foods workers lost their health benefits:Jeff Bezos' D.C. mansion will have:— 2 elevators— 25 bathrooms— 1,006 light fixtures— A full movie theaterAmazon's Whole Foods cut health benefits for part-time workers less than 2 months ago.Tax the rich.— Robert Reich (@RBReich) November 4, 2019The tweet made a popular appearance on Reddit’s r/worldpolitics, in a thread titled “Tax The Rich! !”:Tax The Rich!! from worldpoliticsAccording to Reich’s tweet, Bezos’ mansion in Washington, DC would feature 25 bathrooms, two separate elevators, a movie theater, and more than a thousand light fixtures (1,006, to be precise.) Reich added that “Amazon’s Whole Foods” had also recently discontinued health benefits for part-time workers.Reich describes Whole Foods as “Amazon’s.”  In June 2017, Amazon acquired the Whole Foods chain of supermarkets for $13.7 billion. Amazon, of which Bezos is founder and CEO, became the parent company of Whole Foods in August 2017.An August 24 2017 statement issued by Amazon about the acquisition only mentions “employees” in a subsection at the bottom . In that mention, Amazon noted the possibility of difficulty “maintaining relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers”:Cautionary Statement Regarding Amazon Forward-Looking StatementsThis [press release] contains forward-looking statements. We use words such as anticipates, believes, expects, future, intends, and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those projected or forecast in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include the following: factors that could affect the timing of the consummation of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods Market; Amazon may be unable to achieve the anticipated benefits of the transaction; revenues following the transaction may be lower than expected; operating costs, customer loss, and business disruption (including, without limitation, difficulties in maintaining relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers) may be greater than expected; Amazon may assume unexpected risks and liabilities; initiatives with Whole Foods Market may distract Amazon’s management from other operations; and the other factors discussed in “Risk Factors” in Amazon’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and in Amazon’s other filings with the SEC, which are available at http://www.sec.gov. Amazon assumes no obligation to update the information in this communication, except as otherwise required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof.Prior to Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods in August 2017, the chain reported declining revenues and planned store closings. As of January 2019, Amazon was reported to be looking at former Sears and KMart stores as possible new Whole Foods locations.On September 12 2019, Amazon confirmed that it was rescinding healthcare benefits for its part-time employees as of January 1 2020, in order to “better meet the needs of our business and create a more equitable and efficient scheduling model.” That translates to part-time employees needing to work ten more hours a week than before in order to qualify for its healthcare plan:Amazon-owned Whole Foods will be withdrawing medical benefits for hundreds of its part-time workers starting Jan. 1, 2020, the company said Thursday.In the past, employees needed to work at least 20 hours a week to buy into the health-care plan. Now they will need to work at least 30 hours. Less than 2% of its workforce, or 1,900 employees, will no longer be eligible for medical coverage, under the new policy, the company said. […]“In order to better meet the needs of our business and create a more equitable and efficient scheduling model, we are moving to a single-tier part-time structure,” a company spokesperson said in an email. “We are providing Team Members with resources to find alternative healthcare coverage options, or to explore full-time, healthcare-eligible positions starting at 30 hours per week. All Whole Foods Market Team Members continue to receive employment benefits including a 20% in-store discount.”In addition to information to help affected employees “explore full-time” open positions, a spokesperson said the company would provide them “with resources to find alternative healthcare coverage options,” presumably government subsidized health insurance through a public exchange.Although healthcare benefits were withdrawn, the company added:All Whole Foods Market Team Members continue to receive employment benefits including a 20% in-store discount.At the time the news was reported, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International President Marc Perrone said Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods involved efforts to “devalue and degrade grocery jobs” at the chain. Perrone lamented the need for workers to take more than one job in order to provide for their families:Amazon’s plan to cut health care for these part-time employees is one of Jeff Bezos’ most brazen attacks on the quality of jobs at Whole Foods and the communities they support. Too many workers today are already working two to three jobs just to get the hours and benefits they need, and these cuts by Jeff Bezos just made it harder for them … Grocery jobs should be good jobs, and one job should be enough to provide for yourself and your family.It is true that as founder and chief executive officer of Amazon, Bezos’ company acquired Whole Foods as a subsidiary. It is further true that Whole Foods confirmed that it would stop offering healthcare benefits to some part-time workers as of January 1 2020.As for Bezos’ Washington, DC mansion and its “2 elevators, 25 bathrooms, 1,006 light fixtures ” and a “full movie theater,” Washingtonian reported in an April 2019 item titled “Here Are the Floor Plans for Jeff Bezos’ $23 Million DC Home”:Jeff Bezos has been quietly jetting into Washington over the past few years, becoming quite the hobnobber around town … Soon, Washingtonians may see even more of him. In 2016, the Amazon founder and Washington Post owner paid $23 million in cash for the former Textile Museum in Kalorama (yes, his neighbors are the Obamas and Kushner-Trumps). At 27,000 square feet, the mansion was already the biggest home in Washington before he began a $12 million renovation and expansion last year … Overseen by the Barnes Vanze architecture firm, the reno project covers 191 doors (many either custom mahogany or bronze), 25 bathrooms, 11 bedrooms, five living rooms/lounges, five staircases, three kitchens, two libraries/studies, two workout rooms, two elevators—and a huge ballroom.Washingtonian included details that likely didn’t fit into a single tweet:According to the documents, the Pope’s four stories will serve primarily as the family’s residence, with all the essentials for a tech-titan billionaire. The lower level (pictured below) has the main living quarters. Note the big whiskey cellar with plentiful drying racks (upper left) and the walk-in wine room (center). There’s also a large lounge complete with a bar, a family kitchen, and an elevator.On the same day as Reich’s tweet, Washingtonian published an update to their coverage, in which the movie theater is mentioned:… updated plans included “substantial” work on the foundations of both buildings [of the mansion], including underpinning the walls and resetting the basement slab for the entire Pope House—a likely necessity, [consulting expert Bill] Mulholland surmised, if one is to transform a century-old cellar to accommodate such minor tweaks as an entertainment kitchen, full-scale lounge and whiskey and wine cellars. (The Wood’s slab was reset in the northwest corner, directly below a “Media Room” that calls for tiered seating, implying a movie theater. )As noted, architectural plans for Bezos’ DC mansion were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, not disclosed by Bezos or his representatives:So when is move-in day? Bezos isn’t saying. (A spokesperson for Amazon declined to comment, as well as architect Ankie Barnes, who cited a “wish to respect our clients’ privacy”) By all accounts, though, he is anxious to make landfall. One person described how they understood the timeline for installations over the summer. “Jeff wanted that done immediately—I mean immediately. Like, ‘Fast, fast fast!’” they said.In June 2019, Business Insider reported that Bezos was expected to close a deal which included three adjacent Manhattan properties, at an estimated cost of $80 million. A February 2018 article from a separate outlet noted Bezos also owned homes in Washington State, Texas, and California (with two apparent residences in Beverly Hills. )In sum, Reich’s tweet held:In August 2017 Bezos’ Amazon.com acquired Whole Foods for $13.7 billion, and as of January 2019 sought to expand the chain to new locations. In April 2019, Washingtonian acquired blueprints and planning information for Bezos’ mansion in Washington DC. In early September 2019, a spokesperson for Amazon/Whole Foods acknowledge the company was ceasing to provide healthcare benefits to part-time employees of Whole Foods. And on November 4 2019, Washingtonian revisited the coverage of Bezos’ mansion and its construction to note that in addition to the 25 bathrooms and two elevators, plans indicated a likely movie theater with tiered seating. Reich packed a tremendous amount of detail into a short tweet, all of it essentially accurate.