Autism has now been included among the known side effects of the  DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis) vaccine.

Explanation: However, as FDA adverse events reporting standards dictate, all adverse reports recorded in association with drugs are included in such documents, no matter how likely (or unlikely) it was that the drug had caused them.

Junk News, autism, dtap, vaccine misinformation

On 10 March 2016, a nondescript WordPress blog post reporting that “autism was now disclosed and acknowledged as an adverse event reported for use of DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis) vaccine” was published by an anonymous blogger. The item primarily consisted of a sensationalist title (which suggested a new development in 2016), along with the following text and image: There’s widespread and growing lack of confidence in the safety of vaccines … Know anyone who still believes that vaccines can’t cause autism? Take a look at the DTaP vaccine insert: Predictably, it wasn’t long before the blog post began popping up in anti-vaccine circles on social media under headlines such as “FDA announces vaccines cause autism” and “Now it’s official: FDA announced that vaccines are causing autism!”  Readers didn’t need to scan past the misleading titles to catch the thrust of the claims: The headlines insinuated that autism had recently been added to the list of known adverse affects asssociated with the DTaP, quietly confirming what science-based medical information had supposedly denied for so long. It was true that the photograph appended to that article matched the insert available for Tripedia, Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (DTaP) as shown on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s web site [PDF]: Also true was the fact that visible selective emphasis highlighted information favorable to anti-vaxxers while failing to include crucial context (namely that the listed effect was a post-approval, unverified user-reported one that does not “establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine”): We contacted UC Hastings law professor and immunization law expert Dorit Rubenstein Reiss about the claim, who directed us to a related passage in the Tripedia insert. While the blog highlighted Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) alongside autism as reported adverse effects, directly beneath the referenced passage was information that the rate of SIDS was lower among vaccinated infants than among unvaccinated ones: In the German case-control study and US open-label safety study in which 14,971 infants received Tripedia vaccine, 13 deaths in Tripedia vaccine recipients were reported. Causes of deaths included seven SIDS, and one of each of the following: enteritis, Leigh Syndrome, adrenogenital syndrome, cardiac arrest, motor vehicle accident, and accidental drowning. All of these events occurred more than two weeks post immunization. The rate of SIDS observed in the German case-control study was 0.4/1,000 vaccinated infants. The rate of SIDS observed in the US open-label safety study was 0.8/1,000 vaccinated infants and the reported rate of SIDS in the US from 1985-1991 was 1.5/1,000 live births. By chance alone, some cases of SIDS can be expected to follow receipt of whole-cell pertussis DTP35 or DTaP vaccines. Another aspect of the vaccine excerpt reproduced above was that automobile accidents and drownings were included among the causes of reported deaths that occurred after vaccination, which underscores that the nature of such statistics is an inclusive one encompassing adverse events which clearly have no causal relationship with vaccine. Reiss also pointed us to the FDA’s guidance on adverse event-related drug labeling [PDF], which states: The ADVERSE REACTIONS section must list adverse reactions identified from domestic and foreign spontaneous reports. This listing must be separate from the listing of adverse reactions identified in clinical trials and must also be preceded by information necessary to interpret the adverse reactions. To help practitioners interpret the significance of data obtained from postmarketing spontaneous reports, the following statement, or an appropriate modification, should precede these data: Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 8 The following adverse reactions have been identified during postapproval use of drug X. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure. When we asked Reiss whether adverse event labeling included all documented reports whether or not they were linked to the drug in question, she confirmed that “the insert lists events reported even if causation evidence is sketchy. It actually says so.” Those who read down to the bottom of the eleven-page Tripedia/DTaP insert might have noticed another relevant portion: The insert information was labeled current “as of December 2005,” which first would mean its sudden “discovery” by an anonymous blogger over a decade later was of questionable (if not negligible) import. But the age of the documentation was important for a second reason: the prominent medical journal The Lancet didn’t formally retract a controversial 1998 research paper which falsely advanced the belief that vaccines were linked to autism until February 2010. While that retraction was significant and definitive, twelve years passed between the paper’s publication and The Lancet‘s disavowal of it: A prominent British medical journal retracted a 1998 research paper that set off a sharp decline in vaccinations in Britain after the paper’s lead author suggested that vaccines could cause autism. The retraction by The Lancet is part of a reassessment that has lasted for years of the scientific methods and financial conflicts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who contended that his research showed that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine may be unsafe. Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called the retraction of Dr. Wakefield’s study “significant.” “It builds on the overwhelming body of research by the world’s leading scientists that concludes there is no link between M.M.R. vaccine and autism,” Mr. Skinner wrote. A British medical panel concluded that Dr. Wakefield had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research. Dr. Wakefield’s paper reported on his examinations of 12 children with chronic intestinal disorders who had a history of normal development followed by severe mental regressions. But an investigation by a British journalist found financial and scientific conflicts that Dr. Wakefield did not reveal in his paper. For instance, part of the costs of Dr. Wakefield’s research were paid by lawyers for parents seeking to sue vaccine makers for damages. Dr. Wakefield was also found to have patented in 1997 a measles vaccine that would succeed if the combined vaccine were withdrawn or discredited. A 2 February 2010 article published in the British Medical Journal explained how the process of gathering accurate information to counter Wakefield’s claims took years: An academic journal is not a collection of blank pages on to which authors inscribe important scientific facts as they discover them. Rather, science is made and shaped as authors consider the declared areas of interest, impact factors, and instructions for authors of candidate journals for their work and as the papers they submit clear the successive hurdles of eligibility screening, selection of peer reviewers, responding to reviewers’ comments, statistical approval, technical editing, and distribution of press releases. A graph showing first a precipitous fall in immunisation rates in the United Kingdom and then a corresponding rise in the incidence of measles was later reproduced in the broadsheets (and in at least one GCSE biology syllabus) as an iconic symbol of bad science. That article also alluded to the immediate and lasting effects of the initial publication of Wakefield’s now-discredited research: Once the article appeared with the Lancet kitemark — cautious accompanying editorial notwithstanding — the arguments were considered by many to be proved, and the ghastly social drama of the demon vaccine took on a life of its own. An April 2011 article in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry summarized in a timeline the havoc wreaked by Wakefield’s 1998 paper, noting that a “journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance” led to the long-awaited retraction: In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and 12 of his colleagues published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may predispose to behavioral regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Despite the small sample size (n=12), the uncontrolled design, and the speculative nature of the conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination. Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism. The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood. The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient”. This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al. had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct. The Lancet completely retracted the Wakefield et al. paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation. Wakefield et al. were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors. The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al. were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts). The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain. It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures. Readers may be interested to learn that the journalist on the Wakefield case, Brian Deer, had earlier reported on the false implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism. However, Deer had not played an investigative role in that report. So while it was true autism was listed among the reported adverse events in the Tripedia/DTaP vaccine’s insert, that same insert explained that all adverse events were listed, regardless of evidence of causation. Furthermore, the insert was current as of 2005, and was therefore hardly a novel finding in 2016. Five years after the Tripedia insert was printed, The Lancet formally retracted the 1998 paper to which fears about vaccines and autism were largely attributed, but by that point, the advancement of that idea had already left a palpable mark on public health in both the United States and in the UK.


Explanation: If kombucha drinks are as hot a trend as the column suggests, then it’s worth the space to put claims and beliefs to the test, which this column did nicely. As the story explains: "When celebrities like Reese Witherspoon were spotting carrying bottles of kombucha, it was inevitable that the exotic brew’s popularity would, well, mushroom." So it’s helpful to have an expert column shoot down some of the hype.

Story says it costs $3-5 a bottle The story makes clear that there is no evidence to prove benefits. Nice job on this. Excerpt: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report in April 1995 that linked homebrewed kombucha with the illness of two women who were hospitalized with severe acidosis. One woman died of cardiac arrest and the other was revived after her heart stopped. The story is quite clear on this:  there is no evidence. Excerpt: “To date, there hasn’t been a single human trial reported in a major medical journal,” he said. “This doesn’t mean that kombucha tea can’t possibly have health benefits, it just means that at this time, there’s no direct evidence that it provides the benefits it’s reported to have.” No disease mongering in the story. Good input from expert sources providing necessary skepticism. Story provides appropriate perspective: The widespread availability and growing popularity of this product is clear. Again, good context. Excerpt: This was clearly an enterprise story.


An image of a plant with phallic-looking structures is a genuine botanical specimen.

Explanation: Because the picture and its description ring true with experts and published scientific studies, we rank the image of this “penis fly trap” to be authentic.

In March 2019, images of a plant dubbed a “penis flytrap” — a play on words that evokes the comparatively less phallic Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) — went viral. These posts all described the plant as belonging to the Nepenthes genus:  Though the provenance of the image shown above is uncertain, we have no reason to doubt this is an authentic photograph of a plant that belonging to the Nepenthes genus. We emailed Clinton Morse, the living plant collections manager at the University of Connecticut’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, to ask about the photograph, and he told us: It is certainly a Nepenthes species and certainly looks like an authentic image. … All Nepenthes have a similar passive pitfall trap that develops with a closed trap, and as the trap matures the ‘lid’ opens up. The pitchers in the attached image are just starting to open thus giving them a rather penile appearance. I’ve never heard of them being called “penis fly trap,” but it is a rather accurate descriptive name. Indeed, once the pit trap is fully matured and the lid is opened, the plant becomes a bit less penile-looking. The open trap fills with water and is designed to attract insects who then fall into the water, where the plant scavenges the nutrients in the decaying bodies, as described in a 1999 review of the genus’ carnivorous behavior: Plants of this genus utilize a passive method of attraction and entrapment to capture and digest their insect quarry. The lip of the pitcher, a ridged double edged collar called the peristome, is characterized by the presence of nectaries that attract insects to the pitcher opening. A lining of several layers of epicuticular wax on the upper region of the pitcher causes the insects to lose their footing while foraging and to slip down the steep walls of the pitcher into its base where they are trapped in a fluid.


US troops get freeze-dried plasma for battlefield bloodshed.

Explanation: All of the U.S. military’s special operations fighters now being sent to war zones have freeze-dried blood plasma, a crucial addition to first-aid kits that can prevent badly wounded troops from bleeding to death on the battlefield.

AP Top News, Las Vegas mass shooting, Army, Health, Politics, North America, U.S. News, Land mines, U.S. News

Last month, all Marines Corps’ special ops units began carrying freeze-dried plasma into the field. The plasma helps clot blood and can prevent badly wounded troops from bleeding to death on the battlefield. It saved Army Cpl. Josh Hargis’ life. He lost parts of both legs in 2013 when he stepped on a land mine during a midnight raid in Afghanistan. The medic in his Ranger unit used the freeze-dried plasma to keep him alive on the battlefield for more than 90 minutes until he could be evacuated by helicopter. The medic, Sgt. Bryan Anderson, said having plasma ready made the difference in helping stanch internal bleeding after the blast shattered Hargis’ pelvis. “Wherever blood is oozing out, it’s helping to clot that blood up,” Anderson said. “It blows my mind that Josh was able to stay alive and I think about that night every day of my life.” Their raid on a Taliban leader’s compound killed four Americans and even more friendly troops by suicide bombers and land mines. Anderson’s life-saving labor continued despite seven explosions within 10 yards (9 meters), leading to a Distinguished Service Cross, the second-highest military honor for heroism. The plasma Anderson used was stored in a thick glass bottle and kept in a kit with IV lines and distilled water. The medic has to pour the water into the bottle, swirl it around and inject it. Before his injury, Hargis used to think the freeze-dried equipment took up too much room in the medic’s bag. “It really seemed like something that was a little unrealistic to carry out in the field, but it ended up working out,” said Hargis, who lives in Peyton, Colorado, with his wife and kids. A photo of Hargis’ commanding officer giving him a Purple Heart went viral online. Plasma is a straw-colored liquid that contains proteins that make the blood clot. Unlike current plasma supplies that have to be slowly thawed from frozen storage, the dehydrated and powdered freeze-dried version needs no refrigeration and can be used within minutes after swirling it in water. Over the past five years, the military’s special ops units in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have received about 1,000 kits of the freeze-dried plasma, including 430 this year. While specific numbers on usage are scarce, the U.S. Special Operations Command said it had been used at least 24 times by Green Berets and other special operations teams in the past five years. Of those treatments, 15 patients survived long enough to be transferred to a hospital. U.S. forces used freeze-dried plasma in World War II, but quit after it was linked to hepatitis outbreaks. In the years since, the safety testing of it improved and for years militaries including the French, Germans, Norwegians and Israelis have used it. Army Special Operations medics saw it in use and said they wanted it too. The U.S. military currently gets its supply from the French, whose plasma is made from volunteer donors. It has a shelf life of about two years. The U.S. is using the French product as a stopgap while Teleflex Inc. partners with the Army to win Food and Drug Administration approval by 2020. The slow pace led some in Congress to propose giving the Pentagon the ability to circumvent the FDA and allow emergency approval of new medical devices or drugs to treat troops, while other lawmakers propose speeding up FDA approvals for military medical products. Teleflex is shooting to buy its donated plasma from blood banks and produce enough for the armed services and civilian emergency rooms in what is projected to be $100 million-a-year market. The granulated plasma could help in civilian emergencies, said Dr. Jeremy Cannon, a former trauma surgery chief at San Antonio Military Medical Center. Whether it’s an accident victim arriving at a rural Texas hospital without a blood bank or a mass casualty event such as the Las Vegas shooting massacre, powdered plasma could be crucial, said Cannon, who now teaches surgery at the University of Pennsylvania’s hospital. “This is the ideal situation for FDP use — first responders and in emergency departments swamped with bleeding patients — especially when the supply of conventional plasma becomes depleted,” Cannon said. ___ Follow Emery P. Dalesio on Twitter at http://twitter.com/emerydalesio . His work can be found at https://apnews.com/search/emery%20dalesio . ___ This story has been corrected to show that all Marine Corps special operations units began carrying plasma into field in October.


Colorado assisted living facility license suspended.

Explanation: Colorado officials have suspended the license of an assisted living facility following a series of complaints.

Pueblo, Colorado, Health, General News, Assisted living

The Pueblo Chieftain reports the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment suspended the operation of Johnson Home in Pueblo on Aug. 6. The agency is moving toward revoking the license for the 19-bed home. The state alleges 14 deficiencies including failing to meet the needs of two residents suffering from severe mental illness. One resident started fires and the other assaulted other residents. Colorado officials say as a result, the facility’s operators failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment for all 19 residents. A message left at the facility Saturday wasn’t immediately returned. ___ Information from: The Pueblo Chieftain, http://www.chieftain.com


Republicans “have shown themselves willing to cut millions off their health insurance and eliminate preexisting condition protections for millions more, even in the middle of this public health crisis.

Explanation: The White House and congressional Republicans have maintained support for a lawsuit that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act ― the law that prohibits charging people more for health coverage because of preexisting conditions and that extended insurance to millions of previously uninsured Americans. Striking down the ACA would make people even more vulnerable to COVID-19 harm, experts say, citing potential medical and financial damage.

Health Care, Public Health, Health Check, Coronavirus, Barack Obama,

Endorsing his former vice president, Joe Biden, to win the White House, former President Barack Obama sought to contrast the 2020 platforms of Democrats and Republicans on a critical plank: their stance on the Affordable Care Act. It’s a difference, he argued, that has assumed newfound urgency. "The Republicans occupying the White House and running the Senate … have shown themselves willing to cut millions off their health insurance and eliminate preexisting condition protections for millions more, even in the middle of this public health crisis," Obama said. Obama was referring to a couple of GOP policies, the former president’s senior adviser Eric Schultz told KHN. The first: a pending Supreme Court case, Texas v. Azar, in which the Trump administration has argued the 2010 health law should be struck down. Schultz also highlighted the White House’s refusal to provide a special open enrollment period for the ACA health exchanges in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. We’ve previously checked claims about President Donald Trump’s stance on the law’s preexisting condition protections — arguably its most popular component ― and his position on the Texas v. Azar lawsuit. But COVID-19 adds new relevance, because of both the virus’s devastating health implications and bludgeoning impact on the American economy. Indeed, the Trump administration’s handling of the virus crisis is shaping up to be a defining issue in the run-up to November. Meanwhile, Biden made the health care law a signature component of his presidential platform and has been a vocal critic of the administration’s pandemic response. With that in mind, we decided to take another look. Obama is correct: The Republican Party has opposed the ACA for years. In 2016, then-candidate Trump campaigned on its repeal. Since then, the White House and congressional Republicans have pursued an agenda that would dismantle the law’s preexisting condition protections. Republicans haven’t united behind an alternative plan, either. First: the lawsuit. Texas v. Azar stems from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That measure took the teeth out of the health law’s individual mandate, which required that all Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty. The tax law, pushed by Republicans and signed by Trump, set that penalty to $0. A collection of Republican states’ attorneys general now argue that, without the penalty, the rest of the health law doesn’t work and should be struck down. Killing the ACA would eliminate the stipulation that insurance plans cannot charge people more if they have a preexisting condition, get rid of the subsidies it provides for people to buy insurance on the exchanges and gut the Medicaid expansion that, in six years, directly extended coverage to more than 13 million people. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, although it won’t rule until after the November election. The Trump administration, while technically in the position that would defend the law in court, has declined to support it — a move legal experts say is almost unprecedented. In fact, the administration has even sided with the states arguing that it should be struck down. Neither the White House nor Senate Republicans have put forth a replacement bill that would maintain the ACA’s protections in the event the high court rules against the law. We asked the White House if the administration had changed its stance in the wake of the pandemic. Trump’s staff redirected us to the Justice Department, the federal government’s legal arm. The department did not respond to emailed requests for comment. As recently as the end of March, though, Trump told reporters he still wanted the law "terminated." Senate Democrats have pushed the administration to change its position on the lawsuit. But Republicans, who hold the Senate majority, have been silent, a position that hasn’t changed even since COVID-19 effectively shut down large swaths of the country. In some ways, the Republican stance isn’t important, argued Thomas Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank. It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court voting to get rid of the health law, especially in the midst of COVID-19, he said. Still, that doesn’t change the facts of what Trump is arguing. And the lawsuit is also only one part of the equation. Another, is healthcare.gov. Americans who have lost their jobs ― and, often, the insurance that came with it — are eligible to buy insurance on the federal exchange, since job loss is a "qualifying life event" that gets you special access. Those who otherwise lack coverage would normally have to wait until the regular open enrollment period, which takes place at the end of the year. But the threat of COVID-19 has changed the risk for many of these potential shoppers. In response, 11 states have independently reopened their state-run health exchanges for a special sign-up period. But the administration has declined to take such steps for the national marketplace. "If you have been uninsured and picked up your newspaper, or turned on your news and realized your health was in much greater risk than you had anticipated, and would like to rush and get health insurance in case you end up on a ventilator ― you’re out of luck," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization. Even before coronavirus, the institute estimated that 32 million Americans were uninsured. About 20 million of them could benefit from a special enrollment period, Blumberg said. Without insurance, coronavirus treatment poses not just a health risk, but also a financial one. The Trump administration has said it will pay hospitals directly, out of a pool of $100 billion, to cover the cost of treating uninsured people with COVD-19. After treating patients, hospitals would get paid at the Medicare rate. But the administration’s policy extends only to covering COVID-19 treatment. Uninsured people with underlying chronic conditions don’t have a way to pay for health care, noted Robert Berenson, another Urban Institute fellow. If left untreated, those chronic ailments make COVID-19 far more dangerous than it would be for someone able to get preventive treatment earlier on. President Trump’s stance raises another question, experts noted. Without the ACA, what kind of impact would COVID-19 have? Even with the heath law intact, many Americans won’t be able to find affordable health insurance. That particularly applies to people who can’t afford the premiums on the individual marketplace, don’t qualify for federal subsidies or live in one of the 14 states that didn’t opt into the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provision. And the ACA is nowhere near sufficient on its own, Miller noted. Having insurance is part of the picture, but it doesn’t guarantee access to testing or that a hospital will be able to treat you. "On the margins, it does help a little bit to have insurance coverage, but the problem is so much larger than that," Miller argued. Still, without the health law, the virus’s impact would be "catastrophic," said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Striking the individual marketplace and Medicaid expansion would leave almost another 20 million people uninsured — "at risk for not only illness from COVID-19, but also massive medical bills," said Larry Levitt, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) Without the ACA, COVID-19 could be considered a preexisting condition. Insurance companies could charge more to cover people who have previously contracted the virus (assuming, of course, those people can get tested and recorded as having had COVID-19). Plus, emerging evidence suggests severe cases of COVID-19 may leave lingering health consequences, that even after recovery would require ongoing medical care, Levitt said. "The ACA’s consumer protections ensure that persons with COVID-19 can obtain insurance without fear of being turned away or charged exorbitant premiums because of their preexisting condition," Oberlander said. The health law also imposed strict regulations over what insurance must cover. Without those regulations, plans could ― and likely would — revert to skimpier coverage, Blumberg said. That, she said, means plans that perhaps don’t cover ventilators or branded medicines, or that cap how many days of hospital care they’ll cover, or that require people to pay much more out-of-pocket. "Insurers, given the legal ability to do it, would limit their legal liability and protect themselves from high claims," she said. "They did it before and will do it again." Obama accused the Trump administration and Senate Republicans of being "willing to cut millions off their health insurance and eliminate preexisting condition protections for millions more, even in the middle of this public health crisis." Evidence indicates that this is an apt characterization. None have put forth a plan that would maintain coverage or consumer protections ― policies that benefit millions of Americans — if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA. And as Obama asserts, striking down the law without an equivalent replacement could be devastating, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.


The American ambassador in Libya was raped and murdered during an attack on the U.S. Consulate.

Explanation: As of this writing, the U.S. government has still not released any post-mortem information documenting the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ death.

Examples:[Collected via e-mail, September 2012]  The American Ambassador in Libya was sexually raped before being killed, the American press has not said anything yet. Very disturbing and explicits pictures that have not been shown in the US. The American Ambassador in Libya was sexually raped before being killed, the American press has not said anything yet. The news has jumped in some Lebanese ultra left blogs. The perpetrators of the massacre at the American Embassy in Libya savagely tortured the American Ambassador, Chris Stevens, violated sexually, before killing him. They then had a festive dance of death, swinging the corpse from one side to another. Written by a cousin of Ambassador Stevens, a US Navy Chaplain, Senior Pastor Ret’d Here is my story. A week out the Embassy in Tripoli began receiving multiple tips about an Al Queda cell in the area planning an attack on 9/11 in response to the killing of Bin Laden. For the next several days, the state dept and WH were asked for a security force and were denied at least six times. Ambassador Stevens and his team were given the all clear that the Consulate in Benghazi was safe and there was no need for a security force other than his 3 personal guards (one being my cousin) and a few Libyans who were not armed. Then the attack and murders occurred. Immediately the WH claimed it was a protest gone bad over a you tube video. Obama made a quick speech in the Rose Garden on Sept.12 before catching a plane to Vegas to campaign. He made a generic statement at the end of his speech after placing the blame on an overheated protest over the video. He said “No act of terror will shake the resolve of America. Later that day and over the next 2 days, the liberal media began saying Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 men died of smoke inhalation. This was not the case. Out of respect for my cousin, I’m not going to be specific about his murder. However Ambassador Stevens was brutally murdered. His genitals were cut off, he was sodomized and beaten and cut and stabbed and burned. He was drug thru the streets and left for dead. This is eyewitness testimony of a local Dr. who found the Ambassador in a ditch and tried to save his life. He had no idea who he was. The other 3 men, including my cousin, met similar fates. And deaths due to smoke inhalation is a 100% fabricated LIE. The next week I drove my aunt and Uncle and 2 others to DC to receive his body. We met with Hillary, Panetta, and Susan Rice. ALL of whom apologized and said it was a protest gone bad over a video and exited the area. Next, Obama entered with the same story and didn’t apologize and wasn’t sympathetic. My aunt cried to this man and all he did was hand her flowers and walk away. I tried to get his attention, but didn’t. I got upset and yelled liar to him, he kept walking. Then a secret service agent grabbed my arm and led me to a room where I was held till the proceedings were over. America, I saw firsthand how cold this man is. What kind of liar he is. Most of you haven’t a clue about this tyrant and yet you support him. And act like every word he says is Gospel. These murders and the fast and furious cover ups make Watergate look like a kid who told his bff’s secret to the class. Dr. Charles R. Roots Senior Pastor         Former Staff Sergeant, USMC Captain,         U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret.) In September 2012, Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans were killed when a mob armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades overwhelmed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and set fire to it. Ambassador Stevens died in the attack, becoming the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979. Shortly afterwards, the Lebanese news site Tayyar.org reproduced an Agence France Presse (AFP) account of the attack and included a paragraph stating that Ambassador Stevens had been raped and killed by gunmen and his body has been dragged through the streets:  Sources said that “the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad,” The sources told AFP that the “Ambassador was killed and his body displayed in a manner similar to what happened when Gaddafi was killed.”  An image was also circulated which was purportedly taken from a television news report and is said to show Ambassador Stevens in the hands of his killers:  AFP said in response to the Tayyar report that:  Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing. U.S. news accounts reported that Ambassador Stevens was not raped and killed by members of that mob, as claimed above: he was alive when brought to a hospital, he bore no external injuries, and he died of smoke inhalation from the fire started in the attack on the consulate:  The ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, was missing almost immediately after the start of an intense, four-hour firefight for control of the mission, and his body was not located until [the following] morning at dawn, when he was found dead at a Benghazi hospital. Within 15 minutes the militants had gained access to the compound “and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard and our mission security personnel responded,” [a U.S.] official said. Three people, including Stevens, a security officer, and information management officer Sean Smith, were in the building, the official said, asking not to be identified. They became separated due to the heavy smoke. “The regional security officer made it outside, and then he and other security personnel returned into the burning building in an attempt to rescue Chris and Sean.” “Security personnel were endeavoring to get him out of the building when they got separated by the incredibly thick smoke and fire,” the official said, adding that photos from the incident gave “some sense of how awful the conditions were.” “And they then turned right back, and got more help, and went back in to look for him. So this was really quite an heroic effort.” The team found Smith’s body, but could not find the ambassador, and were driven back out of the building by the smoke and heavy arms fire. Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said Stevens and other officials were moved to a second building — deemed safer — after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack. A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke. In a sign of the chaos of during the attack, Stevens was brought alone by Libyans to the Benghazi Medical Center with no other Americans, and no one at the facility knew who he was, the doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, told The Associated Press. Stevens was practically dead when he arrived close to 1 a.m., but “we tried to revive him for an hour and a half but with no success,” Abu Zeid said. The ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries, he said. CNN obtained a video which, contrary to accounts that Ambassador Stevens was murdered by the U.S. consulate’s attackers, is said to show a group of Libyans attempting to rescue a still-alive Stevens from the burned-out consulate building:   The chaos is palpable, as a throng of Libyans frantically scramble outside a damaged building. Suddenly, a man’s body is carried from inside toward an open window — and the frenzy and sounds become even more urgent, more emotional. “Get him out!” some yell. After joyfully discovering the man — a foreigner, apparently, a voice in the crowd says — is alive after he’s dragged out, fresh screams ring out. “Allahu Akbar,” which translates from Arabic to “God is great,” men in the crowd shout. Others raise fists to the sky, seemingly rejoicing that this man has somehow survived. According to the man who shot the video, the wounded man shown is Chris Stevens, the late U.S. ambassador to Libya. If true, the grainy images show some of his last moments alive. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland acknowledged the video, even as she stressed it’s not clear “whether or not it’s authentic, whether or not it is an accurate representation of what happened, whether or not it’s Ambassador Stevens.” The man who shot the aforementioned video, Fahed al-Bakush, told CNN he’d arrived shortly before midnight to find the consulate cafeteria building up in flames. The smoke was so thick, he said, that you could barely see the consulate’s main building. Yet the video shows lots of activity, especially near an open window. People clambered in and out of it, aided by small flashlights and each other. Eventually, the wounded man was carried out. Afterward, he’s pictured on the ground in what appears to be a shirt and dark pants. “He had a pulse and his eyes were moving,” al-Bakush said of the man he said is Stevens. “His mouth was black from all the smoke.” With the man now outside, some yelled out, “Carry him,” and others said, “We need to take him … to the hospital.” A later photo, also seen online, showed the wounded man being put on another man’s shoulder and whisked away. The circumstances of Ambassador Stevens’ death are still under investigation:  The FBI has now opened an inquiry into the attack and the circumstances of the deaths of the three who were killed. “We are not clear on the circumstances between the time when [the ambassador] got separated from the rest of the group inside the burning building to the time that we were notified that he was in a Benghazi hospital,” [a U.S.] official said. An autopsy will now be carried out to determine the cause of death.


Roe v. Wade was passed only because Roe lied about being raped.

Q: Was the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade made because Jane Roe said she was raped? A: No. “Jane Roe” falsely claimed she was gang raped, but that accusation was not a factor in the court ruling. A viral video is circulating online framed by text that says: “Did you know Roe v. Wade was passed only because Roe lied about being raped?” That’s not true.Rape played no part in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the case that made access to abortion legal across the country. Rather, the court ruled, in a 7-2 opinion, that women had a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy.In fact, the court’s decision didn’t mention the circumstances that led to the plaintiff’s pregnancy at all. It just said: “Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion ‘performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions’; that she was unable to get a ‘legal’ abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.”The woman who brought the case in 1970 under the pseudonym Jane Roe was Norma McCorvey, who had been living in Dallas County, Texas. It is true that in seeking an abortion in Texas she had initially claimed to have been gang raped and then, in a 1987 interview, McCorvey said that she had lied about the rape.“I found out I was pregnant through what I thought was love,” McCorvey said during the interview with journalist Carl Rowan in a documentary series called “Searching For Justice: Three American Stories.” McCorvey had hoped that by claiming she was raped, she’d be able to get around the Texas ban on abortion, which included an exception if the mother’s life were in danger, according to an interview with Rowan by the New York Times in 1987.But McCorvey never ended up getting an abortion. Her baby was born before the Supreme Court’s decision came down, and she gave up the child for adoption, according to testimony she gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005.One of the lawyers who represented McCorvey at the Supreme Court, Sarah Weddington, said in a statement shortly before the 1987 documentary aired that during the case she never “touched the issue of rape and only emphasized the question of whether the Constitution gives to the state or leaves to a woman the questions of what she can or must do with her body.”So, while it’s true that McCorvey had first claimed to have been raped and later recanted, it is not true that the claim had any bearing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on the social media network.Robichaud, Paul. Video — “Did you know that Roe vs Wade only was passed because Roe lied about being raped?” Facebook.com. 9 Oct 2018.Roe v. Wade. No. 70-18. Supreme Court of the U.S. 22 Jan 1973.Rowan, Carl. “Searching For Justice: Three American Stories.” Gannett. 1987.Noble, Kenneth. “Key Abortion Plaintiff Now Denies She Was Raped.” The New York Times. 9 Sept 1987.McCorvey, Norma. “TESTIMONY OF NORMA MCCORVEY, THE FORMER ROE OF ROE v. WADE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.” Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 23 Jun 2005.


After passing a bill to make consuming raw milk legal in the state, several members of the West Virginia legislature fell ill due to drinking raw milk to celebrate the bill becoming law.

Explanation: Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has only managed to curb the supply of methamphetamines by less than 1% of annual consumption, proof that it has been a bloody failure, his main political rival, the vice president, said on Monday.

Thousands of suspected drug traffickers and users have been killed in the campaign that Duterte launched soon after he won election in 2016. Vice President Leni Robredo, who was elected separately to the president, and recently served a brief stint as the president’s drug “tsar”, said vast quantities of the highly addictive drug were available because seizures had barely dented the supply. “It is very clear, based on official data, despite the number of Filipinos killed and the budget spent, the volume of shabu supply curbed didn’t exceed 1%,” Robredo told a news conference, referring to methamphetamines. Robredo, a former human rights lawyer, has long been a critic of Duterte’s flagship anti-drugs campaign, the main focus of which has been methamphetamines. Citing police data, she said annual seizures of the drug in the last three years were in a range of about 1,000 kg, compared with estimated consumption of 3,000 kg a week, which translates to 156 tonnes a year, worth about 1.3 trillion pesos ($25 billion). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimated the Asia-Pacific methamphetamine trade was worth as much as $61.4 billion in 2018, up from an estimated $15 billion just five years earlier. Duterte appointed Robredo his “drugs tsar” on Nov. 5 after the opposition leader, in a Reuters interview and subsequent public appearances, expressed alarm about the death toll in the anti-narcotics campaign and said it needed a fresh approach. But 18 days later Duterte fired her after she had exposed flaws in the campaign. Robredo said the government must change its strategy and halt police anti-drug operations. “Instead of chasing or killing drug peddlers in street corners, we need to pursue the source of drugs, the big suppliers. They are the real enemy, not the ordinary people,” Robredo said. Responding to Robredo’s comments, presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo, said her stint as the president’s top anti-drugs official had been a failure. “The fact remains that we have dismantled so many illegal drug factories ... caused the surrender of thousands of drug addicts and pushers ... and neutralized high-value drug suspects,” Panelo said.


Women with Stage 4 breast cancer survive longer if they have surgery, study shows

Explanation: This story is about a large retrospective study that was published this week in the journal JAMA Surgery. The research suggests women who opted for surgery to treat their breast cancer had better survival rates than those who didn’t, even though the number of surgeries has plunged from 1988 to 2011. This Washington Post report does many things well: It quantifies the benefits of breast surgery in absolute terms, points out the study’s limitations and doesn’t make sweeping recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the story uses cautionary language, making readers really question whether surgery is the better option for stage 4 breast cancer patients. It also incorporates two independent sources who provide some critical perspectives, such as the two other small studies that showed no correlation between surgery and survival in this group of women. We would have liked to have seen more discussion on the harms of breast surgeries, as well as the existing therapies for breast cancer patients. And we would have liked for the report to have pointed out that usually younger women underwent surgery in the study, which may have affected the results. Overall, however, the Washington Post puts forth a thorough, nuanced story based on the latest findings. Though current screening recommendations for breast cancer are intended to identify cancers at an earlier, more curable stage of disease, women still present with metastatic disease (cancer that has spread to other parts of the body). This can occur because of not having screening or not having it regularly enough, or it may relate to aggressive disease that develops and metastasizes prior to it being detected on standard imaging tests. For those women with metastatic disease, particularly younger ones, cure and thus long-term survival is uncommon. The question addressed in this story is whether the addition of surgery to standard aggressive therapy – generally chemotherapy and radiation treatment – leads to longer survival. The story does a good job of describing the benefit seen in this retrospective study as well as highlighting its limitations. Specifically, there is no evidence from higher quality, prospective studies that surgery provides additional survival benefit. Clearly such studies are needed and the article suggests that such studies are currently underway. The challenge is what to recommend for women who currently face this treatment decision. The simple answer is that we don’t really know and the article does a good job of not overselling surgery based upon the results of this study.

The cost of breast surgery in the US varies widely depending on the type, hospital and region, and so we acknowledge that it would have been difficult to provide solid numbers here. Nevertheless, we feel that cost remains relevant for this piece. This study basically argues that surgery plus other aggressive non-surgical treatment vs. non-surgical treatment alone may lead to longer survival. Since this isn’t proven, one could reasonably ask about the costs of these two approaches. This may be analogous to the prior use of autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in women with metastatic breast cancer. The high cost of this treatment led to fights with insurers over coverage and finally to a randomized trial that showed no benefit. We don’t do autologous BMT anymore. Could a similar scenario play out here? The question seems worth asking and addressing. The Washington Post story quantifies the potential benefits of surgery, detailing that women who underwent breast surgery had better survival rates than those that didn’t (median of 28 months versus 19 months). Despite the better outcomes, the article adds the number of surgeries dropped from 67.8 percent in 1998 to 25.1 percent in 2011, which it describes as an “intriguing question” about that approach. Furthermore, the story is quick to point out early in the story that surgery may not be the right option for all women and “may be better for some women than it was in 1995.” We applaud the fact that the benefits are reported in absolute terms and in a more cautionary manner, which is why we give it a Satisfactory rating here. Breast surgery can lead to complications, such as bleeding and infection, like any major surgery. Patients usually choose between breast-sparing surgery (surgery that takes out the cancer and leaves most of the breast) and a mastectomy (surgery that removes the whole breast). According to cancer.gov, mastectomies can affect a woman’s psychological well-being due to a change in body image and the loss of normal breast functions. Furthermore, women undergoing total mastectomies lose nipple sensation, which may impede sexual arousal. Other breast surgeries could lead to sudden drops in estrogen production, which could induce early menopause in premenopausal women. Since harms are not addressed, we give it a Not Satisfactory rating here. The evaluation of evidence was excellent in this Washington Post story, as it pointed out the limitations to the study and described other studies that had not reported the same results. For example, the story explains the limitations of retrospective data, which look back on patients’ treatments. Since the motivations behind therapy decisions are unknown, the conclusions could be rendered unreliable for clinical decision-making, the article says. Another limitation was the over-representation of Africa-American women in the study. It also details two prospective studies that found no survival difference among women with stage 4 breast cancer. One limitation that was overlooked, however, was that usually younger women underwent surgery, which may have also confounded the results. And according to the original research report, age (younger than 45 years) was an independent predictor of prolonged survival. The story also describes and quantifies the research, mentioning the study looked at 21,372 women with stage 4 breast cancer from 1988 to 2011. Lastly, we applaud the story’s use of cautionary language. The report doesn’t jump to premature conclusions or make recommendations based on this one JAMA Surgery study, One of the sources says, “It’s premature to suggest… that removing the breast will help them live longer in the face of stage 4 disease.” The article does not engage in disease mongering, although it could have been helpful to learn more about the prevalence of breast cancer in the US. The Washington Post report interviews two independent sources – the chief surgical oncologist at the University of Michigan and the medical director of a breast cancer center – and their comments bring a much needed critical perspective to the piece. No conflicts of interests are reported, both in the original research article and in the Washington Post story. The article hints at “more sophisticated treatments and better imaging techniques” that have developed over time, but it doesn’t explicit state what those are. We would have liked to have seen a sentence or two describing some existing breast cancer treatments, in the case the patient chooses not to opt for surgery. However, since the story mentions radiation as a possible therapy, we give it a Satisfactory rating here. The availability of risk-reducing  breast surgery is not in question, since it is not a new intervention. The article makes it clear that surgery is not a new intervention to treat breast cancer, stating that women and their clinicians have opted for surgery since at least 1988. The story doesn’t seem to be based on news releases we found online. The Washington Post article shows evidence of original reporting – shown by the comments from the two independent sources and two study authors – and also cites the JAMA Surgery paper.


Gone With A Shot? Hopeful New Signs Of Relief For Migraine Sufferers

Explanation: This highly readable first-person story by a writer who suffers from migraine headaches describes new antibody treatments that are under FDA review. The story effectively conveys the risks of trying monoclonal antibodies, describes how they work, and explains hurdles to getting them. Especially effective is a description of the litany of treatment approaches the writer has tried over the years, to little avail, and her quest to participate in clinical trials in pursuit of the “tantalizing reward of a migraine-free life.” The story is also open about costs and potential harms from the therapies. However, the story could have used more discussion of the evidence for these new therapies–what kind of trials have been conducted, and what are their limitations? What did the trials measure, exactly? Also, the optimistic tone of the headline and lead — which describes their “potential to turn migraine treatment on its head” — doesn’t hint at the cautions further down in the story. There is clearly a big need for effective new treatments for migraine. This story paints a clear picture of the history of past attempts, accidental discoveries, the range of symptoms that migraines present in different people, and the possibilities, costs, and potential long-term side effects of drugs now being tested.

The story says these treatments could cost “anywhere from $8,000 to $18,000 a year.” The story didn’t provide any sense of the scope of potential benefits seen in the trials so far. The story says only that “one injection appears to be effective for up to three months with almost no noticeable side effects.” Is this to suggest that everyone in the trials is getting relief for up to three months from one injection? It’s not clear. Initially the story says patients “report limited side effects that consist mostly of pain at the injection site. Unlike the current preventive medications, there is no nausea, no fuzzy thinking, no nerve pain, no weight loss or gain.” But it also notes a lack of long-term safety data and “potential long-term effects on blood pressure or other cardiovascular function” as well as potential effects on fertility or placental function. In the end, the reporter reflects on her own migraines and her own choices: “I think about my two young children and my risk tolerance. Perhaps in ten years I’ll feel differently. For now, however, I pick up the phone and cancel my clinical trial appointment.” We also like this cautionary sentence: “Right now, the longest patients have been on one of these new therapies is one to two years.” The story doesn’t give much data on the evidence backing these new treatments, except to say that the longest patients have been on them is “one to two years.” What type of trials have been conducted? How many patients were involved, and how severe or frequent were their headaches? How did the treatments stack up against placebos? Those are just some of the questions that would have been useful to explore. (And if the drug companies aren’t making this information public, that should be clear, too.) No disease mongering here. The story reports federal data that about 10 percent of men and 20 percent of women in the U.S. reported having a migraine in the last three months, and as many as 2 percent of Americans have at least 15 migraine days every month. “The toll such pain can take on health, morale, and productivity is substantial,” it says. Two physicians who don’t appear to have interests in promoting these treatments are quoted. The story gives plenty of details: A number of people prescribed medications for depression, high blood pressure and epilepsy discovered migraine relief, too. Now, many of those drugs, including propranolol and topiramate, have been tested and approved for migraine. But no one drug works for everyone, and side effects can prove intolerable or downright unpleasant. The writer also describes her own quest for relief: Since that day more than 17 years ago, I have tried six preventive prescription medications. Not one helped. I alternated among four different, neurologist-recommended supplements, all to no avail. I received bi-monthly injections of magnesium and participated in one of the first clinical trials of Botox. And while Botox seemed to decrease my migraines by one or two per month, it wasn’t enough to bother fighting about it with a new insurance company. I exercised regularly. I experimented with an elimination diet that left me eating nothing but broccoli and white rice, but still the migraines came. I averaged about 15 to 20 each month. The story makes it clear these injections aren’t available yet: Two manufacturers, Amgen (in collaboration with Novartis) and Teva Pharmaceuticals, have completed clinical trials and expect to hear from the FDA by June whether the therapies have been approved. Two more companies, Eli Lilly and Alder Biopharmaceuticals, plan to file for FDA approval later this year. It also cautions that their high cost means insurance companies might “require patients to have tried just about everything else first.” The lead states “there isn’t a drug on the market today that prevents (migraines) by targeting the underlying cause.” This story doesn’t rely on a news release.


Dubai displays tech reputation with global robotics contest.

Explanation: Seeking to bolster its image as a forward-looking metropolis, Dubai hosted the largest-ever international robotics contest this week, challenging young people from 190 countries to find solutions to global ocean pollution.

Dean Kamen, Dubai, AP Top News, United Arab Emirates, Technology, Middle East, Robotics, Oceans, Environment, Science, Artificial intelligence, General News, Pollution

Event organizers say their selection of Dubai as host reflects a vote of confidence that this oil-rich Emirati sheikhdom can be a global hub for innovation. They also expressed hope that bringing together tomorrow’s scientists and engineers will help develop technologies to solve the world’s most pressing issues, particularly those related to the environment. Dean Kamen, founder of FIRST Global Challenge, said the Middle East represents a part of the world where “the adults have not learned how to play nice with each other” and it was up to young people to fix humanity’s self-inflicted wounds. “We are in an accelerating race toward catastrophe, whether it’s global warning, melting of the (polar ice) caps, bird flu, terrorism — you name it, we’re worried about it. The solution to most of the world’s grand challenges depends on better technologies than we have today,” he said. “This globe of ours is on life support, so the thought is we get every kid in every country to focus on learning how to use technology, but focus on using it as a tool and not a weapon,” he explained. The unofficial “Robotics Olympics” seeks to encourage young people to pursue subjects known as STEM — science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Teams of four to five students, aged 14-18, each received a kit of rods, wheels, wires and other raw materials with which to assemble their roving robots. Their task: Collect orange balls of various sizes from a playing field, which represented human-created pollutants in the ocean. Some devised robots for scooping, while others snatched up and fired the balls through the air into the receptacles. The teams then formed “alliances,” each with up of four nations, to battle their way to the final round. Overall, 1,500 students took part. A team captained by Belarus, and including Syrian refugees, eventually won the gold medal, edging out a team captained by Israel in a dramatic final match. But organizers stressed a message of unity, not conflict. “The kids get it. To them this isn’t a competition; this is a ‘coop-etition.’ This is a celebration of technology,” said Kamen. Previous events tackled challenges related to clean water access and sustainable energy. Robotics is a natural fit for Dubai, a city that’s already testing driverless cars and taxis. It’s become a magnet for international entrepreneurs, with an entire zone called “Internet City” that’s packed with high-tech startups. Next October, Dubai will host the Expo 2020, welcoming technological breakthroughs from around the world. “If we are to become the city of the future, we need to have the right talent from around the world,” said Omar Al-Olama, the 29-year-old Emirati Minister of Artificial Intelligence, the world’s first such minister. “Artificial intelligence is based on data. Data is what drives all these new technologies. We have the holy grail of data. We have 200 nationalities represented in this country.” FedEx recently announced Dubai would become the first city outside the U.S. to test Roxo, an autonomous delivery device that can travel on sidewalks and even unpaved surfaces. Roxo made its debut international appearance at this week’s robotics contest, drawing the interest of the tech-savvy teens hailing from places as diverse as Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. They mingled in Dubai’s Festival City, exchanging experiences and forming friendships while talking shop about their gadgets. “We didn’t do so well in the matches because we had a lot of trouble with the control hub, but it doesn’t matter, we had a lot of fun,” said Stefan Sijbesma, 17, from the Netherlands. “For me, robotics is really important because it really helped me choose what I want to study and what I want to do with my life.” The three-day tournament had a festival-like atmosphere to it, with announcers and commentators analyzing the action in sports-broadcast style and fans waving flags and banners supporting their teams. The pavilion floor was filled with facts about the millions of tons of pollutants threatening the world’s oceans, and featured slogans such as “united by land, connected by oceans” and “together we turn the tide on pollution.” As the nail-biting results were being announced, the Israelis huddled with their Ugandan teammates before embracing the winning team in a feel-good ending. “I can’t believe it, it’s a miracle,” said Yamen Najjar, manager of Team Hope, which represents the Syrian refugees and was part of the winning alliance. “It was a very difficult competition for us, we faced a lot of problems, but we didn’t lose hope.” Outgoing U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who’d made the original announcement that Dubai would host the event earlier this year in a surprise visit to the World Government Summit, was on hand. Perry said he’s followed the robotics tournaments since 2002 when, as governor of Texas, he attended one of the regional competitions in Houston and was “blown away” by the passions and abilities of the young contestants. But he said he found their camaraderie even more impressive. “It is stunning what these young people are doing,” Perry said. “Where the adults may have failed in the standpoint of international diplomacy, these young people may accomplish, and if that’s the case maybe that is the most important thing that comes out of this.” ____ Follow Aron Heller at www.twitter.com/aronhellerap


Pepsi admitted that Aquafina is just tap water.

Explanation: What's true: Pepsi updated the label on Aquafina in 2007 to clarify that the water came from a "public water source." What's false: This announcement was made in 2007 (not 2019); the water used in Aquafina goes through a purification process before it gets bottled; Aquafina isn't the only bottled-water product to use a public water source.

Articles claiming that Pepsi “just admitted” its brand of bottled water, Aquafina, was “plain old tap water” have been circulating on social media for several years. In 2015, for instance, the website True Activist published the following passage:  In a shocking reveal, the Pepsi corporation admitted that its Aquafina bottled water is not purified water or spring water, but simply plain old tap water. The company will now be forced to change the labeling of the brand to reflect that it is just tap water. Several other websites have published similar articles. In September 2019, more than four years after the True Activist article was published, the Yucatan Times wrote that Pepsi had “just admitted that the water they are using is just tap water.” While these articles are based on a genuine news report, they are also outdated and exaggerated. These articles are referring to a 2007 decision by PepsiCo Inc. to amend the label on bottles of Aquafina to clarify that the water came from a “public water source.” Reuters reported at the time: PepsiCo Inc. will spell out that its Aquafina bottled water is made with tap water, a concession to the growing environmental and political opposition to the bottled water industry. According to Corporate Accountability International, a U.S. watchdog group, the world’s No. 2 beverage company will include the words “Public Water Source” on Aquafina labels. “If this helps clarify the fact that the water originates from public sources, then it’s a reasonable thing to do,” said Michelle Naughton, a Pepsi-Cola North America spokeswoman. While the water used in Aquafina products comes from public water sources, that does not mean it is “just tap water.” Before this tap water is bottled, it goes through various filtration and purification processes. In other words, Aquafina isn’t simply turning on the faucet and filling up bottles. The Aquafina website provides a little insight into how its water is purified: Aquafina originates from public water sources and is then purified through a rigorous purification process. This purification process includes reverse osmosis and other filtering and purification methods. It removes things like chlorides, salts and other substances that can affect a water’s taste. Every bottle of Aquafina is produced at one of our water purification centers. That’s how you know you’re getting pure water and perfect taste consistently every time you open an Aquafina. Anytime, anywhere. It should also be noted that it isn’t uncommon for bottled-water companies to use public water sources. Dasani, for instance, the bottled water produced by the Coca-Cola Company, also uses public water sources: To create DASANI® water, we start with the local water supply, which is then filtered for purity using a state-of-the-art process called reverse osmosis. Afterwards, we add a special blend of minerals for that pure, crisp, fresh taste. A 2015 article from Mother Jones reported that 45% of bottled water in the United States originates with the municipal water supply. The other 55% comes from spring water: The details of where and how bottling companies get their water are often quite murky, but generally speaking, bottled water falls into two categories. The first is “spring water,” or groundwater that’s collected, according to the EPA, “at the point where water flows naturally to the earth’s surface or from a borehole that taps into the underground source.” About 55 percent of bottled water in the United States is spring water, including Crystal Geyser and Arrowhead. The other 45 percent comes from the municipal water supply, meaning that companies, including Aquafina and Dasani, simply treat tap water — the same stuff that comes out of your faucet at home — and bottle it up. (Weird, right?) To sum up: The water used in many bottled-water products, including Aquafina, comes from a public water source. This water then undergoes various filtration and purification processes before it is bottled and sold.


Explanation: Urinary incontinence is a significant health problem that is frequently unrecognized or untreated in many older adults. While the prevalence of incontinence increases with age this does not mean it is part of the normal aging process and many older adults may be unaware that it is a treatable condition. There is good quality evidence that behavior and lifestyle modification, some medications, and/or surgery can improve or resolve urinary incontinence. In 2001, the FDA approved the InterStim sacral nerve stimulation system for the treatment of urge incontinence. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for urge incontinence appears adequate to support the use of this procedure, however patient selection is important. The diagnosis should be defined as clearly as possible and the procedure limited to patients who have not responded to conservative treatments. The story refers to a review that found 4 randomized, controlled trials of the device. The story could have provided more detail about the strength of these studies and pointed out the limitations on the current evidence, such as the small sample sizes, limited follow up time and whether these studies were funded by the device manufacturer. However, the story fell short in quantifying the benefits of treatment. The story provides some quantification of benefits of the device but leaves many questions unanswered. The story states that 80% of the patients experienced at least a 50% improvement in symptoms with the device. Compared to how many with conventional treatment? What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured?

The story mentions the cost of the device. The story provides some quantification of benefits of the device but leaves many questions unanswered. The story states that 80% of the patients experienced at least a 50% improvement in symptoms with the device. Compared to how many with conventional treatment? What does an "improvement" mean? In what symptoms? How was improvement measured? The story mentions re-operation due to infection and pain, mechanical failures and discomfort as harms of the implanted device. The story refers to a review that found 4 randomized, controlled trials of the device. The story could have provided more detail about the strength of these studies and pointed out the limitations on the current evidence, such as the small sample sizes, limited follow up time and the fact that many of the studies were industry sponsored. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes multiple experts. The story points out that one of the experts is a researcher on a Medtronic-sponsored trial of the device but does not mention any conflicts for the other experts, leaving the reader questioning the validity of some of their statements. The story mentions exercises, biofeedback and medications as alternatives to the device, and is careful to point out that these should be considered first-line treatment options before the device is considered. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of the alternatives. Clearly the device is available, but it is not clear how widely and how many practitioners are trained in implanting the device. The story accurately represents the novelty of the device. Because the story quoted many experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.


Explanation: Might behavioral therapy help preschoolers diagnosed with ADHD improve their ability to learn and reduce problem behaviors? If it does, is an intensive, customized intervention more helpful than a simpler educational program? This brief article suggests the answers are yes and no. Using a reasonable range of sources, the story nicely sums up the new research and the problems faced by preschoolers with ADHD. The news story says ADHD may afflict a small portion of preschoolers (1% to 4%). But the wide net cast by the story’s diagnostic criteria could ensnare some innocent victims—“extreme symptoms when compared to youngsters of the same age,” including kids who don’t listen, who “drive their families crazy,” and who are injury-prone. Fortunately, a child psychiatrist cautions readers not to “jump on the bandwagon too quickly in making early diagnoses.” Mention of additional criteria–adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, for example–might help readers distinguish “extreme” from normal variations in behavior. (New Engl J Med 2005;352:165-73). The story neglects mention of cost or how readers might find professionals to implement the more-intensive program. It might also have provided more context on treatment harms and alternatives. Can behavioral therapy go wrong—and if it can, how might it harm a vulnerable preschooler? The article explains that the main treatment option, medication, is not yet approved for these youngsters. However, it fails to note that behavioral therapies have proven to be less effective as medications in older, school-age kids. (New Engl J Med 2005;352:165-73).

There is no mention of costs—an important omission, considering that there was no difference in outcome between the individualized treatment approach and a more standard educational format. The article explains that preschoolers showed about a 30% improvement in learning and problem behaviors regardless of which behavioral intervention they received. However, it does not provide an estimate of the absolute improvement. The article does not mention potential harms of behavioral treatment, though it does mention one harm associated with drug therapy. Taking parenting classes and learning skills to manage children with ADHD takes time. Do these interventions detract from the rest of the family or from other duties at home or work? Can behavioral therapy go wrong—and if it can, how might it harm a vulnerable preschooler? The news story appears to describe a randomized, controlled trial comparing parent-education classes alone to parent education plus individualized behavioral therapy directed by a clinician in both the home and classroom. “Surprisingly, both groups fared equally well,” according to the article. It does not mention potential biases. For example, might these families be self-selected with pre-existing notions about the effectiveness of behavioral therapy? The article also does not say whether researchers assessing the children were blinded to the intervention each child received. More description of the study’s methods and limitations would be helpful. The news story says ADHD may afflict a small portion of preschoolers (1% to 4%). But the wide net cast by the story’s diagnostic criteria could ensnare some innocent victims—“extreme symptoms when compared to youngsters of the same age,” including kids who don’t listen, who “drive their families crazy,” and who are injury-prone. Fortunately, a child psychiatrist cautions readers not to “jump on the bandwagon too quickly in making early diagnoses.” The short article cites four sources–two coauthors and two academics, one of whom cautions readers not to “jump on the bandwagon too quickly in making early diagnoses.” The story makes a brief mention of medications for ADHD, the mainstay treatment among school-age children. However, it fails to note that behavioral therapies have proven to be less effective than medications in this older group of youngsters. A sentence that placed the current study in the context of other research that has looked at behavioral therapy for children with ADHD would also be helpful. It is difficult to determine where parents would find the kind of customized behavioral therapy described in this article. More typically, psychologists or social workers working with school-age children provide community- or school-based educational programs that bring together teachers and parents over the course of 8 to 12 weeks. (Pediatrics 2001;108:1033-44) The article accurately suggests that the use of individualized, multifaceted behavioral therapies in preschoolers is relatively new. No obvious use of text from the Lehigh University press release.


Certain OTC, Less Expensive Hearing Aids Provide Benefit Similar to Conventional Hearing Aid

Explanation: This release by the Journal of the American Medical Association highlights a relatively small study that could snowball into better lives for tens of millions of people who struggle with hearing loss. The finding: Many personal sound amplification products, or PSAPs, which can be purchased over-the-counter, seem to perform nearly as well as much more expensive, medically prescribed hearing aids when it comes to understanding speech. While the release does discuss and compare costs — a frequently overlooked yet crucial issue, as we often bemoan here at HealthNewsReview.org — it whiffed on quantifying the benefits of using cheaper devices and discussing their harms. Hearing loss affects some 48 million Americans, but Medicare doesn’t cover hearing aids, which can cost thousands of dollars per ear — this despite the fact that people 65 and older are affected by hearing loss. If over-the-counter devices like PSAPs compare to the aid provided by much more expensive prescription hearing aids, then millions more people with hearing loss may be able to reap the benefits.

The cost of the prescription hearing aid used in the study is noted ($1,910), as is the cost range of five different PSAPs tested (ranging from $30 to $350). This release didn’t dive into the PSAP versus hearing aid benefit numbers and this was a missed opportunity. According to the full study, hearing aids alone improved speech recognition by 12 percent. Meanwhile, the three most expensive PSAPs (all more than $300) improved speech recognition by at least 10 percent. It would also have been helpful to point out that the least expensive PSAP ($30) actually worsened speech recognition by 11 percent. The news release should have mentioned the potential harms of these devices compared to hearing aids so people have the full picture when considering their potential. One problem is that less expensive PSAPs don’t selectively amplify speech, which could conceivably worsen hearing loss by blasting too loud and broad a range of sound. Readers are given the number of people who participated (42), along with a cautionary note that this low number is a limitation. That’s to the good. However, it would have been more helpful to characterize why that’s a limitation — i.e. such a small sample size is not likely to represent the tens of millions of people who struggle with hearing loss. It would also have been good to mention that these tests were done in a simulated, highly controlled setting, and in which a professional was around to help people wear PSAPs. In the real world, people may not correctly set up or wear a PSAP which could lower the cheaper device’s ability to improve speech understanding. We didn’t see anything alarming or overblown. The release asks the reader to see the study for “author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support,” which is better than nothing, yet doesn’t make it easy for readers to draw conclusions about any potential bias. The entire release is about an alternative comparison, which is refreshing. On the other hand, it is hard to compare alternatives in highly controlled settings. Real life is a lot different. Availability of both hearing aids (“through a licensed professional”) and PSAPs (“over-the-counter”) is clearly established. The novelty seems so obvious in hindsight, but it is clear: How do PSAPs really stack up against hearing aids? The answer is surprising and worthy of a release, even though the sample size was small and the methodology lacked some real-world challenges (e.g. putting on a PSAP correctly and properly adjusting it). We didn’t detect any words that hyped the results.


The FDA has admitted that most chicken meat sold in the U.S. contains   cancer-causing arsenic.

Explanation: FDA Admits Chicken Meat Contains Arsenic

This claim was mostly true in 2011, but it has been resolved. In 2011, the FDA carried out a study on the effect an animal drug called   Roxarson, or  3-Nitro, had on chicken meat. The FDA allowed poultry   producers to use the drug to prevent parasitic diseases in chickens, to   promote weight gain, and to improve the color of chicken meat. The FDA studied 100 boiler chickens to determine whether the use of   3-Nitro led to elevated levels of arsenic in chicken meat. According to   the  study, higher levels of inorganic arsenic were found in the   livers of chickens treated with 3-Nitro than in chickens that were not   treated:  Roxarsone and its metabolites were present in liver tissues from   	chicks fed roxarsone-medicated feed. The incurred levels of   	inorganic arsenic species were highly variable in treated chicks   	but appeared to be significantly greater than that in the untreated   	control birds. Withdrawal of the medicated feed led to a   	time-dependent decrease in various arsenic species, many of which   	were unidentified. Whether or not these unknowns could pose any   	toxicological risk will be dependent upon their subsequent   	identification and testing. The FDA first approved 3-Nitro for human consumption in 1944. Bernadette   Dunham, the director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine,  explained the purpose of the FDA’s review of the drug, and   the results of the study:  Over the past seven to eight years, published scientific reports   	indicated that organic arsenic can transform into inorganic arsenic   	in the environment. These reports caused FDA to question whether   	the organic arsenic that was present in animal drugs such as   	Roxarsone would also transform into inorganic arsenic when used in   	animals. We would like to stress that the levels of inorganic arsenic found   	in chicken livers are very low and represent a very low health risk   	to people who eat chicken. We would also like to stress that   	consumers can continue to eat chicken as 3-Nitro is suspended from   	the market. Furthermore, FDA does not believe there is a need to   	recall chicken already in commerce. FDA’s findings demonstrate a   	very low but avoidable public exposure to inorganic arsenic, a   	carcinogen. Then, in June of 2011, Pfizer  announced that it had voluntarily suspended the sale of   3-Nitro because of the FDA’s findings, which resolved the issue. However, the eRumor resurfaced as breaking news in early 2015. An   outdated  report claimed that the FDA had “just” admitted that 70% of   chicken meat sold in the U.S. contained arsenic:  So a few days ago when I turned on the tube and saw the news   	headlines stating that the FDA has finally confirmed that chicken   	meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, my head, and stomach, nearly   	hit the roof. This cancer-causing toxic chemical, that in high doses   	could kill you, is actually being added to chicken feed on   	purpose, giving store-bought chicken the illusion of healthy   	coloring and plump appearance. Shockingly, this is the case with   	more than 70 percent of all U.S. chickens! That is just awful! But while the eRumor’s claims about 3-Nitro are outdated, there are more   arsenic-based animal drugs that are approved for human consumption, the   FDA says:  3-Nitro (Roxarsone) was the first arsenic-based product approved for   	use in animal feed and is currently the most commonly   	used arsenic-based animal drug. Other arsenic-based drugs that are   	approved for use in food-producing animals (poultry and swine)   	include nitarsone, arsanilic acid, and carbarsone. Current data   	indicate that only the 3-Nitro and nitarsone products are being   	marketed. These drugs all have forms of organic arsenic–the form of   	arsenic that is less toxic and not carcinogenic–as their active   	ingredient. Comments


A TEDx speaker gave a talk that referred to pedophilia as an 'unchangeable sexual orientation.'

Explanation: In mid-July 2018, several websites were taken in by a viral hoax that reported pedophiles or “minor-attracted person” (MAPs) were attempting to join the LGBT community and had created their own Pride flag. The flag had in fact been created as part of a troll “experiment” on Tumblr.

On 5 May 2018, the University of Würzburg in Germany held an event with the theme of “Future Societys” [sic] that featured Mirjam Heine, a medical student who gave what would become a controversial presentation on the subject of “Why our perception of pedophilia has to change.” In her talk, Heine told the story of a 19-year-old Jonas, a Munich law student who is sexually attracted to girls aged six to 12 years old. “But since he’s aware of the consequences for the children, he has never given in to his sexual drive.” She cited the tenth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD 10) for the description of pedophilia as the “sexual preference for preadolescent children” and pointed to unspecified research that differentiates between child sexual abusers and pedophiles. Heine’s most controversial comments rocketed across the Internet when websites ran reports of them under headlines such as “TEDx Speaker: Pedophilia Is an Unchangeable Orientation,” which led some viewers to believe Heine had condoned “an illegal and harmful practice.”  Although Heine did make a comment about pedophilia’s being an “unchangeable sexual orientation,” it was offered in a fuller context which we’ve transcribed here: Let me very clear here. Abusing children is wrong without any doubt. But a pedophile who doesn’t abuse children has done nothing wrong. I want to quickly summarize where we are at the moment. According to current research, pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation, just like for example heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile. No one can cease being one. The difference between pedophilia and other sexual orientations is that living out this sexual orientation will end in a disaster. Pedophilia is not defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a sexual orientation: it is classified as a disorder in the fifth and most current revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5). Discussions that attempt to equate pedophilia with sexual orientation have been contentious, primarily because of the false belief that members of the LGBT community are predisposed to child molestation. Those who argue against civil rights for the LGBT community often cast those rights as a slippery slope to legalizing child sexual abuse or bestiality. TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) did not deny the controversial talk took place, but they noted in a 20 June 2018 statement that TEDx talks are “are organized independently from the main annual TED conference” and that the video had been removed at Heine’s request because “she had serious concerns about her own safety in its wake” and Heine cited “research in ways that are open to serious misinterpretation”: In the TEDx talk, a speaker described pedophilia as a condition some people are born with, and suggested that if we recognize it as such, we can do more to prevent those people from acting on their instincts. TEDx events are organized independently from the main annual TED conference, with some 3,500 events held every year in more than 100 countries. Our nonprofit TED organization does not control TEDx events’ content. This talk and its removal was recently brought to our attention. After reviewing the talk, we believe it cites research in ways that are open to serious misinterpretation. This led some viewers to interpret the talk as an argument in favor of an illegal and harmful practice. Furthermore, after contacting the organizer to understand why it had been taken down, we learned that the speaker herself requested it be removed from the internet because she had serious concerns about her own safety in its wake. Our policy is and always has been to remove speakers’ talks when they request we do so. That is why we support this TEDx organizer’s decision to respect this speaker’s wishes and keep the talk offline.


Photographs show a homeless shelter with painted social-distancing boxes in a Las Vegas parking lot.

Explanation: As NBC News reported, the bare concrete surface of the parking lot was used due to concerns about the use of carpeting and the unavailability of easily disinfected mats, another aspect of the situation that drove criticism:

In March 2020, when “social distancing” was the norm for dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, social media users began sharing — and questioning — photographs said to show boxes marked on an open air Las Vegas parking lot to indicate where homeless persons could sleep while maintaining proper social distance from each other:  Many viewers considered such pictures unbelievable (or heartless), especially given the large amount of vacant hotel rooms available in the city due to the cessation of nearly all tourist activities during the pandemic:  These photographs were real, however. On March 28, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County issued a joint news release in which they announced the creation of a temporary homeless shelter in the parking lot of the Cashman Center multi-use facility. That announcement was prompted by the temporary closure of an existing area homeless shelter after a homeless man who had used their services tested positive for the coronavirus: Due to the closure of Catholic Charities, the city of Las Vegas, Clark County and area homeless providers are setting up a temporary shelter for the homeless on the upper parking lot of the Cashman Center. The location will begin tonight and run until April 3. It is anticipated that the Catholic Charities homeless shelter in the Corridor of Hope will reopen in the meantime. This past week the Southern Nevada Health District announced that a homeless man tested positive for the Coronavirus (COVID-19). As a result, the shelter run by Catholic Charities closed temporarily. This meant about 500 individuals would have no overnight shelter. The county and city worked together to expand the Homeless Courtyard to accommodate the homeless along Foremaster Lane, and will do an additional expansion onto the Cashman site to allow for greater social distancing. The temporary shelter at Cashman will operate from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. It will be for homeless individuals who are able to walk to the site from the Courtyard. Those with fragile health or mobility problems will still be accommodated at the Courtyard. “This is an excellent example of the city, county and homeless providers coming together to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” said Ward 5 City Councilman Cedric Crear, who represents the area. “I want to thank the staff and volunteers who are making this happen during difficult times.” The city is reserving the building spaces at Cashman Center for potential hospital overflow should the community require it.


UN agency: Tanzania not sharing details on Ebola-like cases.

Explanation: The World Health Organization has issued an unusual statement raising questions about whether Tanzania is covering up possible cases of the deadly Ebola virus, a significant cause for concern during a regional outbreak that has been declared a rare global health emergency.

International News, Ebola virus, East Africa, Africa, Health, Tanzania, General News

The statement Saturday says Tanzania’s government “despite several requests” is refusing to share the results of its investigations into a number of patients with Ebola-like symptoms and is refusing to ship patient samples to an outside WHO partner lab. Tanzania’s government, which has said it has no Ebola cases, could not immediately be reached for comment Sunday. The cases would be the first-ever Ebola infections confirmed in the East African country. The United Nations health agency says it was made aware on Sept. 10 of the death in Tanzania’s commercial capital, Dar es Salaam, of a patient suspected to have Ebola. A day later, it received unofficial reports that an Ebola test had come back positive. On Thursday, it received unofficial reports that a contact of the patient, who had traveled widely in the country, was sick and hospitalized. A rapid response is crucial in containing Ebola, which can be fatal in up to 90% of cases and is most often spread by close contact with bodily fluids of people exhibiting symptoms or with contaminated objects. The WHO statement said the lack of information from Tanzania made it difficult to assess potential risks. The Ebola outbreak based in neighboring Congo has infected over 3,000 people and killed nearly 2,000 of them. A few cases have been confirmed in neighboring Uganda as well, and other neighboring countries have been preparing for the outbreak’s possible spread. This is not the first time health officials have raised serious questions about the suspected Tanzania cases. On Monday, the U.S. health and human services secretary, Alex Azar, told reporters in Uganda that he and others were “very concerned about the lack of transparency” in Tanzania. Critics have shown increasing alarm as Tanzanian President John Magufuli’s government has restricted access to key information and cracked down on perceived dissent. Lawmakers recently approved an amendment to a statistics law to make it a crime to distribute information not sanctioned by the government or which contradicts the government. The World Bank was among those expressing concern at that amendment. ___ Associated Press writer Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda contributed. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa