A nurse employed in a Zambian hospital swapped nearly 5,000 babies at birth and gave them to the "wrong" parents.

Explanation: "I am asking Zambians to forgive me for the evil things I was doing to innocent children."

In April 2019, the Zambian Observer reported that a nurse/midwife suffering from terminal cancer had purportedly made a shocking end-of-life confession. During her 1983-95 tenure in the maternity ward at University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in the Zambian capital city of Lusaka, the nurse supposedly confessed, she “swapped close to 5000 babies” and gave them to the “wrong” parents (i.e., persons other than the children’s biological parents) “for fun”:  “May God Forgive me for my sins”, says a UTH Nurse” “I used to swap babies at UTH for fun”!, she confessed in her sick bed. “I have terminal cancer and I know I will be dying soon. I wish to confess my sins before God and before all the affected people especially those who were giving birth at UTH during my service. I have found God, Ia, now born again. I have nothing to hide, In the 12 years I worked in the maternity ward at UTH, I swapped close to 5000 babies”, she said. “If you were born in UTH between the years 1983 to 1995 chances are your parents may not be your biological parents. I had developed a habbit of swapping newly born babies just for fun. So take a good look at your siblings, if for example everyone is light and you are darkie … you are that child and I am really sorry for that” “I know I sinned against God and may he forgve me for that. I am also asking Zambians to forgive me for the evil things I was doing to innocent children. I have caused some faithful couples to divorce after going for DNA Tests. Its now that I have realised I was just being used by a demon to do that. I have causeed many mothers to breastfeed children who are not theirs biologically. I dont want to go to Hell for that, Am really sorry I have sinned alot. Please FORGIVE me”, said Sister Elizabeth Bwalya Mwewa. Many readers wrote the article off as an obvious joke, expressing extreme skepticism about the premise of the story and its notion that so many babies could have been switched at birth over an extended period of time (a rate of about one infant a day, every day, for thirteen years) without many parents having raised an issue with hospital administrators — especially if, as claimed, the results of the midwife’s “fun” pranking had caused “multiple couples to divorce after going for DNA tests.”   Nonetheless, according to the Lusaka Times, local officials took the report seriously enough that an investigation was conducted by the  General Nursing Council of Zambia, who turned up no nurse matching the name of the one cited in the  Zambian Observer article:  Preliminary investigations into reports that about 5000 babies where swapped at the UTH between 1983 and 1995 have reviewed that there is no midwife in the General Nursing Council of Zambia Register by the name of Elizabeth Bwalya Mwewa. The investigation has also revealed that no midwife by that name ever existed and later on worked in maternity ward at the University Teaching Hospitals. GNC Manager Regulation and Compliance and Spokesperson Thom Yung’ana said the investigation into the matter will help to verify the authenticity of the report and has called for calm among stakeholders as investigations continue in the matter. The Zambian Observer then unironically reported on that debunking of their own article. Aside from the rather incredible nature of the claim, and the fact that the Zambian Observer is a generally unreliable source, we note that that five days later the website used the very same purported photograph of nurse “Elizabeth Bwalya Mwewa” to accompany an article about a mistaken swap of a single pair of newborn babies at a different hospital in Zambia (Ndola Teaching Hospital) — yet that picture had previously appeared in the blog of Ma Sedaye, who is described as a Zimbabwean woman now living in Columbus, Ohio:


Alabama Sen. Doug Jones calls new abortion ban ‘shameful’.

Explanation: Democratic U.S. Sen. Doug Jones condemned Alabama’s new abortion ban as “extreme” and “irresponsible” Thursday, a day after the state’s Republican governor signed the most restrictive abortion measure in the country into law.

Kay Ivey, AP Top News, Supreme courts, Health, Legislation, Abortion, Courts, Doug Jones, Alabama, U.S. News

“I think this bill, frankly, is shameful. It is callous,” Jones told reporters. “This bill uses rape victims and victims of incest at all ages, even minors, as political pawns.” The legislation signed by Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday would make performing an abortion a felony in nearly all cases and contains no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Supporters hope to launch a challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made the procedure legal. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” Ivey said in a statement after signing the bill. Jones, the lone Democrat to hold statewide office in Alabama, said he thought the debate was focused on the “most extreme voices on both sides.” “I just don’t think that it is representative of what most people in Alabama think or what they want from the government,” he said. But the law’s sponsor, Rep. Terri Collins, said she believes a majority of Alabamians support it: 59% of state voters in November agreed to write anti-abortion language in the Alabama Constitution, saying the state recognizes the rights of the “unborn.” “It’s to address the issue that Roe. v. Wade was decided on: Is that baby in the womb a person?” Collins said. The Alabama abortion ban is the most far-reaching measure as some conservative states push new abortion restrictions in the hopes of getting a case before the conservative Supreme Court majority. The abortion ban would go into effect in six months if it isn’t blocked by legal challenges, which Jones anticipates costing millions of dollars. “This bill is unconstitutional as it stands right now and, I believe, irresponsible,” he said. Abortion rights advocates have vowed swift legal action. “We haven’t lost a case in Alabama yet and we don’t plan to start now. We will see Governor Ivey in court,” said Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast. The legislation Alabama senators passed Tuesday would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison for the provider. The only exception would be when the woman’s health is at serious risk. Women seeking or undergoing abortions wouldn’t be punished. “It just completely disregards women and the value of women and their voice. We have once again silenced women on a very personal issue,” said Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, a Birmingham Democrat. Kentucky , Mississippi , Ohio and Georgia recently approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. Missouri’s Republican-led Senate voted early Thursday to ban abortions at eight weeks, with no rape or incest exceptions. Louisiana lawmakers have been speeding toward passing a six-week ban. Dr. Yashica Robinson, who provides abortions in Huntsville, said her clinic fielded calls from frightened patients Wednesday. “This is a really sad day for women in Alabama and all across the nation,” she said. “It’s like we have just taken three steps backwards as far as women’s rights and being able to make decisions that are best for them and best for their families.” But Robinson said the bill is also having an energizing effect. With phone lines jammed, she said messages came streaming across their fax machine. “We had letters coming across the fax just asking what they can do to help and telling us they are sending us their love and support our way,” Robinson said.


Nurse’s kidney donation triggers bi-state transplant chain.

Explanation: A nurse’s decision to donate a kidney to a patient triggered a series of events that led to three people getting new organs at two Kansas City-area hospitals.

Kansas City, Health, Kansas, Missouri, University of Kansas

Christa Jordan, a nurse at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, wanted to donate to her friend and patient, Dayshanae Hosman, who has a genetic condition called Alagille syndrome and went on dialysis in April, the Kansas City Star reported. “I just knew it was something I had to do,” Jordan said. “It wasn’t something I questioned that much.” Jordan was a transplant match for Hosman, but the University of Kansas Hospital had an even better one for her: 25-year-old Ky Kanaman from Baldwin City, Kansas. Kanaman was an “altruistic donor,” meaning he was willing to donate a kidney without knowing the potential recipient. The university hospital told Jordan she was also a better match for a person on the transplant list whom she didn’t know, Lauro Zuniga. Jordan agreed to give her kidney to Zuniga if Kanaman donated his to Hosman, starting the kidney donation chain. Zuniga’s mom, Carolina Perez, wasn’t a match for her son. But when Jordan agreed to give her kidney to Zuniga, Perez then found out she could give one of her kidneys to a stranger on the university hospital’s list, Matt Lewis. Donation chains are rare because they require extensive planning by hospitals, starting from when a donor wants to give to a person that they aren’t a good match with. The hospital then can find the donor a recipient that they match with but don’t know, sparking conversations to find donor-recipient matches that make the best fit. Six surgeries were conducted at the two hospitals on Oct. 29 and Oct. 30. The three donors and three recipients got together at Children’s Mercy on Wednesday, with many meeting for the first time. “I feel like I won the lottery,” said Lewis, of Savonburg, Kansas. ___ Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com


Breast-cancer study questions lymph node removal

Explanation: Room for improvement:  Readers would have benefited from early clarity that all participants in the study still had a sentinel lymph node biopsy and that the research focused on whether removal of all lymph nodes was necessary if the sentinel nodes were cancerous. There was no discussion of cost impact of the findings, or about whether insurance might curtail coverage of lymph node dissection. There was no discussion of the researchers’ admission of what could be potentially important limitations in the research. The story didn’t explain how often complications of lymph node dissection occur. Women who have an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) following a diagnosis of breast cancer, sometimes develop infections at the surgery site or lymphedema. Depending on its severity, lymphedema can be painful, disfiguring, and expensive to treat. While the symptoms of lymphedema can be treated, especially if caught early, once a person develops lymphedema, the person is always at risk for a recurrence of the lymphedema. If ALND confers no mortality or disease-free survival benefit, it may no longer be recommended as standard treatment for women with T1 or T2 breast cancer with positive nodes as determined by sentinel lymph node dissection.

There was no discussion of costs. The article does refer to an editorial that accompanied the paper. The editorial observed that women would be spared “unnecessary surgery.”  Less surgery should result in lower costs for the patient. The potential benefits were included in the article. The “five-year ‘disease free’ survival rate was 83.9%…” for women who did not have the more aggressive surgery “…compared with 82.2% in those who did…”  Because full axillary lymph node dissection did not decrease mortality or decrease disease free survival, this may no longer be the standard recommendation. The article accurately reported that the study found no benefit for the more aggressive full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) among the 900 women studied with T1 or T2 breast cancer. Because ALND poses risk of infection and lymphedema, more patients would be harmed by continuing the currently recommended treatment. While the article mentions the potential complications of ALND, it does not quantify the incidence of infection or of lymphedema after ALND. Women should be told how often this occurs. The article did not indicate that this study was a randomized trial. The article should have noted that the trial was stopped early, after five years, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee because 20 years of follow-up would have been needed to observe 500 deaths as originally planned. Because breast cancer is often diagnosed at an early stage, some doctors & patients prefer longer term follow-up than five years. The article also did not include limitations of the study as reported by the researchers. Possible limitations mentioned by the researchers were failure to achieve the originally planned accrual of 1900 patients and possible randomization imbalance favoring the group that had only the sentinel lymph node dissection. This is worth noting. There was no disease mongering. The article included quotes from an editorial accompanying the study and from an independent source at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. While the article did mention that the study was funded by the federal government, it would have been helpful for readers to know that it was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The less extensive sentinel lymph node dissection surgery is clearly compared with the currently recommended axillary lymph node surgery. The article points out that the more extensive surgery did not have a mortality or disease-free survival benefit. We’ll address the following concern under this criterion because we’re not sure where else to address it. Readers would have benefited from early clarity that all participants in the study still had a sentinel lymph node biopsy and that the research focused on whether removal of all lymph nodes was necessary if the sentinel nodes were cancerous. The article pointed out that if breast cancer has spread to any lymph nodes, doctors usually recommend removing all lymph nodes in the arm. The article reported that in a phone interview, Gary Lyman of the American Society of Clinical Oncology said the group may revise its recommendations for full lymph node removal based on the results of this study. Since many surgeons and oncologists base their advise to patients on these recommendations, patients may soon be offered this less extensive surgery option. . The novelty of the study results were supported by quotes from an editorial that accompanied the study. The editorial referred to the study as an “important contribution” and noted the study provided “strong evidence” that many women can safely forgo complete lymph node removal. A representative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology characterized the study as “practice-changing” and thought the findings will probably prompt ASCO to revise its recommendations for breast cancer patients with T1 or T2 tumors who have positive sentinel lymph nodes. The article includes information from a telephone interview with Gary Lyman of the American Society of Clinical Oncology which recommends surgery and treatment options for patients. And it includes comments from editorial authors.


Explanation: The AP news story does a nice job of explaining what hip resurfacing is and how it fits into the history of hip replacement procedures. It summarizes the current availability of hip resurfacing in the US. However, the story provides virtually no evidence on the efficacy of resurfacing to support the mostly glowing testimonials of the three surgeons it quotes. According to the news article, the FDA “cited studies showing the Birmingham Hip resurfacer lasted at least five years…” What sorts of studies did the FDA analyze? What about the rest of the outcomes that patients value—such as improvements in pain and activity? Are there any randomized trials that compare similar patients who have undergone resurfacing with patients who have undergone total hip replacement? Is there follow-up beyond five years? These questions remain unanswered. The discussion of harms is likewise incomplete. The news article points out that hip resurfacing isn’t for everyone, and mentions two groups in whom it might not be appropriate. But the available research suggests the picture may be more complicated. There is disagreement about whether the procedure impairs the blood supply to bone or generates so much heat that it could cause the death of thigh bone. Bone death (necrosis of the femoral head) is a devastating complication for which there is currently no good solution. Other studies suggest additional potential problems. (For references and more details on potential harms, see “Harms of Treatment” above.) Although it is true that some researchers have found few problems with the devices and reported great success, readers deserve to know where the uncertainties lie. Perhaps the greatest uncertainty has to do with how long the implants will hold up. Though sufficient for FDA approval, survival of “at least five years” is not a strong endorsement. Total joint replacement, by comparison, has a track record extending 15 to 25 years. A closer look at the evidence might have reshaped the take-home message from this news report.

No mention of costs. This is a substantial oversight. Experts say the implant alone costs four to five times as much as a traditional hip implant—about $12,000 versus $2500 to $3000. The story provides no quantitative estimates of the benefits of hip resurfacing, nor any quantitative comparison with patients undergoing other treatments for hip arthritis. The news article points out that hip resurfacing isn’t for everyone, and mentions two groups in whom it might be inappropriate—those with poor bone quality and others with kidney problems. But the recent literature on hip resurfacing suggests there are other concerns as well. There is disagreement about whether the procedure impairs the blood supply to bone. [J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Nov;88 Suppl 3:84-9.] Some reports find a higher-than-usual fracture rate in the thigh bone. [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1652-3] Some worry about the increase in metal ions generated by two metal devices rubbing against each other. One study showed that heat generated during the procedure was high enough to cause the death of thigh bone. [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:16-20.] This would be a devastating complication for which there is currently no good solution. (One treatment is total hip replacement.) In another study, researchers found that alignment changes could put patients at greater risk of impingement, “leading to abnormal wear patterns and pain.” [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:9-15.] Although it is true that other researchers have found few problems with the devices and reported great success, readers deserve to know where the uncertainties lie. Perhaps the greatest uncertainty has to do with how long the implants implants will hold up—a significant shortcoming in the evidence for a device designed to substitute for total joint replacements with relatively successful track records as long as 15 to 25 years. The article is built largely around the testimonials of orthopedic surgeons who view hip resurfacing as a favorable development. In the final sentence the story takes a stab at establishing the evidence for the treatment – citing the FDA – but it is too little too late. According to the news article, the FDA “cited studies showing the Birmingham Hip resurfacer lasted at least five years…” What sorts of studies did the FDA analyze? What about the rest of the outcomes that patients value—for example, improvements in pain and activity? Are there any randomized trials that compare similar patients who have undergone resurfacing with patients who have undergone total hip replacement? Is there follow-up beyond five years? Hip resurfacing is designed to treat a very real problem—pain and activity limitations caused by osteoarthritis in relatively young individuals. The news article cites three orthopedic surgeons, including one who is a spokesperson for the leading orthopedic medical society in the U.S. But the story provides no information about their potential conflicts of interest. Because many surgeons have consulting contracts and other agreements with device makers, this is important information. The story rightly explains that total hip replacement is the major alternative to hip resurfacing. Although it explains why resurfacing may be better than total hip replacement, it does not say much about the potential disadvantages of resurfacing—most prominently, its brief track record. This information is vital if readers are to compare the new idea with existing alternatives. Young, active readers might also want to know about nonsurgical alternatives for arthritic hips. These include strengthening, exercise, physical therapy, and pain medications. The article states that the first hip resurfacing system was approved by the FDA last spring and that competitors’ systems are in trials. It also notes that few orthopedic surgeons are trained in this procedure in the U.S. The AP news story does a nice job of explaining what hip resurfacing is and how it fits into the history of hip replacement procedures. Because the story relied on several different sources, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release.


Warnings that Mcafee or Norton has identified the most destructive computer virus ever disguised as a Hallmark postcard email with the subject line “A Card for You,” “Virtual Card for You,” “Postcard” or a “Postcard from Hallmark” have been circulating for years.

Explanation: A Card for You, Virtual Card For You, or Postcard Virus Warning

Real computer viruses have been tied to email postcards in the past, but there weren’t any new threats or viruses identified by McAfee or Norton when the warning began circulating again in May 2017. Postcard virus warnings that have made the rounds on social media since the early 2000s. There are many different versions, but they all have a few similar traits: McAfee or Norton has just identified the postcard virus, it has been deemed as the most destructive ever, the virus destroys hard drives and can send itself to everyone in your email address book. It’s not clear where the postcard virus warning started, but it’s earliest versions date back to 2001. There have been a number of credible email postcard virus warning threats over the years. McAfee issued consumer virus alerts about a postcard phishing scam in 2005 and about a postcard virus worm in 2001. The postcard warning appears to be based on the 2001 threat alert, which explains that the “worm virus” could be spread via email and had been know to self-replicate and spread to other systems, just like in the postcard warnings: By July 2007, the virus warning had evolved. Now, instead of “a virtual card for you” appearing int he subject line, the term “postcard” was used instead. Some versions, like this one, actually used the phrase “Hallmark postcard” and included many of the old, and previously debunked, warnings: You should be alert during the next few days.. Do not open any message with an attachment entitled ‘POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK,’ regardless of who sent it to you.. It is a virus which opens A POSTCARD IMAGE, which ‘burns’ the whole hard disc C of your computer. This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send this e-mail to all your contacts It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. These Hallmark postcard versions of the rumor went viral again in 2010, and in 2017. However, there was no indication that there were any credible threats at the time — and the claim that McAfee and/or Norton had deemed the virus the most destructive ever are false. Aside from a a virus warning from 2001 that matched some, but not all, of the postcard virus warning’s particulars. That’s why we’re calling this one “mostly fiction.” It is important, however, to always be vigilant about viruses that are spread via email. Scanning attachments before they’re downloaded, avoiding emails from unfamiliar senders, and never providing personal information via email are just a few recommendations. Click here for more information about steps to enhance email security. Updated 5/4/17 Comments


Georgia board starts work on medical marijuana rules .

Explanation: A new Georgia board has begun working to create rules and a distribution network for the sale of medical marijuana oil.

Legislature, Georgia, Constitutions, Medical marijuana, General News, Marijuana, State legislature

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission held its first meeting on Wednesday. Medical marijuana use has been legal in Georgia since 2015, but the state legislature until this year had not allowed its production or sale. The commission is looking into ways to manufacture or import medical marijuana oil for Georgia’s nearly 14,000 registered patients. It is also tasked with setting testing and oversight standards and issuing licenses to sell the oil. Commission Chair Dr. Christopher Edwards said Georgia needs to implement its medical marijuana program, and he won’t tolerate impediments. Under the law, the medical marijuana cannot have more than 5 percent THC, the compound that creates a high.


Hyperbaric oxygen: The mysterious therapy that saved a cancer survivor from radiation side effects

Explanation: This well-written article discusses a patient suffering from delayed effects of radiation who received hyperbaric therapy treatment. The patient noticed improvements in pain levels and mobility, but doctors in the story warn that this treatment is unproven to help patients with delayed radiation injury and that this type of therapy tends to be overused. Though it is gratifying to hear the patient’s words and the hope that this treatment has provided him, it actually isn’t clear whether the hyperbaric oxygen itself was the reason he got better. The “placebo” effect is well described in the medical literature and refers to sham treatments (fake surgery or pills) leading to benefit. It may also be that the treatment really did help but not for the reasons cited–maybe simply sitting still for hours helped tissues to heal. We do wish the story had explored this aspect more. Overuse of unproven medical technologies poses risks to patients and adds to rising healthcare costs. An N of 1 does not prove that a technology works since there are so many other factors that could contribute to a patient seeing improvement over time.

The article discussed that Medicare covers the treatment at $450 for a two-hour session. There wasn’t a discussion about whether other insurance programs covered the treatment. It would have been helpful to know how much the entire treatment plan for the profiled patient cost and whether it was covered by his insurance. The article was about one patient’s subjective account of pain relief. The only mention of evidence is by one of the doctors quoted, saying he did a literature search and found the evidence supporting this treatment to be “grim.” A quantitative assessment of that evidence would have been useful to include. Although the article mentioned overuse of the treatment, there wasn’t an explicit mention of the type of harms associated with using hyperbaric therapy. The article cautioned about the lack of evidence and rigorous medical studies supporting the use of hyperbaric chamber therapy outside of common uses (e.g., decompression sickness, burn healing). The article also mentioned how the results seen with the patient profiled are not commonly seen in patients with chronic late radiation effects. The article did not commit disease mongering. It highlights the story of a desperate patient in a balanced way. Besides the one reference to Kaiser Health News, all the sources had connections to the patient. The article mentioned physical therapy and pain medication as standard treatment for delayed radiation effects on muscles and joints. It did a good job describing how challenging it can be to manage. The article mentioned hyperbaric chambers are located in about 1,400 hospitals across the US. Given that Medicare also reimburses for hyperbaric therapy, access is probably relatively easy. The article described that this is not a novel procedure and that hyperbaric therapy has been around since the 1900s. It does not appear this story relied on a news release.


Reducing Radiation Successfully Treats HPV-Positive Oropharynx Cancers and Minimizes Side Effects

Explanation: In a small study of 80 patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive cancers of the tonsils and throat, researchers found they could reduce side effects of radiation by reducing the radiation dose. These patients often suffer from lifelong swallowing and eating issues following radiotherapy. The short release did not provide much context. We weren’t provided any numbers for the rate of “cure” in standard doses versus the lower doses under study. The repeated use of the word “cure” in the text seems unjustified since these types of cancers do recur. The word may mean different things to doctors and patients and we discourage its use in medical communications. See our toolkit piece on  7 Words (and more) You Shouldn’t Use in Medical News. There has been an increase in HPV-associated cancers of the head and neck. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are about 16,000 new cases diagnosed per year in the United States. Reducing treatment side effects is important for patients and families. But we don’t find this release gives us enough information to judge whether the reduced radiation therapy doses are just as effective as higher doses.

Academic medical center news release,Cancer

The release does not mention costs. We would have liked some context. What kind of rehabilitation costs are associated with the severe lifelong swallowing side effects that are mitigated by the reduction in dose discussed in the study? The release did include some quantification of benefits, but we would have liked a bit more. Here is what was provided: “The study…showed that patients treated with reduced radiation had less difficulty swallowing solids (40 percent versus 89 percent of patients treated with standard doses of radiation) or impaired nutrition (10 percent versus 44 percent of patients treated with regular doses of radiation.” The release would have been improved with a discussion of how “less difficulty” and “impaired nutrition” were measured. The published paper makes it clear that the swallowing difficulties and nutritional impairment were self-reported using a questionaire of some kind. This also would have been useful information to include in the release. The release does not quantify whether there is any reduction in progression-free survival or “cure” rate with reduced radiation. The release also does not quantify what is meant by the words “reduced radiation.” Is it half of normal doses, or reduced frequency but the same dose? There may be potential harms in reducing a therapy aimed at a cure, but the release does not address this except in vague terms: “We found there are some patients have very high cure rates with reduced doses of radiation,” said Barbara Burtness, MD, Professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology), Yale Cancer Center, Disease Research Team Leader for the Head and Neck Cancers Program at Smilow Cancer Hospital, and the chair of the ECOG-ACRIN head and neck committee. “Radiation dose reduction resulted in significantly improved swallowing and nutritional status,” she said. The release provides some information about the study and how it was conducted. And it does note that “patients who had a history of smoking less than 10 packs of cigarettes a year had a very high disease control compared with heavy smokers.” But it does not mention that this is a stage 2 study and that the number of patients (80) is very small as medical trials go. The published study notes that “This finding provides justification for further study of radiation deintensification but requires validation in a larger comparative trial.” That limitation should have been included in the release. There was no disease mongering. The release failed to mention any funding source or the presence or absence of a conflict for researchers. The published study notes that the research was supported by US Public Health Service grants, the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services. An author quoted in the release disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with seven pharmaceutical companies but no radiation device manufacturers. The release summarizes a study that compares low dose and high dose radiation, and notes that chemotherapy was also part of the treatment regimen for the patients. It states that all of the patient volunteers were candidates for surgery, which is another alternative or adjunct therapy for these types of cancers. The issue of availability of reduced dosages doesn’t apply here. The release makes no claim of novelty other than it is a “new clinical trial.” It might be assumed that low dose radiation is novel because it is not standard for these types of cancers but there is no way to know this from either the release or the published study. A brief online search revealed that a partnering institution issued a related news release on low dose radiation research in HPV-positive head and neck cancers in 2014. The release doesn’t rely on sensational language but the frequent use of the term “cure” seems misleading, especially when we aren’t provided specifics on the treatment outcomes. These cancers can certainly recur after treatment, so how did the researchers establish whether patients were cured or not?


Millions face risk from drug-coated stents

Explanation: Drug-eluting or drug-coated stents were first introduced in the U.S. in the mid-90s. Ten years later, they have all but replaced traditional stents because of their ability to prevent the clogged artery from closing again. However, new information suggests that these stents may in fact be causing some clots to form. This story reports on this development and does a decent job of explaining the problem, but falls short in explaining the strength of the available evidence and overstating the potential benefits from stenting. Although the story does describe the clot risk as 2 or 3 percent, the story should have provided more information here, such as, what is the time frame? How often are they fatal? How does this number compare to alternative options? Furthermore, the story inappropriately suggests that the benefits of stenting include a reduction in heart attacks. By accurately describing the prevalence of stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story verges on treatment mongering by describing stents as a "life-saving device" and suggesting that they can preventing heart attacks. The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence on the harms from stenting. Furthermore, the story does not mention medications as an alternative treatment option, nor does the story describe the costs of stenting for an indiviual or relative to the alternatives. NBC did something good at the conclusion of the story, letters viewers know that there was more information on their partner MSNBC website. When television newscasts don't afford much time to such complex stories, it is wise for them to use their websites in this way.

Although the story mentions what a big business there is in stents, it does not describe the costs of stenting to the individual or relative to any alternatives. Although the story does describe the clot risk as 2 or 3 percent, the story should have provided more information here, such as, what is the time frame? How often are they fatal? How does this number compare to alternative options? Furthermore, the story inappropriatedly suggests that the benefits of stenting include a reduction in heart attacks. The story does mention the possibility for stents to cause blood clots. The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence on the harms from stenting. By accurately describing the prevalence of stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. The story verges on treatment mongering by describing stents as a "life-saving device" and suggesting that they can preventing heart attacks. The story does quote two physicians, albeit with not a lot of depth. The story does not mention medications as an alternative treatment option. The story clearly states that stenting is a common procedure. The story clearly states that drug-eluting stents are not new. Because the story used two different expert sources, it is unlikely it relied solely or largely on a news release.


China toddler fights fat in land of little emperors.

Explanation: In a sleepy riverside village in Southern China, three-year-old Lu Zhihao tears around his home; his belly, arms and legs wobbling with fat as he stuffs a pear into his mouth.

Lu Zhihao, 4, kicks a ball at a basketball court in Foshan, Guangdong province March 28, 2011. REUTERS/Joe Tan “I want to be superman,” said the toddler, a typically cheeky kid, but one scaling in at over 60 kg (132.3 lb), around five times the weight of an average boy his age. With puffed cheeks puckering up his eyes and mouth, folds of flesh like a miniature Michelin man and heavily bowed legs, the one-meter (yard) tall toddler’s condition is suspected to be partly the result of a hormone imbalance given his height. His loud and frequent demands for food, however, are often met by his accommodating parents and a constant stream of visitors to their lively courtyard home. “Yum, yum, yum, yum. I like to eat fish,” he said, grinning with his mouth full at dinner time as he wolfed down several bowls of rice and steamed fish. With China’s coastal cities booming amid rampant urbanization and industrialization, a new, more affluent generation of middle class families have been raising more and more pampered children like Lu Zhihao, bringing a growing blight of obesity to Chinese society. “Little more than 20 years ago many people, even in China’s richest cities, were struggling to feed themselves; now they are struggling to lose weight,” wrote Paul French and Matthew Crabbe in their recent book “Fat China: How expanding waistlines are Changing a Nation.”   “The combination of rising incomes, greater longevity and the one-child policy meant that the “six pocket” phenomenon appeared with each child having richer parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles - all keen to spoil them.”   Some experts describe this as the “Little Emperor” syndrome, exacerbated by the country’s controversial one-child policy since the 1970s to control a swelling population expected to hit 1.65 billion in 2033. Hardly any high street in Chinese towns and cities now are without a McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken, and smoking rates are amongst the highest in the world as the country rapidly develops and its economy sky-rockets. “Obesity is a problem for the wealthy, newly emergent middle-class consumers,” wrote French and Crabbe. Zhihao’s mother Chen Huan admitted he throws tantrums when he’s denied food, as the toddler sulked on a sofa after he was refused a pack of biscuits after dinner. “He has difficulty moving up and down stairs. He needs help getting on the bus that takes him to the childcare center. It’s also difficult to bathe him because of the rolls of fat,” said Chen, who works as a factory worker in the Pearl River Delta. “Of course I worry about him. Basically his legs can’t support his weight ... His heart is also under pressure because of the heavy load,” said Zhihao’s father, Lu Yuncheng, who works on a fish farm. A 2008 Chinese National Task Force on Childhood Obesity found that almost one in five children under seven are overweight in China, and more than seven percent are obese.


California has seen a "56 percent decline in the gun murder rate" since the 1990s.

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

California voters added to what are considered the nation’s strongest gun control laws on Election Day by approving Proposition 63. The measure imposes background checks on ammunition sales; bans possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines; and forces owners to give up their weapons as soon as they can no longer legally possess them. Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who is running for governor in 2018, helped author the initiative and led the campaign for it. The measure had received nearly 63 percent approval as of mid-November, with some votes still uncounted. In a press conference the day after Prop 63 passed, Newsom made several claims about the effectiveness of California’s gun restrictions. "We have significantly reduced the gun-murder rate because of our progressive gun policy," Newsom said, adding that California has seen a "56 percent decline in the gun murder rate since we started to step up and step in and lead the nation in common sense gun safety laws, background checks, restricting large-capacity clips and the like." Gavin Newsom makes his claim about California's gun murder rate at about the 6:30 minute mark in the video above. We decided to focus on Newsom’s claim that California has seen a "56 percent decline in the gun murder rate" since it began imposing tough gun laws in the 1990s. Whether those gun laws are the driving force behind such a drop is a matter of mixed opinion. Gun rights groups say tougher criminal penalties, not gun laws, have led to the decline. PolitiFact does not fact-check predictions or opinions. A Glock 30SF .45 Auto semi-automatic pistol with a Glock 13-round extension magazine installed, and 13 rounds of hollow-point ammunition are seen in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen) Our research The gun murder rate measures the number of gun-related homicides per 100,000 residents in a geographical area. A separate measurement, the gun death rate, takes a broader look including homicides, suicides and accidental shooting deaths. Based on our research and contact with Newsom’s campaign spokesman, it appears the lieutenant governor mixed up the two rates and ended up understating the drop in California’s gun murder rate by more than 10 percentage points. The state’s gun death rate -- not the gun murder rate -- dropped 56 percent from 1993 to 2013, according to figures provided by Ari Freilich, an attorney at the San Francisco-based Law Center for Gun Violence Prevention. The attorney cited age-adjusted data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nonprofit law center advocates for gun control laws and is considered an authority on gun crime statistics. The law center’s figures do not include data from 2014, a year in which gun deaths and gun homicides continued to fall in California. Nor do they include statistics from 2015 and 2016, which are not yet available. Still, the 20-year span is the approximate period during which California imposed strict new gun laws, spurred by mass shootings years earlier on a Stockton schoolyard and inside a San Francisco law office. This meant the rate of deaths by any kind of shooting declined from 17.48 per 100,000 residents in 1993 to 7.68 per 100,000 residents. Larger drop in gun murder rate During this same period, California’s gun murder rate declined even faster: By 65 percent, according to a review of the CDC’s fatal injury reports by PolitiFact California. If 2014 is included, the rate dropped by 67 percent. Data from these reports have been cited by both gun control and gun rights groups to describe California’s decline in gun violence. They show gun murders fell from 9.60 per 100,000 residents in 1993 to 3.14 per 100,000 in 2014. In raw numbers, this means nearly 2,000 fewer people in California died in gun homicides in 2014 (when 1,233 were killed) compared with 1993 (when 3,183 were killed). Nationwide, the gun murder rate fell 45 percent during much of the same period. Between 1993 and 2000, it dropped from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people, according to a Pew Research analysis in 2015 of available federal data. Since then, Pew reported, the rate has remained relatively flat. Our ruling California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom said California has seen a "56 percent decline in the gun murder rate" since it enacted strong gun control laws in the 1990s. Newsom appears to have mixed up the gun murder rate with the gun death rate. California’s gun murder rate dropped 67 percent between 1993 and 2014, according to a review of fatal injury report data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A similar, though somewhat smaller, drop in the gun murder rate took place nationwide during this period. Newsom’s overall point is correct: Gun deaths, including gun homicides, have dropped significantly in California since the state imposed the new laws. We are not fact-checking the cause of this drop. Gun rights and gun control groups have different opinions on this. What is clear is that gun homicides have declined significantly, and even faster than what Newsom stated. His claim needs this key clarification. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.


A video shows Londoners expressing support for the US President, following a June 2017 terrorist attack in the city

Explanation: What's true: The video shows a small group of people in London chanting in support of Donald Trump. At least one of them is from London. What's false: The video was filmed in March 2017, has nothing to do with the June 2017 terrorist attack, and shows a small group of far-right extremists counter-protesting an anti-racism rally where thousands expressed opposition to Donald Trump and his policies.

Politics, britain first, donald trump, london

On 5 June 2017, the Red State Watcher web site posted two articles featuring a video that appeared to show Londoners chanting U.S. President Donald Trump’s name in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in the city two days earlier, which left at least victims dead, as well as the three attackers. One article carried the headline “Wow! Londoners chant President Trump’s name instead of mayor,” and another was headlined “Sadiq Khan May Be In Trouble – Look What Londoners Are Doing!”   That story went on to claim: Londoners are fed up [with] Sadiq’s [sic] Khan’s soft stance on terrorism. As British citizens die, Kahn [sic] tells the public “not to be alarm.” [sic] This did not settle well with some citizens. Some Londoners took [to] the streets and instead of chanting Khan’s name, they chanted Donald Trump’s. Both stories included the following video: Sadiq Khan is an EMBARRASSMENT ? Londoners chant #Trump‘s name instead of hispic.twitter.com/flBWoTEKGN@realDonaldTrump #MAGA #LondonBridge — Boca Vista (@bocavista2016) June 5, 2017  The articles, the posting of the video, and the text that accompanied it – which labelled London Mayor Sadiq Khan an “embarrassment” – all came in the context of a high-profile dispute between Khan and Trump. The morning after the attack, Trump grossly misrepresented comments made by Khan, claiming that the London Mayor had told the people of the British capital there was “no reason to be alarmed” at the attack. In fact, Khan was referring specifically to increased police patrols on the streets of London, and reassuring its residents not to be unduly concerned by that escalation. A spokesperson for the London Mayor then issued a statement calling Trump’s tweet “ill-informed” and accusing him of deliberately taking Khan’s comments out of context. The following day, Trump doubled down on his attack, saying the mayor’s explanation of his remarks – which was accurate – was a “pathetic excuse.” Contrary to what the Red State Watcher articles implied, however, the video had nothing to do with that dispute, or with the June 2017 terrorist attack. In fact, Paul Golding, leader of the right-wing extremist group Britain First, shot the video in March 2017:   London today! “DONALD TRUMP WE LOVE YOU!” pic.twitter.com/AOryV4RtND — Paul Golding (@GoldingBF) March 18, 2017  The video shows a small group of far-right activists engaged in a counter-protest at a much larger anti-racism rally in London on 18 March, at which demonstrators carried signs saying “Stand up to Trump.” It’s possible some of those chanting in favor of the US President are from London – Paul Golding himself is from the British capital – but the video does not show a spontaneous assembly of non-aligned Londoners favoring Donald Trump over Sadiq Khan in their dispute, following a 3 June 2017 terrorist attack in the city.


Kyleen Wright Says murder is the chief cause of death for pregnant women.

Explanation: Anti-abortion activist says murder is the No. 1 killer of pregnant women

Via Twitter, the president of the anti-abortion Texans for Life Coalition made this claim Dec. 6, 2011: "Murder #1 cause of death for pg women," meaning pregnant women. "Tragic." Kyleen Wright’s message pointed Twitter followers to a Houston Chronicle news article published that day about a Houston man charged with capital murder in the August 2010 stabbing death of a pregnant woman. Investigators had discovered records of calls and text messages between the man and the woman, the story says, indicating that he thought he was the unborn child's father and wanted her to have an abortion but that she had refused. We asked Wright to elaborate on murder being the primary cause of death for pregnant women. By email, she replied: "This is a story that keeps popping up. ... It’s the top cause, it’s one of the top causes, and then there will be the occasional story denying it’s a top cause." Wright guided us to an Oct. 26, 2011, Reuters news article about a study concluding that about three of every 100,000 women who are pregnant or have a child less than 1 year old are murdered and two of every 100,000 kill themselves, with roughly half of the women who died violently having had some sort of conflict with current or former partners. That facet, the story says, prompted experts to call for more thorough screening and follow-up for domestic problems during pregnancy check-ups. In the November 2011, issue of the Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal, the researchers summed up: "Pregnancy-associated homicide and suicide each account for more deaths" than obstetric complications "including hemorrhage, obstetric embolism or preeclampsia and eclampsia." That’s not quite saying murder is the prime killer of pregnant women. Rather, the study suggests that homicide accounts for more deaths than specific individual complications of pregnancy. The study says the researchers determined that there were two suicides and 2.9 homicides among pregnant or postpartum mothers for every 100,000 live births from 2003 through 2007. Over the years, the study says, rates of death due to cardiac disease, infection and hemorrhage and other such medical causes have decreased but maternal mortality due to injury has remained constant. "Homicide and suicide are two important and potentially preventable causes of maternal injury," the study says. In an interview, the study’s lead researcher, Christie Palladino, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Georgia Health Sciences University, pointed us to a 2010 study led by Cynthia Berg of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that from 1998 through 2005, the U.S. death rate of women from all pregnancy-related complications was 14.5 per 100,000 live births. The study was described in the December 2010 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Palladino told us that her study’s figures on slain pregnant and postpartum women were drawn from the National Violent Death Reporting System, a federal database including all records of violent deaths in 16 participating states. She noted that compared to the 2.9 homicides of pregnant and postpartum women per 100,000 live births, other research has found that 1.81 pregnant and postpartum women per 100,0000 live births die from hemorrhage, with fewer pregnant women dying from other causes associated with pregnancy, including cardiovascular conditions, thrombotic pulmonary embolisms, hypertensive disorders, infections, cardiomyopathy and amniotic fluid embolisms. Then again, Palladino said, her team’s study did not look into all possible causes of death for pregnant women; car wrecks, for example, were not included. By email, Palladino said that "while we can't say that homicide is THE #1 cause (of) pregnancy-associated mortality, our data when compared to other data on maternal mortality" points to the fact that homicide and suicide are "among the leading causes of pregnancy-associated deaths." Palladino also provided a federal study, published in 2005, concluding that the murder rate for pregnant and postpartum women was 1.7 per 100,000 live births. Murder risk factors for mothers, the federal study says, include being younger than 20, being African American and having late or no prenatal care. "Homicide," the authors wrote in the March 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, "is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths." But it’s not the leading cause, according to the 2005 study. The study drew on information covering 1991 through 1999 in the nation’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, which was established in 1987 to collect data on all reported deaths that occurred during pregnancy or within a year of pregnancy. And of all the period’s 7,342 reported deaths of women (some of which occurred more than a year after the woman gave birth), 4,200 were due to medical complications during pregnancy or a year afterward. Nearly 880 of the deaths occurred due to motor vehicle accidents and 617 women were murdered, the study says, and unintentional injuries, suicides and other causes accounted for nearly 500 deaths. In this review, then, murder trailed vehicle accidents and medical complications as a cause of death. Additional perspective may be in order, the researchers indicated, in that the prevalence of homicides involving pregnant and postpartum women is "similar to national statistics on homicide among all women of reproductive age (regardless of whether they are pregnant or not)." In 1999, the study says, homicide was the third-leading cause of injury-related death for all U.S. women (pregnant or not pregnant) of reproductive age, 15 to 44 years of age, after deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents and suicide. For such women in 2008, the latest year of available data, homicide ranked behind motor vehicle accidents, poisonings, malignant tumors, suicides, poisonings and heart disease among causes of death, our check of a CDC database indicates. We’re ready to rule. The Palladino study, suggesting more pregnant and postpartum women die from murder than any single medical complication, gives Wright’s claim an element of truth. But murder trails medical complications combined as a cause of death and it’s also behind vehicle wrecks. Wright’s statement is .


Teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg is actually an Australian actress named Estella Renee.

Explanation: It is possible to be both worried about climate-change and a child actress at the same time.

As teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg found herself in the global spotlight in September 2019, climate-change deniers sought to discredit her with a series of false rumors and doctored photographs. Perhaps the most preposterous of these claims was that Thunberg was actually an Australian actress named Estella Renee who was delivering speeches on environmental issues not because she was concerned about the planet, but because she was a deep state crisis actor and paid to shill. While researching this article we found at least three variations of the “Greta Thunberg is an actress” claim. They are as follows: We’ll take a deeper look at each of these items individually. Greta Thunberg is actually Australian actress Estelle Renee? Several social media users have claimed that Thunberg is actually an Australian actress named Estelle Renee. Facebook user Jack A. Schulman, for instance, wrote: Aspiring Actress impersonates crying child climate activist at UN, impersonator is a sham. Screams “How dare you!” from acting class. Estella Renee is a very talented shakespearian actress from Australia. She can do Scandinavian accents. She can break down and cry. She can scream “How dare you!”. She deserves an Academy Award not a Nobel for impersonating Heidi looking Greta Thunberg, a fictional Character before the UN yesterday, a fake climate activist, a child actor age 15 and 1/2 screaming “How dare you!” straight out of ” Streetcar named Desire! “. Otherwise, she’s a sham and a fraud! Her publicist refused to respond to our calls, but NY customs identified her as Estrella Renee, here “to see the sights” at her entry from Australia. Her adult accompaniment signed her into her hotel room as Greta Thungren, but we confirmed she is Estelle Renee. We turned over her illegal false identity to DHS who has confirmed her dual identity, but is still investigating. They are not sure impersonation is a crime. Yet, what a fraud!! This claim is nonsensical. Thunberg didn’t appear out of thin air in September 2019 to deliver a speech to the United Nations. She’s been on the public radar since at least September 2018 when she started staging climate protests in Sweden. Thunberg has also been nominated for numerous awards (including the Nobel Peace Prize), has met with several world leaders, and took a highly publicized voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, we know the identity of Thunberg’s parents, Svante Thunberg and Malena Ernman, as well as her grandfather, Olof Thunberg, and her sister, Beata. In other words, Greta Thunberg is not a “fictional character.” Her journey to becoming a global environmental activist has been well documented. Greta Thunberg has an IMDB page. Is this is proof that her environmental activism is disingenuous? A slightly less far-fetched version of this claim holds that Thunberg is listed as an “actress” on her IMDB page. While this is true, many have shared this screenshot as if it was somehow damaging to Thunberg’s reputation as an environmental activist: Thunberg has one acting credit to her name. She lent her voice to a short film titled “Ave Paraíso” that was released in Spain in 2019. The remainder of her IMDB page simply lists appearances she’s made on television programs (such as “The Daily Show”) or in environmental documentaries where she is credited as herself. The fact that Thunberg has an IMDB page is often shared along with the insinuation that her environmental beliefs are not sincere. However, it should be noted that being an actor does not automatically disqualify someone from having an opinion, being an activist, or having a political career. Oscar-winner Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, often lends his voice to environmental causes. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan were both actors before embarking on political careers. Even U.S. President Donald Trump is listed as an “actor” on his IMDB page:  The website Michael Smith News noted one additional detail about Thunberg’s IMDB page that seemingly hinted at the notion that she was a paid actress looking for new gigs. The website wrote that “you can talk to her agent if you’d like to book her for acting work” and then linked to an IMDB Pro link. However, it doesn’t appear that Michael Smith News has access to IMDB Pro. When we checked Greta’s listing on IMDB Pro, we found no listing for Thunberg’s alleged agent. Does the viral video of a young climate protester crying feature actress Estelle Renee? Thunberg wasn’t the only environmental activist to be accused of being an actor. The websites TeaParty.org, The Gateway Pundit, Joe for America, and the aforementioned Michael Smith News all published articles about how it was “all a hoax” and that the “little girl seen crying in viral video” at the Global Warming rally was really a child actress, “a prop for the left,” named Estelle Renee: The international left used innocent children last weekend to push their climate change extremism. Tens of thousands of children were let out of school so they could go protest against capitalism and global warming. As we reported on Monday — One terrified little girl in Australia couldn’t even talk to reporters about climate change without crying… …But that was not your typical emotional teen. The girl in the video is an Aussie child actress. These articles are referring to a viral video from May 2019 of a young protester who broke down in tears while talking to reporters about climate change. The video in question can be seen in the second of the following tweets: This young girl is so terrified about “climate change” she can’t even speak to a journalist about her fears without breaking down in tears. So sad. The Marxists have gotten their hands on our children and we have allowed it to happen.#ClimateStrike pic.twitter.com/YN2xAjGvIj — Oh boy what a shot (@ohboywhatashot) September 20, 2019  The young protester in this video, whose real name is Estella Brasier, does have a profile on the talent website Star Now. However, these websites provided no evidence that this person was paid to appear at this protest or to “act” that they were concerned about the environment. And as we noted above, the fact that a person has acted or is an actor does not disqualify them from having personal beliefs. Brasier’s father spoke to Maarten Schenk of the debunking website LeadStories about this rumor: The events of that day are in the public domain and were on every TV station. The ideas and concerns expressed by Estella depicted in that video are entirely genuine, not paid for, she was not acting… …Estella was not expecting to be interviewed by the media that day: it could have been her, it could have been anyone else. She was just standing closest to the cameras.


Keanu Reeves supposedly wrote an inspiring open letter about life and loss that has gone viral online.

Explanation: Sad Keanu Reeves Writes About Life, Loss-Incorrectly Attributed!

Keanu Reeves didn’t write an inspirational open letter about life and loss that went viral on social media sites. The open letter went viral after it appeared at Keanu Reeves Online, an unofficial Facebook fan page for the actor, on November 21, 2015. In the letter, Keanu Reeves (supposedly) writes about his early life, living with dyslexia and losing the woman that he loved: “Most people know me, but don’t know my story. At the age of 3, I watched my father leave. I attended four different high schools and struggled with dyslexia, making my education more challenging than it is for most. At the age of 23, my closest friend River Phoenix died of a drug overdose. In 1998, I met Jennifer Syme. We fell instantly in love and by 1999, Jennifer was pregnant with our daughter. Sadly, after eight months, our child was born stillborn. We were devastated by her death and it eventually ended our relationship. 18 months later, Jennifer died in a car accident. Since then I avoid serious relationships and having kids. My younger sister had lukemia. Today she is cured, and I donated 70% of my gains from the movie Matrix to Hospitals that treat leukemia. I am one of the only Hollywood stars without a Mansion. I don’t have any bodyguards and do not wear fancy clothes. And even though I’m worth $100 million, I still ride the subway and I love it! The inspirational open letter about Keanu Reeves’ life quickly went viral. That’s due in large part to the fact that many people think Keanu Reeves Online is the actor’s official Facebook page, but that’s not the case. The page clearly states that it’s in no way linked to Keanu Reeves: This is a Keanu Reeves Fan Page. We are not associated with the real Keanu Reeves in any way. We just quote what we read and spread positivity. Keanu Reeves Online posts a lot of pictures of Keanu Reeves and inspirational or positive messages about life. These messages often appear in quotation marks and don’t list an author, so it’s easy to assume that the passages were written or spoken by Keanu Reeves. In reality, Keanu Reeves has refused to talk about his personal life, so him writing an unprompted open letter about his biggest struggles would have been very unusual. A Keanu Reeves profile that appeared in the magazine Details in 2008 touches on the actor’s refusal to talk about his personal life: He remains stoic in his refusal to talk about his personal life. (There are reasons to remain stoic. In 1999 he lost a daughter with his girlfriend, actress Jennifer Syme; the baby was stillborn. Almost two years later Syme died in a car accident in Los Angeles. To ask him about these things would seem merely cruel.) Later in the day Keanu notices the query GIRLFRIEND? scribbled on a page of my legal pad. He answers, politely and preemptively, like this: “No.” “No you don’t have a girlfriend or no you don’t want to get into it?” “No,” he says. “All of its implications.” There have been a number of celebrity pranks similar to this one. It was falsely reported that Richard Gere gave food and $100 to every homeless person in New York, and that Jennifer Anniston donated food and clothes to a homeless single mom who she met on the street. These hoaxes could be simply designed to draw a response from celebrities, or to make celebrities “look bad” when they debunk rumors about their over-the-top kindness. So, the inspirational open letter that appeared at Keanu Reeves Online covers actual events from the actor’s life, but it wasn’t actually written by Keanu Reeves. At this point, the letter’s actual author isn’t known. Comments


Influenza now in all Maine counties; considered widespread.

Explanation: Cases of influenza have been found in all 16 Maine counties and the disease is now considered widespread, state health officials said Wednesday.

So far in the current season that began in the fall and will last into spring, 90 people in the state have been hospitalized with the flu and 1,287 people have tested positive, health officials said. The number is likely an underrepresentation of the number of people who have been infected, according to the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The best way to avoid the flu is to get vaccinated and take other precautions to stay healthy, officials said. “Influenza is unpredictable and, in some cases, deadly,” said Maine CDC director Dr. Nirav D. Shah. “The most effective way to prevent the spread of influenza is to get vaccinated, and it’s not too late to get a flu shot.” In addition to getting vaccinated, health officials suggest a number of other steps to avoid getting sick including washing your hands, covering a cough and staying home when sick.


FDA authorizes marketing of first blood test to aid in the evaluation of concussion in adults

Explanation: The Food and Drug Administration approved for marketing a blood test that uses the presence of certain proteins to predict whether adults with a suspected concussion have structural brain injury, and which could conceivably reduce the number of people who undergo costlier computed tomography (CT) scans. The Brain Trauma Indicator test measures levels of proteins, known as UCH-L1 and GFAP, that are released from the brain into blood and measured within 12 hours of head injury. Its anticipated that knowing these levels can help predict which patients may have intracranial lesions visible by CT scan and which don’t. We wish the release had included the research institutions involved and any publications relating to the study so that we could evaluate the evidence. This evidence was also missing from a CNN story we also reviewed on the test. There were approximately 2.8 million traumatic brain injury (TBI) visits to the emergency department in 2013, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and of these, TBI contributed to the deaths of 50,000 people.The release predicts that about one-third of patients may be able to forego CT scans because of this test’s predictive value. While the blood test reportedly has high sensitivity and specificity, logistical issues may lead doctors to do the test and continue to scan. Emergency department doctors may not be able to wait at least 3-4 hours for the blood test results since this would impact other workflows. News releases about concussion are bound to get a lot of attention. In this case, the news release doesn’t clearly spell out to lay readers what this test does. It’s not a test for concussion, as a casual reader might glean from the way it’s worded.

The release notes the cost of CT scans as if the blood test costs nothing. In reality, the blood test could cost more than the CT scan (plenty of blood tests already do) and the comparison drawn is meaningless. The release should have noted whether the blood test could be done in a standard lab or would require specialized techniques, which would affect cost, and how the 3-4 hour minimum timeframe to process the blood work would realistically impact the workflow in emergency department settings. We applaud the release for at least acknowledging cost concerns. “…availability of a blood test for mTBI/concussion will likely reduce the CT scans performed on patients with concussion each year, potentially saving our health care system the cost of often unnecessary neuroimaging tests.” But there’s no cost data given to back up that assertion. The release refers to a multi-center prospective study of 1,947 blood samples, but does not tell us the citation for publication of that study. The blood sample tests were able to “predict the presence of intracranial lesions on a CT scan 97.5 percent of the time and those who did not have intracranial lesions on a CT scan 99.6 percent of the time. These findings indicate that the test can reliably predict the absence of intracranial lesions.” The release claims that the blood testing will rule out the need for a CT scan in “at least one-third of patients who are suspected of having mTBI.” This is the main purported benefit, along with reducing costs. The Brain Trauma Indicator was able to predict the presence of intracranial lesions on a CT scan 97.5% of the time and those who did not have intracranial lesions on a CT scan 99.6% of the time. These findings suggest that the test can reliably predict the absence of intracranial lesions and that health care professionals can incorporate this tool into the standard of care for patients to rule out the need for a CT scan in at least one-third of patients who are suspected of having mTBI. The release does not mention harms. In any screening test, there is always the harm of missing an injury that exists or finding a false positive that leads to unnecessary and sometime costly followup tests and treatments. The release does a good job describing the results of a multi-center prospective clinical study of 1,947 individual blood samples from adults with suspected mTBI/concussion and reviewed the product’s performance by comparing mTBI/concussion blood tests results with CT scan results. But it missed an opportunity to share the trial results in a transparent fashion. The “study” appears to draw on data that was already available from a clinical trial. That isn’t the same as conducting a randomized clinical trial on the blood test, and that’s not explained in the news release. There’s no mention of the name of the trial or where it had been published. A glowing quote from the FDA commissioner is no substitute for peer-reviewed trial results. There’s no explanation for how the FDA arrived at the assessment that the test could “rule out” CT scans in a third of suspected concussion cases, which is the main purported benefit of this test. There is no outward disease-mongering but the information about deaths from TBI seemed a bit over-the-top since the population targeted by this test have potential mild TBI which would be unlikely to kill. The release doesn’t name study funders. The release explains very well the typical ways that a brain injury is evaluated in an emergency department. It compares these blood tests with the existing standard, a CT scan. The release announces that the test is “approved” for use, so we assume it will be widely available. It also quotes an official who says the test “can be used both in the continental U.S. as well as foreign U.S. laboratories that service the American military.” The FDA states that the blood test is a first of its kind to be approved for marketing. We did not identify any unjustifiable language. The purpose of the test is somewhat mis-characterized, though, as a test for evaluating mild TBI, when in reality it is designed to diagnose intracranial lesions or structural brain damage.


Rolex sales records are so well-kept that they were used to solve an open homicide.

Explanation: Did Rolex Sales Records Help Solve a Murder?

In September 2019, a Reddit r/todayilearned post claimed that luxury watch manufacturer Rolex maintained such “meticulous” sales records that their data was used to solve an open homicide:TIL of The Rolex Murder. On July 28, 1996, a man’s body washed up on a trawler in the UK seas. There was no identification on the body except a 25-year-old Rolex Oyster on his wrist. As Rolex maintains such meticulous service records, they were able to ID the victim and ultimately the murderer. from todayilearnedReddit’s r/todayilearned (usually abbreviated “TIL“) is a subreddit for users to share interesting facts and stories, and the Rolex murder story was highly upvoted. On October 4 2019, the story was reposted in a visual format to Reddit’s image-hosting sister-site Imgur (titled “Timely findings”):Timely findingsA meme with the header “Diply FACTS!! !” featured an image of a blue-faced Rolex (“not the actual image”) and text at the bottom:On July 28, 1996, a man’s body washed up on a trawler in the UK seas. There was no identification on the body except a 25-year-old Rolex Oyster on his wrist. As Rolex maintains such meticulous service records, they were able to ID the victim and ultimately the murderer.The “Diply Facts” page shared the image to their Facebook page on October 3 2019. It likely sourced its claim from the popular Reddit post several days earlier, but didn’t mark its source on the meme.As is often the case with r/todayilearned posts, the original poster selected the option to link to an article rather than appending a text-based summary of the post. They shared an article from which the description of Rolex’s “meticulous records” was apparently sourced:On July 28, 1996, a man’s body was found in the net of the Brixham trawler Malkerry six miles off Teignmouth.Detectives found nothing on the body to indicate who the drowned man was. Their only clue was a 25-year-old Rolex Oyster watch which was still attached to his right wrist.Six weeks later, after researching Rolex’s meticulous service records, officers established that the victim was 51-year-old former soldier Ronald Platt.The serial number and service documents showed the timepiece had twice been taken by Mr Platt to a firm of Harrogate jewellers in the 1980s.In its original format on Reddit, the post’s title adequately and accurately summarized the initial details of the story. The body of Ronald Platt was located by a British trawler on July 28 1996, and UK police used the watch’s serial number as a means of identifying the victim. British news organizations reported that “fugitive Canadian businessman Albert Walker” was convicted of Walker’s murder in 1998, and described a complicated series of events which began when Walker fled his native Canada.According to the September 2017 article (which was updated in September 2019), Walker first influenced Platt and Platt’s partner to relocate to Canada. But Platt moved back to England in 1995, disrupting Walker’s efforts to remain undetected:Just weeks before the Canadian authorities began investigating the alleged theft of nearly $4 million Canadian from his financial services business, Walker had fled across the Atlantic to London with his 15-year-old daughter in December 1990 … [After stealing the identity of another man, Walker] he befriended mild-mannered TV repairman Ronald Platt and his 39-year-old girlfriend Elaine Boyes in Harrogate where the couple unknowingly played a part in extending Walker’s web of deceit and lies.Walker used them as a front for a bogus company operation, with accounts in Switzerland, to launder cash to further his stay in Britain.When [Platt and Boyes] had served their purpose, Walker paid for them to start a new life in Canada – a country Mr Platt loved after living there in his youth – and assumed his second false identity. But when a disillusioned and jobless Mr Platt returned to Britain in 1995 he became a threat to Walker’s security and freedom.Coverage of Walker’s murder trial in 1998 described how police used Rolex service records to identify Platt and led them to Walker:Mr Platt was only identified through a Rolex Oyster watch on his wrist which bore a reference number that allowed Devon police to trace its owner: the real Ronald Platt, and subsequently his family.“The irony is that the watch was one of his proudest possessions and never left his wrist,” said Mr Barton, who added: “The person who put him on the sea-bed left it with him.”Albert Walker is the subject of pages on both Wikipedia and Murderpedia, a Wiki for “true crime” buffs; Platt’s murder was the subject of other true-crime writing. Under the heading “Murder and conviction” on Walker’s Wikipedia page, the role of his Rolex watch in the investigation is described at length. Time elapsed between Platt’s death was described in a slightly different time frame, stating the body was found “two weeks” after the murder:Walker took Platt out on a fishing trip 20 July 1996 where he murdered him, weighed him down with an anchor, and dumped his body in the sea. Two weeks later the body was discovered in the English Channel by fisherman John Copik with a Rolex wristwatch being the only identifiable object on the body. Since the Rolex movement had a serial number and was engraved with special markings every time it was serviced, British police traced the service records from Rolex. Ronald Joseph Platt was identified as the owner of the watch and the victim of the murder. In addition British police were able to determine the date of death by examining the date on the watch calendar and since the Rolex movement had a reserve of two to three days of operation when inactive and it was fully waterproof, they were able to determine the time of death within a small margin of error. Walker was apprehended shortly thereafter.The role Rolex service records played in solving the 1996 murder was also mentioned on the brand’s Wikipedia page. A source cited for the claim on Walker’s page said that the murder occurred on July 20 1996, and Platt’s body was recovered eight days later, not two weeks:The fugitive Canadian [Walker], who was number 4 on Interpol’s wanted list and feared his cover would be blown, lured Platt to Devon in southwest England on the pretext of helping him sail his boat, the Lady Jane, to Essex. Once aboard, Walker knocked Platt unconscious, tied a 4.5-kg anchor to his belt and tossed him overboard. Eight days later, a commercial fisherman scooped up the body and the anchor in a net about 10 km offshore. Police initially thought the victim had committed suicide. But after establishing Platt’s identity through the Rolex watch on his wrist, and discovering that someone else was living under his name, Devon police launched a murder investigation.Although Rolex service records provided information critical to the investigation, additional forensic and forensic accounting work enabled UK police to solve Platt’s murder. Detective Superintendent Phil Sincock headed the investigation, and he described other case elements during 2019 media interviews:“There was one bit of luck in terms of the Essex policeman going to the wrong door, but other than that it was down to painstaking police work and some new ground-breaking scientific inquiries which was why they had me over to Canada talking about them,” [Sincock] said as another film about the story was released.“We seized a whole van load of documentation from Walker’s house and among it all was a two-inch square sales receipt which showed that he had purchased on a Barclaycard an anchor … We proved that his yacht was at sea at the material time. For the first time in any case, we took the yacht’s GPS navigation system back to its manufacturers and they were able to plot co-ordinates which gave us the time and date it had been switched off and proved it had been very near to where Mr Platt’s body had been found.“Tests on the Rolex watch established it would have taken 44 hours to wind down. The watch stopped on June 22, which meant that he had died on June 20. From the GPS we could put Walker’s boat in the area on June 20.“Inside the cabin were some cushions on which we found some head hairs. DNA tests proved that they were from the deceased man. And forensic tests found zinc traces from the anchor on Mr Platt’s belt and traces of leather on the anchor.”In 2005, Walker’s daughter — who he presented as his wife during his time in England — spoke to Canadian news organizations about her father’s transfer from the UK to Canada as well as her fears for her family’s safety. As of 2013, Walker was alive and incarcerated in British Columbia.As presented on Reddit and Imgur, claims about the Rolex murder investigation and the involvement of the brand’s “meticulous records” was broadly accurate. Walker’s arrest was initially reported as resulting from police reliance on Rolex service records. In actuality, however, additional Rolex-related data involving its “wind-down” function also played a part, as did then-novel use of global positioning satellites and DNA testing on hairs found at the crime scene. But according to initial reports, Platt’s identity was indeed established via his Rolex Oyster watch.


Pope Francis bestowed the Pontifical Medal upon Lilianne Ploumen, a Dutch pro-abortion activist.

Explanation: Pope Francis Gives Pontifical Medal to Pro-Abortion Dutch Activist Lilianne Ploumen

Pope Francis gave a papal honor to a pro-abortion activist Lilianne Ploumen. But the Vatican said it was given as a “diplomatic practice” and not as an endorsement of her views. BNR Newsradio, an all-news station in the Netherlands, posted a short video of Lilianne Ploumen posing with the Pontifical Medal on December 22, 2017. The video went largely unnoticed at the time. That changed, however, with a Media Research Center report that appeared on January 22. The story appeared under the headline “Pope Francis Awards Pro-Abortion Extremist Lilianne Ploumen with Pontifical Honor.” [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMWNXAch5eM[/embedyt] The video shows Ploumen posing with the Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great medal. The recognition has two divisions, civil and military. It’s frequently given to heads of state who meet with the Pope. Ploumen serves as the minister of foreign trade and development in the Netherlands. She launched a pro-choice NGO called “She Decides” in 2017. The group aims to counter an executive order issued by President Trump that bars U.S. aid to organizations that discuss abortion as a family planning option with their clients. In an interview with the Catholic Herald on January 15,  Ploumen said, “I assume I have been granted the pontifical medal in the context of the Dutch state visit to the Vatican in June 2017. I was part of the delegation in my capacity at that time as minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of the Netherlands.” The Holy See Press Office confirmed that Ploumen had been given the honor as a “diplomatic practice” for heads of state in a statement to the National Catholic Register that same day: “The honor of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great received by Mrs. Lilianne Ploumen, former Minister of Development, in June 2017 during the visit of the Dutch Royals to the Holy Father, responds to the diplomatic practice of the exchange of honors between delegations on the occasion of official visits by Heads of State or Government in the Vatican. Therefore, it is not in the slightest a placet [an expression of assent] to the politics in favor of abortion and of birth control that Mrs Ploumen promotes.” So, wile it’s true that Lilliane Ploumen received a papal honor. But the Vatican maintains that it was given as a diplomatic practice, and wasn’t an endorsement of her views on abortion. Comments


Tuberculosis outbreak associated with Mankato university.

Explanation: The Minnesota Department of Health is investigating a tuberculosis outbreak among people associated with Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Mankato, Health, Minnesota, Tuberculosis

Health officials believe the bacteria originated with an international student and spread to at least seven others. The majority are MSU students or former students. About 700 people who may have interacted with them, such as roommates and significant others, have been contacted. And, of those, health officials identified another 30 individuals who have tested positive for TB, but didn’t have any symptoms. TB is caused by a bacterial infection and usually affects the lungs, though the bones, spine or other organs can also be infected.


The U.S. has had 143 criminal convictions for absentee-ballot fraud (or .0006% of the total vote) over the past 20 years.

Explanation: What's true: The Heritage Foundation has recorded approximately 140 criminal convictions related to the "fraudulent use of absentee ballots" over the last 20 years. These include instances of fraud in local and state elections, in addition to presidential contests. What's undetermined: Proven instances of such voter fraud account for an infinitesimal number of ballots when compared to overall votes cast, but the exact percentage is difficult to pin down.

In the months leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting, a method of voting that became increasingly popular and necessary due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, would lead to widespread voter fraud. Trump made these claims despite the fact that the United States has been voting by mail since the Civil War in the 1860s; that Trump himself has cast mail-in ballots in several elections; and that relatively few criminal convictions related to absentee-ballot fraud are documented, especially when compared to the overall number of votes cast. On July 30, 2020, actress Mia Farrow brought attention to the latter point in a tweet claiming the U.S. had only 143 cases of absentee-ballot fraud over the last 20 years:  This claim is largely accurate. Farrow referred to a database of voter-fraud cases compiled by the the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that appears to have notable influence on the Trump administration’s policies. This database catalogs various types of election fraud, such as altering vote counts, buying votes, and duplicate voting — adding up to a total of “1,290 proven instances of voter fraud” (in more than 30 years), according to the site’s own summary. Farrow’s tweet focused on just one category in the database: instances of “fraudulent use of absentee ballots.”  This database does not have separate categories for “mail-in” votes and “absentee” votes. Some have argued that these are two distinct methods of voting, but no practical difference exists between these two terms. It should also be noted that while some have turned voter fraud into a partisan issue, the Heritage Foundation’s database includes fraudulent attempts that would have benefited candidates from any party. Farrow’s claim that the U.S. had 143 criminal convictions for “fraudulent use of absentee ballots” over the last 20 years is generally accurate. However, when we perused the database, we only found 136 listings under this category during this time frame. The discrepancy is likely due to entries being added or deleted from this database since it was originally published. As of this writing, the Heritage Foundation lists 145 criminal convictions for absentee-ballot fraud dating back 32 years to 1988. While the White House has used this database to show that that absentee-ballot fraud has truly occurred, others have used the statistics to argue that this problem is not at all widespread. Ellen Weintraub, the commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), highlighted this statistic in a 66-tweet thread about Trump’s misleading claims on voter fraud:  While the Heritage Foundation has documented approximately 140 criminal convictions of absentee-ballot fraud over the last 20 years, calculating this as a percentage of the total number of ballots cast is difficult for a number of reasons. For starters, the Heritage Foundation’s list is not exhaustive. The foundation writes: This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted. It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed. Although this database may not include every conviction for voter fraud, it does use a misleadingly large sample set in one way: The numbers are often used to argue about the prevalence of voter fraud in a presidential race, but the vast majority of examples in this category are not about presidential-election fraud but are related to local and state elections, such as races for school board officials and local city council positions. We looked over the database for listings related to the two main presidential candidates over the last 20 years (George W. Bush v. Al Gore in 2000; George W. Bush v. John Kerry in 2004; Barack Obama v. John McCain in 2008; Barack Obama v. Mitt Romney in 2012; and Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton in 2016), and we found only four listed criminal convictions related to absentee-ballot fraud. One instance involved a person voting for the Democratic candidate (Kerry in 2004), while the other three involved people voting for the Republican presidential candidate (Romney in 2012 and Trump twice in 2016). Here are the Heritage Foundation’s listings related to presidential elections (emphasis ours): Kimberly Prude, a campaign volunteer for the Kerry_Edwards campaign, was convicted of illegally casting an absentee ballot in the 2004 election. She was already a convicted felon for forgery charges in 2000. Her probation was revoked and she is now serving her sentence in prison. When her husband passed away, Verna Roehm decided to honor his last request–to vote for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Months after his death, Mrs. Roehm filled out and submitted an absentee ballot in her husband’s name. The illegal vote was caught after the election during an audit by election officials; when confronted about the irregularity, Mrs. Roehm admitted to casting the vote. Recognizing the unusual circumstances of the case, the judge convicted Roehm of a misdemeanor rather than a felony. She received no jail time. Terri Lynn Rote attempted to vote twice in the 2016 presidential election. Rote cited fears that the election was rigged to justify her attempt to cast two absentee votes for Donald Trump. Rote was arrested attempting to cast the second ballot. She pleaded guilty to a felony charge of election misconduct, and was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $750 fine. Audrey Cook, a Madison County election judge, sent in a ballot marked for Donald Trump in the 2016 election on behalf of her recently deceased husband. She pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted violation of the election code in exchange for dropping a felony perjury charge. As illustrated in the examples above, these listings also vary in severity. All of the aforementioned listings involve a single extra ballot, but the database does include more serious examples, such as persons who attempted to pass off fraudulent signatures. Given that this database is not exhaustive, includes examples involving single fraudulent ballots and multiple fraudulent ballots, and includes not just presidential elections but any local or state election, it’s practically impossible to calculate the percentage of votes represented by fraudulent ballots. Anyway you count it, however, the .0006% cited by Farrow overstates the commonality of voter fraud. First off, Farrow appears to have misplaced a decimal. Weintraub’s tweet states .00006% (not .0006%), which appears to have been culled from an article published in The Hill:


Ecstasy could be ‘breakthrough’ therapy for soldiers, others suffering from PTSD

Explanation: Post-traumatic stress disorder is difficult to treat. Over the course of the past decade, evidence has been accumulating that the compound 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), better known as ecstasy, may be more effective than current drugs such as Zoloft and Paxil. This story, jump-started by a recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration to classify MDMA as a “breakthrough drug,” which allows it to be evaluated and possibly approved more quickly, offers the reader a well-written account of the evolution of MDMA from a bad actor to a potentially efficacious one. An important element of the narrative is the dominant role of a nonprofit organization, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which is dedicated to ending government bans on psychedelic substances and marijuana and has funded virtually all of the extant research on MDMA’s impact on PTSD sufferers. While the story is well-sourced, the text fails to explore this conflict of interest. It also may land too heavily on the side of “probable” rather than “possible.” The headline—Ecstasy could be “breakthrough” therapy for soldiers, others suffering from PTSD—is worded conditionally but clearly heralds the dawn of a new age. Given the long clinical trial road ahead, despite MDMA’s “breakthrough” status designation, much could change. The substance MDMA may meet all evidentiary challenges and emerge at some point in the future as an effective part of the treatment regimen for PTSD. But drumming up enthusiasm for the drug before it is officially available, as this story may do, runs the risk of sending PTSD sufferers to a less safe—and certainly illegal—form: Ecstasy.

Cost is not discussed. Since the drug of interest—MDMA—is banned in the US as a Schedule 1 substance, cost estimates may be unreliable. But that doesn’t make some mention of cost irrelevant here. And since the drug is given along with intensive therapy, that cost also could have been discussed. The story briefly describes the results of one clinical trial, which found that slightly more than half of the 107 participants reported major reductions in PTSD symptoms. But this isn’t enough to understand the benefits. The story explained this but could have emphasized it more: The drug is proposed for use as part of an intensive therapy program, with doses of it given just a few times and with professional supervision–and not daily or chronically, as many drugs for psychiatric conditions are administered. Harms do get acknowledged, albeit rather low in the story. The story identifies existing studies as “clinical trials” but offers little explanation of what that means. More emphasis on the nature and quality of evidence would be an important addition here. We don’t know if they are randomized or controlled, nor peer reviewed, nor what the limitations are, etc. Recent and ongoing military conflicts overseas have dramatically increased the numbers of PTSD sufferers returning to the U.S., and, one independent source notes, existing drug treatments fail two thirds of those patients. One interesting thing to note on measuring how common it is: For U.S. soldiers, those with PTSD in our military get disability payments for the rest of their lives. Rates of PTSD are much less frequent in ex-British soldiers who served in the same places, and they don’t have the generous compensation system we do. We rate this a just-passing “Satisfactory.” The story could have been more overt about the funding support of an organization dedicated to ending the US government’s ban on psychedelics. A careful read of the text will allow the reader to infer that the group—the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, or MAPS—is funding the clinical trials on which an FDA assessment of MDMA’s efficacy will be based. But a more overt description of that causal chain would have been helpful, as MAPS has a clear agenda. Sources and their relationship (or lack thereof) to MAPS are clearly delineated, and the story does offer contrasting views on the safety of MDMA. But it will be hard for the reader to determine where the bulk of experts sits on this issue. Drugs such as Zoloft and Paxil are mentioned, along with more traditional talk therapy. All are deemed seriously flawed. This is sufficient, but more could have been said about cognitive and exposure treatments, too. The text is clear that the FDA has not yet approved the use of MDMA and that large-scale clinical trials must be conducted before a federal evaluation will take place. But the street version of the substance, called Ecstasy, is, of course, widespread. The story cautions that the street drug often contains harmful contaminants so should not be used in place of MDMA, but one wonders how hard it may be for someone desperate for a way to moderate PTSD symptoms to wait. Small clinical studies of the impact of MDMA on PTSD sufferers have been under way for a number of years, and journalists have been writing about that possible link along the way. The hook for this story is really the recent FDA classification of MDMA as a “breakthrough therapy,” which puts it on a faster track for review (and often a lower bar of evidence is required). This appears to be an intensively reported enterprise story that goes well beyond a MAPS news release.