A meme accurately describes the arc of Bernie Sanders' (financial) life.

Explanation: All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone — regardless of net worth.

Politics Politicians, 2016 presidential election, bernie sanders

In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the résumé of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn’t of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has “owned a business,” while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not — even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he “owned” it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People’s Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People’s Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: Director Bernard Sanders explained, “It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living.” While the financials of the American People’s Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and “a lot of fun.” A friend of Sanders’ told Politico that the film strip business “wasn’t just a way to make money … He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were.” Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of “inventing” something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it’s hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals” on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, “inventing” has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a “9 to 5 job” mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a “blue collar” job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term — that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment — then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he “didn’t collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old.” However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren’t steady or didn’t provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39 — working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. “Pretty sparse,” Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. “Stark and dark,” said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. “The electricity was turned off a lot,” Barnett said. “I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.” He worked some as a carpenter, although “he was a shitty carpenter,” [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. “His carpentry,” [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, “was not going to support him, and didn’t.” He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn’t a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. “It would’ve been not more than 50 bucks,” said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? “Our rate was 10 cents a word,” said Brian Vachon, a former editor. “He was always poor,” Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. “Virtually unemployed,” said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. “Just one step above hand to mouth,” said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union “people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work,” Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. “Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance.” “His work was to be a politician,” Guma said. “He put everything into what he was doing.” We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a “9 to 5” job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided “for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans”). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members’ duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in “The Many Roles of a Member of Congress”: First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was “always poor,” and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what ‘image’ he conveys — and that’s part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He’s on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is ‘talking the issues,’ and he doesn’t mind repeating himself sometimes.” 74 year old — personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorina’s net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton’s reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate’s net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the “poorest presidential candidates” running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000:  Bernie Sanders > Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. This meme’s characterization of Sanders as a “loser” on this basis evinces a rather skewed perspective, however. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one’s success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress’ finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a “winner” for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being “out of touch with the common man”). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders’ stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders’ campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season.


Missouri to create center for rural students’ mental health.

Explanation: The University of Missouri has received a $10 million federal grant to establish a National Center for Rural School Mental Health.

Columbia, Mental health, U.S. Department of Education, Health, Missouri, Education, University of Missouri

The university announced in a news release Wednesday that it received the grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The proposed center would study ways to improve programs focused on the emotional and psychological needs of rural students. Researchers and staff at the center would create online data and training systems to support the needs of rural school students. Wendy Reinke of the College of Education has worked for four years with a team of researchers to develop a survey identifying behavioral and emotional problems in rural schools. The goal is to use the survey in at least 110 schools in Missouri, Virginia and Montana within five years.


Explanation: This was a 138-word story on a recent study that found that more than one multivitamin a day was correlated with increased risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer. However the story fell short of the mark of informing readers because it failed to provide sufficient context to understand what the absolute increase in risk was. See our primer on absolute vs. relative risk. Instead of explaining that taking additional beta carotene and zinc supplements increased this risk even more, the story could have used that space to provide numbers to help men understand the frequency with which advanced prostate cancer occurs and how common it is that prostate cancer never advances or becomes fatal. Saying that risk was increased 32% or "nearly doubled" just isn’t helpful if readers aren’t given the baseline risk. 32% of what? Nearly double what? We will continue to point out the severe limitations of such short pieces on medical science. Meantime, a short 263-word story by USA Today on the same study got a five-star score – so it is possible to be brief and meet most of our criteria.

Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss the costs of multivitamins, but this is common knowledge. The story mentioned that the study "provided strong evidence that taking just one multivitamin a day did not cause harm. ", which could be considered a benefit of treatment. The harms of treatment, i.e. increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer were mentioned. However, the source article for this story included estimates of the frequency with which these normally occur, so the story could have included this information and provided a more informative picture. The story provided evidence of increased risk only in relative terms, not absolute. See our primer on this issue. Without knowing how common advanced or fatal prostate cancer are, it is not possible to understand what 32% and 50% increases represent. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The only source quoted in this story was the senior author of the paper reported on. It would have been helpful to have an independent source comment on the results presented. The treatment options discussed are taking one multivitamin a day (which was not found to increase advanced prostate cancer risk) and  taking more than one multivitamin a day, which was found to be correlated with increased risk. The story didn’t provide information about other options for decreasing prostate cancer risk, or other factors that increase prostate cancer risk. Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss availability of multivitamins but this is common knowledge. The story does not mention whether the observation that excessive vitamin consumption is associated with increased prostate cancer risk was new or not. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Only one source is quoted.


Tommy Robinson was jailed in order to silence his reporting on a sex abuse trial in England, and to "protect Muslim pedophiles.

Explanation: In particular, judges are sensitive to the publication of even accurate news reports in circumstances where two separate trials are linked. In that way, the “prejudice” being avoided can relate to the same trial or a future trial involving the same defendants or complainants, or relating to the same events or circumstances.

Politics, england, english defence league, free speech

English far-right activist Tommy Robinson was given a 13-month prison sentence on 25 May 2018, following a Facebook Live video he broadcast from outside a trial of several men accused of a range of child sexual abuse offenses. The sentence prompted a wave of outrage and protests (mostly, but not entirely, among various factions of the far right) and claims that Robinson’s rights to free speech were being violated in the interests of political correctness; Robinson stated in the video that many of the defendants were Muslim. On 28 May 2018, the “alternative medicine” and conspiracy theory site NaturalNews.com claimed that Robinson had been silenced without due process in order to “protect Muslim pedophiles” because “the UK government is run by criminal pedophiles who rely on Muslim pedo networks to provide a steady supply of nine and ten-year-old little girls and boys.” Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones described the episode as “historic” and his Infowars web site called the arrest of Robinson “the beginning of the end for free speech in Europe.” These claims are based on a wild misunderstanding of a very basic principle in the legal system of England and Wales, and of other parts of the U.K. Far from being a “historic” violation of due process, Robinson was jailed because a court judged he had breached the terms of an existing suspended sentence for contempt of court by violating a set of reporting restrictions often placed on the news media and others in the United Kingdom in order to protect the due process rights of defendants and prevent the collapse of trials, something that could jeopardize the conviction of potentially guilty and dangerous individuals. The “media blackout” on the child sexual abuse trial referred to by NaturalNews.com was not designed to “protect Muslim pedophiles,” but rather to protect the integrity of the child sexual abuse trial itself, prevent a costly re-trial, and avoid witnesses having to go through the trauma of testifying in court again. Reporting restrictions such as those imposed in the child sexual abuse case in question are temporary, meaning that the news media can reveal previously-censored details after the trial has concluded. So Robinson was not jailed for engaging in journalism, or for merely reporting on alleged criminality. He was jailed for violating a court order, breaching the terms of an existing suspended sentence, and potentially risking the collapse of an ongoing trial. Background In May 2017, Robinson — the founder of the far-right, conspiracy-mongering English Defence League, and whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon — was arrested for contempt of court after filming inside Canterbury Crown Court in the south-eastern English county of Kent. As reported by Kent Online at the time, Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt and apologized. He had confronted some of the defendants inside the court building as they left while filming footage which he later uploaded online. Robinson accused police of helping the defendants “escape.” In sentencing him on 26 May 2017, Judge Heather Norton said: This is not about free speech… not about the freedom of the Press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness. It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly..it’s about being innocent until proven guilty. It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated..or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate “reporting”, if that’s what it was. …You made it abundantly clear that your mission was to film the defendants, who you referred to by their religion, as ‘Muslim child rapists’ and ‘Muslim paedophiles’. …I take a very dim view of your conduct, which was in the face of repeated warnings…There are notices all over the court building making it clear that filming or taking a photograph was an offence and may be a contempt of court. You were told very clearly by the security staff at this court that you were to stop filming. Robinson was given a three-month prison sentence, but it was suspended for 18 months on the condition that he did not commit any more criminal offenses. The Facebook Live video A year later, on 25 May 2018, Robinson showed up outside Leeds Crown Court in the northern English county of Yorkshire and began broadcasting a Facebook Live video. In the video, Robinson confronted men whom he presented as defendants in an ongoing child sexual abuse case, made it clear it was his aim to identify them and show their faces on camera, named several men and listed the purported charges against them, and in one instance encouraged the “mainstream media” to harass a man he had earlier shown on camera, as he arrived in court. According to the Hull Daily Mail, some of the charges Robinson associated with named defendants were inaccurate. That type of factual error — broadcast to a potentially huge audience  — could have serious consequences in a criminal trial. During the course of the 75-minute video, Robinson openly declared “there is a reporting restriction on this case,” acknowledged that he was already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court and said “I have to be super-careful.” The closing moments of the video showed police arresting Robinson outside the court for breach of the peace, a public order offense. Later that day, Judge Geoffrey Marson of Leeds Crown Court gave Robinson a 13-month prison sentence for contempt of court and violating his existing suspended sentence, ruling that the content of his Facebook Live video had the potential to prejudice and collapse the ongoing trial. Robinson had pleaded guilty. According to LeedsLive, Marson watched the Facebook video in court before telling Robinson:  No one could possibly conclude that it [the video] would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial. I respect everyone’s right to free speech. That’s one of the most important rights that we have. With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law. I am not sure you appreciate the potential consequence of what you have done. …You have to understand we are not preventing publication. We are postponing publication to ensure that the trial is fair. The Hull Daily Mail quoted Marson as giving concrete examples of the harm that Robinson’s video had the potential to cause: If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury. If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds. A re-trial would also mean witnesses in the case would have to face the ordeal of giving evidence again before a jury. Marson placed reporting restrictions on Robinson’s arrest and sentencing, but those restrictions were lifted after a successful application by LeedsLive on 29 May. In a textbook example of how reporting restrictions postpone but do not prohibit acts of journalism, local and national news media honored Marson’s order over the weekend and refrained from reporting on Robinson’s sentencing until the order was lifted. The reporting restrictions in the child sexual abuse case remain in place. Strict rules The UK news media faces strict rules on what they can and cannot publish about an ongoing trial. Some of these are in place by default, while others require a court order and are at the discretion of judges. For example, the complainant, or victim, in a sexual assault case cannot be named, unless they waive their automatic right to anonymity, but it might require a court order for the media to be restrained from publishing the identity of — for example — a minor or a vulnerable witness. Guidelines in place in the UK state that a judge can postpone, but not prohibit, the publication of otherwise “fair and accurate reports.” The overarching principle in place is to avoid the publication of anything which “creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice” if it is published during a trial.


What's in a name? Losing Asperger's label not such a big change.

Explanation: Struggling to describe her son, Suzanne Kolen of Long Island, New York, uses a friend’s recent description: He’s the 13-year-old boy bouncing down the road in the rain looking very much like Winnie the Pooh’s friend, Tigger.

“He’s a genuinely happy kid,” Kolen says of her son, a bright boy who loves nature and paleontology and has never been defined by his diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism marked by social awkwardness and narrow interests that make personal relationships challenging. Matthew’s diagnosis will soon be dropped in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic reference book, to be subsumed into the broader category of autism spectrum disorder. Although autism can range from highly functioning individuals like Matthew to those with severe speech and intellectual disabilities, in general individuals struggle with difficulties in communication, behavior and social interaction. Dropping the Asperger’s diagnosis in the new DSM, due out this spring, has caused consternation for some families. “One of the biggest concerns is that some who are higher functioning will no longer meet the more stringent criteria and will therefore have difficulty getting services,” says Dr. Elizabeth Laugeson, an autism researcher at the University of California Los Angeles. An analysis by Dr. Fred Volkmar of the Yale School of Medicine released earlier this year suggested as many as 45 percent of those currently diagnosed with autism or a related disorder would no longer qualify under the new definition. Laugeson said Volkmar’s analysis was based on a review of older medical records that might not have captured all of the symptoms that would qualify a person for an autism diagnosis under the new standard. The jury is still out in terms of how the change will play out in routine practice, she said: “We really need to see it in action.”  To ease fears that some individuals will no longer be eligible for services and insurance coverage, the APA task force recommends that people already diagnosed with an autism-related disorder, such as Asperger’s, would be grandfathered in. Kolen, who has never been caught up in labels, says she is not concerned about the change. Although Matthew was officially diagnosed with Asperger’s in second grade, his preschool teachers were the first to point out his differences. By age 4, he began applied behavior analysis or ABA therapy, a specialized type of therapy used to treat autism. “That really put us on a good path,” Kolen says, adding that at that age, “no one was willing to put a label on him, but they would treat what they saw.”  In addition to Asperger’s, Matthew is now being treated for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD and has recently developed some issues with anxiety - conditions that commonly accompany autism spectrum disorders. Like many on the autism spectrum, Matthew finds it difficult to make eye contact. “I can’t stare into someone’s eyes,” he says. “It just hurts.”  On Wednesdays, Matthew attends a social group with other young people on the autism spectrum, where they work on improving their social skills. While they all have the same or similar difficulties, they can recognize social awkwardness in others. Kolen says her son still struggles with the give and take of conversation. “It’s very difficult for him to allow the other person to speak. He’s still tends to dominate.”  But Matthew is bright, and she believes with enough practice, he will learn how to respond appropriately to social cues, even if he’s “a little rough around the edges.”  “My goal is to make sure that in the end, he has a place to work, earning a living and supporting himself in what he loves to do,” says Kolen.


Missouri Votes to Let Employers Fire People Who Use Birth Control.

Explanation: Our ruling A columnist for Feministing claimed that SB 5 will allow employers to fire their workers for using birth control. A columnist for Feministing claimed that SB 5 will allow employers to fire their workers for using birth control. While the bill will impose higher level of restrictions on abortion providers and allow real estate agents to refuse to sell or rent them land, the bill does not say employers can fire workers for using contraceptives. While the bill will impose higher level of restrictions on abortion providers and allow real estate agents to refuse to sell or rent them land, the bill does not say employers can fire workers for using contraceptives.

Health Care, Legal Issues, Women, Workers, Missouri, Feministing,

An Internet claim that Missouri employers will gain the right to fire people who use birth control when a state bill becomes law is incorrect. "Missouri Votes to Let Employers Fire People Who Use Birth Control," reads a headline from Feministing. "A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion," writes Sejal Singh, Feministing columnist, in the article. A St. Louis ordinance passed in February prohibits discrimination because of reproductive health care decisions. But Missouri Senate Bill 5, or SB 5, which was signed by the governor in July, will overturn that local ordinance when it takes effect in October. Since SB 5 was signed, we’ve seen claims that the bill would allow for employers to fire workers for using birth control. But we found no evidence that that’s true. Singh told PolitiFact Missouri she based her commentary on the analysis of news articles. Allure, Refinery29, and Newsweek were just a few among media sources that reported the bill would allow for employees to fire people for using birth control. Newsweek came out with an updated article stating that it, among other publications, had erroneously reported on the bill. Many of these news organizations referenced NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, which ran an ad online and on the radio that read, "Do you think your boss should be able to fire you for using birth control?" This ad only ran for one week, but its interpretation of the bill was influential to many of those articles. According to Alison Dreith, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, it was the rhetoric of Republicans and not the actual language that led to this interpretation. "It still remains to be seen if SB 5 will pre-empt the St. Louis ordinance," Dreith said in an email interview. The bill, signed by the governor in late July, touches on a lot of provisions, such as tissue report modifications, local abortion policies, employee disclosure policies and abortion facility inspections. Under the political subdivision authority part of the bill, it allows property owners to refuse to rent or sell to a person who plans to use the facility as an abortion clinic that isn’t for the sole purpose of saving the mother’s life. Within the same guidelines, it also doesn’t require healthcare providers or employers to provide coverage "that includes benefits that are not otherwise required by state law." Employers in Missouri are already allowed to deny contraceptive coverage in their employee’s health insurance plans. Daniel Wilhelm, with Republican Rep. Andrew Koenig’s office, said the bill does not reference birth control or contraceptives, except under circumstances where employers can refuse health care if they don’t want to pay for birth control. Elizabeth Sepper, a professor of law at Washington University, said in an email that no matter what Missouri does, federal law bars an employer with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive choices, such as taking contraception. Even with the passing of the bill, Sepper said St. Louis’ city ordinance still prevents employers from firing employees who use birth control, and SB 5 doesn’t affect that protection. A columnist for Feministing claimed that SB 5 will allow employers to fire their workers for using birth control. While the bill will impose higher level of restrictions on abortion providers and allow real estate agents to refuse to sell or rent them land, the bill does not say employers can fire workers for using contraceptives.


Tiny Eye Telescope Brings Back A World Of Sight

Explanation: The story starts with a gee whiz hook but then gives readers the necessary context. It also uses independent voices, spends nearly as much time talking about the potential harms as the benefits and provides a solid exploration of the alternatives to surgery. Perhaps the best part of the story is the very end where it provides the audience with a clear message on what they should do with these study results. The short answer: get your vision checked because this is just one of many new ways you might be able to save or restore your eyesight. Everyone starts to lose some vision as they age, and macular degeneration, in particular, affects millions of people. This story serves as both a nice piece of hope for a subset of these people and as a reminder to everyone else that there are multiple ways to treat the disease.

This sounds like a lengthy and involved procedure that would require expensive technical expertise during surgery. The device itself has to be very expensive. Because there are lower-tech surgical alternatives and non-surgical alternatives, insurance companies may be slow to cover this sort of procedure. Given that, it would have been nice to see a ballpark figure for how much this costs. The story doesn’t spend a lot of time with the numbers, but it does a pretty good job capturing the potential benefits. The fourth sentence talks about the potential harms, a rarity for any health story. In fact, the whole second paragraph should be part of a template for most health writing. "Findings from the clinical trials show that the telescope does improve vision for the majority of patients. Still, there are some concerns about corneal damage, since the telescope is relatively large inside the eye. And the population who might benefit from the new device is somewhat limited. The treatment doesn’t work for those who have had cataract surgery. And for those who catch the disease early on, there may be better options." One of our reviewers just printed that out and taped it to his computer screen. The story does a good job of explaining the evidence in absolute numbers and in percentages. So, if you think that it sounds impressive that 75% of the patients had major improvements in their vision, you can check that against the fact that 10 out of 219 patients had corneal problems after the surgery. It would have been good to explain how vision improvement was measured. Was it through objective vision tests or through a Q&A with patients or both? The story starts out by saying the procedure "could help millions of older adults who are nearly blinded by macular degeneration." This isn’t quite disease mongering, and, if we look at the disease globally, that’s potentially true. In the U.S. alone, according to the American Health Assistance Foundation, about 1.75 million Americans age 40 who suffer from acute macular degeneration. But the story then makes it clear that not all of them would be candidates for this procedure. Given that "millions" are used in the lead, it would have been smart to follow up with a more realistic number of how many might actually benefit. The bottom third of the story relies heavily, perhaps too much so, on Dr. George Williams, a retinal surgeon given the vague title of "associated with the American Academy of Ophthalmology." Those quibbles aside, Williams provides some great insight and counterbalancing information. It also explains that the other expert in the story, Dr. Kathryn A. Colby, was one of the principal investigators in the story. Again, this could be a model for other stories. It places the new surgery in the context of existing surgeries and compares it to drug treatments, even explaining how those treatments and surgeries are performed, all in just a few sentences. Every story should have a section like this: "Cataract surgery removes the natural lens and, in most cases, replaces it with an artificial lens, which means there is no foundation for the telescope. And for patients who are in the early stages of macular degeneration, Williams says that medications approved just six years ago are effective and a lot less invasive than the telescope. The drugs are injected directly into the eye on a monthly basis. And with this treatment, doctors are able to prevent severe visual loss in over 90 percent of patients. In nearly half of all patients, visual improvement is significant." The only thing that would have made this better is if the reporter had asked at least one more source besides Williams for comments and context. The story makes it clear that this is an experimental study and says that the FDA plans to monitor the side effects for five years. We’re not quite sure why this story was coming out now given that the FDA approved this device at the beginning of the month. (Read about it.) How widely available is it? Never made crystal clear. The story puts the procedure into the right context. It could be more clear about whether there are similar devices out there that improve vision. (There are.) This story does not rely on a news release.


Mammograms Cut Risk of Breast Cancer Death by Half, Study Finds

Explanation: This story summarizes results from a new Dutch study that finds women undergoing screening mammography reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49%. The article does a good job of briefly summarizing some of the debate around the age to begin screening and uses an outside expert who identifies some limitations of the study. However, the article fails to ask the hard questions to help readers with a balanced viewpoint. We’re not sure that women will be any more clear about the state of the evidence after reading this story. There’s been much debate about the benefit of mammography screening and whether the benefits outweigh the harms. This story does not really help women put the information into context, nor does it help them analyze whether this is news that really matters.

There is no discussion of the costs of mammography. While making an attempt to quantify benefits, the author frames the information in confusing language that appears to indicate cause and effect:  “women who underwent screening reduced the risk of dying from breast cancer by 49 percent.”  Mammography is screening, not treatment, and does not prevent or cure breast cancer. Citing the conflicting evidence about the benefits of breast cancer screening would improve the quality of the article. For instance, in two large, randomized clinical trials that looked at the benefits of screening mammography for survival, the Malmo and Canadian trials, the women who chose mammography screening had the same breast cancer mortality or death rate as the women who did not. The article refers briefly to “overtreatment” but fails to explain this or other potential harms. This article underplayed the limitations of the original study. Crucial details are absent in this article, such as the way in which the women were “invited” into the study (a term used in the original abstract,) how it was determined the women died of breast cancer,  what type of cancer was diagnosed, whether or not there was appropriate treatment,  and the effects of lead-time bias,where patients do not live longer but know about their cancer longer. The story should have emphasized that this was a case-control study and should have explained limitations inherent in such a design, making the story’s causality comments inappropriate. A statistical reference to the number of women who are diagnosed and die from breast cancer would be useful, but there is no direct evidence of disease-mongering. Although there is no specific indication of whether or not there is a conflict of interest ,the article is considered satisfactory because it names the source of the study and provides one independent source, Dr. Stephanie Burnik. There is no discussion of alternatives to “routine mammograms” although the article does mention the debate as to the best schedule and age to begin. The clear alternative is not to be screened. Not applicable. The study was in the Netherlands, which has a national screening program. Screening mammography is not a new approach to detecting breast cancer. This article clearly states it is based on a publication in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention Dec. 6,2011.


ABC fired Joy Behar from her job co-hosting "The View" after she made comments about Vice President Mike Pence's religious beliefs.

Explanation: Although fake news sites often carry a disclaimer notice disclosing to readers that its content is “satirical” or otherwise false, PixelPolitics.com has no such warning.

Junk News, any politics, fake news, joy behar

In early March 2018, a clickbait web site called PixelPolitics.com (which also bears another title on the page itself, “Any Politics”) was among several sites spreading a story about Joy Behar purportedly losing her job on current-events television talk show The View: ABC to Fire Joy Behar from ‘The View’ [In February 2018], Joy Behar bashed Vice President Mike Pence and his Christian faith on her talk show “The View.” Now, it has come back to bite her in a huge way. Behar responded by saying that Pence’s talking to Jesus is not a sign of faith, but a sign of “mental illness.” “It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices,” Behar said. While the headline contained the claim that the network was “firing” Behar, its final lines contradicted that claim, instead encouraging readers to share the link if they agreed the host ought to lose her job: Since the comments were made, ABC has not punished Behar in any way, and she has continued to spew her nonsense. Last week, Behar claimed that attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) “have a penchant for Nazis.” SHARE this story if you think ABC should FIRE Joy Behar!


Measles outbreak kills more than 1,200 in Madagascar.

Explanation: Babies wail as a nurse tries to reassure mothers who have come to vaccinate their children against a measles outbreak that has killed more than 1,200 people in this island nation where many are desperately poor.

Madagascar, AP Top News, International News, Measles, Africa, Health

Madagascar faces its largest measles outbreak in history, with cases soaring well beyond 115,000, but resistance to vaccinating children is not the driving force behind the rise. Measles cases are rising in the United States and elsewhere, in part because of misinformation that makes some parents balk at receiving a vaccine. New York City is trying to halt an outbreak by ordering mandatory vaccinations in one Brooklyn neighborhood. In Madagascar, many parents want to protect their children but face immense challenges, including the lack of resources. Only 58% of people on Madagascar’s main island have been vaccinated against measles, a major factor in the outbreak’s spread. With measles one of the most infectious diseases, immunization rates need to be 90% to 95% or higher to prevent outbreaks. On a recent day, the Iarintsena health center’s waiting room was full, with mothers sitting on the floor and others waiting outside in the overwhelming heat. Two volunteer nurses and a midwife tried to meet the demand. Nifaliana Razaijafisoa had walked 15 kilometers (9 miles) with her 6-month-old baby in her arms. “He has a fever,” she said. “I think it’s measles because there are these little pimples that have appeared on his face.” The nurse quickly confirmed it. “I’m so scared for him because in the village everyone says it kills babies,” Razaijafisoa said. The outbreak has killed mostly children under 15 since it began in September, according to the World Health Organization. “The epidemic unfortunately continues to expand in size,” though at a slower pace than a month ago, said Dr. Dossou Vincent Sodjinou, a WHO epidemiologist in Madagascar. By mid-March, 117,075 cases had been reported by the health ministry, affecting all regions of the country. Some cases of resistance to vaccinations exist because of the influence of religion or of traditional health practitioners but they are isolated ones, he said. This outbreak is complicated by the fact that nearly 50% of children in Madagascar are malnourished. “Malnutrition is the bed of measles, ” Sodjinou said. Razaijafisoa’s baby weighs just 5 kilograms (11 pounds). “This is the case for almost all children with measles who have come here,” said Lantonirina Rasolofoniaina, a volunteer at the health center. Simply reaching a clinic for help can be a challenge. Many people in Madagascar cannot afford to see a doctor or buy medicine, and health centers often are understaffed or have poorly qualified workers. As a result, information about health issues can be unreliable. Some parents are not aware that vaccines are free, at least in public health centers. Four of Erika Hantriniaina’s five children have had measles. She had wrongly believed that people could not be vaccinated after nine months of age. “It’s my 6-year-old daughter who had measles first. She had a lot of fever,” she said. “I called the doctor but it was Friday. He had already gone to town. I went to see another doctor who told me that my daughter had an allergy. ... This misdiagnosis was almost fatal.” The girl had diarrhea and vomiting and couldn’t eat, Hantriniaina said, adding that she narrowly survived. Measles, a highly infectious disease spread by coughing, sneezing, close contact or infected surfaces, has no specific treatment. The symptoms are treated instead. “Vitamin A is given to children to increase their immunity. We try to reduce the fever. If there is a cough, we give antibiotics,” said Dr. Boniface Maronko, sent by WHO to Madagascar to supervise efforts to contain the outbreak. If the disease is not treated early enough, complications appear including diarrhea, bronchitis, pneumonia and convulsions. Madagascar’s health ministry has sent free medication to regions most affected by the outbreak. Maronko reminded heads of health centers in the Ambalavao region not to make parents pay, saying he had seen some doctors asking for money. He told The Associated Press that he feared the medicines wouldn’t be enough. The country’s capital, Antananarivo, a city of 1.3 million, has not been spared. Lalatiana Ravonjisoa, a vegetable vendor in a poor district, grieves for her 5-month-old baby. “I had five children. They all had measles. For the last, I did not go to see the doctor because I did not have money,” she said. “I gave my baby the leftover medications from his big brother to bring down the fever.” For a few days she did not worry: “I felt like he was healed.” But one morning she noticed he had trouble breathing. Later she found his feet were cold. “Look at my baby,” she told her mother. “She hugged him for a long time and she did not say anything. Then she asked me to be strong. He was gone.” Ravonjisoa said she blames herself, “but I did not imagine for one moment that he was going to die.” At the hospital, a doctor confirmed that her baby died of measles-related respiratory complications. Late last month, WHO started a third mass vaccination campaign in Madagascar with the overall goal of reaching 7.2 million children aged 6 months to 9 years. “But immunization is not the only strategy for the response to this epidemic. We still need resources for care, monitoring and social mobilization,” said Sodjinou, the WHO epidemiologist. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa


The common allergy drug Benadryl can be used to treat rattlesnake bites.

Explanation: “Benadryl is not effective for snake envenomations in humans or other animals. Please stop sharing this information. Antivenom along with proper supportive care are the only effective treatments supported by peer-reviewed literature,” wrote Snakebite Foundation member Dr. Nick Brandehoff, an emergency physician and medical toxicologist at the University of California, San Francisco at Fresno, in a blog post.

A Facebook post shared in July 2019 claimed that the over-the-counter allergy drug Benadryl could be used to treat a rattlesnake bite. Since its original posting, the status has received more than 12,000 shares: Benadryl might save a life: For anyone in Rattlesnake country: I have learned something new that I thought was important enough that I wanted to pass on. A man was bitten by a rattlesnake a few days ago. He was getting ready to bale and turned over a windrow to check the moisture and the snake was in it. It wrapped around his arm and bit him on the underside of the wrist. Luckily it was not a severe bite, the fang marks were clear, but not deep enough to draw blood. He came straight to the house and we got ice on it and had him to the hospital within an hour. I called ahead so the emergency room was ready for him. By the time he got there his arm was starting to swell to the shoulder and his throat was getting tight. The first thing the emergency room did was give him Benadryl. Apparently antivenom must be received within 4 hours of the snakebite, but the immediate threat is swelling and death of tissue, which was treated with the Benadryl. But there is no truth to this claim, according to an international group of doctors, paramedics, and scientists collectively known as the Snakebite Foundation.


Explanation: This news release describes a device that uses a drop of blood to rapidly rule out the possibility of a mild traumatic brain injury following a blow to the head. The goal is to avoid unnecessary medical exams and CT scans. The research behind the device, which is similar to a pregnancy stick test, was published in PLOS One. The news release relates that the test will be marketed next year and allows that the test is not 100% reliable. However, it oversimplifes how concussions are diagnosed, doesn’t give cost data, and relies on some sensational language. Most importantly, it skirts the lack of evidence that patients who use this device will have better outcomes or lower costs than those who don’t. We’d all like to see better ways to diagnose the millions of concussions that occur each year. But it’s a complicated business, and there’s danger in oversimplifying the clinical decision-making process as companies rush to market devices that haven’t been rigorously tested in clinical trials. People who take such blood tests, or give them to a child, should know that they might be at risk of false assurances that could prematurely put injured people back on a playing field.

blood test,traumatic brain injury,University of Geneva

The cost of this device isn’t discussed, despite plans to put it on the market. The release noted that the standard way of diagnosing brain injuries are through CT scans. These tests run more than $1,000 a pop, at least in the U.S. The release might have noted how much this test would cost in comparison. Further, if the outcomes of the test are not improved US insurance companies are unlikely to pay for it. The news release states that the device “will not only relieve emergency departments, free patients from often long waits, but also save on costly medical examinations.” A physician was quoted stating that the test was designed “to determine whether the athlete can return to the field or if his condition requires hospitalization.” But it did not give sufficient data to demonstrate all of those claims. The accuracy of the test is not described by the release nor is it clear if the test improves care in any way. Also, important long term outcomes (disability, difficulty concentrating, etc.) were not part of the study so any claims made on these outcomes would be inappropriate. The news release did state that measuring the level of one protein, H-FABP, “makes it possible to confirm that there is no risk of trauma in one third of patients,” based on a study of patients who had already been admitted to a hospital after undergoing a shock to the head. It stated: “The rest of the patients will have to undergo a CT scan to confirm the diagnosis.” The release also stated — prematurely — that the company is “currently preparing an even more effective TBIcheck, which will allow 50% of patients to be sent home,” based on the levels of two proteins. The news release did not mention harms, such as missing an injury due to a false negative or having a false positive result that leads to unnecessary and potentially expensive follow-up tests and treatments. With 100% sensitivity there will be no false negatives, but that is a suspect result. It’s not clear what actions are (or are not taken) as a result of this test so it is hard to assess potential harms. There was no data on the accuracy of this test. How often does it falsely give a negative result? And how often are people referred for further testing or evaluation when they don’t have an injury? The news release didn’t say. More importantly, it doesn’t appear that this test has been studied in a randomized clinical trial, so there’s no evidence that patients who use it would have better outcomes or reduced costs compared with patients who are treated using current practices. That wasn’t explained in the news release. The published study provides the sensitivity and specificity of the test but these results are only hinted at in the news release. The news release doesn’t engage in disease-mongering; potential concussions are very common. It also provides useful context on the frequency of suspected traumatic brain injury in the UK. The news release stated that the test sponsor, the University of Geneva, holds a patent on the test which was developed by two of the study’s authors who founded the company that will sell the test. The news release stated that the “only reliable diagnosis is the CT Scan, which is only available in some hospitals and, in addition to being expensive, exposes patients to radiations.” This is misleading. In fact, diagnosing a concussion is complicated. Patients are usually assessed by a doctor using the Glasgow Coma Scale—a series of physical tests for determining the level of consciousness. A CT scan can also be used in order to detect severe brain injury such as bleeding and swelling. However, patients suspected of having a concussion don’t always show signs of brain damage when scanned. The news release stated that the device will be marketed starting in 2019 by a company called ABCDx. However, it would have been helpful to readers to point out whether or not the device must receive regulatory approvals or any details about the types of patients for whom it is recommended. At least one other blood test to evaluate concussions has been given the green light to be marketed in the U.S., and that’s not mentioned. HealthNewsReview.org reviewed a news release and a CNN story about that device. The headline — “A brain injury diagnosed with a single drop of blood” — was among several examples of language in this news release that exaggerated the benefits of this test. Another was that patients will have “No more doubts!” about whether they might have a concussion. It is not clear that this test will improve outcomes in any way.


2007 mass shooting survivor copes with 300 pellets of lead.

Explanation: A woman who survived a 2007 mass shooting in Utah said Thursday she has lead poisoning from 300 shotgun pellets still in her body, leaving her with debilitating headaches, nausea and other serious health problems.

Lead poisoning, General News, Utah, Health, Salt Lake City, Gun politics, Poisoning, U.S. News

Carolyn Tuft, whose 15-year-old daughter died in the Trolley Square mall shooting in Salt Lake City, has been unable to work, resulting in the loss of her home and business, she told The Associated Press. She’s stricken when she thinks about other survivors dealing with similar problems after mass shootings, including recent slayings in Texas, Ohio and California. “It makes me terribly sad and sick to my stomach and angry, and I just feel very sad for those people,” said Tuft. Mary Anne Thompson, local chapter leader of Moms Demand Action, an organization pushing for stronger gun laws, has seen the effects on her friend. Tuft used to be a cyclist, hiker and runner. “Carolyn has trouble getting up in the morning and getting dressed,” she told Salt Lake City television station KUTV, which first reported the story. “For many like my friend Carolyn, it’s a life sentence of pain.” Little research has been done on the effects of lead poisoning from ammunition, said Gabriel Filippelli, a science professor at Indiana University. Doctors haven’t told Tuft how much longer she may survive, but she says she is struggling. Once lead enters the body, it can travel through the bloodstream and affect vital organs like the kidneys, brain and heart, causing a litany of serious health issues. It can include kidney disease, depression, heart disease and suicidal thoughts, Filippelli said. “There are literally now thousands of people who are victims of mass shootings or survivors of gunshot wounds ... we need to work harder to study these impacts,” he said. Retained lead bullets or fragments can cause elevated lead levels in the blood and make people with higher amounts of lead feel sick, said Michael J. Kosnett, a medical toxicologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. But even those who don’t feel symptoms because levels are lower could be at risk of long-term health effects, he said. Tuft was shot multiple times when a gunman opened fire at Trolley Square mall, where she and her daughter Kirsten Hinckley were shopping for Valentine’s Day cards in February 2007. Both were shot multiple times. Hinckley did not survive. The shooter killed five people including Hinckley and injured four others before he was gunned down by police. Tuft does not favor total gun bans, she said. But she does support a ban on assault weapons, stronger background checks and proposed “red flag” laws. “It’s not OK for someone to come in and take your life away like that. Not just your actual life, but your whole livelihood and everything you hoped and dreamed for,” she said. __ Associated Press writer Morgan Smith contributed to this story. ___ Information from: KUTV-TV, http://www.kutv.com/


China investigates after vaccine suspected in seven deaths.

Explanation: Chinese health authorities are investigating after seven infants died following inoculation with a hepatitis B vaccine, state media reported on Monday.

China has been beset by a series of product safety scandals over the past few years. At least six children died in 2008 after drinking milk contaminated by the industrial chemical melamine, and there have also been reports of children dying or becoming seriously ill from faulty encephalitis, hepatitis B and rabies vaccines. State news agency Xinhua said that of the seven deaths from the hepatitis B vaccine in the latest case, four were in the southern province of Guangdong. The other cases were in the provinces of Hunan and Sichuan. The official China Daily said that all hospitals using the vaccine, made by Shenzhen-based BioKangtai, had been ordered to take it off their shelves while the Health Ministry investigates the company’s products and the deaths. The company said in a statement last week, carried by state media, said that it rigorously followed safety rules but that they were testing the batches suspected of causing the deaths. The topic has been widely discussed on China’s popular Twitter-like microblogging service Sina Weibo, with many people worried about the safety of China’s vaccines and calling on the government to make more information public. “Why was this allowed onto the market? The government needs to come clean about this,” wrote one Weibo user. Many Chinese people are suspicious that the government tries to cover up bad news about health problems, despite assurances of transparency. In 2003, the government initially tried to cover-up the outbreak of the SARS virus.


Evofem's birth control gel meets main study goal; shares rise

Explanation: Reuters reports on a new birth control product, still in development phase, that showed good efficacy, at least according to an unpublished company study. The product, a gel that lowers vaginal pH to make a hostile environment for sperm, would add a new contraceptive option to a lucrative market. However, the story focuses on company success — increasing stock value and stoking excitement in investment circles — more than the specifics of the product or the details of the company-sponsored study. No study limitations are mentioned. This leaves both investors and lay audiences without enough information to evaluate how useful the new product will be, should it pass muster with the FDA. There are a wide variety of birth control products on the market, but there’s also plenty of room for something new. A product that’s easy to use, effective, with few side effects, and that women control — the birth control gel sure sounds like it could make an impact. However, future consumers will want to know a lot more information than was provided in this story — how much will it cost, will it be available over-the-counter, how effective is it in real use, will side effects crop up once it’s in wide distribution? With an as-yet unapproved product, these answers won’t become clear for awhile, yet we think they should be considered — for consumers and investors alike.

The story does not mention what the cost might be for the new birth control gel. It’s a useful bit of information in the birth control market with products ranging from a couple dollars for a condom and hundreds of dollars for an IUD. Reporters can ask for estimates or cost-comparisons even for products that are not yet approved or on the market. The story briefly describes a study in 1,400 young women, from which researchers calculated that the gel had an 86% efficacy rate — a common measure of birth control efficacy. However, it could have explained that better: In the contraceptive research world, this generally means that the failure rate is 14 pregnancies per 100 women in a year. But researchers only studied the gel for seven menstrual cycles. The story compares this pregnancy rate to a couple of of other forms of birth control, which is good, but it’s worth pointing out that those failure rates have far more evidence behind them. The efficacy rate for this new product is based on just one industry study. Also, the story makes a vague reference that the gel may kill “certain viral and bacterial pathogens that can cause sexually transmitted diseases.” Only at the end of the story do we find out that researchers have no data yet for this claim. We’ll give this a just-passing satisfactory score because side effects were briefly mentioned: “no serious side effects were observed in the study.” Still we’d like to see mention of less serious side effects, especially for a birth control intervention, because they’re often a significant factor in women’s choices. The story gives some study details, regarding the subjects. However, we don’t know the study’s duration, which could affect side effects and efficacy. No mention is made of how the product is used or how compliant study subjects were, which are two key factors for any birth control method. Also, the study details were provided by the company, not by an independently run study, although the story notes this. The fact that the study hasn’t been published and peer reviewed is also not mentioned. There’s no disease mongering in the story. With a new birth control product, we’d like to see comments from independent physicians or researchers that are experts in the field–and we think this is something investors would value seeing, too. However, this story quotes the CEO of the product’s maker, as well as two business analysts. The story mentions other birth control products, such as male condoms and birth control pills. However, the story sharply misleads readers by claiming that the positive results with the gel brings: “the first hormone-free contraceptive close to approval.” That’s simply wrong. Current hormone-free products include male condoms, copper IUDs, diaphragms, and cervical caps. The story makes clear that this a product under development, not yet approved or marketed. The story describes how the new product differs from male condoms — “woman-controlled” — and how it differs from oral pills — “non-hormonal.” But this isn’t novel, as we describe in alternatives. Although testing is still underway, as the story notes, what’s interesting is that the gel may have some effectiveness against some sexually transmitted diseases, which would make it different from most other forms of female-based contraceptives. We think the story should have provided more information/evidence about this claim, though. The story appears to go beyond the company news release.


Marijuana laced with fentanyl is a problem, and you can detect it if "weed smells like popcorn.

Explanation: Does Fentanyl-Laced Marijuana Smell Like Popcorn?

On April 4 2019, the following warning appeared (archived here), containing the claim that marijuana smokers can detect fentanyl contamination by smell:In addition to its primary claim (that fentanyl-laced weed smells like popcorn), the post contained some secondary tacit claims: primarily that marijuana can be contaminated with fentanyl and that smoking it could be lethal.No commentary accompanied the claim to support it. An assertion in the comments matched what we encountered looking for any documented instances of fentanyl-contaminated marijuana: We were unable to locate any such incidents.In March 2018, BuzzFeed reported:[The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)]’s press office, in turn, referred to “anecdotal reports” of fentanyl in weed from police departments, specifically a 2015 Vancouver police report claiming “fentanyl-laced marijuana” was killing drug users. The following year, however, Vancouver police officers told local newscasters that they hadn’t actually seen this.… The mistaken police reports might have come from weed that tested positive for fentanyl on ultrasensitive test strips that can detect the drug at concentrations as low as one-billionth of a gram. Weed handled by dealers and people who might use all sorts of drugs will likely have trace amounts of fentanyl, similar to the way that studies have found US currency widely contaminated by cocaine. “The positive samples are from levels of contamination that are not clinically meaningful,” Ciccarone said. “They are not felt by the person.”The other evidence of cross contamination comes from toxicology tests on people who died of an overdose. That isn’t a sign of drug dealers purposefully adding fentanyl to marijuana, but rather that many drug users take all kinds of drugs.“The smoking gun,” [epidemiologist Dan] Ciccarone said, would be a positive test of a marijuana sample that contained micrograms to milligrams of fentanyl. (As little as two milligrams can be a lethal dose of fentanyl, according to the DEA.) No such record appears in the scientific literature.A search of NIDA’s archives did not return any results for incidents of fentanyl-laced marijuana. Broader searches for incidents in which marijuana was tainted with fentanyl led back to reiterations that no such contamination had ever been verified, along with reports that explicitly described reported incidents as “rumored.” In one instance, Narcan was administered to a student solely because of a rumor about fentanyl-laced marijuana:The incident is still under investigation. It is unclear what, if anything else was in the oil-based THC and it has been sent to a laboratory for testing[. ]Information about the purported olfactory properties of fentanyl largely claimed it has no discernible odor or taste, or, alternately, that it has a faint “powdery” scent. The latter claim was anecdotal, as was a description in a February 2017 article mentioning “popcorn” — the possible source of this particular rumor:Waterloo Regional Police Chief Bryan Larkin says fentanyl is a “tidal wave” hitting Ontario and the opioid is a “game changer” because it’s more deadly than crack cocaine, meth or OxyContin.In 2015, local police had 12 seizures of fentanyl. In 2016, it climbed to 69, with an additional 15 drug seizures sent to the Centre for Forensic Sciences in Toronto to determine the substances was, or contained, deadly fentanyl.Most of the seizures were in powder form, says Det. Ian Young. On the street, it’s known as china white or popcorn heroin because when fentanyl is smoked it smells like burnt popcorn, says Young, who recently spoke at a conference on opioids.That article was about fentanyl alone, not marijuana-laced fentanyl, and it was based on an anecdote from one police detective in Canada who said that fentanyl itself, not laced marijuana, smelled like popcorn when smoked. But the larger share of information about fentanyl indicated that it is primarily odorless and tasteless.Although cross-contamination of fentanyl has been reported in cocaine, the manner in which it occurred did not logically carry over to supply chains of illegal marijuana (which is not powder based):“Nobody wants to kill off their customer. Nobody’s trying to put fentanyl in their shit to get their coke customers [to switch] over to heroin when their business is coke,” [Tino Fuentes, a harm reduction and overdose reversal specialist] says, especially since there’s a chance that combination could kill them. The more likely culprit, he continues, is accidental cross-contamination.It goes like this: Dealers rush the cleanup, sloppily wiping down the area with a rag, which means traces of fentanyl remain. Then they begin to cut and package another product — in this case, cocaine — on the same table, with the same tools.A popular Facebook status update claims that fentanyl-laced weed smells like popcorn, which assumed that marijuana is necessarily laced with fentanyl at all. Multiple 2018 news articles reported that no one had unearthed a single case of fentanyl-laced marijuana, and we were unable to find any subsequent incidents of said contamination. Additionally, nearly all information about fentanyl’s scent indicated it was odorless or faintly powder-scented, not that it smells “like popcorn.” The inherent risk in such information being spread as “better safe than sorry” was lulling recreational drug users into a dangerously false sense of security with respect to detecting contamination from drugs such as fentanyl.


Greece suggests EU buy patent rights for vaccines and coronavirus tests: FAZ.

Explanation: Greece has suggested EU member states jointly buy patent rights for vaccines against COVID-19 and rapid tests under development  to help ensure that if they are effective they are quickly distributed to those in need across the bloc.

In an article published in German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said finding a solution for a rapid distribution of vaccines, when they are available, is difficult but also urgent. At least 20 vaccines against COVID-19 are under development, many of which are subsidised by individual governments or charities, he told FAZ. “Ideally, once their efficacy has been proven, such vaccines should be distributed as quickly and fairly as possible, and at a reasonable cost,” he said, according to a press release. Purchasing such patent rights would give global pharmaceutical companies incentives for further research and development and ensure that European taxpayers’ money was  “spent sensibly, he said. The suggestion was recently floated by Elias Mossialos, a professor of health policy at the London School of Economics, who has been appointed Greece’s representative in international talks on tackling the coronavirus. The cost for patent rights could be distributed among EU countries, Mossialos told Reuters, adding this would be a one-off solution used only in extreme cases such as a pandemic and that it would not affect the sustainability of the medical technology industry. Securing the patent rights for such tests and vaccines at an EU level would enable their production at many locations and allow for their wide distribution, Mossialos has said. With more than 130,000 COVID-19 cases, Europe has become the epicentre of the pandemic, which has claimed thousands of lives around the world, with Italy and Spain hit the most.


“Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.”

Explanation: Fish-tank cleaners containing chloroquine cannot be substituted for prescription drugs used to treat malaria. A man in Arizona recently died, and his wife was hospitalized, after the couple ingested the fish-tank cleaner to avoid contracting the coronavirus. The FDA says you should not take chloroquine unless it has been prescribed by a doctor and obtained from a legitimate source.

Public Health, Pundits, PunditFact, Coronavirus, Bloggers,

An Arizona man is dead and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested a fish-tank solvent with chloroquine phosphate, the same active ingredient found in anti-malarial drugs that President Donald Trump has hailed as a possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. The woman told NBC News that the couple thought the drug compound Trump mentioned in a televised press conference was the same as the fish-tank cleaner they had in their home pantry. The two are not the same. Chloroquine, also known as chloroquine phosphate, is used in anti-malarial drugs available in the U.S. by prescription only, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A variant, hydroxychloroquine, is an arthritis medicine that can also prevent malaria. The husband and wife were not alone in their confusion. A number of headlines describing the fatal mishap, including from mainstream news outlets, did not make it clear that the couple ingested fish-tank cleaner, rather than the drug form of chloroquine. One headline published before the Arizona couple’s accident missed the distinction entirely. "Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus," said a March 20 headline from Valley News Live, a local news network serving TV stations in North Dakota. That headline is wrong. Fish-tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate are not the same as the prescription drugs used for malaria. Nor are they suitable for human consumption. Moreover, as anti-viral drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown the ability to combat some diseases, but they have not yet been proven to disrupt COVID-19. No, chloroquine effectiveness only anecdotal Valley News Live did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. Officials from Banner Health, the Phoenix hospital system that treated the husband and wife, warned in a March 23 statement against self-medicating and said the couple’s case was a cautionary tale. The man who died was in his 60s, as is his wife, the statement said. The woman later told NBC News that the solvent made her and her husband feel "dizzy and hot." She said she started vomiting and her husband developed respiratory problems. NBC: Did you see the President's press conference? Where did you hear about--Patient: Yeah. Yeah, we saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually.NBC: And then did you did you seek out Chloroquine?Patient: I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish. https://t.co/C8EiTQQ3r1 pic.twitter.com/QgmElANCEG She said that she had seen Trump talk in a press conference about the promise of chloroquine as a possible coronavirus cure, and that she had the fish-tank cleaner stored away. "We saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually," she said. "I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish." "I just saw it sitting on the back shelf and said, ‘Hey, isn’t that that stuff they’re talking about on TV?’" she said. She and her husband mixed about one teaspoon each with soda and drank the concoction as a preventative measure, she said. Trump has touted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as potential coronavirus treatments, and he tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, combined with an antibiotic called azithromycin, could "be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)..... But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said there had only been anecdotal evidence that the drugs could knock down COVID-19. The drugs are currently being studied and tested in clinical trials, according to the CDC. According to the New York Times, prices for the fish-tank additive have skyrocketed on eBay as the coronavirus has continued to spread through the U.S. and around the world. Drugs containing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not yet proven to prevent, treat or cure patients of the coronavirus, as we’ve noted. A recent French study of 20 COVID-19 patients indicated that the prescription-drug version of chloroquine might help treat the disease. And the CDC notes that a study in China found that patients treated with chloroquine "had clinical and virologic benefit versus a comparison group." More study is still needed. "There are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically for the treatment of patients with COVID-19," the CDC says on its website. But the fish-tank cleaner is a definite no-no. In a statement, the FDA said Americans should be wary of products that claim to prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19. "Products marketed for veterinary use or ‘for research only,’ or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety and should never be used," the FDA said. "The FDA is aware that chloroquine is marketed as an unapproved drug to treat external parasites in aquarium fish, but these products have not been evaluated by FDA to determine if they are safe, effective, properly manufactured, and adequately labeled." "Don’t take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed for you and obtained from legitimate sources," the agency said. A Valley News Live headline said, "Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus." Chloroquine, a compound commonly found in fish-tank cleaners, also forms the basis of a prescription drug used for malaria. There are studies underway to conclude whether that drug, and a variant called hydroxychloroquine, could combat the coronavirus. But the fish-tank cleaner is not the same as the prescription drug, and it shouldn’t be substituted as such. A man in Arizona recently died from ingesting it.


Mental health center in Newport gets $2M to expand services.

Explanation: A community mental health center in Newport is getting $2 million in federal funding to expand its behavioral health services.

Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mental health, Health, Jack Reed, David Cicilline, Newport

Members of the state’s congressional delegation say the Newport County Community Mental Health Center will use the money to meet the needs of 24,500 residents over the next two years. The delegation asked the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for the funding. Democratic U.S. Sen. Jack Reed says the grant will help the center continue to serve people with serious mental illness in Rhode Island. Democratic U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse called the center a “lifeline” for many people, and Democratic U.S. Rep. David Cicilline says it’s providing quality, affordable mental health services. The delegation says Rhode Island has the highest rate of mental illness among adults, 24 percent.


U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Medtronic pacemaker patent loss.

Explanation: The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of medical devices maker Medtronic Inc in its dispute with privately owned Mirowski Family Ventures LLC over whether the larger company infringed on Mirowski’s patents in making certain pacemakers.

The case stems from Medtronic’s decision to ask a judge to rule that some of its pacemakers do not infringe on technology patented by Mirowski and licensed to Boston Scientific as well as Guidant Corp, part of Boston Scientific and Abbott Laboratories. A court in Delaware ruled for Medtronic, saying that even though Medtronic requested the ruling, or declaratory judgment, it was up to Mirowski to prove infringement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed, saying it was up to Medtronic to prove its case. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, arguing that the patent holder, in this case Mirowski, ordinarily must prove infringement and that this case was no different. “We hold that, when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee (patent holder) to establish that there is no infringement, the burden of proving infringement remains with the patentee,” the Supreme Court said in a decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The two patents in the case have to do with cardiac resynchronization therapy, a pacemaker that detects when the heart beats out of sync and then emits tiny shocks of electricity to correct its rhythm. It is used to treat congestive heart failure. Medtronic licensed the patents in question, but in 2007, Mirowski Family Ventures claimed Medtronic was developing new products that would also justify royalty payments. Medtronic filed suit, seeking a ruling that it did not need to pay. Wednesday’s decision means that the case will return to lower courts for further proceedings, including a fight over infringement, said Arthur Neustadt, senior partner at Oblon Spivak LLP, who argued for Mirowski at the Supreme Court. “The burden of proof issue wasn’t one of the more significant issues,” he said. “Now it goes back to Federal Circuit for other issues to be considered.”  The case is Medtronic v Boston Scientific Corp, Guidant Corp, and Mirowski Family Ventures, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1128


There has never been a death caused by a [commercial nuclear] reactor in the United States, even when Three Mile Island failed in the 1970s.

Explanation: Isakson claims no deaths in U.S. from nuke plant operations

(Editor’s Note: Sen. Isakson’s statement was made in the context of a discussion about two commercial nuclear power plants -- Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi and the Votgle facility, a plant near Augusta that’s slated for expansion. Isakson was specifically addressing safety issues at commercial nuclear power generators.) The fallout from Japan’s nuclear disaster has arrived in Georgia as a small cloud of worry. The construction of the nation’s first new nuclear reactors in decades is slated for just south of Augusta at the Vogtle power plant. When a deadly earthquake and tsunami triggered what is likely a partial meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, a few residents near the Georgia site began to ask questions. U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson was quick to offer reassurances that Vogtle would be safe. "There has never been a death caused by a reactor in the United States, even when Three Mile Island failed in the 1970s," Isakson said in a YouTube.com video posted by his office. Three Mile Island? That 1979 nuclear accident sank the U.S. into a three-decade freeze on the building of nuclear power plants. No one died? Nuclear power companies have a lot at stake at Vogtle. They hope its new reactors will herald an industry renaissance. Now that Fukushima Daiichi is in crisis, the future for nuclear power is uncertain. Members of Congress, such as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, have urged regulators to be cautious as they proceed with the construction of more nuclear plants in the U.S.  We called up Isakson’s office and asked for more evidence. A spokeswoman pointed us to 2010 testimony by Greg Jaczko, the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at a Senate committee hearing. When a senator asked Jaczko whether a fatality had ever occurred "as a result of an accident at a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States," Jaczko replied with this:  "There has not as a result of plant operation, not at a commercial power plant. There have been other nuclear facilities where there have been fatalities, but not in a nuclear power plant." We interviewed experts on Three Mile Island, epidemiology and the history of nuclear power. They agreed that no one died during the immediate crisis surrounding the Three Mile Island accident or in other commercial U.S. plants as a result of plant operation. In addition, they agreed that the scientific consensus is that in the decades following Three Mile Island, no deaths have been tied to illnesses resulting from radiation exposure. "The statement of the politician [Isakson] is correct -- as far as we know," said Sam Walker, who retired last year as historian for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is the author of a book on Three Mile Island. The prevailing view is that despite early, anecdotal reports of deaths and disease, Three Mile Island’s impact on overall cancer deaths is minimal. Worker radiation exposure was higher than normal but not extreme, and experts think people living near the plant were exposed to low doses. This does not mean, however, that the disaster has not caused deaths or won’t in the future. It can take more than a decade for radiation exposure to manifest itself as cancer, and it’s difficult to pinpoint whether radiation exposure, a smoking habit or other factors caused a particular person’s illness. The latest research suggests Three Mile Island may have some deadly long-term effects. University of Pittsburgh professor Evelyn Talbott has been leading a major, decades-long effort to track the effects of Three Mile Island radiation in more than 32,000 people who lived in the area surrounding the plant. Talbott’s team noted no increase in overall cancer deaths 20 years afterward, but research they recently submitted for publication shows that adult men who they think received the highest doses of radiation from the accident are at greater risk for leukemia than others who were exposed, the scientist said. Women with similar amounts of radiation exposure showed a higher risk of breast cancer. "So presumably there may have been excess deaths. We just don't know who specifically, as the cases were within a group of people exposed to more radiation but also had other factors which may have predisposed them," Talbott told PolitiFact Georgia. Members of an impassioned minority think the impact may have been more severe. A study by scientists at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, found a link between Three Mile Island and increased incidents of cancer overall. Critics think there are too few peer-reviewed studies published in medical journals on the disaster’s health effects. Joseph Mangano, the head of the Radiation and Public Health Project, thinks the dangers of radiation exposure in general are underplayed. He noted that only a handful of studies have been published on patterns of several types of cancer. "I think the health research field has completely dropped the ball," Mangano told PolitiFact Georgia. In conclusion:  Isakson’s statement that "there has never been a death caused by a reactor in the United States, even when Three Mile Island failed in the 1970s," reflects a prevailing view. According to the latest research, that does not mean there has never been a death because of Three Mile Island’s long-term effects. It’s also worth noting that some scientists back a minority view that the accident increased overall cancer deaths. That said, Isakson specified in his claim that there has never been a death "caused by a reactor" in the U.S. This language is not clear, but it does indicate his claim is limited to plant operations, not the long-term aftermath of a nuclear accident. His backup information suggests this as well. We rate Isakson’s statement .


Immune-Focused Drug May Be New Weapon Against Advanced Melanoma

Explanation: The story focuses on a recent study that found the drug nivolumab (sold under the trade name Opdivo) is superior to the drug ipilimumab (sold as Yervoy) in preventing recurrence of Stage 3 and Stage 4 melanoma after surgery, at least when it comes to recurrence-free survival. The story does a good job addressing side effects and highlighting who funded the research. The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned the steep costs of these drugs. Study results related to new drugs are often overhyped, raising hopes in cancer patients without giving patients (and their loved ones) the information they need to place the new research findings in context. This story uses fairly cautious language and addresses the research and its findings in detail.

Cost is not addressed. That’s a significant oversight given that treatment with Opdivo can reach well into the tens of thousands of dollars–or more. The story clearly defines the benefit (survival without recurrence of the cancer) and offers clear numbers: “After a year of treatment, 71 percent of patients in the Opdivo group were alive without any recurrence of the disease, compared with 61 percent of those treated with Yervoy. And at 18 months, the rate was 66 percent for Opdivo and 53 percent for Yervoy, the findings showed.” One detail we think would have been good to add–“recurrence-free survival” doesn’t tell you how many patients are actually living longer specifically because of the treatment. It’s just telling you how much time elapses before recurrence. The story notes that the most common side effects were fatigue and diarrhea. But the story also offers information about how common any adverse side effects were — for both Opdivo and Yervoy. That’s valuable information. What’s more, the story notes that Opdivo was less likely to cause adverse side effects than Yervoy, and that those side effects were less severe. Again, that’s useful context. The story states how many patients were in the study and that it was conducted across 130 medical centers in 25 countries. The story does not note that the study was a randomized, double-blind, phase-3 trial — which would have made the story stronger. No disease mongering here. The story tells readers in the second paragraph that the study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets Opdivo. We like that the story places that information front and center. In addition, the story incorporates input from two independent sources. The story clearly compares the use of Opdivo to the use of Yervoy, and cites an independent source as noting that Opdivo “is superior to conventional chemotherapy for advanced metastatic disease.” The story explains: “Both Opdivo and Yervoy are already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat advanced (metastatic) melanoma. In some patients, the drugs are used in combination.” The story notes in its opening paragraph that this research “suggests that Opdivo — a drug that works with the immune system to fight melanoma — is more effective than the current standard of care for patients who’ve had surgery to remove advanced tumors.” The story goes beyond the news release associated with the research.


Lil' Wayne announced that he was diagnosed with skin cancer and has one month to live.

Explanation: He told reporters that he wants his supporters and fans to drip bottle of codeine and promethazine cough syrup on his grave. Last but not the least, he wishes to see two red bones twerking on other side of the grave.

Entertainment, HuntingForUSA.com, Lil Wayne

On 7 July 2017, the web site HuntingForUSA.com reported that rapper Lil’ Wayne announced that he had only one month left to live after receiving an advanced cancer diagnosis. The hoax story also included an explanation for Wayne’s condition: Tattoos and tattoos, his body is covered with maximum tattoos and that became the reason of cancer infection. 80% body covered with tattoos. He smokes and drinks like hell. But, so many tattoos always confused the scanners to track cancer cells. It was stage 4 of cancer when the infection was confirmed. In reality, Wayne (born Dwayne Michael Carter, Jr.) has not announced any issues concerning his health, much less his impending demise. But HuntingForUSA.com’s story was actually an extended regurgitation of a fake story that reportedly dates back to at least August 2015. The story has since been reproduced verbatim on several websites, many of which appear to be based outside of the U.S. Another version of the story recounted the “diagnosis,” but added this coda: