Inspired by Greta Thunberg, worldwide protest demands climate action.

Explanation: Millions of young people flooded the streets of cities around the world on Friday to demand political leaders take urgent steps to stop climate change, uniting in a worldwide protest inspired by 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

Alarmed by images of the Greenland ice sheets melting and the Amazon rain forests burning, students and workers abandoned schools, shops and offices in nearly every corner of the globe, aiming to stop what they see as a looming environmental catastrophe. The protests started in the Pacific islands, where rising sea levels threaten a way of life, and followed the sun across Australia, Japan, Southeast Asia and on to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas. The coordinated student “strike” culminated in New York’s Wall Street, where some investors have embraced the fossil fuel industry. Massive crowds overwhelmed the streets of lower Manhattan, chanting “Save our planet!” while anticipating an address by Thunberg, an international figure who sailed across the Atlantic in an emissions-free yacht ahead of next week’s climate summit at the United Nations. “Right now we are the ones who are making a difference. If no one else will take action, then we will,” Thunberg told tens of thousands of people gathered at a park with a view of the Statue of Liberty. Once she took the stage, the crowd chanted her name, then went silent to hang on her every word. As she paused between sentences, people erupted into applause. “If you belong to that small group of people who feel threatened by us, then we have some very bad news for you. Because this is only the beginning. Change is coming whether they like it or not,” she concluded. Demonstrators in Paris raised a painting of Thunberg as the Virgin Mary, a halo around her head reading, “Our house is on fire.”     “She’s like the icon of our generation,” New York protester Fiamma Cochrane, 17, said, highlighting the leadership role of young people in the international movement to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Four million people participated worldwide including 300,000 in New York, organizers with the anti-fossil fuels group 350.org said. Reuters could not verify the crowd sizes. Concern has escalated since U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the international Paris Accord on climate change and took a series of steps to dismantle environmental protections, including moving on Thursday to block stricter vehicle emissions standards in California. Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro are among the world’s only national leaders who publicly question the science of climate change, and they are not taking part in next week’s U.N. climate summit. Thousands gathered across Brazil to take aim at Bolsonaro, who they say is allowing the destruction of the Amazon rainforest to clear space for soy beans and cattle ranching. In August, fires there surged to their greatest level since 2010. “The policy of the Bolsonaro government is the policy of environmental destruction and deepening the climate crisis ... this is why we’re on strike,” said Marcela Pimentel Miranda, an organizer for Youth for Climate’s affiliate in Brasilia. One protester in Sao Paulo held up a picture of Bolsonaro and Trump beneath the hand-written “Abolish fossil fools!”   Demonstrators in Thailand stormed the environment ministry and feigned death, while activists in Berlin and Munich stood on  melting blocks of ice with nooses around their necks to symbolize the earth’s fate when the polar ice caps melt. Protesters in Warsaw staged a performance of people drowning in a sea of plastic waste. “The planet is getting hotter than my imaginary boyfriend,” read a poster held by a teenager in Thailand. “Make love, not CO2” signs were spotted in Berlin and Vienna. While Europeans filled the streets, students in the Solomon Islands gathered at the rising ocean water’s edge wearing traditional grass skirts. The issue is vital to low-lying Pacific islands, which have repeatedly asked wealthier nations to do more to prevent rising sea levels. Global warming caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels has already led to droughts and heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and floods, according to scientists. “There is no Planet B,” read a sign hoisted by a young woman in London. In Kenya, around 500 activists marched to demand that the government cancel plans for a coal plant and investigate corruption in hydropower dams. “In Samburu there is a lot of heat, the grass has dried up, there is little water,” said Francis Lentel, a young herdsman in traditional beads, holding a picture of the Earth weeping. The protest movement is putting increasing pressure on governments and companies to respond. German Chancellor Angela Merkel unveiled a new climate protection package thrashed out by parties in her coalition during all-night talks. Private industry has also responded. Amazon.com Inc Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos on Thursday pledged to make the largest U.S. e-commerce company net carbon neutral by 2040. Hundreds of workers from Google, Amazon and other technology companies on Friday criticized their industry for being slow to tackle climate change and joined marches in San Francisco and Seattle calling for action.


Lava gushes from volcano near Manila; tens of thousands flee.

Explanation: Red-hot lava spewed from a volcano near the Philippine capital of Manila on Monday as tens of thousands of people fled through heavy ash and frightening tremors, and authorities made plans to evacuate hundreds of thousands more for fear of a bigger eruption.

AP Top News, International News, General News, Science, Manila, Asia Pacific, Philippines

Clouds of ash from the Taal volcano reached Manila, 65 kilometers (40 miles) to the north, on Sunday, forcing the shutdown of the country’s main airport, with more than 500 flights canceled. The airport partially reopened Monday after the ashfall eased. There were no immediate reports of any deaths or major damage directly blamed on the eruption. A truck, however, skidded out of control on an ash-blanketed road, killing the driver and injuring three companions in Laguna province in an accident police said may have been linked to slippery conditions. The government’s disaster-response agency and other officials reported more than 30,000 villagers fled their homes in the hard-hit province of Batangas and nearby Cavite province. Officials expected the number to swell. Some residents could not immediately flee their ash-blanketed villages because of a lack of transportation and poor visibility. Others refused to leave their homes and farms. “We have a problem — our people are panicking due to the volcano because they want to save their livelihood, their pigs and herds of cows,” Mayor Wilson Maralit of the town of Balete told DZMM radio. “We’re trying to stop them from returning and warning that the volcano can explode again any time and hit them.” Maralit, whose town lies along the shoreline of Taal Lake, which surrounds the erupting volcano, appealed for troops and more police to stop people from sneaking back to their villages. After a cleanup and a shift of ash-laden winds away from Manila, officials partially reopened the main airport and allowed planes to take off. President Rodrigo Duterte’s aircraft was able to land in Manila on Monday from his hometown of Davao, his spokesman said, adding he saw the extent of the disaster from the plane. Taal suddenly rumbled back to life on Sunday, blasting steam, ash and pebbles up to 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) into the sky, according to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. On Monday, the ash and steam column reached a height of 2 kilometers (about a mile), with lava fountains spurting less than half of that height before falling into the lake waters surrounding the main crater. Lava also spurted from another vent north of the main crater, said Renato Solidum, who heads the institute. Frequent tremors and a buildup of pressure of the 1,020-foot (311-meter) volcano, one of the world’s smallest, however, indicated a major and much more dangerous eruption could still happen, he said. The government volcano-monitoring agency raised the danger level around Taal three notches on Sunday to Level 4, indicating a hazardous eruption within hours to days was possible. Level 5, the highest, means such an eruption is underway. The volcano’s last disastrous eruption happened in 1965, when more than 200 people were killed. Irene de Claro, a mother of four, worried about her father, who stayed behind in their village in Agoncillo while the rest of the family fled. “My father is missing. We don’t know, too, what happened to our house because the ash was up to our knees, it was very dark and the ground was constantly shaking when we left,” de Castro said at a school in the town of Lemery. “Most likely there’s nothing for us to return to. We’re back to zero.” The small island where the volcano lies has long been designated a “permanent danger zone,” though fishing villages have existed there for years. Those residents were all evacuated, volcanology officials said, adding that there should be a total evacuation, too, of endangered communities within a 14-kilometer (8.7-mile) radius of Taal, Government work was suspended and schools closed in a wide swath of towns and cities, including Manila, because of the health risks from the ash. Taal is regarded as the second-most restive of about two dozen active volcanoes in the Philippines, which lies along the Pacific “Ring of Fire,” a region prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. A long-dormant volcano, Mount Pinatubo, blew its top north of Manila in 1991 in one of the biggest volcanic eruptions of the 20th century, killing hundreds of people. About 20 typhoons and other major storms each year also batter the Philippines, making it one of the world’s most disaster-prone countries. ___ Gomez reported from Manila. Associated Press journalists Kiko Rosario in Manila and Aaron Favila in Tagaytay contributed to this report.


Group launches plan to improve behavioral care access.

Explanation: A Nebraska health network and the state university medical school have launched a system to increase access to behavioral health treatment.

Health, General News, Medical schools, Nebraska, Education

Nebraska Medicine and its research and education partner, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, have begun returning most patients — once they’re stable — to their primary care providers for ongoing care. That opens up more appointment slots for new patients. Limited access to psychiatric providers is a regional and national problem, Nebraska Medicine’s behavioral health director, David Cates, told the Omaha World-Herald . Behavioral health providers are clustered in urban areas, leaving rural areas underserved, said Dr. Howard Liu, chairman of medical school’s psychiatry department. And more than half of providers in Nebraska are over age 50 and retiring faster in some cases than they can be replaced. Also, Liu said, the stigma around seeking behavioral health care has lessened somewhat. Cates said psychiatric treatment providers typically follow patients indefinitely, leaving few openings available for new patients. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2019, 92% of outpatient psychiatry visits at Nebraska Medicine were return ones, he said. “We tend to keep patients forever,” Cates said. The new procedure has new patients come via referrals from their primary care provider, with some exceptions. Patients follow one of two tracks after evaluations. Those on a consultation track will have several more visits and, once stable, be referred back to their primary care provider. Those with more persistent or severe conditions will stay under the care of psychiatrists or psychiatric advanced practice providers, all of whom can prescribe medications. The difference between the two tracks depends on the complexity of the patient’s condition, including stability and history, rather than the diagnosis itself. The team that developed the new plan thinks a significant number of patients can be transferred back to primary care providers, Cates said. ___ Information from: Omaha World-Herald, http://www.omaha.com


There's no scientific conclusion that (being gay) is genetic.

Explanation: Tim Pawlenty says there's no scientific conclusion that being gay is genetic

National, Gays and Lesbians, Science, Tim Pawlenty,

During a July 10, 2011, appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty about the origins of homosexuality. Here’s their exchange:  Gregory: "Let me ask you about social policy. You've notably said that you're a big fan of Lady Gaga, and even the song Born This Way. There's a lot of debate about a gay marriage pledge in Iowa. And related to that, I wonder, do you agree with some of those who are behind that, that being gay is a choice?" Pawlenty: "Well, I have two teenage daughters who listen to Lady Gaga, so I'm subjected to it. And it has some good qualities to it. But as to, as to gay marriage, I'm in support of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman. I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits ... as traditional couples. And so this is an issue in Iowa and across the whole country. But I've stood in favor of traditional marriage and traditional relationships in that regard. Gregory: "Is being gay a choice?" Pawlenty: "Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, the scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral..."  Gregory: "Right." Pawlenty: "...or if it's partly genetic." Gregory:"What do you think?" Pawlenty: "Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard." Gregory: "So you, you think it's not a choice." Pawlenty: "Well, there is no...."  Gregory: "That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way." Pawlenty: "There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that. So we don't know to what extent, you know, it's behavioral, and that's something that's been debated by scientists for a long time. But as I understand the science, there's no current conclusion that it's genetic." We decided to rate two of Pawlenty’s statements separately. In another item, we’ll look at whether scientists are "in dispute" about whether being gay is a choice. In this item, we’ll look at Pawlenty’s claim that "there's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic." Pawlenty’s word choice -- "genetic" -- is pivotal for rating the accuracy of his claim. The way he phrased it, he’s pretty close to accurate. But if he’d said instead that "there's no scientific conclusion that (being gay) is biological," he would have been incorrect. Since the significance of this distinction may not be obvious at first glance, we’ll explain it in detail here. If a trait is "genetic," it means that it comes from the genes encoded in your DNA. Furthermore, arguing that something is genetic suggests that there’s a single, or at least a well-defined, genetic source -- what has sometimes been called a "gay gene." By contrast, if a trait is "biological" in origin, it means that it can stem from any number of factors, such as hormone levels or how a fetus develops in the uterus. It would not, however, originate primarily from environmental factors such as childhood experiences -- what one might call the "nurture" part of the nature/nurture divide. The typical way of figuring out whether something is caused by genes is through twin studies. Since identical twins share 100 percent of their DNA, any observed differences in traits would be presumed to be influenced by environment rather than genetics. So if being gay was truly, and exclusively, a genetic trait, every set of identical twins should either be both straight, or both gay. In fact, that’s not the case. Even the studies with the strongest linkage show about a 50 percent correlation in sexual orientation between identical twins. Other studies have shown lower rates. Based on these findings, scientists agree that being gay is not caused exclusively by genes. However, being gay does appear to have a genetic component -- just a weaker one. The same study that showed roughly a 50 percent correlation in sexual orientation between identical twins also showed weaker correlations for fraternal twins, who share only 50 percent of their genes on average. That’s pretty much what you’d expect to see if genetics played a role, but not a dominant one. "Pawlenty is surely right that a genetic explanation has not been proven, and indeed genetics is likely a modest influence on sexual orientation," said Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who undertook the twin study that showed a 50 percent correlation, as well as another that showed lower correlations. But if being gay is not primarily determined by genes, it doesn’t mean that its origin isn’t biological. Bailey and others find some of the most convincing evidence of the inherent nature of sexual orientation in long-term studies of the rare cases in which hormonally normal boys are reared as girls due to either accidents or certain medical conditions that have left them less obviously male. He said there have been six published cases of hormonally normal males reassigned early as females, and invariably, their sexual orientation was toward females. That’s consistent with their prenatal gender, not with their rearing as girls. The point of these studies is that sexual orientation -- one’s attractions and impulses -- runs very deep and is resistant to social and environmental factors. "If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him, and rearing him as a girl, how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" Bailey asks. Scientists freely acknowledge that the precise pathways for imparting sexual orientation are not yet understood. "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors," the American Psychological Association has put it. However, just because scientists don’t know the specific mechanisms that cause sexual orientation doesn’t mean that they aren’t confident that they are biological in nature. "We do not really know in any definitive way the mix between biological and other explanations, but the evidence for biological contributions is as good or better than for any other factor," said Clinton W. Anderson, the associate executive director of the American Psychological Association and the director of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender concerns office. "Some have suggested that it’s how you were reared or a failure in bonding to the same-sex parent. But the research to support that is abysmal." Jack Drescher, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, added that "you’d be hard-pressed to find a reputable scientist who would exclude some aspect of biology" from the causes of homosexuality. Drescher is a member of the working group on sexual and gender-identity disorders for the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM 5-- the authoritative reference work in the field. At this point, we need to note an important caveat: What we’ve been discussing here applies primarily to gay men. There is actually no solid scientific consensus about the causes of female homosexuality, because the research has been much less extensive. We struggled with the question of how we should factor in what one might call the lesbian exception. Neither Pawlenty nor Gregory specifically referred to either gay men or gay women in their comments. Ultimately, we concluded that the science of what causes women to be gay was too unformed to draw any solid conclusions, so we set it aside as a factor in our ratings. So where does this leave us? Pawlenty said "there's no scientific conclusion that (being gay) is genetic." On that specific question, we found broad agreement that Pawlenty was correct. Scientists told us that genetics may play a role in determining sexual orientation, but the current evidence suggests that it’s not the dominant factor and may ultimately be shown to play just a modest role. But a modest role is still different from no role. And we also think that viewers of the interview might be led to believe that because homosexuality is not primarily caused by genes, there’s no biological cause. In reality, most scientists do believe that sexual orientation is caused by biology, rather than by choice.


Abortion, Florida, Americans United for Life,

A bill requiring physicians to treat infants who survive abortion attempts is moving through the Legislature without the usual partisan fight, though some lawmakers have questioned whether it addresses an ongoing problem. An anti-abortion activist used a specific figure in a recent committee hearing to reassure lawmakers HB 1129/SB 1636 is necessary. "The tragedy of infants born alive following attempted abortions is real," said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, on April 9. "It is not the hypothetical that is sometimes reported. In 2010 alone, 1,270 infants were reported to have died following attempted abortions and notably that is only one year." Yoest said without elaborating there are two cases in Florida. After the meeting, reporters asked Yoest about the number she used. Yoest told them the figure came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the CDC, which collects data from most state health departments on the number of legal induced abortions performed each year, does not collect data on infants who die after surviving abortion attempts. Neither does the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy group that supports women’s access to abortions and collects abortion data. Neither Guttmacher nor the CDC has published its 2010 data for abortions. "We have no idea where this number comes from," said Rebecca Wind, Guttmacher Institute spokeswoman. A committee analysis says there is no federal requirement to report the number of infants born alive during an attempted abortions. So Rep. Cary Pigman, R-Avon Park, included in his legislation a requirement for physicians who perform abortions in Florida to report cases of infants born alive to the state. "If in two years time or four years time we find that there are zero cases, it’s a prayer answered," Pigman said at an April 4 committee hearing of his bill. "If we find in two years time that there’s a half dozen cases a year, then we have some issues." If there are no statistics or reporting requirements, where did Americans United for Life find this figure? We dug in. Twenty-eight states have laws protecting infants born alive. "Infants Born Alive" mirrors a federal law signed by President George W. Bush in 2002. Supporters say it is necessary to enact a state law so there is no doubt that an infant "born alive" -- defined as an infant who breathes or has heartbeats or muscle movements, regardless of whether the extraction method was natural or induced  -- must be taken to a hospital for treatment appropriate for gestation age. A failed abortion could result in a live birth in a late-term abortion, which can only be performed if two physicians agree the mother's life is at risk, or if the mother was further into her pregnancy than thought. Physicians under the Florida proposal would have to provide medical care for an infant born alive after an abortion or face a first-degree misdemeanor charge. Pigman, an emergency physician, has referenced similar or exact figures as Yoest in committee hearings, but he characterized them differently and stressed the lack of exact data. In the bill’s first hearing, Pigman mentioned CDC data on deaths for infants from 22 weeks of gestation to seven days after birth called "other perinatal conditions." This category -- which totaled 1,270 deaths in 2010 -- is further broken down into categories of international medical codes for causes of death, including cardiovascular disorders (838 deaths), digestive system disorders (92 deaths), undefined cerebral problems (183 deaths) and "other conditions originating in the perinatal period" (130 deaths). "I don’t know which portion of that 1,270 were due to abortions or some other rare circumstances," Pigman said in the April 4 committee. Inside that latter subcategory -- "other conditions originating in the perinatal period" -- is a designation called "termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn." The CDC doesn’t have numbers for that designation for 2010 yet. In 2008, the CDC reported 33 deaths using that designation. Whether the abortion was elective or performed to save the life of the mother is unclear. Americans United for Life spokeswoman Kristi Hamrick said any number is problematic because abortion data is always incomplete. California, for instance, is one of a few states that does not report the number of abortion procedures that happen there. Hamrick directed us to a blog post written by the group's legal team about limited CDC data and anecdotal evidence of infants born alive, including two Florida cases of infants surviving abortion procedures (one died, one survived with catastrophic injuries) and the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The post does not support Yoest's specific claim about 1,270 infants who die after abortion procedures, offering instead the more nuanced breakdown for the 1,270 figure that we heard from Pigman. Our ruling Yoest said 1,270 infants in 2010 "were reported to have died following attempted abortions." The figure is based on an "other" category of perinatal deaths, but it does not mean what she says it means. Included in this category are babies who die of various other issues, mainly heart problems. We rate her statement .


Shire Announces Positive Results of SHP465 Safety and Efficacy Study in Children and Adolescents with ADHD

Explanation: This news release announces the results of a randomized, controlled Phase 3 clinical trial of a long-acting stimulant drug for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. The pharmaceutical company Shire completed this follow-up trial on the drug’s safety and efficacy after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required more data when Shire first sought approval for the drug. The drug was tested in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years old with ADHD. The company claims that the drug showed significant improvement in both children and adolescents when compared with a placebo and on the clinical global impression improvement scale, a standardized measurement of improvement. While the release is clearly targeted to investors and financial reporters, it was distributed and made available to a wide public audience. Just because a release is written for a business audience does not mean it should skimp on transparency. Its biggest weakness is the strong claims it makes without providing any links or references to published research where the results can be evaluated. We perused the company’s website for details of the study but came up empty-handed. The news release doesn’t mention the lead investigator’s financial relationship with the drug sponsor, projected costs of the new drug, nor make any comparisons with numerous similar drugs already on the market. This news release matters to the company since it is aiming to launch a new formulation (currently referred to as SHP465) of a drug similar to Adderall, also developed by Shire, which faces generic competitors. The new formulation essentially comes with a new patent for an old drug — the main difference being a longer half-life (or longer daytime effect) — 16 hours versus 12 hours for the current Adderall extended release pill. As the news release states, this new launch would extend Shire’s patent on its “ADHD Franchise” for many years: “Protection for Shire‘s ADHD Franchise Extends to 2029 “There are patents supporting Shire’s overall ADHD franchise in the U.S. that extend to 2029. With a launch planned for the second half of  2017, Shire expects that SHP465, following potential FDA approval, will have three years of Hatch-Waxman exclusivity and at least three patents listed in the FDA Orange Book expiring as late as May 2029.” The news of a new drug formulation might be important for children and adolescents with ADHD who are frequently given amphetamines to treat their symptoms. But it is unclear how this drug differs from existing amphetamines already in use.

There is no discussion of the eventual price point of this drug. This is important if commonly used drugs like Adderall are becoming available as a generic and subsequently much less expensive. According to GoodRx.com, the cost for a 30-day supply of Adderall ranges from $75 to $150. Costs for Vyvanse, a newer stimulant for ADHD, costs around $250 for 30 pills. Concerta, which came on the market around the same time as Vyvanse, costs about $250 for 30 pills. Generic Ritalin (one of the oldest ADHD stimulant drugs) averages around $45 for a month’s supply. Companies sometimes develop new, yet no more effective or safe, formulations because they can sell them at higher costs as a new patented drug. The news release does a good job of explaining the benefits of the drug to children and adolescents with ADHD in relationship to a placebo and to a standardized measurement of improvement, but does not compare this new drug with existing treatments. It’s difficult to estimate how many people would want a stimulant that lasts 16 hours. Even if they do, it would be much cheaper to take a dose of an existing, shorter acting drug in the early afternoon. The adverse effects are clearly listed and equated with those of other amphetamine drugs. The adverse effects that occurred in more than 5 percent of the subjects included decreased appetite, headache, insomnia, irritability, nausea, weight decrease and dizziness and were similar to those observed with other amphetamine compounds. From the news release, the trial appears to be high quality. It is described as randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled, dose-optimized — all which would suggest the researchers followed high scientific standards. However, there is no accompanying peer-reviewed paper and the raw data and manipulated data are not available. The news release also does not tell us how many of the volunteers were on placebo and how many received the drugs. This release does not take part in disease mongering. It’s clear that the drug sponsor issued the news release and sponsored the study. We’re provided a quote from the study’s principal investigator (PI), Matthew Brams, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, but we’re not told what financial arrangements the PI had with Shire. According to ProPublica’s “Dollars for Docs” database, Brams (one of ProPublica’s designated top earners of speaking and consulting fees from drug companies) has received payments for serving as a consultant for Shire. That’s a disclosure we’d like to see in the news release. While the news release mentions the existence of other drugs, this new drug is not compared to any of them but to placebo and a symptoms standardization tool. The news release states the drug maker hopes to begin marketing the drug during the second half of 2017, after clearing FDA approval. We often look skeptically upon predictions of when a drug may be approved, especially when those predictions come from those with a vested interested, but this date seems far enough off that it won’t raise false hopes. It is unclear from this news release if the drug is novel and if so in what way. It is an amphetamine drug and others like it are already in use. There does not appear to be any unjustifiable claim being made here.


Americans pay 25 percent of their pay for "employer provided" health insurance — which they prefer — whereas people in the UK pay £10 per check for NHS coverage.

Explanation: Does the UK’s National Health Service Cost £10 a Month vs $2,500 For American Insurance?

On February 20 2019 the Facebook page “Medicare for All” shared a following meme contrasting the purported costs of health care coverage in the United States versus the United Kingdom (and alleging that Americans prefer their system):The meme showed a screenshot of a Tumblr user commenting on a screenshot of a tweet. The first user (@steak_ham/Phantom of the Chopra) commented on purported American preferences with respect to healthcare costs, and the second (@thesummoningdark) added input from the perspective of a resident of Scotland with National Health Service (NHS) coverage:Phantom of the Chopra @steak_hamOne thing Americans love doing is having 20% of their paycheck deducted for their “employer-provided health insurance” and then posting online about having 5% of your paycheck deducted in a universal healthcare system would be communist fascism 10/19/2018 12:13PMthesummoningdarkSo I live in Scotland, a country with free universal healthcare, and this post made me curious about how much that actually costs us. Turns out, roughly 4% of our income tax goes to the National Health Service. For me that’s £10 a month. The equivalent of $13. I have spent more than that on a pizza.In addition to claims which we could check to a degree (health care costs for the individual taxpayer in the United States versus the United Kingdom), it includes characterizations about Americans’ feelings about their health care coverage situation. It is reasonably well demonstrated that opinions on the administration of healthcare are incredibly broad ranging in the United States.Nevertheless, the claim that Americans “love having 20 percent of their paycheck deducted for their ’employer-provided health insurance'” is somewhat checkable. Several rounds of polling have shown 70 percent of Americans support the idea (85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans in one poll, with 20 percent of respondents in opposition). The idea seems to typically poll at more than half of Americans registering support, although at least one analysis was skeptical of the repeating supportive poll numbers.That said, the opening statement (that Americans “love” the costs of their health coverage) didn’t actually stand up to scrutiny — polls undertaken in recent years have repeatedly showed growing interest in a single-payer healthcare system for the United States, for example.The question of who pays for “employer-provided health insurance” is a sticky one. “Employer responsibility” is a provision of the Affordable Care Act (known colloquially as “Obamacare“), but it involves flowcharts and a number of subclauses around the size of the company and shared costs. A September 2018 Forbes item described the split between employer and employee contribution on average (but with a lot of fluctuation):Health Insurance (typically $5,000 – $30,000) – Your health insurance is the most significant component of your benefits. How can you value what your employer contributes for you and your family, as well as the discount you receive on coverage for participating in a large group plan? According to the 2018 Milliman Medical Index, the cost of healthcare for a typical American family of four covered by an average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan is $28,166, with employers typically picking up 56% of the cost. That means that participation in their company sponsored health care plan is worth at least $15,788 for that family.Of course your insurance costs may be different, and your employer may subsidize more or less of that. In my case, my employer pays 100 percent of my individual health insurance premium. My husband’s employer pays most of the coverage for him and our kids. Don’t dismiss the enormous financial value of company-subsidized health insurance just because it’s a common benefit in large companies. You’d have to earn nearly twice as much as the premium costs to pay for that insurance on your own after taxes.Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual “Employer Health Benefits Survey” routinely examines “trends in employer-sponsored health coverage including premiums, employee contributions, cost-sharing provisions, offer rates, wellness programs, and employer practices.” For 2018, KFF found:Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $19,616 this year, up 5% from last year, with workers on average paying $5,547 toward the cost of their coverage. The average deductible among covered workers in a plan with a general annual deductible is $1,573 for single coverage. Fifty-six percent of small ﬁrms and 98% of large ﬁrms oﬀer health beneﬁts to at least some of their workers, with an overall oﬀer rate of 57%.Obamacare held that that cost not exceed roughly 9.5 percent of annual household income. However, KFF also found that many employers creatively foist the financial burden of healthcare off on employees:The real problem is that health care is very expensive, Levitt said. But most Americans don’t realize the true cost because they are shielded by their employers.Some 150 million people have insurance through work, paying only about $440 a month for a family plan, while employers cover the rest, or about $1,075.For the 10.5 million enrollees on the Obamacare exchanges, health insurance costs are more transparent. And more of the burden falls on the consumers. That is leaving an untold number of Americans opting to remain uninsured, rather than shell out thousands a year for premiums and deductibles. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive, a Kaiser study found.Overall, the cost of healthcare to the individual taxpayer is highly variable. But it is fair to say that the costs regularly ate into paychecks, and just the $440 cited in the excerpt above was a lot more than the £10 or $13 referenced by the Scottish poster in the meme. Which led to the second question: Are UK residents really paying only £10 a month (around USD$13 as of February 2019) for NHS coverage?The poster described it as “free universal healthcare,” a rhetorical point of dispute in the single-payer debate. What advocates of the system’s adoption in the United States mean by that is “free at the point of use/service/delivery”:The first thing that Americans should know about the National Health Service is that it’s free at the point of use to anyone who needs it. You don’t have to fill out much paperwork, and you get no bills, whether you go to see your family doctor, or go to hospital. No one in the UK goes bankrupt through medical costs, no one needs to delay medical treatment until they can afford it, and virtually no one is uninsured.The costs of healthcare coverage in the United States typically is reported in annual terms. A February 2018 BBC fact check on then-recent claims made by President Donald Trump about the NHS reported:If you look at all healthcare spending, including treatment funded privately by individuals, the US spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare in 2016, compared with 9.7% in the UK.In pounds per head, that’s £2,892 on healthcare for every person in the UK and £7,617 per person in the US.In June 2018, an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) comparison found that Americans spent $10,209 per capita on healthcare versus $4,264 in the UK.In the viral Facebook above, the first reader said Americans “love” essentially paying more for their healthcare than UK residents. The second user claimed that their per-paycheck cost was £10 — fairly meaningless without knowing how much they earned or what their other costs might be.Nevertheless, polls repeatedly demonstrate that a full 70 percent of Americans support the introduction of a single-payer system, nullifying the contention that Americans prefer their current system. The precise claims about £10 costs per paycheck were difficult to verify, but recent OECD comparisons proved that Americans shelled out $10,209 versus $4,264 in the UK per capita, making the meme a mixed bag — yes, Americans spend much more on health coverage than people in the UK and no, they aren’t happy about it.


India allows limited exports of anti-malaria drug after Trump warns of retaliation.

Explanation: India, the world’s main supplier of generic drugs, said on Tuesday it will allow limited exports of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine that U.S. President Donald Trump has touted as a potential weapon in the fight against the coronavirus.

The Indian government had put a hold on exports of hydroxychloroquine as well as on the pain reliever, paracetamol, saying stocks were depleting because of the hit to global supply chains after the coronavirus emerged in China late last year. But Trump spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the weekend seeking supplies and on Monday said India may face retaliation if it didn’t withdraw the ban on exports. India’s neighbours, including Nepal, have also sought the anti-malaria drug. “It has been decided that India would licence paracetamol and HCQ in appropriate quantities to all our neighbouring countries who are dependent on our capabilities,” said Indian foreign ministry spokesman Anurag Srivastava. “We will also be supplying these essential drugs to some nations who have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic,” he said. Use of hydroxychloroquine has soared as the United States has quickly become the epicentre of the pandemic, though doctors prescribing it have no idea whether it works. U.S. fatalities from COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, hit 10,902 on Monday, rapidly closing in on Italy and Spain, the countries with the greatest loss of life to date, according to a Reuters tally of official data. In addition, the Indian government said it was lifting curbs on the export of 24 pharmaceutical ingredients and medicines made from them that includes several antibiotics, such as tinidazole and erythromycin, the hormone progesterone and Vitamin B12. “After having confirmed the availability of medicines for all possible contingencies currently envisaged, these restrictions have been largely lifted, “ foreign ministry spokesman Srivastava said.


“if your child gets this virus their going to hospital alone in a van with people they don’t know...to be with people they don’t know… you will be at home without them in their time of need.”

Explanation: It’s illegal to treat a minor without parental consent in the U.S. Even as hospitals are limiting visitors, minors will always be allowed to have one guardian present.

Children, Health Care, Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Viral image,

There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and how long the pandemic will last, but parents across the U.S. can be certain that they will always be able to accompany their children to the hospital. A recent Facebook post claimed that "if your child gets this virus their (sic) going to hospital alone in a van with people they don’t know... to be with people they don’t know." This run-on sentence ended with a soul-crushing statement: "you will be at home without them in their time of need." Before any parents get too worried, this claim is entirely untrue because hospitals need parental consent to treat minors. Dr. John Gilliam explained in an interview with PolitiFact that "minors can’t consent to treatment, legally." Dr. Gilliam works in Oregon as a hospitalist, an in-patient physician who works exclusively in a hospital. Parental consent is still a requirement in New York hospitals, where the virus is spreading rapidly and the New York State Department of Health is introducing temporary new visitor policies. The University of Rochester Medical Center and the NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital have both announced that recovering adults aren’t allowed any visitors, but children are still allowed to have one guardian accompany them. If your child does have COVID-19 symptoms, the CDC first recommends to not take them to the hospital unless they develop emergency warning signs, such as having trouble breathing or experiencing persistent pain or pressure in the chest. The CDC has published guidelines for treating healthy adults and children with COVID-19 symptoms at home. The CDC also doesn’t consider children a high-risk group for COVID-19 and have found that children who have been confirmed to have the virus "have generally presented with mild symptoms." In the unlikely event that a child is hospitalized for complications from COVID-19, they will have a parent or another guardian by their side. We rate this Facebook post .


Explanation: Incorrect. Covid-19 is caused by a virus, called SARS-CoV-2, not 5G.

Italy has concluded Covid-19 is not a virus, and people are actually dying of amplified global 5G electromagnetic radiation poisoning. Italy disobeyed world health law from the WHO saying not to carry out autopsies on Covid-19 patients. The WHO never said autopsies couldn’t take place. Italy has found that Covid-19 is actually disseminated intravascular coagulation (thrombosis). The way to cure this is antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants. Antibiotics do not directly treat Covid-19, which is caused by a virus. The anti-inflammatory ibuprofen is being trialled for use against Covid-19 and an anticoagulant has been used in some Covid-19 cases. Aspirin is not a specific cure. Covid-19 is not a virus, but a bacterium being amplified by 5G which causes inflammation and hypoxia. Covid-19 patients can get secondary infections from bacteria. Hypoxia and types of inflammation can be symptoms of Covid-19. There’s no proof Covid-19 is in any way related to 5G. People with Covid-19 should take aspirin 100mg and Apronax or paracetamol. Trials into both of these drugs’ effectiveness in treating Covid-19 are ongoing, but haven’t concluded yet. Paracetamol can ease symptoms but isn’t a specific treatment. Covid-19 clots the blood causing thrombosis, stopping blood flow and oxygenating the heart and lungs. Severe Covid-19 can cause blood clotting problems and issues like this have been seen in Covid-19 patients, but this is not the only thing that can be fatal in patients. In a day, Italy sent home more than 14,000 patients after treating them with Aspirin and Apronax. The Italian Medicines Agency doesn’t mention aspirin or apronax in its list drugs used to treat Covid-19 outside of clinical trials. And there’s no record of a day when 14,000 people were sent home from hospital in Italy. There is an order to incinerate or immediately bury Covid-19 bodies without autopsy. There is no such order. Claim 1 of 10


Rick Perry Says he "got lobbied" by a woman with late-stage cancer about vaccinating Texas girls against a virus that can cause cervical cancer.

Health Care, Public Health, Texas, Rick Perry,

In the Sept. 22, 2011, Republican presidential debate, Gov. Rick Perry again defended his foiled 2007 attempt to require Texas girls to be vaccinated against a virus that can cause cervical cancer. Perry, responding to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s charge that his Feb. 2, 2007, order intended to mandate the shots for human papillomavirus, or HPV, was an inappropriate result of lobbying by his former chief of staff, said: "I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office, talked to me about this program." Did a cancer patient urge Perry to issue the order later nulled by Texas legislators? Nearly three weeks after Perry issued the order, it was widely reported that a Houston woman with late-stage cervical cancer had visited with him. As reported in the Feb. 20, 2007, Austin American-Statesman, Heather Burcham of Houston spoke to reporters summoned by Perry as numerous legislators were indicating they would try to cancel the order. Burcham said then: "The vaccine has done its job if it saves one person from cancer, let alone knocks out cervical cancer altogether." She also signed up to testify at a Texas House hearing, the Statesman reported, but left before she was called to speak. Earlier in the day, she said she wanted to spend the time she had left sharing her story: "It's my wildest dream come true that I get to maybe reach one person, that my life would not be in vain, that I have lived for a purpose and that I won't die and never have done anything," she said. Fast forward. Shortly after the Sept. 22 debate, ABC News said Perry did not meet Burcham until after he’d issued his order. Its news article says Perry "met Burcham while she was lobbying the Texas legislature to uphold the governor’s executive order. The Legislature ultimately ruled against Burcham and Perry and did away with the vaccine mandate." The network, crediting a recent report by Houston’s KTRK-TV, said Perry and Burcham "struck up a friendship despite the Texas Legislature revoking the governor’s mandate. Perry invited Burcham to a ranch, rode motorcycles with her and even sat at her bed during her final days. Burcham died in July 2007." A pre-debate ABC News post, dated Sept. 15, 2011, specifies that Perry and Burcham struck up the friendship after he issued the order. According to a Sept. 23, 2011, Houston Chronicle blog post, Perry spokesman Mark Miner confirmed that Burcham met Perry when she began lobbying the lawmakers to uphold his order. The post quotes Miner saying: "It was a very inspirational passionate story that he heard from her and he met with her away from the cameras and really built up a relationship with this young girl. Yes, he had (already) signed it, but it was still going through the legislative process. It had a heavy impact on him." As noted Sept. 17, 2011, by Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bud Kennedy, Perry’s YouTube posts include a video of Burcham, in a hospital bed, shown at a May 2007 Perry press conference. Seated in a bed, Burcham says: "I want to change as many people’s lives as I can because I know there is nothing I can do for my own life, but there is something that I can do for others ... It is so important that parents get their children this vaccination." Finally, we interviewed Houston developer Craig Wilson, who said Burcham lived with his family off and on for about a decade before she died. Wilson said he doesn’t recall the exact date that Burcham met Perry, though they developed a relationship when she was urging legislators not to unplug the order. "He did everything he could to make her life better," Wilson said, ultimately spending three hours at her bedside before she died and later delivering a eulogy. "This shows his character as a human being." Our ruling: Perry had an ally in Heather Burcham in 2007, but only after he issued his order. In the debate, in contrast, Perry brought up Burcham’s heartfelt advocacy while not speaking to criticism he had been lobbied into the order by a former aide representing a drug company. His statement misled by creating the impression Burcham swayed him to proceed with the executive order. In reality, by all accounts, that just didn’t happen. We rate Perry’s statement .


Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps

Explanation: Despite its brevity, this story about revised guidelines for cervical cancer screening does a few things well:   It compares the new and old recommendations clearly. It puts the guidelines in the context of the much-debated cervical cancer vaccine. Most similar stories, including longer ones, failed to do this. It alludes to the study findings upon which the new recommendations are based. Having said that, the story fails to include viewpoints from any independent experts. It also fails to discuss costs. Essentially, the story distilled the revised guidelines on the readers’ behalf. This is necessary for such a story. But it is not sufficient.

The story fails to indicate how much a Pap test costs, or whether the new guidelines would cost or save money. The story reports that half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have never had a Pap test, and another 10 percent hadn’t had one in five years. So it at least indirectly addressed benefit. The story reports that many cervical abnormalities discovered by screening "usually go away on their own, and unnecessary treatment increases girls’ risk of premature labor years later." The story does not describe the evidence upon which the guideline revisions are based. Its says only that ACOG "cited studies." The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer. The story essentially cites no sources other than the guidelines themselves. An expert voice or two would have been useful to help people understand the meaning of the guidelines. The story clearly compares the revised screening guidelines with the most recent ones. It also cites the link between women not being screened and getting cervical cancer. The availability of Pap smear tests is not in question in this story. No claim is made for the novelty of Pap tests. The story does not draw from any of the press releases linked to these guidelines.


Greece quarantines second migrant camp after COVID-19 case confirmed.

Explanation: Greece has quarantined a second migrant facility on its mainland after a 53-year-old man tested positive for the new coronavirus, the migration ministry said on Sunday.

The Afghan man lives with his family at the Malakasa camp, just north of Athens, along with hundreds of asylum seekers. He has been transferred to a hospital in Athens and tests on his contacts will continue as authorities try to trace the route of the virus. Greece confirmed 62 new cases of COVID-19 later in the day, bringing the total in the country to 1,735 since its first case was reported in February. Seventy three people have died. Last week, the Ritsona camp in central Greece was sealed off after 20 tested positive for the new coronavirus. It was the first such facility in the country to be hit since the outbreak of the disease. [L8N2BQ1V9]  Greece has been the main gateway into the European Union for people fleeing conflict in the Middle East and beyond. More than a million people reached its shores from Turkey in 2015-16. At least 110,000 people currently live in migrant facilities - 40,000 of them in overcrowded camps on five islands. “The number (of migrants and refugees) is very large, therefore it is a given, mathematically, that there will be confirmed cases,” Migration Minister Notis Mitarachi told Skai TV. “We have an emergency plan in place ... But it is more difficult to implement it on the islands.”  No cases have been recorded in camps on Greek islands so far. The conservative government wants to replace all existing camps on islands with enclosed detention centers, but its plans have been met with resistance from local authorities and residents who want all facilities shut. To contain the spread of the virus the government also wants new arrivals isolated from the rest of the migrants but most islands have not designated areas of accommodation, ministry officials said. About 120 people who recently arrived on Lesbos have not yet found a shelter, according to sources. Aid groups have urged Greece to evacuate the camps, warning the risk of the fast-moving virus spreading among people living in squalid conditions is high and containing an outbreak in such settings would be “impossible”. The camp in Malakasa, 40 km (25 miles) northeast of Athens, will be put into quarantine for two weeks, the ministry said on Sunday, adding that police guarding the site would be reinforced to ensure the restrictions are implemented. A separate, enclosed facility started operating last month for migrants who arrived after March 1, the ministry said. Greece has imposed a nationwide lockdown and banned arrivals from non-EU countries as well as Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain. The measures have hit its economy which is relying on tourism for a recovery after a decade-long debt crisis.


US-Patent 8835624 is for the H1N1 virus. The patent with this number was for a strand of DNA that binds to the H1N1 virus, not the virus itself. US patent number 20120251502 is for Ebola. This application number was for a strain of the Ebola virus but the application has now been abandoned. The virus was not created by those who filed the patent. US patent number CA2741523 is for swine flu. This is the application number for a patent for the Ebola virus made to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. This patent has not been granted, and doesn’t mean the Ebola virus was created by someone. 0070031450 A1 is a US patent for BSE (mad cow disease). There is a patent application number one digit away from this that mentions BSE, but is not a patent for BSE itself. ATTC VR-84 is a patent for Zika virus that comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. This is the name of a certain strain of Zika virus, which was first isolated in the 1940s in a lab funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This strain was not patented. US patents 7897744 and 8506968 are for SARS. The first number is the US patent number for the SARS virus. The patent application was made by the CDC, but after the outbreak in 2002. The second number is a patent for a SARS vaccine which has now expired. US patent 10130701 is for coronavirus. This number is not a patent for the new Wuhan virus, Covid-19. It’s a patent for a weakened version of a virus in the same family as Covid-19, a family which includes the common cold and SARS. Claim 1 of 8


Explanation: This news release attempts to translate preliminary research on plant chemicals into actionable dietary advice. Bad move. Researchers used an innovative screening strategy to cull through 142 natural compounds to identify a combination of three phytochemicals — found in foods such as turmeric, apple peels and red grapes — that inhibited the growth of implanted prostate tumors in mice. Their work is described in the online journal Precision Oncology. But it’s a big leap from the lab table to the dinner table, where the release says that by indulging in certain foods, you can “enjoy the fact that you are eating something that could play a role starving — or even preventing — cancer.” Nowhere does it warn that studies of cell lines or animals don’t prove a human benefit. Combinations of plant chemicals have become a focus of cancer research, driven by their relative safety, low cost, and wide availability. Lab studies have found substances in plants can reduce inflammation, stimulate the immune system, protect and repair normal cells, and slow the growth of cancer cells, among other things. But research on the effects of these substances to fight specific cancers is still in its infancy, and most experts advise eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables for better health. Prostate cancer is an area where men feel particularly vulnerable because it’s widespread — about 3 million American men are living with prostate cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute — and there are few actionable steps for prevention. Suggesting a simple solution — such as eating a few specific foods — may give men a false sense of security.

phytochemicals,University of Texas at Austin

The cost of adding these foods to your diet would be negligible for most people, although taking supplements over long periods could pose a significant cost. The news release mentions only potential benefits for human beings. There’s no data on how much of these substances might need to be consumed over what period of time and in what quantity to offer cancer protection or tumor shrinkage. A researcher’s comment that “we were able to inhibit tumor growth in mice without toxicity” sheds no meaningful light on these questions. Also, the news release seems to contradict itself by suggesting that eating a diet containing cancer-fighting substances could offer a benefit, but later quoting a researcher saying, “We only need to increase concentration beyond levels found in a healthy diet for an effect on prostate cancer cells.” This comment seems to suggest people would have to take a supplement in order to get a benefit. Plant chemicals are generally considered safe, but there’s potential for toxicity if they’re consumed in combination with certain drugs or at high concentrations. There’s added risk for consumers who buy these substances in the form of dietary supplements, which are not tightly regulated by the FDA. The news release neglects to caution that studying how compounds perform in mouse and human cell lines and in animals doesn’t predict how they will perform in human beings. Extensive human trials are required before any conclusions can be drawn about safety and efficacy. Furthermore, the release touts the potential benefit of these dietary factors: “These compounds minimize one of the risk factors for cancer, inflammation within the body.”  However, it is a huge leap to think even if these compounds could reduce inflammation to a clinically important degree that it would also provide better cancer control. The release doesn’t engage in overt disease mongering. It describes prostate cancer as “the most common cancer afflicting U.S. men.” That’s true, if you don’t count skin cancer. It’s No. 2 to lung cancer when it comes to causing male deaths. The news release states that funders include that National Institutes of Health and the University of Texas System, and there were no conflicts of interest that we could find. While there’s no proven strategy to prevent prostate cancer, there is general advice for reducing overall cancer risk such as quitting smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising, and eating a variety of plant foods. Current treatment options include watchful waiting, active surveillance, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. These aren’t mentioned. Speaking of prevention and treatment in the same release really oversimplifies the issues. There are studies showing that chemoprevention with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, although the FDA will not allow manufacturers to suggest these compounds prevent cancer because these agents were associated with an increased risk for high-grade cancers. Treatment options completely depend upon the stage of the cancer–thus range from conservative management to aggressive attempts at curative therapy to palliative care. The role of these substances in any of these settings is obviously completely unknown. These foods can be obtained at most grocery stores; availability is not a question. The release could have lent more clarity by telling readers whether supplements are available. For example, resveratrol supplements are available and have been extensively studied for diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. The news release provides perspective, stating that the research “uses a novel analytical approach to screen numerous plant-based chemicals instead of testing a single agent as many studies do, discovering specific combinations that shrink prostate cancer tumors.” The claim of novelty seems appropriate regarding the approach to screening. It also states that the research “demonstrates how the plant-based chemicals work together. Combining ursolic acid with either curcumin or resveratrol prevents cancer cells from gobbling something that they need to grow, glutamine.” Finally, it acknowledges previous research that has “highlighted the potential therapies found in plants, including chemicals found in foods such as turmeric, apple peels and green tea.” We rate this as unjustifiable for the over-reaching headline: “Starving prostate cancer with what you eat for dinner.” That’s exacerbated by the lead: “When you dine on curry and baked apples, enjoy the fact that you are eating something that could play a role starving — or even preventing — cancer.”


Cracking the mysteries of the elusive, majestic whale shark.

Explanation: It’s the biggest shark — and the biggest fish — in the sea, often found roaming in warm waters around the globe with its huge mouth agape in search of dinner.

Sharks, AP Top News, Animals, International News, Fish, Oceans, Galapagos Islands, Latin America, Science Says, Science, U.S. News, Ecuador

Yet despite its hulking appearance, the whale shark has only tiny, almost useless teeth and is sometimes so docile that entire boatloads of people can swim alongside the enigmatic, spotted beast. It’s also one of the least understood animals in the oceans. In an attempt to solve some of the most enduring mysteries, a group of scientists spent several weeks diving with whale sharks in the Galapagos Islands last summer and fall. They tried some never-before-used techniques on the species in the wild: taking blood samples and doing ultrasound exams, all while swimming furiously beside them underwater. Here’s what’s known about these massive marine animals and what scientists are still trying to find out: WHALE OR SHARK? While they are comparable in size to whales, whale sharks are sharks. They typically grow to be bigger than a double-decker bus: between 6 to 16 meters (20 to 52 feet) and more than 20 tons. But as filter feeders, the enormous whale sharks are dangerous only to the plankton, fish eggs and tiny fish they chomp on. The gentle giants aren’t particularly fast when compared to other sharks, but a simple wave of their tail propels them through the water faster than any human could ever swim. They have broad, flat heads and their entire dark-blue bodies are covered in dots that act as camouflage underwater. After years of being overhunted by fishermen, whale sharks are endangered and at risk of extinction. HANGOUT SPOTS Whale sharks prefer warm waters and are often found feeding at locations around the world including Australia, the Philippines, Mexico and even in the oil fields off the coast of Qatar. Hundreds of whale sharks — mostly young males — congregate in these areas at certain times of the year to scoop up fish eggs; it’s unknown where adult females are feeding then. The vastness of the ocean usually makes the shy animals hard to find — Jacques Cousteau only ever saw two in his decades of sea exploration. TRACKING WHALE SHARKS Marine biologists have been tagging whale sharks in recent years to track their movements. Others are trying to answer questions about their life and reproductive cycles. Only one pregnant whale shark has ever been found: In 1995, a dead whale shark was found off the coast of Taiwan with 300 embryos inside, all at different stages of development. “The million-dollar questions are where are they mating, hunting and where do their young live?” said Jonathan Green, director of the Galapagos Whale Shark Project . An international database was launched to identify as many whale sharks as possible through their distinctive dot pattern; each shark has a unique configuration of dots that act like a fingerprint. More than 8,000 sharks have been logged so far. Because scientists can only afford to spend a few weeks in the Galapagos each year, they depend on photos taken by visiting divers to figure out what the whale sharks are up to. So far, none of the sharks spotted in the Galapagos has been seen anywhere else. Researchers in the U.S. and Japan are also working to sequence the whale shark genome. GALAPAGOS DIVES The Galapagos Islands are among the few places in the world where presumably pregnant whale sharks are regularly seen. More than 99 percent of the sharks identified in the volcanic archipelago are female and many have a swollen abdomen that suggests they’re expecting. Some scientists believe pregnant whale sharks are cruising through the Galapagos, perhaps to extreme depths close to the northern-most island or to the open ocean near the equator to give birth. Either place would probably ensure the safety of their offspring from predators until they’re big enough to survive on their own. Yet another theory suggests whale sharks may be giving birth closer to Peru — after two newborn whale sharks were found in fisheries there recently. RESULTS Because of the difficulty of conducting a medical exam on a free-swimming whale shark, researchers only obtained two blood samples, which haven’t yet been tested. The ultrasound exams were inconclusive and Green said more powerful machines are needed. Most ultrasound machines for animals are intended for abdominal walls that are 1 to 2 inches thick — but a whale shark’s abdominal wall is about 8 inches. “When we first started studying these large animals, nobody knew how to go about it,” Green said. “Now that we have better technology and more experience, we will hopefully be able to answer some of the fundamental questions soon.” Besides blood and ultrasound tests, scientists successfully tagged seven sharks. While not a large number, it’s important since so few whale sharks are tracked. The pressure of deep water can cause tags to drop off if the sharks dive below 2,000 meters (6,561 feet), which the animals often do if they’re traveling long distances or possibly giving birth. But any migratory data the scientists collect when sharks stay at shallower depths can help build a picture of the sharks’ life cycle. Green and colleagues are planning further expeditions to the Galapagos later this year to continue their research, including more blood samples and satellite tagging. “When you have so few data points, every single shark is important,” said Robert Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida, who was not part of the Galapagos research. “These aren’t like goldfish where you can get sample sizes of hundreds at a time.” WHY IT MATTERS In the last 75 years, the vast majority of whale sharks have been hunted by people for food and their numbers are still dropping, said Simon Pierce , chief scientist at the Marine Megafauna Foundation . Some biologists worry climate change could hurt the sharks by reducing their food supply: rising ocean temperatures could mean less plankton. “If we do the things that are necessary to conserve the whale sharks, we’ll be conserving the ocean itself,” said Simon Thorrold of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. For Green, who heads the Galapagos project, it’s more personal. “Even after years of diving with whale sharks, I still get goose bumps every time I see that huge blue shadow in the water. It’s an incredibly emotional experience.” ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Bill McCollum holds the same position on (embryonic stem cell research) as Barack Obama.

Explanation: Bill McCollum and Barack Obama see eye-to-eye on stem cell research, Rick Scott claims

In a Republican primary, it's often hard to find major policy issues where the candidates disagree.That's why Rick Scott, the former health care CEO running for governor, is trying to make the most of a perceived policy difference with Attorney General Bill McCollum.In new direct mail pieces, Scott is claiming that McCollum supports embryonic stem cell research. Scott, meanwhile, says he would work to ban any embryonic stem cell research in Florida. "Career politician Bill McCollum -- Testing stem cells. Testing our values," the mailer reads. "Bill McCollum supports embryonic stem cell research. Bill McCollum holds the same position on this issue as Barack Obama, who recently lifted a ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research. "McCollum disputed Scott's mailer, calling it false (and Scott "ruthless") in an interview with the Associated Press on June 7, 2010. "That's just absolutely not true. I don't know where he got that from," McCollum said.Sounds like a case for PolitiFact Florida.For this fact-check, we're going to detail to McCollum's public position on embryonic stem cell research, and then President Obama's. Then we'll see if they're the same, as Scott claims.McCollum's positionEmbryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are four or five days old. In almost every case, the stem cells are extracted from left-over embryos created by women attempting to get pregnant through invitro fertilization. Scientists say embryonic stem cells hold great potential, and can be used to test new drugs and have unique regenerative capabilities that could unlock treatments for heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. The embryos are destroyed in the process.To best understand McCollum's position on embryonic stem cell research, we need to start back in 1996 when McCollum was a congressman from Central Florida.That year, Congress attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that limited or banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The Dickey Amendment -- named for Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey --- said that the federal government could not fund the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes or fund research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.The appropriations bill -- and the amendment -- passed 371-42. McCollum voted for the measure.The Dickey Amendment hardly ended the discussion, however, nor ultimately clarifies McCollum's position. The NIH produced a legal opinion that essentially created a loophole in the proviso. The federal government could not use tax dollars to create embryonic stem cells, the NIH said, but it could fund research on privately-created stem cell lines.Former President Bill Clinton's administration began crafting policies to fund embryonic stem cell research, but control of the White House changed before the new policies were implemented.Enter President George W. Bush.In August 2001, Bush essentially restated U.S. policy with an executive order.Bush gave a nationally televised speech, outlining his position -- that the federal government could and should fund research on the 60 or so embryonic stem cell lines already in existence, but that it would not fund research on new or future embryonic stem cell lines.Now, jump to the elections of 2004.Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry promised if elected to open new embryonic stem cell lines to federal funding. Bush maintained his opposition.The dichotomy between Kerry and Bush trickled down the Florida Republican Senate primary that year between McCollum and Mel Martinez.Martinez supported Bush's restrictions and pressed McCollum to stake out a position. Throughout 2004, newspapers generically said McCollum favored increased embryonic stem cell research, but provided little context.In July 2004, McCollum said: ''I think appropriate funding for embryonic stem cell research is a pro-life position. It conforms completely with my faith and my belief in the unborn and my belief of when life begins. And I'm one with my conscience and with my Lord. ''Then, in an August 2004 debate, Martinez fired a second bullet on the stem cell issue.According to the Miami Herald accounting of the debate, Martinez said:"What you should do is define yourself. Do you support President Bush on stem-cell research or do you not?" Martinez said. "Or will you continue to side with John Kerry on this very important issue, and one, frankly, that's becoming a dividing issue in the presidential contest? "McCollum interrupted, the Herald reported."Mr. Martinez, you know that I do not believe in stem-cell research that takes a life. "McCollum then pointed out that other conservatives support the research, and the Herald reported that McCollum has said that test-tube-fertilized embryos that are to be discarded at fertility clinics are not technically human life. He said they should be used for scientific experiments to cure diseases. McCollum lost the primary, and his position on embryonic stem cell research was not questioned again. Until now.Spokeswoman Kristy Campbell explained his current thinking. "The general has been consistent on this issue," Campbell said. "He's never supported creating embryonic stem cells simply for research. But if the only options were to destroy the stem cells, or use them for research, he's preferred they go to research. "To recap: McCollum voted for the Dickey Amendment, which blocks federal funding of at least some embryonic stem cell research, but he has consistently advocated for stem cell research beyond that of President Bush. In particular, he has said if the options for embryonic stem cells are destruction or research, he chooses research.Obama's positionObama clearly detailed his position on embryonic stem cell research during the 2008 presidential campaign. "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations," Obama said in response to a question from the website ScienceDebate.org. "As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight," Obama wrote. "I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in invitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose. "Practically, Obama's position was not altogether different that Republican nominee John McCain. McCain said he supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but opposed the "intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. "In March 2009, Obama reversed U.S. policy and lifted Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell funding.Obama's reversal, however, is still somewhat limited by the Dickey Amendment.To recap: Obama supports increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, and reversed Bush's 2001 executive order. He says it is ethical to use extra embryos from invitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.Comparing the twoEmbryonic stem cell research is not a strictly partisan issue.The Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 passed a bill that would ease Bush's stem cell research restrictions, but it was vetoed by Bush. Among those supporting the measure were Republican senators Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Bill Frist and Kay Bailey Hutchison, and House Republicans Ginny Brown-Waite, Bill Young and Connie Mack.Bush also vetoed a similar measure in 2007 that passed with some GOP support.The key in this fact check, however, is to see if McCollum and Obama have the "same" position.On embryonic stem cell research, it appears McCollum and Obama are awfully close.Obama supports using embryonic stem cells that otherwise would be destroyed for research. McCollum does, too.The only real question is regarding funding. McCollum did vote for the Dickey Amendment, which sought to prevent federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. But in 2004, he talked about "appropriate funding" for embryonic stem cell research.Obama, meanwhile, has supported increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, saying embryonic stem cells "may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions." There's enough of a question when it comes to funding in our minds to add a slight asterisk to Scott's mailer. We rate his claim .


Criminal Justice, History, Crime, Government Regulation, Public Safety, North Carolina, Marijuana, Viral image,

On Thursday – which was the unofficial stoner holiday of 4/20 – supporters of legal marijuana and opponents of the U.S. "war on drugs" took to the internet to make the case for their causes. One widely shared image made an unexpected implication – that decriminalizing drugs could be a pro-police move. It features images of police destroying liquor bottles and marijuana plants, with this text: "Did you know? More American police officers died during prohibition of alcohol than any other time in history. 300 died in 1930 alone. After prohibition ended, police deaths didn't reach 200 a year again until the year Nixon declared war on drugs." A quick Google search showed us the image has been popping up on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and other websites – and that it has been making the rounds since at least 2015. The message is clear: When the government bans popular substances, like liquor or marijuana, black market trade makes life more dangerous for those enforcing the ban. We wondered, however, if the data actually supported that message. The war on drugs Marijuana and other drugs had been illegal in the United States for years before the federal government – under President Richard Nixon, as the image correctly states – launched what we now call the "war on drugs." In June 1971 Nixon declared "a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America." He called for harsher drug laws and millions of dollars in extra spending, and Congress complied. Today, spending on the drug war has continued to grow, and the United States has either the largest or second-largest prison population in the world. Yet marijuana remains popular. A CBS poll released Thursday found 61 percent of Americans favor legalizing pot and 33 percent are opposed. It also found 88 percent of Americans support medical marijuana. A 2015 National Institute on Drug Abuse survey reported that 22.2 million people – 7 percent of the U.S. population – had used pot within the last month. That’s about twice the rate at which people are abusing the second-most popular drug, illicit prescription painkillers (see fact-checks on opioids here, here and here). A deadly job? Comparing Prohibition with the drug war is common in American culture. Just listen to the popular 1988 country song "Copperhead Road" by Steve Earle, about a man from an Appalachian moonshining clan who switches the family business to weed. But is it also fair to compare police deaths during the two periods? That’s a little iffy. It’s correct that 1930 was the deadliest year in U.S. history for police. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks officer deaths going back to 1791, says 307 officers died in 1930. It’s also correct that police deaths decreased sharply after Prohibition. But the numbers behind the claim that "police deaths didn't reach 200 a year again until the year Nixon declared war on drugs" are a bit off. Nixon began the war on drugs in 1971, but police deaths actually topped 200 the year before that in 1970. And that wasn’t any sort of a spike – the number of deaths had been just below 200 all throughout the late 1960s. And that’s not the only thing wrong with this claim. Not all deaths are violent The image clearly uses the violence associated with organized crime to make its point. However, not every officer who dies in any given year is killed by someone else in the line of duty. Many officers die from car crashes, illnesses and other causes. Yet the data this viral post cites on police deaths includes all deaths of police officers each year – violent and non-violent, on-duty and off-duty. In 2007, according to the memorial group, 202 officers died. According to FBI data, 57 of those officers were killed by a criminal while on duty. That means nearly three-fourths of the deaths that year were not the kind of violent deaths this image is alluding to. And even while on duty that year, an officer was more likely to have been killed in an accident than by a criminal. Fewer police deaths We focused on 2007 for a reason. In the last 36 years, only 2007 and 2001 (due to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks) have had more than 200 officer deaths. Yet the typical person who sees this image might very well believe that 200 or more police officers are continuing to die each year during the war on drugs. In reality that’s only happened 12 times, and only twice since 1981. Nicholas Kristof wrote in 2015 that toddlers are killed by guns more often than on-duty police officers are. And whatever the cause of officers' deaths in a given period, the war on drugs still doesn’t compare to Prohibition, when for 14 years an average of 252 officers died every year. Since Prohibition ended more than 80 years ago, however, there have been more than 250 officer deaths only twice – in 1973 and 1974. In fact, during most years from the 1990s until today, the number of officer deaths has been roughly the same as 100 years ago, when there were far fewer officers. Our ruling A viral image making the rounds on 4/20 compared the number of police officer deaths during Prohibition to the drug war: "After prohibition ended, police deaths didn't reach 200 a year again until the year Nixon declared war on drugs," the image said. Those numbers aren’t totally accurate, and the comparison itself is misleading. For one, it counts many officers' deaths that had nothing to do with the prohibition of drugs or alcohol, like an officer who dies of cancer or in a car crash on vacation. And despite the direct comparison between the deadly years of Prohibition and the war on drugs, police deaths have largely been on the decline for decades even as the drug war continues and the number of officers has grown significantly. Since the image uses a semi-accurate statistic to make a misleading comparison.


A photograph shows Dr. Anthony Fauci at a baseball game with his mask lowered below his mouth.

Explanation: Australia’s most populous state declared its second emergency in as many months on Thursday as extreme heat and strong winds stoked more than 100 bushfires, including three major blazes on Sydney’s doorstep.

A day after Australia recorded its hottest day on record, thick smoke blanketed the harbor city, shrouded the Opera House and brought many outdoor activities to a halt. The state of emergency declaration gave firefighters broad powers to control government resources, force evacuations, close roads and shut down utilities across New South Wales, which is home to more than 7 million people. Authorities said nearly 120 fires remained ablaze by late afternoon, more than half of which are uncontrolled, and with temperatures forecast to top 45 degrees Celsius (113°F) in some areas, officials warned residents to be on high alert. “The firefront has been spreading very quickly and intensely,” NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons told reporters in Sydney, adding that two firefighters had been airlifted to hospital with burns to their faces and airways. “It’s still a very difficult and dangerous set of circumstances.”  Days out from Christmas, a time when many Australians head to the coast for the holidays, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian advised people to make sure “you are prepared to change your plans should circumstances change.”  In Shoalhaven, a popular coastal destination some 190 km (120 miles) south of Sydney, local mayor Amanda Findley said people were poised to evacuate. “There is a large amount of smoke looming over the city, which shows how close the fire is,” Findley told Reuters by telephone. “It is extremely hot and windy now so we are all worried the fire could spread. People are really worried that they may lose everything.”  The RFS posted footage on its official Twitter account showing firefighters tackling one of the three blazes ringing Sydney. A waterbomber aircraft was dwarfed by thick grey and black billowing cloud as it attempted to douse flames in bushland just meters away from homes. Australia has been battling wildfires across much of its east coast for weeks, leaving six people dead, more than 680 homes destroyed and nearly 3 million acres (1.2 million hectares) of bushland burnt. Berejiklian said as many as 40 homes had been destroyed on Thursday. Australia on Wednesday broke all-time heat records for the second day running, with maximum temperatures reaching an average of 41.9 degree Celsius, the Bureau of Meteorology said. Some 1,700 firefighters have been deployed across NSW, but officials warned that was still not enough to cover every potential danger and urged people in high risk areas to evacuate while it was still safe to do so. The current state of emergency will last for seven days, while a total fire ban that has been in place since Tuesday will remain until midnight on Saturday. The major fires around Sydney, which is home to more than 5 million people, have resulted in days of heavy pollution in the city usually known for its sparkling harbor and blue skies. One megafire in the Kanangra Boyd National Park to the city’s southwest had crept to the very outskirts of Campbelltown, a suburb of 157,000 people. By late afternoon, Sydney was sitting at No.4 on the IQAir AirVisual live rankings of pollution in global cities, above Dhaka, Mumbai, Shanghai and Jakarta. Many commuters have donned breathing masks in recent weeks as air quality has plunged to hazardous levels not previously seen in the city. NSW Ambulance Commissioner Dominic Morgan said the service had experienced a 10% surge in call-outs for patients suffering respiratory conditions over the past week and urged susceptible people to remain indoors and keep their medication close. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has weathered a storm of criticism on social media in recent days for going on an overseas holiday during the emergency, adding to criticism that his government is failing to deliver adequate climate change policies. As local media reported Morrison was in Hawaii on a family holiday, about 500 protesters gathered outside his official Sydney residence to demand urgent action on climate change. Morrison’s office refused to confirm his whereabouts. One protestor, wearing an Hawaiian shirt, carried a sign reading, “ScoMo, where the bloody hell are you?” referencing the leader’s nickname and a decade-old international advertisement for Tourism Australia that was banned in several countries because the language was deemed offensive. Australia’s low-lying Pacific neighbors have been particularly critical of the coal-rich nation’s climate policies following modest progress at the U.N. climate talks in Madrid. “It was particularly disappointing to see our Pacific cousins in Australia actively standing in the way of progress at a time when we have been watching in horror as their own country is ablaze,” Marshall Islands president Hilda Heine said in a statement on Wednesday.


First test of anti-epilepsy surgeries in children shows dramatic benefit

Explanation: This article describes results of a randomized trial of neurosurgical procedures designed to eliminate seizures in children under 18 years of age whose epilepsy is resistant to drug therapy. Importantly, the story notes significant side effects attributable to the surgeries, and the struggle to receive insurance coverage. Yet, readers will likely want more information about the study–for example, how old the children were, and what kind of neurosurgery they had. Editor’s note: After initial publication of this review, we changed the rating under Quantify Benefits from Not Satisfactory to Satisfactory. The star rating was changed from 3 stars to 4 stars. This also affected the headline, which we have since updated. See the related criterion below. Surgical approaches to intractable seizure disorders — with some children and adults experiencing hundreds of significant seizures a day — have been shown to improve quality of life and maintain cognitive health, particularly in young children for whom brain plasticity is stronger than in adults. Thus, clinical trials to better clarify both the benefits and the harms of such surgeries worldwide are important in improving the evidence base for these procedures.

The article does an outstanding job of noting the cost of surgery, although the article could have been stronger if it had pointed out the estimated costs of drug therapies, hospitalizations and sometimes institutionalization of children and adults who are severely disabled by some forms of seizure disorders. Although there is some quantification of benefits, the article doesn’t specify the actual number of children who had the primary outcome — a year without seizures. And thus the statement in the lead that brain surgery in the study group can produce a 10-fold increase in the odds of being seizure free after one year will be difficult for readers to put into perspective. And as noted above, the article does not specify how many operations or what types of surgery were performed on what ages of children. Editor’s note: While the story doesn’t state the absolute amount of children who experienced improvement after surgery compared to the control group, the story does give readers enough information to understand the measured benefits. For this reason, we changed our initial rating from Not Satisfactory to Satisfactory. Seventy-seven percent of the children were free of seizures at one year after the surgery, compared with seven percent in a control group of youngsters who received medical therapy alone while waiting for surgery. Harms are explained but again without much quantification. The article describes the general level of evidence but it would have been a much stronger article had it specified the specific types of cognitive and other tests used to evaluate the outcomes in the children. Other details were needed, too: how old the children were; what kind of neurosurgery they had; and what the major limitations of the study were. No mongering. The article does quote a Boston specialist who was not a part of the study, which was conducted in India. The article does note that drug therapies are standard of care, but does not specify what drugs are used. More significantly, because the article does not specify in any real detail what kinds of surgeries were performed on the study group, it is difficult for readers to compare alternatives. Beyond noting that costs are a frequent barrier in India to getting the surgery, the article does not say anything about general availability of the operations, or define categories of candidates. The article notes this is the first trial of its kind in children. This appears to be accurate. There have been very few randomized trials (a recent Cochrane review found only four, and only one compared surgery to medical therapy); there is a recent trial (ERSET) that went down to age 12, but was almost all in adults. One point that’s important to note: There is nothing in the study to support the statement that the earlier surgery is done, the better; only that this shows that it appears to substantially decrease seizure frequency in children, as it has been shown to do in adults. The article quotes outside sources.


Texas IDs cancer cluster in polluted Houston neighborhood.

Explanation: Texas health officials identified a cancer cluster in a north Houston neighborhood polluted by the wood preservative creosote from a nearby railroad operation, prompting calls from residents and the city for a more in-depth investigation of potential ongoing risks.

Houston, Cancer, Health, General News, Environment, U.S. News, Texas

An assessment by the Department of State Health Services didn’t attempt to determine whether the cancers were linked to chemicals beneath homes in the city’s Fifth Ward and Kashmere Gardens. But the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality requested the assessment because of residents’ concerns that a plume of polluted groundwater from the Union Pacific site had made some of them sick, and city health officials said it underscored the need for a closer examination. ”I was crying and frustrated,” after learning about the cancer cluster, resident Leisa Glenn told the Houston Chronicle. Creosote, deemed a probable human carcinogen, was used for more than 80 years in a rail yard in the historically black area, until the 1980s, the Chronicle reported. The assessment found that the number of lung and bronchus cancers was, on average, 36% higher than would be expected, esophagus cancers almost 63% higher and larynx cancers 90% higher. But the study cautioned that lifestyle and other factors also could be a cause, and it did not account for how long residents had lived in the area. Still, “the contaminants in the plume are linked to those specific cancers,” found in the assessment, said Loren Hopkins, chief environmental science officer at the Houston Health Department. For example, arsenic is found in creosote and linked to lung cancer. Union Pacific told the Houston Chronicle that it is reviewing the study, which it said it just received. The study was completed in August but the city and residents were never notified by the state. The city health department learned about it at the end of November, officials said. “The fact that there has been shockingly little communication between the state and community is astounding,” said Elena Craft, a toxicologist and senior director of climate and health at the Environmental Defense Fund. Union Pacific bought the site from Southern Pacific in 1996, and in 2014 warned residents against drinking water from wells because of contamination that had moved off-site. It also has been using wells to extract contamination from the plume, and is testing the air in homes for harmful vapors. The state environment agency said in a statement that it “continues to oversee cleanup activities being performed at the site.” Hopkins said city health officials have asked the state for additional studies to determine if there is an environmental link, and to consider liver cancer and non-cancer health effects, which she said also can be caused by chemicals in the plume. In addition, the city health department will conduct a door-to-door health survey, and gather information about people who might have moved away before they were diagnosed with cancer, she said. Hopkins said even if an environmental  link were proven, it likely would have been caused by exposure when pollution levels were higher, because it takes a long time for cancer to develop. Still, she said she was “very surprised” by the findings because it’s often difficult to detect cancer clusters. ”I just feel the anxiety the citizens are suffering from living over this and finding out about the cancer cluster,” she said. “It is tragic, and they are frustrated that things aren’t moving faster.”