The use of cellular phones poses a danger of touching off explosions at gas stations

Explanation: Rumor holds that the use of cellular phones poses a danger of touching off explosions at gas stations.

Automobiles, cell phones, Highway Hazards

Warnings about the dangers of using cellular phones in the presence of gasoline fumes began circulating on the Internet in 1999: Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] Cell Phones In case you do not know, there was an incident where a driver suffered burns and his car severely damaged when gasoline vapors ignited an explosion while he was talking on his mobile phone standing near the attendant who was pumping the gas. All the electronic devices in gas stations are protected with explosive containment devices, (intrinsically safe) while cell phones are not. READ YOUR HANDBOOK! Mobile phone makers Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia, all print cautions in their user handbooks that warn against mobile phones in “gas stations, fuel storage sites, and chemical factories.” Exxon has begun placing “warning stickers” at its gasoline stations. The threat mobile phones pose to gas stations and their users is primarily the result of their ability to produce sparks that can be generated by the high-powered battery inside the phone. Please pass this on. [Collected on the Internet, 1999] *** PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS *** Mobile phones an explosive risk at gas stations. Switch off your mobile phone while filling your car. This is the latest advice for mobile phone users and gas station attendants alike from the Chinese Petroleum Corp. (CPC), which has recently informed all its affiliates to be on alert for people chatting on mobiles while pumping gas, a practice it asserts can cause explosions. “There have been several explosions in Southeast Asia and Europe and we hope similar tragedies can be avoided in Taiwan,” said David Tung from CPC’s main engineering division. According to a report released by Shell Chemicals, a driver in Indonesia suffered burns and his car was severely damaged when petrol vapor exploded after being ignited by static electricity from the mobile phone he was using. Apparently, the driver had been talking on a mobile phone as a gas station attendant filled his car with petrol. When the driver bent down close to the petrol tank to check whether it was full, the vapor exploded. In Belgium, customers have been prohibited from using mobile phones within 10 meters of gas stations and warnings are posted everywhere to remind people of the danger, according to a Belgian newspaper. The threat mobile phones pose to gas stations and their users around the world is largely due to their ability to produce sparks. These can be generated by the high-powered battery inside the phone, which is itself, a possible cause of fire. But the electromagnetic waves emitted by the phone are more than sufficient to create considerable static electricity that heats the surrounding air and if the flammable vapor is concentrated enough, causes an explosion. But other electronic devices installed in the gas stations are safe. “All the electronic devices in gas stations are protected with explosive containment devices, while cellular phones are not,” Tung explained. Mobile phone makers Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia, all print cautions in their user handbooks that warn against mobile phones in “gas stations, fuel storage sites and chemical factories.” But the danger is still being ignored by many users who continue to talk on their cellular phones while filling up at gas stations. “Asking them to turn off the phone is the only thing we can do now, but not all the users like to : some of them even get mad with me,” one attendant at a gas station complained. In fact, if danger is to be avoided, all transmitting devices – not just mobile phones – should be switched off near gas stations and locations housing flammable substances. Mobile phones should also be switched off near sensitive electronic equipment, in places such as hospitals and airports for public safety reasons. Taken from ‘The China Post’ by Chris Lang. Though both versions of the original Internet warning alluded to an accident in Indonesia wherein a driver was burned and his car badly damaged as a result of such an explosion, no reports ever surfaced in the news media to confirm the incident. Moreover, nothing turned up about similar explosions in other countries. If sparks from cell phones were touching off conflagrations at gas pumps around the world, as suggested at the time, the phenomenon escaped the media’s notice. Such rumors were furthered in May 1999 when a lengthy article appeared in the Bangkok Post supporting this warning. It mentioned “a recent report in the China Post newspaper” and from there proceeded to parrot the warning given in the longer example quoted above, complete with reference to the report by Shell Chemicals on the injuries suffered by the man in Indonesia and the Chinese Petroleum Corporation’s instructions to filling stations to get drivers to switch off their phones while fueling. Okay, so the bit about a guy in Indonesia being turned into a human fireball didn’t stand up. But what about persistent rumors concerning another supposed victim, this time an Australian man, supposedly done in by using his mobile phone as he refueled? Although in 1999 oil companies told the South China Morning Post they had heard reports of an Australian man being blown up recently when his phone rang as he was filling his car with gasoline, fire service heads in Australia insist the incident never happened. As for incidents elsewhere in the world, after several reports were circulated in the United States claiming mobile phones had been blamed for fires at gas stations, both the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) and the American Petroleum Institute issued statements denying the risk. The CTIA said, “There is no evidence whatsoever that a wireless phone has ever caused ignition or explosion at a station anywhere in the world. Wireless phones don’t cause gas stations to blow up. Warnings being posted in petrol stations simply perpetuate the myth.” The American Petroleum Institute said, “We can find no evidence of someone using a cellphone causing any kind of accident, no matter how small, at a gas station anywhere in the world.” In June 2002 another authoritative-sounding warning on this subject began circulating on the Internet: The Shell Oil Company recently issued a warning about three incidents where Mobile Phones have ignited fumes while being answered or ringing during fueling operations. What specifically happenedCase 1 The phone was placed on the car’s trunk lid during fueling, it rang and the ensuing fire destroyed the car and the gasoline pump. Case 2 An individual suffered severe burns to their face when fumes ignited as they answered a call while refueling their car. Case 3 An individual suffered burns to the thigh and groin as fumes ignited when the phone, which was in their pocket, rang while they were fueling their car. What should you learn from this? It is a misconception that Mobile Phones are intrinsically safe and can’t ignite fuel/fumes. Mobile phones that light up when switched on, or when they ring, have enough energy released to provide a spark for ignition. Mobile phones should not be used in filling stations, or when fueling lawn mowers, boats etc. Mobile phones should not be used around other materials that generate flammable or explosive fumes or dust (i.e. solvents, chemicals, gases, grain dust etc.). Mobile phones should be turned off before entering an area where other materials that generate flammable or explosive fumes or dust is located. Please share this with employees who do not have access to email, family members and friends to help keep everyone safe. Though we looked long and hard, we never found documentation confirming any of the three incidents described in the that warning. Moreover, Shell denied having issued a warning of this nature: We understand that there is an email, purportedly official Shell communication, circulating which describes various incidents that are supposed to have occurred as a result of mobile phones ringing while at a retail station.Please be advised that the email in question does NOT originate from Shell Malaysia and we are unable to confirm any of the incidents quoted. There was a warning memo which originated at a Shell loading station in California, but it was issued only to caution employees about the potential dangers of static-related hazards at fueling stations; it said nothing about cell phones touching off fires. (The “three incidents” e-mail quoted above was teamed with a separate warning about the hazards posed by static electricity, a topic covered on our Static Quo page.) Okay, so it hasn’t happened yet. Is there still a potential, as yet unrealized risk in using cell phones while refueling? According to some experts, there is a danger that using a mobile phone near gas pumps could touch off an explosion, but not only have we found no real-life instances of such an explosion occurring, we don’t know anyone who has demonstrated experimentally that it’s even possible (including the folks at The Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters program). Even so, gas pumps in Australia bear stickers cautioning motorists to turn off their phones while refueling; Shell in Malaysia has affixed similar stickers to each of its gas pumps; numerous pumps in the U.S.A. are similarly adorned; Canada’s major gas pump operators have banned customers from using mobile phones while at the gas pump; and in 1999 the city of Cicero, Illinois, passed the first law in the USA banning the use of cellular phones at gas stations. All of this activity was in the nature of CYA cautions rather than a response to a documented hazard. Cellular phone manufacturers Nokia and Ericsson have said the risk is very small that something will happen when one uses a cell phone at a gas station, but since there is a risk, it should be counted. Nokia also said that the company has been recommending for a long time that mobile phones should be turned off while the car is being refueled. What it is about a cellular phone that could possibly trigger an explosion is difficult to fathom, however. The claim that the batteries used in a cellular phone can ignite gasoline seems specious, since cellular phone batteries are the same voltage as automobile batteries (12V D.C.) but deliver far less current. Likewise, the claim that a “cellular phone ringer uses more than 100 volts for excitation” is a curious artifact of the “regular” telephone era: cellular phones don’t have ringers; they produce audio tones that simulate the sound of a ringing telephone. News reports routinely attribute gas pump fires to cell phone use whenever a fire occurs at a service station where such a phone was in use at the time, and police and firefighters at the scene often simply assume the connection between the two to be valid. Later investigations, however, have always shown in such cases that the press reports were wrong, that something else (usually a discharge of static electricity) touched off the fires, and the presence of cell phones was coincidental rather than causal.


Georgia teenager Maddie Kelley is endangered and needs help.

Explanation: We appreciate your concern for the welfare of a child. The post everyone is concerned about is actually from 2 years ago. The allegations were unfounded at that time. Hope this can ease your mind about this. Thank you.

Viral Phenomena, georgia, maddie kelley, viral facebook posts

In late January 2018, several readers asked about a disturbing Facebook video showing a teenage girl displaying a series of cards alleging that a Georgia judge placed her with an abusive parent. The teenager, Maddie Kelley, claims that her mother had beaten her badly enough to cause bruises and had hit her head against the wall. The video in question was originally shared to the Facebook page “Concerned citizens against Judge Grubbs Cobb County GA” in January 2016; the reasons for its renewed popularity in January 2018 are unclear: This judge put me back with my mom Tha abuses me Posted by Maddie Kelley on Monday, January 11, 2016 Some commenters posted screenshots of what appeared to be a deleted post originally shared by the Adairsville Police Department in January 2016, saying that the child welfare officials and police had found the claims to be unsubstantiated:  On 25 January 2018, the Adairsville Police Department’s official page responded to comments from one of many people still concerned about Maddie Kelley’s welfare:  We contacted the Adairsville Police Department to ask whether there were any further updates, and they responded:


Britain to complete plan next year to reach net zero transport emissions.

Explanation: Britain said on Tuesday it would complete a plan next year to achieve net zero emissions from all forms of transport, as climate change activists targeted the transport ministry.

Britain is the first G7 country to commit to a net zero greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050. “From driving our cars, to catching a train or taking a flight abroad, it is crucial that we ensure transport is as environmentally friendly as possible,” said transport secretary Grant Schapps. Due to be complete next year, the plan will set out in detail what government, business and society must do to deliver the significant emissions reductions needed from all forms of transport. It will also consider how technology can encourage changes to the way people and goods move across the country, the government said. Climate change activists, including one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, defied a police order to end protests on Tuesday after a week of disruption in London targeting Britain’s transport ministry. Among other things, the activists oppose plans to run the HS2 rail project through ancient woodlands. The transport ministry says the rail line will slash journey times between central and northern England and the capital and be much more efficient in carbon terms than driving. The government also introduced an environment bill in parliament on Tuesday to help create legally binding targets to protect the environment and reduce pollution. The bill will also establish an office for environment protection which will hold the government to account on its progress towards the 2050 net zero emissions target. Experts say the net zero target will require sweeping changes across the energy, transport, heating and buildings sectors. Britain’s business secretary Andrea Leadsom told a parliamentary committee the government would produce a long-awaited energy white paper in the first quarter of next year. That is expected to outline the government’s ambitions for the future of the country’s energy system. “I am very ambitious about our decarbonisation ambitions and the need to set targets and milestones to enable business to get on with it with a very clear steer from government,” Leadsom said.


Marijuana legalization has led to an increase in crime and fatalities all over Colorado.

Explanation: Mr. Morrissey takes no political position on any ballot measure in any other state regarding this issue.

On 18 October 2016, the Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) political action committee published a letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey claiming that the drug has fueled a crime increase around Colorado. The letter urges California voters to reject state Proposition 64, which would legalize recreational marijuana use for adults 21 and over and is on the state ballot on 8 November 2016. Morrissey opens his argument by citing statistics taken from a September 2016 report by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area (HIDTA), part of a federal program coordinating anti-drug efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Morrissey’s letter stated that — according to the HIDTA report — after recreational marijuana use was legalized in Colorado in 2013, “traffic related marijuana deaths” went up by 48 percent while “marijuana related emergency room visits” increased by 49 percent. But the report lists qualifiers that are not mentioned in the letter: Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID): DUID could include alcohol in combination with drugs. This is an important measurement since the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle was sufficiently impaired that it brought his or her driving to the attention of law enforcement. Not only the erratic driving but the subsequent evidence that the subject was under the influence of marijuana helps confirm the causation factor. Marijuana Related: Also called “marijuana mentions,” is any time marijuana shows up in the toxicology report. It could be marijuana only or marijuana with other drugs and/or alcohol. Marijuana Only: When toxicology results show marijuana and no other drugs or alcohol. It also states: This report will cite datasets with terms such as “marijuana related” or “tested positive for marijuana.” That does not necessarily prove that marijuana was the cause of the incident. The report goes on to say that 105 out of 871 state motorists involved in fatal crashes in 2015 tested positive for marijuana, accounting for 12 percent. Of those 105 drivers, 33 percent only had marijuana in their system. Another 30 percent tested positive for both alcohol and marijuana, though the study did not mention the proportion of that mixture. HIDTA did not identify motorists who only had alcohol in their systems at the time of their collisions. Morrissey’s letter also cited statistics taken from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations’ statewide crime report for 2015. But while it correctly notes that homicides went up by 14.7 percent in the state in 2015 compared to 2014, the CBI’s findings make no mention of the drug. The district attorney also suggested that Pueblo’s state-high homicide rate (11.1 killings per 100,000 residents) was linked to marijuana legalization. But local police attributed the recent increase in local homicides (13 per year in 2014 and 2015) to a combination of lower staff levels and an “explosion” in the use of opioids like black-tar heroin. Similarly, the letter stated, the homicide rate in Aurora more than doubled between 2014 and 2015. While this is accurate — there were 23 killings in the city in 2015 compared to 11 the year before — Deputy Police Chief Paul O’Keefe said in April 2016 that the former number was “back to average” for the city. An internal memo attributed to Aurora Police Capt. Christian Lertch did blame that surge (as well as increases in robberies, assaults, and aggravated assaults) to “face-to-face marijuana deals that have ‘gone bad. '” But other department officials reportedly also cited a higher population and low police staffing as factors that contributed to the crime increase. Morrissey, whose tenure as district attorney ends in 2016, has denied penning the letter for political reasons, but also accused pro-marijuana activists of getting “outraged” when presented with what he called the facts regarding the effects of legalization: What I was trying to do was accurately reflect the facts as we know them since we have legalized commercial marijuana. In July 2013, Morrissey made a more pointed claim about the issue at a local city council meeting: We have had 12 homicides related directly to medical marijuana. We have had over 100 aggravated robberies and home invasions. Many of you probably didn’t read about the double-execution-style homicide that we had here in Denver, where people were laid down on the floor and executed because they were running a medical marijuana outlet. He later backed away from that statement, saying it was based on “loose figures.” We contacted police in both communities, and the CBI seeking comment, but have yet to hear back. A spokesperson for Morrissey’s office sent this statement to snopes.com on 2 November: The letter you reference was written in response to two questions that were asked of Mr. Morrissey as it relates to legal marijuana – has crime gone down in Denver and Colorado, and have law enforcement resources been freed up to focus on other crimes. He simply answered those two questions. His source for the information in his letter included local Denver media reports, the most recent published report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and information he received directly from the Denver Police Department Marijuana Enforcement Unit, Denver Police Department Crimes Against Persons Division, and the Denver Crime Lab.


Senators: Double funding for universal flu vaccine research.

Explanation: Maine’s independent senator is getting behind a push to increase the federal government’s funding for research to create a universal flu vaccine.

Angus King, Flu, Health, Infectious diseases, Brunswick, Maine

Sen. Angus King says he’s co-sponsoring the Flu Vaccine Act, which is aimed at creating flu vaccines that offer more effective and long-lasting protection against influenza. King says the proposal calls for an investment of $1 billion over five years for the National Institutes of Health. The funding would be a significant bump from current levels. King says Congress has dedicated $100 million to $140 million for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for universal flu vaccine research. King has also joined other senators in asking the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for an update on research initiatives about a universal flu vaccine.


Jury awards more than $70M to woman in baby powder lawsuit.

Explanation: A St. Louis jury on Thursday awarded a California woman more than $70 million in her lawsuit alleging that years of using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused her cancer, the latest case raising concerns about the health ramifications of extended talcum powder use.

AP Top News, Cancer, St. Louis, Lawsuits, Ovarian cancer, Health, Business, California, Trials, Modesto, U.S. News

The jury ruling ended the trial that began Sept. 26 in the case brought by Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. The suit accused Johnson & Johnson of “negligent conduct” in making and marketing its baby powder. “We are pleased the jury did the right thing. They once again reaffirmed the need for Johnson & Johnson to warn the public of the ovarian cancer risk associated with its product,” Jim Onder, an attorney for the plaintiff, told The Associated Press. “We deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by ovarian cancer,” Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman with Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement. “We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.” Earlier this year, two other lawsuits in St. Louis ended in jury verdicts worth a combined $127 million. But two others in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said there wasn’t reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer, an often fatal but relatively rare form of cancer. Ovarian cancer accounts for about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the U.S. this year. About 2,000 women have filed similar suits, and lawyers are reviewing thousands of other potential cases, most generated by ads touting the two big verdicts out of St. Louis — a $72 million award in February to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer, and a $55 million award in May to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major health groups have declared talc harmless. Johnson & Johnson, whose baby powder dominates the market, maintains it’s perfectly safe. But Onder of the Onder Law Firm in suburban St. Louis, which represented plaintiffs in all three St. Louis cases, cited other research that began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. He said case studies have indicated that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. Onder has accused Johnson & Johnson of marketing toward overweight women, blacks and Hispanics — the very same women most at-risk for ovarian cancer, he said. Factors known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as “possibly carcinogenic.” The National Toxicology Program, made up of parts of several different government agencies, has not fully reviewed talc. Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. The two St. Louis verdicts were the first talcum powder cases in which money was awarded. A federal jury in 2013 sided with another South Dakota woman, but it ordered no damages, a spokeswoman for Onder’s firm said. Johnson & Johnson has been targeted before by health and consumer groups over ingredients in its products, including Johnson’s No More Tears baby shampoo. The company agreed in 2012 to eliminate 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable carcinogens, from all products by 2015.


Thailand reports new coronavirus death as total cases reach 1,245.

Explanation: Thailand reported 109 new coronavirus cases and one death on Saturday, bringing the total to 1,245 infections and six deaths.

The new cases include 39 patients linked to previous cases, 17 new cases deemed to be imported ones, and 53 awaiting investigation, Anupong Sujariyakul, an expert in preventive medicine at the Disease Control Department, told reporters. The government urged people to stay home and introduced a state of emergency earlier this week, banning foreigners and closing public facilities and businesses in major cities until April 30. Essential businesses such as supermarkets and pharmacies remain open, but commercial banks will be closed this weekend before they are reopen on Monday. “If we don’t do anything, the number until end of April may exceed 3,500 cases,” Anupong said. Bangkok has the highest total number of coronavirus cases at 534, while the southern provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani have a total of 79 cases, health ministry data showed. Narathiwat and Pattani are in lockdown while several other provinces have issued orders to restrict the operating times of 24-hour convenience stores.


Democrats push new $3T coronavirus relief bill through House.

Explanation: Democrats have powered a massive $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill through the House, an election-year measure designed to brace a U.S. economy in free fall and a health care system struggling to contain a pandemic still pummeling the country.

Bills, AP Top News, Health, General News, Elections, Politics, Virus Outbreak, Economy

Friday’s 208-199 vote, with all but one Republican opposed, advances what boils down to a campaign-season display of Democratic economic and health-care priorities. It has no chance of becoming law as written, but will likely spark difficult negotiations with the White House and Senate Republicans. Any product would probably be the last major COVID-19 response bill before November’s presidential and congressional elections. The enormous Democratic measure would cost more than the prior four coronavirus bills combined. It would deliver almost $1 trillion for state and local governments, another round of $1,200 direct payments to individuals and help for the unemployed, renters and homeowners, college debt holders and the struggling Postal Service. “Not to act now is not only irresponsible in a humanitarian way, it is irresponsible because it’s only going to cost more,” warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “More in terms of lives, livelihood, cost to the budget, cost to our democracy.” Republicans mocked the bill as a bloated Democratic wish-list that was dead on arrival in the GOP-led Senate and, for good measure, faced a White House veto threat. Party leaders say they want to assess how $3 trillion approved earlier is working and see if some states’ partial business reopenings would spark an economic revival that would ease the need for more safety net programs. Republicans are also sorting through internal divisions and awaiting stronger signals from President Donald Trump about what he will support. “Phase Four is going to happen,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, using Washington insider-speak for the measure. “But it’s going to happen in a much better way for the American people.” Trump and top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., are insisting the next measure should protect reopening businesses from liability lawsuits. The president is also demanding a cut to payroll taxes, but GOP leaders are not yet onboard. The daylong debate painted a Capitol scene that’s become common in the era of coronavirus, even as it remains disconcerting. The sparsely populated House floor was dotted with lawmakers and aides wearing protective masks and even gloves, though some Republicans lacked them. Many members looked shaggier and sported beards they had not worn weeks ago. Roll call votes lasted over an hour each because lawmakers were voting in small groups to limit crowding. To enhance  the bill’s political impact, Democrats named their measure “The Heroes Act” for the payments it would provide front-line emergency workers. With more than 86,000 Americans dead, 1.4 million confirmed infections and 36 million filing unemployment claims in an frozen economy, Democrats saw GOP opposition as an easy campaign-season target. “Are you kidding me?” said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, of Republican assertions that it was time to stop spending more money. “Where do you guys live? Food lines at our food banks around the block? In the United States of America?”  Republicans saw the bill as a Democratic political blunder. They said overly generous unemployment benefits discouraged people from returning to work, and attacked language helping immigrants in the U.S. illegally get federal benefits. They also singled out provisions helping states set up voting by mail and easing the marijuana industry’s access to banks. “It may help the cannabis industry, but it won’t help Main Street,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.  Pelosi pushed the measure through after overcoming party divisions aggravated by election pressures. Some moderate Democrats opposed the package for its price tag and politically fraught provisions like assisting marijuana businesses. A few progressive Democrats were upset because it did not do more, such as guaranteeing workers’ salaries and bolstering their health insurance coverage. Fourteen Democrats voted against the measure. Nearly all are centrists and number among the party’s most vulnerable lawmakers in November’s elections: freshmen from districts Trump won in 2016. Among them was Rep. Cindy Axne of Iowa, who labeled the measure “bloated.” Another, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, tweeted, “This bill strays far beyond delivering relief or responding to an urgent crisis, & it has no chance at becoming law.”  Republicans were already planning to use the day’s votes against other moderate Democrats who backed Friday’s legislation and face competitive reelection races. Clearly, the bipartisan consensus that produced four previous coronavirus bills was crumbling quickly. Polls show GOP voters are satisfied with the federal response and aren’t agitating for more. Self-branded deficit hawks are citing the massive increase in the spiraling $25 trillion national debt. Some congressional aides said the Democratic bill’s real price tag could breach $3.5 trillion. A partial estimate of tax provisions alone revealed eye-popping costs: $412 billion to renew $1,200 cash payments to individuals, more than $100 billion to pay health insurance premiums for the unemployed and $164 billion to make an “employee retention” tax credit for businesses more generous. Republicans leaders faced disunity between conservatives who feel enough has been done and pragmatists who back rescuing the Postal Service from looming insolvency and delivering cash to revenue-starved state and local governments. The huge price tag and a lack of consultation with Republicans by Pelosi cemented GOP opposition. “This bill is nothing more than the Democratic policy agenda masquerading as a response to the coronavirus crisis,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. He said the bill is “going nowhere, and is going nowhere fast.”  Liberal Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also opposed the bill. She told reporters that if constituents ask her if the bill would put money in their pockets or preserve their health care, “I can’t tell them yes.”  The lone Republican backing the legislation was Rep. Peter King of New York, who is retiring.


Students at Emory University were offered "emergency counseling" after pro-Trump graffiti appeared overnight in campus "safe spaces.

Explanation: What's true: Students at Emory University gathered in protest after pro-Trump graffiti appeared overnight; administrators investigated the graffiti as it appeared outside designated areas for chalk markings. What's false: "Emergency counseling" was offered to or demanded by students; Emory students complained that their "safe spaces" had been violated; students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.

Uncategorized, counseling, donald trump, emory university

On 24 March 2016, social media users began sharing articles reporting that students at Emory University were “traumatized” by graffiti promoting Donald Trump, and that “emergency counseling” had been offered to those who felt their “safe spaces” had been violated. Many Twitter users linked to an article published about the controversy by the Emory Wheel, the university’s student-run newspaper. The term “counseling” only appeared in the item’s comments section, and “safe spaces” was included as a paraphrase (meaning the purportedly oversensitive students invoking the concept hadn’t actually used the words): Grievances were not restricted to shortcomings of the administration. “[Faculty] are supporting this rhetoric by not ending it,” said one student, who went on to say that “people of color are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying to have a safe community and focus on these issues [related to having safe spaces on campus].” What the article (prior to an update) described was a political protest inspired by the Trump graffiti: Students protested yesterday at the Emory Administration Building following a series of overnight, apparent pro-Donald Trump for president chalkings throughout campus. Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate”[.] A 23 March 2016 Mediate article was one of the first that reported students were offered not just counseling, but emergency counseling (as if some major catastrophe had occurred on campus): A group of students at Emory University led a campus-wide protest after someone wrote ‘Donald Trump 2016’ in chalk across campus, leading the university to provide “emergency counseling” sessions in response. According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” However, the sole citation for the “counseling” claim was the same Emory Wheel article which, again, made no mention of any such offer or demand. Britain’s Daily Mail repeated the “emergency counseling” claim, but that site also linked to Emory University content, which itself made no such statement: After the chalk markings started to appear, and pictures began appearing on The Tab, student organizations offered counselling to anyone who may have been impacted by what they had seen. Mediaite linked to Fox Sports, which claimed (in its own words) that “[t]he student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS.” Fox Sports then reproduced an e-mail sent by student government representatives (i.e. students, not adult faculty or administrators) offering support for events, not counseling: That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community… It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created. To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident. In context, it seemed much more likely that the e-mail described protest events, not counseling (which was never originally insinuated). Some attention focused on Emory’s efforts to identify the rogue Trump chalker, but the Emory Wheel made clear that the actions were in dispute because use of chalk to mark structures is only permitted on certain campus areas. The Trump chalkings appeared campus-wide, and therefore broke rules about acceptable use of chalk on campus: The University will review footage “up by the hospital [from] security cameras” to identify those who made the chalkings, Wagner told the protesters. He also added that if they’re students, they will go through the conduct violation process, while if they are from outside of the University, trespassing charges will be pressed. While it was true that several dozen Emory University students protested in response to the Trump chalk scrawlings, we were unable to substantiate that anyone (student or administrator) offered emergency counseling, or, indeed, counseling or any sort. Neither did anyone seek counseling that we could see, and no students complained “safe spaces” were violated (though at least one said they felt “unsafe”). The Emory University media brouhaha was one of several distorted claims of rampant political correctness on college campuses and elsewhere, with several (embellished) details repeated by major outlets such as the Daily Mail, Mediaite, and the Washington Post. Just a few weeks before the Emory controversy, several web sites inaccurately claimed students were offered counseling over the presence of mini sombreros at a party. Another viral Facebook post claimed Captain America was deemed offensive and banned; a Brooklyn principal was falsely accused of banning the Pledge of Allegiance, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and another faux outrage popped up over a satirical poster claiming popular Halloween costumes were not politically correct and kids wearing them would be denied candy. In nearly all such claims, details of the actual controversy were obfuscated by embellished elements framing students or schools as overly sensitive. While it was true some students of color expressed that the large number of Trump chalkings made them uneasy, most simply gathered to express their political distaste for the presidential candidate and his platforms on issues of race and religion. On 25 March 2016, Emory protest organizer Jonathan Peraza contacted us and linked to a 24 March 2016 statement about the controversy issued by involved students on campus: Subsequent media reports have tried to frame this case as one about “coddled” and “oversensitive” students; however, LET US BE CLEAR: We are not scared of the chalk. We are not mad about being politically challenged. We are rightfully angry because we also exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and there are people on this campus, and in this country, who as a result choose to threaten us and twist the truth to protect their own bigotry. Firstly, we are not asking that these students censor their politics, nor are we asking that administration chooses to intervene in student politics. Rather, what we are asking for is equality and equity — we want a streamlined, consistent method of communication to deal with instances of unrest on Emory’s campus. This means race, color and economic status should not determine whether or not the University needs to be prompted to send out a response of acknowledgement of events. Secondly, we ask the Emory University Student Body and individuals nationally to fight for our right of freedom of speech the way they have for Trump supporters.


President Donald Trump has targeted the family of California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León for deportation.

Explanation: The central claim of the Proud Patriots article is false, since the family members Kevin de León referred to are not eligible for deportation on the grounds of being undocumented immigrants.

Politics, california, deportation, immigration

On 11 August 2017, dubious site Proud-Patriots.com falsely reported that the family of California senator (and Senate President Pro Tempore) Kevin de León had been targeted for deportation by President Donald Trump because they are allegedly all undocumented: The Democrats are not immune to survive [sic] the huge pressure on them and their followers from the new laws for illegal immigrants. The DNC opposed every law which confronts their open borders agenda. Kevin de Leon, a California Democrat State Senate leader admitted that with this new reform, half of his family is unlawfully on US soil. The article uses quotes from a speech given by de León on 31 January 2017, in which he said: …The reality is, with the executive order and the criteria that has been developed, many individuals – I can tell you, half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order. Because, if they got a false social security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB-60, if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification, that’s what you need to survive, to work – they are eligible for massive deportation. De León’s remarks related to a 25 January 2017 executive order signed by Donald Trump, which ordered the enhancement of immigration law enforcement, especially in so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The article offers no evidence that either President Trump or Immigration and Customs Enforcement had targeted or was about to target members of de León’s family. Furthermore, a spokesperson for de León told us that the family members to whom the senator was referring have already become naturalized United States citizens or permanent residents. The Senator generalized that half his family would have been eligible for deportation under Trump’s new standards. Those members were naturalized during the Reagan era and are now citizens or permanent residents.


Massachusetts lawmakers weigh ‘Medicare for all’ bill.

Explanation: Beacon Hill lawmakers are planning a public hearing on health insurance bills, including one that aims to create a “Medicare for all” system in Massachusetts.

Access to health care, Health care reform, Boston, General News, Jamie Eldridge, Health, Medicare, Massachusetts, Bills

Supporters say a so-called “single-payer” system would ensure everyone has access to health care the same way the public education system provides education to all children, regardless of income. Backers say a Medicare for all system would essentially cut out insurance companies as intermediaries between patients and doctors and instead allow health care providers to seek reimbursement directly from the government. Critics say such a system amounts to government-run health care. Supporters include Sen. Jamie Eldridge of Acton, Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton and Rep. Denise Garlick of Needham, all Democrats. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. at the Massachusetts Statehouse.


Dr. Leon Eisenberg, the ‘father’ of ADHD, said just before his death that ADHD ‘is a prime example of a fictitious disease.’

Explanation: What's true: A German-to-English translation of an interview showed that Eisenberg said something similar to "ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease." What's false: Eisenberg was referring to the influence of social and environmental risk factors for the condition.

Dr. Leon Eisenberg, who passed away at the age of 87 in 2009, was a prominent figure in the field of child psychiatry who during the 1950s and 60s conducted medical studies of children with developmental problems, including some of the first rigorous studies of autism and attention deficit disorder. As described by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Dr. Eisenberg “transformed child psychiatry by advocating research into developmental problems”: Early in his medical career, in the mid-1950s, Leon Eisenberg became fascinated with the childhood mind. Wanting to know more, he broke free from the shackles of the Freudian psychoanalytic dogma that dominated child psychiatry at the time to conduct groundbreaking biologically based research of childhood developmental problems. This research included the first randomised clinical drug trials in child psychiatry. “I think what Leon brought to the field was a different way of thinking — thinking out of the box,” said David DeMaso, chairman of psychiatry at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. “He was thinking in terms of biology, of evidence based treatment, way before anybody else. His was a bio-psycho-social model at a time when psychoanalytical thinking was the norm.” Eisenberg’s direct involvement as a child psychiatry researcher was over by 1967, when he moved to Harvard Medical School as chief of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. But in a dozen years he had helped transform the discipline. Although describing Dr. Eisenberg as the “inventor” or “father” of attention deficit disorder (ADD) and/or attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might be challenged by some as a bit of an exaggeration, he unquestionably contributed a great deal to the body of knowledge on which modern diagnoses and treatment of those disorders is based. Given Dr. Eisenberg’s recognized authority and expertise in this field, therefore, those who feel that ADD and ADHD are misused and over-employed diagnoses which serve to “excuse bullying and recklessness” and “offer a sense of alleviation of personal responsibility among those diagnosed” would indeed find validation if Dr. Eisenberg had proclaimed “ADHD is a fictitious disease”: Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] I’ve been seeing this story making the rounds about how the alleged “inventor” of ADHD (a Dr. Eisenberg) had a sort of deathbed confession, and, in an interview with Der Spiegel 7 months before he died at 87, said, “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.” Leon Eisenberg, the father of ADHD, is quoted as saying in Der Spiegel that “ADHD is a fictitious disease” (shortly before his death). The claim that Dr. Eisenberg asserted “ADHD is a fictitious disease” is reproduced on countless web sites as something he said “seven months before his death in his last interview,” which would place the date of his utterance around February 2009. When documentation for the putative quote is provided, it references an article (often described as a “cover story”) published in the German weekly Der Spiegel on 2 February 2012. We found that the German-language version of Der Spiegel ran an article in 2012 that skeptically examined the large increase in diagnoses of mental disorders in recent years and quoted Dr. Eisenberg on that subject. A software-based translation of that article from German to English does describe Dr. Eisenberg as the “father of ADHD” and report that during his “last interview” he said something similar to “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.” However, when one allows for the vagaries of translation from German to English and reads the statement in context, it’s clear that Dr. Eisenberg wasn’t asserting that ADHD isn’t a real disorder, but rather that he thought the influence of genetic predispositions for ADHD (rather than social/environmental risk factors) were vastly overestimated: One out of every ten 10-year-old boys already takes an ADHD drug daily. But the scientific father of ADHD has followed the explosion of prescriptions with growing horror. Leon Eisenberg took over the management of psychiatry at the prestigious Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and became one of the most famous psychiatrists in the world. In his last interview, seven months before his death from prostate cancer at the age of 87, he distanced himself from his youthful indiscretion. A tall, thin man with glasses and suspenders opened the door to his apartment in Harvard Square in 2009, invited me to the kitchen table, and poured coffee. He said that he never would have thought his discovery would someday become so popular. “ADHD is a prime example of a fabricated disorder,” Eisenberg said. “The genetic predisposition to ADHD is completely overrated.” Instead, child psychiatrists should more thoroughly determine the psychosocial reasons that can lead to behavioral problems, Eisenberg said. Are there fights with parents, are there are problems in the family? Such questions are important, but they take a lot of time, Eisenberg said, adding with a sigh: “Prescribe a pill for it very quickly.” On a related note, an August 2012 Der Spiegel English-language interview with (now retired) Harvard psychologist Dr. Jerome Kagan quoted Dr. Kagan as being critical of “fuzzy diagnostic practices” and the over-prescription of drugs such as Ritalin for behavioral problems in children, and as referring to ADHD as “an invention”: SPIEGEL: In the 1960s, mental disorders were virtually unknown among children. Today, official sources claim that one child in eight in the United States is mentally ill. Kagan: That’s true, but it is primarily due to fuzzy diagnostic practices. Let’s go back 50 years. We have a 7-year-old child who is bored in school and disrupts classes. Back then, he was called lazy. Today, he is said to suffer from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). That’s why the numbers have soared. SPIEGEL: Experts speak of 5.4 million American children who display the symptoms typical of ADHD. Are you saying that this mental disorder is just an invention? Kagan: That’s correct; it is an invention. Every child who’s not doing well in school is sent to see a pediatrician, and the pediatrician says: “It’s ADHD; here’s Ritalin.” In fact, 90 percent of these 5.4 million kids don’t have an abnormal dopamine metabolism. The problem is, if a drug is available to doctors, they’ll make the corresponding diagnosis.


University of Findlay research students discovered a chemical compound that kills glioblastoma cells.

Explanation: Did University of Findlay Students Discover a Chemical Compound that Kills Glioblastoma?

On August 18 2019, Facebook page “Smooth AF” shared a screenshot of a tweet claiming that University of Findlay students had discovered a chemical compound that “kills glioblastoma cells”:At the top of the image was an August 15 2019 tweet from WTOL reporter @JonWTOL:Students at @ufindlay college of pharmacy have developed a chemical compound that kills gliobastoma (brain cancer) cells.They have also refined it to ignore healthy brain tissue and focus on the cancer cells.Story at 5:30 pic.twitter.com/AnNxZ3TMrG— Jon Monk (@JonWTOL) August 15, 2019It read in part:Students at @ufindlay college of pharmacy have developed a chemical compound that kills gliobastoma (brain cancer) cells.They have also refined it to ignore healthy brain tissue and focus on the cancer cells.In the Facebook screenshot, the tweet and image were shown, minus a final sentence about a news segment. Underneath those, a second tweet read:make this go viral before it suddenly doesn’t existOne highly popular comment on the tweet was shared more than 20,000 times on Twitter. It claimed that cancer had already been “cured,” and that the government was suppressing that cure to preserve pharmaceutical industry profits — commentary similar to the second tweet shown in the Facebook post:Basically the cure for cancer has basically been discovered but the government doesn’t want it coming out bc cancer gives the pharmaceutical industry so much money.Comments on both the tweet and the Facebook post often espoused the view that a discovery like one described in the tweet would be seen as unfavorable to “big pharma.” A follow-up tweet referenced a lengthier companion video on the WTOL site.In the video, the same reporter, Jon Monk, says that the difficulty in developing therapies for glioblastoma include identifying compounds that can target cancer cells while at the same time not harming healthy brain cells. Monk indicates a compound known as RK-15 is “a hundred times more selective” in targeting cancer cells over healthy brain cells, but the benchmark by which the efficacy of “one hundred times” was determined was not described.During the two-minute segment, Monk says that the discovery is a breakthrough “that could very well lead to future treatment” for glioblastoma, not that the students developed an actual applicable therapy for the illness. He also says that glioblastoma has a ten percent five-year survival rate; a November 2017 item on Cancer.org provides the respective five-year survival rates for glioblastoma in three age groups as 19 percent, eight percent, and five percent.A separate WNWO report published on August 15 2019 bears a headline stating that “University of Findlay researchers discover new drug to treat brain cancer.” But at the end of the article, it clarifies that the discovery may not yet be “a drug” as most readers understand it:Researchers said the next step is to test on animals, then continue clinical testing on humans before it could get approved by the FDA.They said it typically takes 10 to 15 years for a new drug to get from the lab to the patient. The team at the University of Findlay is on year two.News about the RK-15 discovery also made it to Reddit’s r/futurology. A top comment on that thread addresses some points of confusion about the process of developing such findings into actual drugs:Went and saw the video.Experts made similar observations — even if the discovery is promising, it is still many years away from any practical application. Epidemiologist @GidMK responded with information about how novel and untested the discovery was based on the report’s limited detail:According to the story this hasn’t even moved to rodent testing yet>99% of treatments that make it to this stage fail before being used in people— Health Nerd (@GidMK) August 18, 2019Another medical expert noted that many therapies are in development, but are far from becoming viable options for cancer patients:So wait, two pharm students…had access to large scale animal labs? Had teams recruiting patients for safety trials, and then enrolled hundreds of patients for clinical efficacy trials?There are hundreds of cancer cures that work in petri dishes and even mice but not humans.— John Jiao, MD 🏥 (@JohnJiao) August 18, 2019However, those science-based observations were nearly drowned in a sea of conspiracy-oriented replies that the student researchers were “at risk” of being killed or silenced — comments that skimmed over the medical commentary noting that many similar treatments were already in development (and scores more would not progress to a trial stage):that’s great and all but watch them die from “mysterious deaths” and the compound suddenly disappears— 𝔯𝔥𝔦𝔞𝔫𝔫𝔬𝔫 𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔷𝔞𝔟𝔢𝔱𝔥 (@tattooheartafi) August 18, 2019If they want to live , they need to hide. It’s so sad to say, but every scientist/person that finds a cure comes up missing or dead 😔— ɕأɑʀɑ ℘εƴƭℴ ɳ ♡ (@CiaraaaNicole) August 18, 2019A number of local news affiliates reported on the pharmacy students’ discovery of RK-15, stating that it “very well may” lead to eventual glioblastoma therapies. Many readers and commenters appeared to infer the students had invented a drug ready for market, which was not the case. Separate comments suggested that the students were at risk of harm due to mysterious forces determined to suppress cancer cures, a common but baseless conspiracy theory predicated in part on confusion about the manner in which drugs are researched, developed, and readied for market — as well as incomplete reporting and headlines suggesting the discovery was a drug ready to be offered to to cancer patients at the time the reports appeared.


Lilly diabetes drug slashes deaths 32 pct in heart-risk patients

Explanation: This Reuters story summarizes new findings about Jardiance (empaglifozin), a diabetes drug developed by Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim and approved by the FDA last year. Following a recently published study, Jardiance is now being positioned as an add-on to standard care and a preventative therapy that reduces the risk of cardiovascular death, as well as risk of death from any cause, in patients with type 2 diabetes. The story capably lays out the basics of the study, but its reliance on relative risk figures (which may tend to inflate the magnitude of the effect), as well as the lack of any comment on potential harms, were considered significant drawbacks by our reviewers. Editor’s note: We learned that Reuters made updates to the initial version of this story, including the headline, after our review was complete. Although we applaud such efforts to provide more information and context to readers, such efforts do miss readers like us who only saw the original version of the story. People with type 2 diabetes are two to four times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than people without diabetes, according to the World Heart Association. Cardiovascular disease is also a leading cause of death among people with diabetes. An add-on therapy that can help prevent serious heart disease and fatal complications could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of people with type 2 diabetes.The CDC estimates that more than 9% of the U.S. population — or 29 million people — have type 2 diabetes.

The initial version of the story that we reviewed did not address cost. An update to the story, posted after our review, noted the drug costs more than $4,000 annually. The story relies entirely on relative risks to convey the benefits found in the study — most notably in the headline. We think that estimates based on relative risk can be misleading in isolation, and so we always prefer for stories to include a measure of absolute risk reduction as well. For example, the abstract of the study explains that the “slashing” of deaths mentioned in the headline means that the death rate was 5.7% in the Jardiance group compared with 8.3% in the placebo group. The article didn’t mention any harms associated with Jardiance, a type of SGLT2 inhibitor. Some mention of potential adverse effects is always appropriate in stories about new drugs. A close call on this one. The story makes it clear that this was a trial comparing empagliflozin to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. And it lays out the main outcomes. But beyond that, it doesn’t tell us much. And it allows the lead study author to speculate — prematurely perhaps — that the study “would prompt medical societies to recommend in their treatment guidelines that Jardiance be used for type 2 diabetics that have a history of heart disease or are at risk of cardiovascular events.” While that’s possible, we don’t really know what these societies will recommend until they actually synthesize this evidence together with other available data — and so the story could have pushed back on that point. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here. There’s no evidence of disease mongering in the story. The initial version of this story includes only comments from Dr. Bernard Zinman, the lead investigator. The updated version of the story includes additional perspectives on the research, but neither version of the story makes it clear the the study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, or that Dr Zinman and other co-authors disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim related to the study and outside of the study. This is a novel preventative therapy and designated as an add-on, not a replacement, to standard therapy which include statins to lower cholesterol, and blood pressure drugs. The story mentions Invokana, another drug in the same class as empagliflozin, and it talks about cholesterol-lowering drugs and blood pressure medication. The story notes that Jardiance was approved for use in the United States last fall, so it’s clear that the drug is available. The drug is newsworthy because it is the first drug to have shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes — and the story makes this clear. The story includes quotes from interview with Dr. Zinman, so we know that it went beyond the news release issued for the study.


The term "Black Friday" originated with the practice of selling off slaves on the day after Thanksgiving.

Explanation: However, the earliest known use of this accounting-related explanation for the origins of the term “Black Friday” dates from 1981, many years after Philadelphia police had been using the phrase in reference to traffic issues.

Holidays, black friday, slavery, thanksgiving

“Black Friday” is the (originally derisive, now mainstream) term for the phenomenon that takes place in the U.S. on the day after Thanksgiving Thursday, when millions of consumers who get the day off from work or school crowd into stores for what is traditionally considered the beginning of the Christmas shopping season. The origins of the term “Black Friday” have become somewhat obscured in the mists of time, however, leading people to invent fanciful explanations for how that phrase became attached to the day after Thanksgiving. One example posits that the term started with a tradition of slaveowners or slave traders using that day as an opportunity for selling their wares:  The use of “Black Friday” as a descriptor for the day after Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the selling of slaves, though, and the term didn’t originate until nearly a century after the practice of slavery was abolished in the U.S. The earliest known use of “Black Friday” in such a context stems from 1951 and referred to the practice of workers calling in sick on the day after Thanksgiving in order to have four consecutive days off (because that day was not yet commonly offered as a paid day off by employers): WHAT TO DO ABOUT “FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING” “Friday-after-Thanksgiving-itis” is a disease second only to the bubonic plague in its effects. At least that’s the feeling of those who have to get production out, when the “Black Friday” comes along. The shop may be half empty, but every absentee was sick — and can prove it. What to do? Many companies have tried the standard device of denying Thanksgiving Day pay to employees absent the day before and after the holiday. Trouble is, you can’t deny pay to those legitimately ill. But what’s legitimate? Tough to decide these days of often miraculously easy doctors’ certificates. Glenn L. Martin, Baltimore aircraft manufacturer has another solution: When you decide you want to sweeten up the holiday kitty, pick Black Friday to add to the list. That’s just what Martin has done. Friday after Thanksgiving is the company’s seventh paid holiday. We’re not suggesting more paid holidays just to get out of a hole. But, if you can make a good trade in bargaining, there are lots of worse things than having a holiday on a day that was half holiday anyway. Shouldn’t cost too much for that reason, either. By 1961 the term “Black Friday” (and “Black Saturday” as well) was being commonly used in a derisive sense by Philadelphia police, who had to deal with the mayhem and headaches caused by all the extra pedestrian and vehicular traffic created by hordes of shoppers heading for the city’s downtown stores on the two days after Thanksgiving: For downtown merchants throughout the nation, the biggest shopping days normally are the two following Thanksgiving Day. Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. In a 1994 article, former Philadelphia Bulletin reporter Joseph P. Barrett recalled how he took part in popularizing the term “Black Friday” throughout Philadelphia in the early 1960s, from which it eventually spread into nationwide usage: The term “Black Friday” came out of the old Philadelphia Police Department’s traffic squad. The cops used it to describe the worst traffic jams which annually occurred in Center City on the Friday after Thanksgiving. It was the day that Santa Claus took his chair in the department stores and every kid in the city wanted to see him. It was the first day of the Christmas shopping season. Schools were closed. Late in the day, out-of-town visitors began arriving for the Army-Navy football game. Every “Black Friday,” no traffic policeman was permitted to take the day off. The division was placed on 12 hours of duty, and even the police band was ordered to Center City. It was not unusual to see a trombone player directing traffic. Two officers were assigned to intersections along Market Street to control the throngs of pedestrians. The department also placed police officers outside parking garages because the “lot filled” signs failed to deter motorists from lining up on the curb lane outside the garage. This reduced street size from two lanes to one. This caused traffic to back up and block traffic at the next intersection. This caused massive gridlock. In 1959, the old Evening Bulletin assigned me to police administration, working out of City Hall. Nathan Kleger was the police reporter who covered Center City for the Bulletin. In the early 1960s, Kleger and I put together a front-page story for Thanksgiving and we appropriated the police term “Black Friday” to describe the terrible traffic conditions. [W]e used it year after year. Then television picked it up. One popular alternative explanation for the origins of “Black Friday” is that it is the day on which retailers finally began to show a profit for the year (in accounting terms, moving from being “in the red” to “in the black”) after operating at an overall loss from January through mid-November: If the day is the year’s biggest for retailers, why is it called Black Friday? Because it is a day retailers make profits — black ink, said Grace McFeeley of Cherry Hill Mall. “I think it came from the media,” said William Timmons of Strawbridge & Clothier. “It’s the employees, we’re the ones who call it Black Friday,” said Belle Stephens of Moorestown Mall. “We work extra hard. It’s a long hard day for the employees.”


Judge considers Hammond Ranches grazing permit.

Explanation: A judge in Portland, Oregon, heard arguments Thursday about whether the U.S. government was right to renew the grazing permits of two ranchers who were pardoned last year by President Donald Trump on an arson conviction for setting fire to federal lands.

Arson, General News, Oregon, Environment, Fires, Steven Hammond, Portland, Donald Trump

The Capital Press reports that U.S. District Judge Michael Simon was expected to reach a decision in the long-running case on Friday after hearing arguments from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which granted a 10-year grazing permit Dwight and Steven Hammond after Trump’s pardon. The renewal prompted a coalition of environmental groups to sue. Simon in July limited where the Hammonds could graze their cattle, but let them continue to use other portions of the public allotments for their ranching operation in remote southeastern Oregon while the environmental groups continued with their legal challenge. The Hammonds, a father and son who raise cattle near Diamond, Oregon, were convicted of arson in 2012 for setting a fire on federal land that burned about 140 acres. They were initially sentenced to minimal terms and released. But the Hammonds were sent back to prison in 2016 after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they must both complete the federal mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson. Their rearrest sparked a protest that developed into a 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016, led by two sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. The standoff got international attention and ended shortly after authorities shot and killed the protestors’ spokesman as a small group of the occupiers drove to a meeting in Burns. The Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and Wildearth Guardians filed a motion earlier this year to revoke the Hammonds’ grazing permits on the grounds that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke should not have granted the permits given the Hammonds’ past conviction. David Becker, an attorney for the environmental groups, told the judge that “livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right.” “Like any privilege, it’s subject to revocation if it’s abused,” he said. During their 2012 arson trial, the Hammonds said they burned the federal lands to destroy invasive weeds. Prosecutors said they burned the land to cover up the fact that they had illegally killed a herd deer on the land.


China to ban smoking at indoor public places.

Explanation: China will ban smoking at all indoor public venues from May in an effort to shield the world’s most populous nation, and its largest cigarette producer, from the harmful effects of the habit, the health ministry said.

A man lights a friend's cigarette as they stand in front of an advertisement for the China World shopping mall in central Beijing March 22, 2011. REUTERS/David Gray China, which has more than 300 million smokers, will require businesses to display prominent no-smoking signs, forbid vending machines from selling cigarettes and ensure that designated outdoor smoking zones not affect pedestrian traffic, according to a ministry statement reported in Chinese media on Thursday. Businesses should educate customers about the health hazards of smoking and workers should attempt to stop smokers from lighting up, the ministry said. The ministry did not state specific penalties — a sign that the new ban might not be rigorously enforced. China, the world’s largest cigarette producer, has embarked on years of half-hearted campaigns to stub out the habit in some cities. The government previously it would ban smoking in all hospitals and medical facilities from 2011. In 2008, Beijing formally pledged to restrict smoking in most public venues in the city, including government offices and public transport, but most of these venues remain choked with smoke and non-smoking signs are routinely ignored. In the southern city of Guangzhou, smokers who light up in certain public places only have to pay a 50 yuan ($7.625) fine, a limited deterrent in one of China’s richest cities, even as state news agency Xinhua dubbed it “the nation’s toughest smoking ban.”   Although nearly 1.2 million Chinese people die from smoking-related diseases each year, the habit is deeply entrenched in public life. Chinese cigarettes, among the cheapest in the world, are considered an important part of socializing. More than half of all male Chinese doctors smoke. Less smoking could reduce smoking-related health costs, but would also hurt government revenue, as the tobacco industry provides nearly one-tenth of tax revenues. ($1 = 6.558 Chinese yuan)


Abortionists have reduced our black population by more than 25 percent since 1973.

While debating abortion rights, a Republican Florida House member made a startling claim: Doctors who perform abortions are to blame for reducing the African-American population in the United States. "In America alone, without the Nazi Holocaust, without the Ku Klux Klan, Planned Parenthood and other abortionists have reduced our black population by more than 25 percent since 1973," said the House member, Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights. Van Zant is sponsoring a bill (HB 845) that would criminalize abortions performed because of the race or sex of the fetus, and during debate, he suggested that abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood are targeting African-Americans. Do statistics about the African-American population in the United States support his claim? What we found in this case is that Van Zant makes a complicated, and largely unsubstantiated leap of logic. Taken at its most literal meaning, his statement is preposterous. The black population grew by 67 percent, not decreased by 25 percent, from 1973 to 2010, according to U.S. Census figures. Interpreting his statement the way Van Zant and other anti-abortion groups intend -- that the U.S. black population would be at least 25 percent higher were it not for Roe v. Wade -- is also fraught with problems. To start, federal data for abortions is imprecise, and that’s not even factoring in the additional layer of abortions by race. Van Zant’s claim is largely based on guesstimates. Then there’s the bigger issue of arguing that every fetus would be alive today had the pregnancy not have been aborted, a premise social scientists called over-simplified and inaccurate. We’ll take you through it. How does Van Zant get there? Van Zant’s legislative aide gave us a packet of information relating to his remarks, including print-outs from Abort73.com, an antiabortion advocacy group, on abortion and race. Here, we found a similarly worded version of Van Zant’s claim. "From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30 percent, and that doesn’t even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago," Abort73.com states. The website explains how it gets to 30 percent (we’re not vouching for the methodology, mind you): 17 million black babies were aborted since Roe v. Wade (55 million total abortions, as reported by National Right to Life, multiplied by 31 percent, which is what they say is the average rate of abortions by black women since 1973). The black population (people who identified as only black, not a combination of races, to the Census) was around 39 million people in 2010. So the black population, once you include 17 million would-be babies, should be 56 million people. That’s how they get the talking point. So is it reasonable or accurate? Data limitations and manipulations The U.S. Census Bureau, not surprisingly, does not come up with projections for what a population would have been without abortions. (We checked.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not have a complete record of the number of abortions on black mothers since Roe v. Wade. We knew from the start the agency’s abortion data is incomplete, as not every state reports abortion data to the feds. Florida, for example, reports its abortions but does not break down the mother’s race or age. The center, which only started collecting racial/ethnic abortion data from state health departments in 1990, compiled this spreadsheet for us, emphasizing it has many caveats. By the CDC’s count, there have been 39.3 million abortions since 1973. Between 1990 and 2009, 4 million of those were by black women. We checked with the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports access to abortion and uses a different method to count abortions. Instead of collecting data from state health departments, the Guttmacher Institute surveys a sample of abortion providers every few years. From 1973 to 2008, the most recent year for which their data is available, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred in the United States. The Guttmacher Institute also does not have a total for abortions by race and ethnicity since 1973, as the group started collecting demographic data of women obtaining abortions in 1994. Their findings do not offer totals, just a proportion of abortions to each racial group. In 2008, white women accounted for 36 percent of abortions, black women for 30 percent, Hispanic women for 25 percent and non-Hispanic women of other races for 9 percent, according to Guttmacher’s tally. Not so simple There is one thing not up for debate: If all of the black women who had abortions had decided to carry their pregnancies to term, there would be more black people alive today. But Van Zant’s number is considerably inflated, social scientists told us. "The claim that all terminated pregnancies would be alive today is ," said Elwood Carlson, a Florida State University sociology professor who specializes in demography for reproductive health, adult mortality and family. Some of the pregnancies would have ended by stillbirths and spontaneous abortions, which end an estimated 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies, said Karin Brewster, director of FSU’s Center for Demography and Population Health. Plus, black Floridians are twice as likely as white Floridians to have spontaneous pregnancy losses, Carlson said. And even among the pregnancies ending with birth, some of those babies would have died as infants. The rate of infant death after live birth is also twice as high for black Floridians as for white Floridians, he said. Further, he said, the risk of involuntary death for black Floridians is twice as high as the risk to white Floridians from conception through adulthood. "Induced abortions are only the tip of an iceberg of unequal life chances faced by black citizens of Florida, an iceberg that has been part of life in the state for at least the last half-century and which is showing no signs of drifting away," he said. Elwood criticized Van Zant for isolating black abortions and not also mentioning there would be more white, Hispanic and Asian citizens if not for abortion. Other criticisms from the sources we consulted said it is inappropriate to take correlational data and make causal inferences, and that we don’t know what effect an abortion has on subsequent family planning. Some of the people counted in 2010 may not have been conceived had their mothers elected to carry their first pregnancy. Before we close, we’ll point out that Van Zant’s claim does not bolster his case that minority abortions happen because of race, as most abortions are performed because the mother cannot afford a child or having a child would interfere with other responsibilities at work, school or to other children. Our ruling Van Zant made a fiery case for his bill preventing gender- and race-based abortions, saying abortion providers like Parent Parenthood -- without the Nazis or the KKK --  "have reduced our black population by more than 25 percent since 1973." Van Zant’s statement is wildly incorrect by the most literal measure -- the African-American population has increased since 1973. There’s also problems with the claim if you buy into Van Zant’s logic. Namely, abortion statistics are incomplete and/or difficult to interpret. And there’s no one-to-one correlation between an abortion and the population today.


This Blood Test Could Help Predict If A Pregnancy Is At Risk For Premature Labor

Explanation: This BuzzFeed News story reports on early-stage research into an experimental blood test that aims to predict whether or not a pregnancy is at risk for premature birth. To determine that risk, the test looks for specific pieces of RNA generated by the baby that migrate into a mother’s bloodstream and which are associated with preterm deliveries. The story offers a short, readable, un-hyped, and eminently useful summary of the research, and it offers several comparisons to the standard alternative, which is an ultrasound scan. The story would have benefited from an outside expert weighing on the study and its potential ramifications and — more importantly — the potential harms of a false-positive test, which are not insignificant. According to the CDC, preterm birth affects about one in every 10 infants born in the US. Significant advances to lower preterm birth rates are certainly newsworthy–but this is an idea that’s been tested and failed before (see novelty, below) and readers need to know that.

Experimental health tests don’t have public price tags. However, this story gives readers a rare and helpful ballpark estimate, and one that compares it to an alternative (ultrasound): “It might be tens or hundreds of dollars, rather than thousands,” a study author told BuzzFeed. The story lists out many of the details about what the researchers measured, and how those results compare to the current standard assessment tools, such as ultrasound. Readers don’t get a sense of what harms a false-positive test might expose a mother and her child too, and the rate here (nearly 17%) is rather high. Based on studies of the alternative test method — i.e. ultrasound — the risks of false-positive test/misdiagnosis include high stress and anxiety, depression, expensive and unnecessary treatments, and other possible harms. (The most common interventions for increased risk of preterm birth include progesterone supplements and bedrest.) For a story targeting the general public, all of our skeptical itches are scratched in this criterion. We’re told in fairly plain English how the tests works to pick up genetic material, and that it’s already used by other blood tests. We also get a short synopsis of the study’s limitations, with the story describing how it was small (with 38 women) and didn’t include ethnicities other than white or black. Finally, some rare yet illustrative numbers on efficacy are provided: false-positive results (3 in 18 pregnancies were supposedly at risk but became full-term) and false-positive results (4 in 5 did become at-risk preterm pregnancies). These types of details stated in plain language really help readers make sense of an otherwise complex study. The story describes some scary risks related to preterm deliveries, but nothing unwarranted to establish why a test for potential preterm deliveries might be important. We don’t get a crucial outside perspective on the study; the only source named in the story is one of the lead authors. On the plus side, the story is very thorough given its short length, and it offers a blunt if not skeptical summary on the research. It also helps that we’re told the study was funded by the March of Dimes and “other nonprofit sources,” and that the authors have applied to patent the blood test, implying they stand to profit from its approval and widespread use. BuzzFeed’s story establishes early on that ultrasound tests are the go-to method for determining pregnancies that are at-risk for preterm delivery, among other complications. It also gives the accuracy of that test as a measure (48%) and compares it to the experimental test’s accuracy (45%). The story is clear about the test’s availability in above-the-fold copy, stating it “is still experimental and not yet available outside of a research lab.” There’s even a reference to it being experimental in the story summary. (But why not include “experimental” in the headline, too?) The story references other unnamed blood tests that use cfRNA, though it clinches the novelty of the experimental preterm pregnancy test through an anecdote from one of the researchers. However, the story does not comment on other biomarkers (blood tests to detect factors correlated with preterm birth). As context, there have been many other biomarkers studied that have not proven to have clinical utility. Over 72 studies of biomarkers involving almost 90,000 women were examined in a 2011 review, which concluded that none, alone or in combination, were clinically useful to predict spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women. There is much more work to be done to establish whether this new test performs well, and readers need that critical context. We didn’t detect any obvious signs of copy/pasting claims, researcher quotes, etc.


US lawmaker opposes drilling permit work during shutdown.

Explanation: The oil and gas industry should not be spared the pain of the partial government shutdown, according to the chairman of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee.

David Bernhardt, Raul Grijalva, Alaska, North America, Environment, Oil and gas industry, Business, Betty McCollum, U.S. News

Rep. Raul Grijalva (gri-HAWL-vah) on Tuesday sent a letter to Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt objecting to the department changing plans to allow employees to work on upcoming offshore lease sales, seismic permits and a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan in Alaska and elsewhere. “One of the most striking features of the current government shutdown, brought about entirely by the President’s insistence on building an entirely unnecessary border wall, is the way the administration has bent over backwards to ensure that the pain of the shutdown falls only on ordinary Americans and the environment, and not on the oil and gas industry,” the Arizona Democrat wrote. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minnesota, and Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-California, also signed the letter. McCollum chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior Department. Grijalva called on Bernhardt to reverse course, and if he refuses, to provide a briefing on the legal justification for what appeared to be a violation of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending money in advance of an appropriation. Interior spokeswoman Faith Vander Voort in an email response said department officials would be happy to meet with the Natural Resources Committee as appropriate. “And we are confident that we are fully meeting our legal obligations,” she said. Grijalva said President Donald Trump’s “temper tantrum” over a wall built on the border with Mexico has taken a toll, with 800,000 federal workers missing paychecks, Native Americans at risk of losing access to food and health care, travelers facing extended delays in airport and national parks piling up with trash. He called it outrageous that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management updated its contingency plan allowing employees to work to comply with the administration’s America First energy strategy. The administration cares only about its favorite industry, he said. “Your department has continued to hold public meetings on oil and gas development on the North Slope of Alaska, refused to extend the comment period for leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and opened up the Bureau of Land Management field offices to allow drilling permits to continue to be issued,” Grijalva said. Connie Gillette, BOEM chief of public affairs, said by email the agency is using carry-over money appropriated for the 2018 fiscal year for the activities. Lowenthal, the incoming chairman Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, said federal workers are being brought in without pay to service the oil and gas industry. BOEM staffers who deal with renewable energy remain furloughed, he said in a statement. “If you are an oil and gas company awaiting a lease, there is a big open sign at the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management,” Lowenthal said.


Planned Parenthood funding in Texas at stake in hearing.

Explanation: A federal appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on whether Texas had the right to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics in the state — a case that could also determine funding for the organization in Louisiana and Mississippi and that eventually may end up before the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood, North America, Health, Medicaid, Courts, U.S. News, Louisiana, Texas

The case involves Texas’ move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood clinics following the release by anti-abortion activists of graphic, secretly recorded videos in 2015. A state inspector general said the video appeared to show Planned Parenthood had improperly changed how abortions were performed so that better specimens could be preserved for medical research. Planned Parenthood and a group of Medicaid beneficiaries sued to preserve Medicaid coverage for cancer screenings, birth control access and other non-abortion-related health services for nearly 11,000 low-income women at 30 clinics statewide. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks ruled that Texas officials had provided no evidence of wrongdoing and that the videos that launched Republican efforts across the U.S. to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider were insufficient as evidence. He issued an injunction blocking Texas from withholding the funding. In January, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit said Sparks should give greater weight to state findings on whether Planned Parenthood clinic staff members are qualified under Medicaid’s medical and ethical standards. But Judge Edith Jones, who wrote the opinion, made clear she also wanted the full 5th Circuit to take a broader look at the issue. The full court agreed, leading to Tuesday’s hearing. The issue has a complicated history at the 5th Circuit. In 2016, a three-judge 5th Circuit panel unanimously upheld a lower court’s injunction preventing Louisiana from cutting the organization’s Medicaid funding. But one of the judges, Priscilla Owen, later changed her mind, making it a 2-1 decision. Louisiana asked for a full-court rehearing. That led to a 7-7 deadlock in 2017, when the court had only 14 active judges. Since the 2017 deadlock, five nominees of President Donald Trump have filled vacancies on the 5th Circuit. In the January ruling in the Texas case, Jones — a nominee of President Ronald Reagan and among the court’s longest tenured active judges — said the Louisiana case should be revisited. Among the issues: whether Medicaid patients and health care providers should be able to sue over a state’s decision to withhold funding, bypassing state administrative procedures for determining such matters. As he opened arguments Tuesday, Kyle Hawkins of the Texas Attorney General’s Office took aim at the 2017 decision. Federal law does not allow a Medicaid recipient to sue in federal court to block a state’s decision to disqualify the recipient, he said. He acknowledged that the previous 5th Circuit opinion in the Louisiana case said otherwise. “That decision was wrongly decided and should be overruled today,” he said. Tuesday’s arguments were heard by 16 judges, including four of Trump’s five nominees — the fifth worked for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and as a deputy Texas solicitor general and did not take part. Planned Parenthood and its supporters say in briefs that federal law allows Medicaid patients to obtain assistance “from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service.” Among the points discussed during Tuesday’s hearing were whether individuals have the right to choose a qualified provider and how much authority the state has to decide which providers are qualified. Jones and Judge Jennifer Elrod closely questioned Jennifer Sandman, an attorney who argued for multiple Planned Parenthood organizations and for Medicaid beneficiaries. Although the videos have been widely attacked as being heavily edited and inaccurate, they said there was no evidence of that entered into the case record. “Don’t tell us about inaccurate videos,” said Jones, whose January opinion included a still shot of apparent fetal tissue, taken from the video. “Those videos were never challenged by the plaintiffs for accuracy.” Sandman noted multiple criminal investigations in Texas that found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. It’s unclear when the 5th Circuit will rule. Also unknown is how broadly they will rule — whether they will simply address Sparks’ injunction in the Texas case or issue orders that could alter the Louisiana case and also affect Planned Parenthood funding in Mississippi. The 5th Circuit covers all three states. ___ Follow Kevin McGill on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mcgill56


VA will provide in-home care for Iraq veteran.

Explanation: Facing a federal lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced Friday that it had reached an agreement to extend in-home health care through April for a Springfield veteran with Lou Gehrig’s disease who needs around-the-clock care.

Iraq, Health, Lou Gehrigs disease, Lawsuits, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Michael Williamson, Veterans, Veterans affairs, Springfield, Eugene

Michael Williamson sued the federal agency on Jan. 23 in U.S. District Court in Eugene after a VA contract company notified him that his home health care of nearly 17 years would halt on Feb. 13 because it couldn’t find caregivers, according to the suit. The company, New Horizons, contracts with the VA’s medical facility in Roseburg. Seven days later, the Department of Veteran Affairs reached an agreement with New Horizons to extend care for another 60 days, Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrian Brown wrote in a court document. Veterans Affairs also will continue to work toward a long-term solution to keep Williamson in his home, U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams said in a prepared statement. Officials at Roseburg VA Health Care System told Williamson that they had no other approved caregiving agencies in the area and that he would have to move to a nursing home in San Francisco, Boise or Washington’s Puget Sound, according to the lawsuit filed on Williamson’s behalf by Disability Rights Oregon, an advocacy agency. Emily Cooper, legal director of Disability Rights Oregon, said the VA’s action violated its own regulations, which directs the department to offer a choice of providers and provide continuity of care. Cooper said of the temporary agreement, “It’s a promising first step, but the fight’s not over.” Williamson, 51, served 14 years in the U.S. Air Force. He served in Iraq in 1988 and was in Saudi Arabia before, during and after Desert Storm in the early 1990s. Eleven years after serving in Iraq he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, a progressive neurodegenerative disease that attacks nerve cells in the brain and spinal column, taking away the ability to move, speak, eat and breathe. He is on a ventilator and has a feeding tube for sustenance and medications. But his mind is fully intact, Cooper said. In 2001, the VA recognized a connection between ALS and Gulf War veterans, giving them full disability and survivor benefits. After his diagnosis, Williamson received 100 percent permanent and total service-connected disability benefits, the suit says. New Horizons has provided Williamson with nurse-directed care that includes caregivers who stay around-the-clock in his home. The suit doesn’t detail how much that care costs. According to the agreement that Disability Rights Oregon reached with the federal agency, Veterans Affairs “will continue to make best efforts to explore other possible arrangements with in-home care providers to permit Mr. Williamson to remain in his home for the long term. Such efforts may include working with state administrators and other licensed home health agencies.” Having the VA reach out to state-licensed home care providers will help not only Williamson but other veterans in Oregon, Cooper said. “By filing in court, we not only jump-started these talks,” but now the court may monitor the issue to make sure the VA upholds its agreement, she said. ___ Information from: The Oregonian/OregonLive, http://www.oregonlive.com