Pfizer: New cancer pill gives hope, new strategy

Explanation: The story paraphrases sources saying the approval of Xalkori (Pfizer’s brand name for a pill containing crizotinib) “proves the value of precisely targeting rare diseases linked to gene variants.” It is not clear if that phrase refers to the value for patients or company shareholders, because the next paragraph says this drug “epitomizes drugmakers’ new strategy of developing very expensive but effective medicines for relatively few patients to replace the blockbusters for the masses now getting competition from generic drugs.” This story would have been better if it had focused on how the FDA has decided to offer some novel combinations of tumor gene tests and therapies to selected patients based on suggestive results from small, preliminary trials, and then requiring applicants to complete conventional randomized controlled trials in order to keep the drug on the    market. It should also have given readers some of the context available in documents posted online by the FDA, Pfizer and other sources about the state of the science regarding this drug. On the plus side, the story makes clear that this drug is meant for a small and very specific group of patients. It also is clear about the high cost of the therapy. People with often-deadly diseases such as advanced lung cancer are hungry for new treatments. Journalists have a responsibility to put preliminary suggestions of progress toward new treatments in the proper context. In this case, the story should have been more clear about tentative nature of the evidence supporting use of a new drug in certain patients and that continued use all depends on the results of trials that are still underway.

The story clearly states near the top that this treatment is “very expensive.” It reports that crizotinib treatment costs about $9,600 per month and that patients may continue to be treated until the cancer resumes spreading. There is also a reference to an assistance plan offered by Pfizer. The story also reports that tumors “shrank or stopped growing in just over half of patients for nearly two years on average.” From this information, careful readers could calculate that the drug cost (not including associated medical care and tests) would routinely approach a quarter of a million dollars per patient. It would have been helpful if the story had provided this calculation. The story also reports that the test needed to identify appropriate patients costs $250. Readers of this story are likely to get an exaggerated sense of the benefits of this drug. As noted above, the preliminary trials completed so far did not produce evidence of improved outcomes or survival, nor did those trials include any comparison of the new treatment with existing alternatives. The story reports that “tumors disappeared, shrank or stopped growing in just over half of patients for nearly two years on average.” The drug label indicates that tumors “disappeared” in only three patients out of 255. The story reports on two patients who gave glowing reports of their responses, but there were no quotes from more typical patients who had limited, if any, responses or who endured serious side effects. The story then includes a reference to the short survival of typical lung cancer patients, without included the necessary caveat about the unreliability of such historical comparisons. The one-sided reporting provides an unbalanced view of the drug’s potential benefits. The story should have been clearer that the main reason this drug received conditional approval is that there is a reasonable likelihood of benefit; and that we won’t know if that benefit is real until the ongoing trials are completed. The story quotes sources claiming “You’re going to be sparing individuals side effects” and it describes Xalkori as “a pill with relatively minor side effects compared to the hair loss and nausea that chemotherapy can cause”. The drug label and FDA news release are less dismissive of the problems experienced by patients in the preliminary trials so far. While few trial participants reported symptoms severe enough to cause serious harm, hospitalization or symptoms so bad they couldn’t carry on routine activities, most of the patients did report problems with vision and more than half reported nausea, diarrhea, vomiting or other gastrointestinal symptoms, including some that may have required treatment. Treatment was interrupted in 36 percent of the patients in one of the trials and 45 percent of the patients in the other trial. Five percent of patients had neutropenia, abnormally low white blood cell counts. (See http://labeling.pfizer.com/showlabeling.aspx?id=676) The FDA news release included a list of side effects and warned of potentially life-threatening reactions. “The most common side effects reported in patients receiving Xalkori included vision disorders, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, swelling (edema), and constipation. Vision disorders included visual impairment, flashes of light, blurred vision, floaters, double vision, sensitivity to light, and visual field defects. Xalkori use has also been associated with inflammation of the lung tissue (pneumonitis), which can be life-threatening. Patients with treatment-related pneumonitis should permanently stop treatment with Xalkori. The drug should not be used in pregnant women.” (See http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm269856.htm) The story should have summarized these side effects and warnings. It should have also noted that since the trials reported by Pfizer included only 255 patients, little is known about the potential risk of rare, but serious, side effects. If only this story had been as straightforward as the drug label that starkly declares, “There are no data available demonstrating improvement in patient reported outcomes or survival with XALKORI.” (See http://labeling.pfizer.com/showlabeling.aspx?id=676) Instead, the story offers a murky statement that, “Research to determine overall survival is ongoing.” Deep in the story, readers are told that this drug approval is unusual because standard trials to compare the new treatment to conventional care have not been completed. However, the story does not report that only 255 patients were included in the trials. Readers are left to figure out on their own that there was no blinding or randomization done in the completed trials. The FDA news release offers information about the tentative nature of the evidence and an explanation that the drug was approved before convincing evidence of benefit was available only because these patients don’t have good treatment alternatives. (See http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm269856.htm) The story should have included this important context. The top of the story notes that this drug is intended for use in a small subset of lung cancer patients. Deeper in the story, readers are told that roughly 4 percent of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer have tumors with the gene variant that may respond to this drug, and it quotes a Pfizer company source as saying that about 6,000 Americans a year develop cancer fitting this definition. It would have been helpful for this story to include some estimate of the number of lung cancer patients who may be candidates for testing to see if their tumors have the relevant gene. While the story notes the conflicts of some sources, it appears that all the experts quoted were participants in a conference call arranged by Pfizer. The story appears to imply that standard treatments don’t work for patients with tumors that have this specific gene variant. However, cancer treatment statistics indicate that these patients are just as likely as other patients to respond to first-line treatment. The new drug is intended to be used when those standard treatments aren’t enough. Then the tumor gene test is needed, because giving this new drug does not appear to do any good for the overwhelming majority of patients, it is to be used only in that subset of patients with tumors that might be susceptible. Also, the story should have been clearer about explaining that neither of the preliminary trials included any comparison to standard treatment. The story is clear that crizotinib recently received FDA approval for use “along with a companion diagnostic test for just a small subset of lung cancer patients.” However, while the story refers to ongoing research, the actual status of the drug is not explained. The FDA approval letter warns that, “If postmarketing trials fail to verify that clinical benefit is conferred by XALKORI (crizotinib) Capsules, 200 mg and 250 mg, or are not conducted with due diligence, we may, following a hearing in accordance with 21 CFR 314.530(b), withdraw or modify approval.” Readers should have been clearly told that this drug is still very much on trial. Based on this story, readers may believe that this drug is the first of its kind. However, the FDA news release says the gene test is the truly novel part of the combination approved and the release goes on to point out, “It is the second such targeted therapy approved by the FDA this year.” Nevertheless, the approach taken with this sort of gene test and specfic drug combination is new and very different from typical chemotherapy, which is the angle highlighted in the story. This story appears to rely entirely on a conference call arranged and managed by Pfizer, in essence an audio news release.


Scramble for masks as Italian region orders coronavirus cover-up.

Explanation: Residents in Lombardy, the Italian region worst hit by the coronavirus, have been forced to scrounge scarce protective face masks or to improvise solutions of their own after authorities ordered anyone moving outside to cover their nose and mouth.

With protective gear in short supply across the world, the northern region pledged to distribute at least 3 million masks to the public through supermarkets, pharmacists and tobacconists. Until they arrive, many people have been forced to make do with scarves or homemade substitutes. “We can’t find protective masks,” Milan resident Giulio Colombo said. “I haven’t found any so I made this by myself. Authorities say masks will be available in three days but they’ve been saying it for a month.”  Lombardy, the region around the financial capital Milan, is where the epidemic first emerged on Feb. 21 and it remains by far the worst affected area of Italy, with more than 50,000 cases and almost 9,000 deaths. Regional governor Attilio Fontana said on Sunday the masks, which will be less elaborate than the top grade medical masks used in hospitals, would begin to be distributed this week, a month after Italy imposed a strict lockdown on March 9. As the weeks have passed, increasing numbers of people have worn protective masks of various kinds, despite the difficulty of getting hold of medical masks and wildly varying prices charged by distributors. It is unclear whether improvising with a scarf is effective, but research has found face masks could help to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. A report by consumer association Altroconsumo said 43% of 122 pharmacists it sampled in eight different Italian cities did not have any masks available, with almost one in two pharmacies in Milan out of stock. The decision by Lombardy authorities to issue the masks order came after weeks in which the official advice has been that they are not necessary for most people in normal circumstances and that precious stocks should be reserved for health workers. However the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week recommended the use of cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus, especially in confined spaces, along with frequent hand-washing. Over the weekend, the head of the Civil Protection department, charged with coordinating Italy’s disaster reponse, said maintaining social distancing between people was the best protection and he would not be wearing a mask. Otherwise there has been little sign of public opposition to the new measures. “I think face masks protect us and other people,” Milan resident Alessandra Merletti said. “I think not wearing them is wrong, seeing people not wearing them bothers me, I think they are selfish.”


Trump’s cuts to Medicare hospital payments trigger an outcry.

Explanation: Democrats are accusing President Donald Trump of going back on his campaign promise to protect Medicare after he introduced a 2020 budget that calls for steep cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals.

Seniors, Health, Politics, North America, Prescription drug costs, Medicare, Medicaid, Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump

The budget embodies long-standing Republican ambitions “to make Medicare wither on the vine,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday. “After exploding the deficit with his GOP tax scam for the rich, President Trump is once again trying to ransack Medicare, Medicaid and the health care of seniors and families across America,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. “This budget says ‘promises kept,’” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “Balderdash.” The administration argues that the budget doesn’t cut Medicare benefits to seniors but makes better use of taxpayers’ dollars and helps reduce Medicare spending by lowering prescription drug costs. “On Medicare, we are actually putting it on a sounder footing,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told House lawmakers Tuesday at a budget hearing. As outlined in White House documents, the budget calls for $845 billion in total, or gross, spending reductions to Medicare over 10 years, mainly by cutting future payments to hospitals and other service providers. However, that eye-popping figure appears to involve some budgetary legerdemain. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found actual savings of $515 billion or $575 billion, depending on how those savings are calculated. Medicare now costs about $650 billion a year, and that’s expected to rise sharply as the baby boom generation goes into retirement. Administration officials say their proposals would keep spending increases more manageable. “He’s not cutting Medicare in this budget,” asserted acting White House budget director Russell Vought. “What we are doing is putting forward reforms that lower drug prices, (and) because Medicare pays a very large share of drug prices in this country, it has the impact of finding savings. “Medicare spending will go up every single year by healthy margins, and there are no structural changes for Medicare beneficiaries,” Vaught added. Medicare cuts have little public support and Trump’s package appears to have slim chances in a divided Congress. Senate Republicans didn’t even bring up the subject at their weekly news conference. The head of a major hospital association pushed back hard, saying in a blog that “arbitrary and blunt” Medicare cuts would have a “devastating” impact on care for seniors. “Hospitals are less and less able to cover the cost of care for Medicare patients; it is no time to gut Medicare,” said Chip Kahn of the Federation of American Hospitals. As a candidate early in the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump held himself out as a different kind of Republican. “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid,” he said at a 2015 event in New Hampshire. “And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to ... cut.” But his plan to repeal and replace “Obamacare” involved major Medicaid cuts. It would have capped federal spending on the entire program and left millions of people uninsured. In the end it couldn’t pass a Republican-controlled Congress. The latest Trump budget essentially repeats his earlier proposal to do away with the Affordable Care Act and cap Medicaid spending. Questioned at the budget hearing by Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., Azar acknowledged that the administration cannot force Medicaid spending limits onto states, and Congress would have to approve such sweeping changes. The proposed Medicare package also would require lawmakers to sign off. It’s common for administrations of both political parties to call for cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals. Because the program is so big, even a single-digit reduction in percent terms can add up to hundreds of billions of dollars over time. Tricia Neuman of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation said the Medicare cuts in this year’s budget are larger than what Trump proposed last year. “Providers are likely to say that the proposed cuts are likely to harm patient care, especially if they think there is some possibility that Congress will adopt them,” said Neuman. “The truth is, it is difficult to predict what the impact would really be.” Among the budget’s targets are federal payments to reimburse hospitals for uncompensated care, fees for services provided in outpatient departments, and federal financing for graduate medical education. Exempt from cuts: private Medicare Advantage plans favored by Republicans. Republican strategist David Kochel, a 2016 adviser to Jeb Bush, said there was little evidence that Trump’s voters would abandon him over the Medicare proposal. “It’s not like he’s been held accountable for things he said on the campaign with his own base,” said Kochel, noting that Mexico is not paying for Trump’s border wall. Advocates for Medicare beneficiaries had a measured reaction. A statement from AARP reflected a mix of praise and concern. “We are heartened that President Trump’s budget continues to highlight the need to address prescription drug prices,” said the group. “But we’re also concerned about proposed cuts to programs important to seniors.” The Medicare Rights Center said “it is hard to envision a situation where these changes do not profoundly impact the lives of people who depend on the program.”


Some of these members of the House of Representatives get hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies" but want to cut food stamps.

Explanation: Sen. Sherrod Brown says lawmakers who take farm subsidies would cut food stamps

Agriculture, Ohio, Federal Budget, Poverty, Welfare, Sherrod Brown,

Congress is deciding whether to reform the nation’s farm subsidy system and, while it is at it, will probably cut the amount it dedicates to food stamps for the poor and low-income workers. Both programs are part of what’s known as the farm bill, the five-year authorization that sets the terms for government crop assistance and defines eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. It turns out that some Congress members receive farm subsidies themselves, or get them through farms and corporations they and their relatives own. Whether they should or shouldn’t is not for us to say. Proponents and opponents of the subsidies, primarily direct payments made to farm owners, can be found in both political parties. But U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, finds it disconcerting that some of the lawmakers who gladly take the government’s subsidies want to cut SNAP, or subsidies to people who need help buying groceries. Discussing the 2013 farm bill, which recently passed in the Senate and is under debate in the House, Brown told reporters on a conference call on June 12, "There's a lot of pressure in the House of Representatives to just emasculate the SNAP program. For whatever reason, some of these members of the House of Representatives get hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies. They think they earned that, and on the other hand, then they want to cut food stamps, and I think that's morally wrong." We cannot read the minds of subsidy recipients, so we will not judge whether Congress members -- who earn $174,000 federal salaries -- think they have earned the right to farm  subsidies. But Brown’s claim struck us as worth examining. Examples were easy to find. The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy and research group, maintains a database of federal farm subsidies and has run lawmakers’ names to see what they or their families are getting. News organizations have used this database (and the public can, too), and some have noted where the recipients stand on food stamps, or SNAP. For instance: * Rep. Steve Fincher of Tennessee, "who supports billions of dollars in cuts to the food stamp program," is "one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies, according to new annual data released by a Washington environmental group." This was in the New York Times on May 22. Fincher, from Frog Jump, Tenn., and his wife "collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012," reported the Times, using EWG data. In 2012 alone, the couple received about $70,000 in direct payments, which is "money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops," the Times wrote. During debate in May on whether to cut $20.5 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years, Fincher, a Republican, said, "We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over. This is other people’s money that Washington is appropriating and spending." * Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California and his wife, Jill, together own one third of DSL LaMalfa Family Partnership, which in 2012 alone got $188,570 in direct farm payments from the federal government, according to the EWG. That would put last year’s subsidies to LaMalfa and his wife at $62,857. But going back to 1995, the DSL LaMalfa Family Partnership has received  $5.13 million, which would put the share of Rep. LaMalfa and his wife at $1.7 million, EWG said. In May, LaMalfa won a House amendment that would require electronic fraud prevention measures and eliminate bonus pay for signing up new SNAP recipients. He said in a statement then, "The success of the food stamp program should be measured by how many Americans become self-sufficient, not how many are added to the rolls." * Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana has received $196,268 in farm subsidies since 1997, according to the EWG. Stutzman, a Republican, recently proposed cutting SNAP by $30 billion over 10 years, deeper than the $20.5 billion now on the table, saying, "Everyone in Washington talks about deficit reduction but we’ve introduced a real, responsible plan to save taxpayer dollars. Over the past decade, SNAP spending has doubled as this program outgrows its original mission of providing temporary assistance." The list goes on. The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, both reviewing the same EWG data as other media, noted that 15 members of Congress got farm subsidies in 2012. (None were from Ohio.) Thirteen were Republicans and two were Democrats. The Democrats were in the Senate -- Michael Bennett of Colorado and Jon Tester of Montana, who says he is the Senate’s only "working farmer." Both voted June 10 for the Senate version of the farm bill, which would cut SNAP by $4 billion, or about $16 billion less than the House GOP leaders want. Brown, too, voted for the bill after failing to get the SNAP cut restored. It’s fairly obvious where this leaves Brown’s claim that some House members accepted "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in farm subsidies but are eager to cut food stamps. But before ruling, we’ll note in fairness that some of the farm-subsidy recipients told the Wall Street Journal that the farm programs need reform, too. Fincher issued a statement saying, "I voted immediately to remove direct payments," the Journal wrote. And, the Journal added, a spokesman for LaMalfa said the lawmaker has long opposed the farm-subsidy system and voted to end direct payments. In Stutzman’s case, the receipt of subsidies was a political issue in his 2010 election. But he maintained to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette that the farm-support system is like a mandate, giving him no choice. The farmer "has to take it," he told the Journal Gazette in 2010. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the program is voluntary. OK, so maybe he and the others didn’t like it one bit when they got farm subsidies. We’re not here to judge their motives. But we are here to judge Brown’s claim. It is .


Hundreds of Americans flown home from cruise ship, 14 with coronavirus.

Explanation: More than 300 American cruise liner passengers, including 14 who tested positive for coronavirus, were flown home to military bases in the United States after two weeks under quarantine off Japan.

The cruise ship Diamond Princess, which with more than 400 cases has by far the largest cluster outside China, has become the biggest test so far of other countries’ ability to contain an outbreak that has killed 1,772 people in China and five elsewhere. A ground crew in anti-contamination suits met the chartered jet that touched down at Joint Base San Antonio in Texas, and passengers could be seen climbing down the stairs wearing face masks in the pre-dawn mist. Another flight landed at Travis Air Force Base in California hours earlier. All the passengers were taken into a two-week quarantine. Although U.S. officials had said passengers with coronavirus symptoms would not be repatriated, 14 passengers found at the last minute to have tested positive were permitted to board the planes. The U.S. State Department said the infected passengers were exposed to other passengers for about 40 minutes before they were isolated. Across mainland China, the total number of coronavirus cases rose by 2,051 to 70,635, according to the World Health Organization. That was slightly more new cases than were reported on Sunday, but hundreds fewer than reported on Saturday. Chinese authorities say the decrease is a sign that measures taken to halt the spread of the disease are having an effect. However, epidemiologists say it is probably still too early to say how well the outbreak is being contained within China and its central Hubei province, where the virus first appeared. Official figures of new cases have leveled off in the past, only to jump suddenly after changes in methodology. “The real issue is whether we are seeing efficient community transmission outside of China and at the present time we are not observing that,” Mike Ryan, head of World Health Organization’s emergencies program, said at a news conference in Geneva. Fewer than 700 cases have been reported in other countries and even within China the epidemic is affecting “a very tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of people,” Ryan said. China has responded to the COVID-19 virus by locking down Hubei’s provincial capital Wuhan, a megacity of 11 million people, and imposing restrictions in a number of other cities. But the ruling Communist Party is  under pressure to prevent the economy from crashing and to get people back to work. China’s central bank cut the interest rate on its medium-term lending on Monday, which is expected to pave the way for a reduction in the benchmark loan prime rate on Thursday. Beijing has also announced plans for cuts in taxes and fees. Even so, economists expect China’s economic growth to slow. Ratings agency Moody’s on Monday lowered its 2020 GDP growth forecast to 5.2%, making it likely China would miss a goal to double GDP over the decade to 2020. Around half of all known cases of the virus outside China have been found aboard the Diamond Princess, which was ordered to stay under quarantine at the port of Yokohama on Feb. 3. Several other countries have announced plans to follow the United States in bringing passengers home. Around half of the 3,700 passengers and crew are Japanese. Matthew Smith, an American passenger who remained on the ship after refusing to board the voluntary repatriation flights, tweeted that staying behind was the “best decision ever”. “US Gov’t said they would not put anyone on the planes who was symptomatic, and they ended up knowingly and intentionally putting on 14 people who actually have the virus,” he wrote. Authorities around the world were also trying to track down passengers from another cruise liner, the Westerdam, which was turned away from ports across Southeast Asia for two weeks before docking in Cambodia on Thursday. One American passenger who disembarked in Cambodia tested positive for the virus in Malaysia on Saturday. Carnival Corp, which operates both cruise liners, said it was cooperating with authorities in trying to trace other passengers from the Westerdam. None of the other 1,454 passengers and 802 crew had reported any symptoms, it said. Hundreds of passengers are still in Cambodia, either on the ship or in hotels. Holly Rauen, a passenger from Fort Myers, Florida, said she and others will be tested by Cambodian authorities. “We have no idea when we get to get home,” she said. After an extended Lunar New Year holiday, China needs to get back to work or will suffer severe economic consequences. There is a proposal to delay the opening of the annual session of parliament, due on Feb. 24. Some cities remain in lockdown, streets are deserted, employees are nervous, and travel bans and quarantine orders are in place around the country. Many factories have yet to re-open, disrupting supply chains in China and beyond. In Japan, where data showed on Monday that the economy had already shrunk last quarter at the fastest pace in almost six years, the impact of the virus is expected to show up in the current quarter, stoking fears of recession. Trade-dependent Singapore downgraded its 2020 economic growth forecast and has said recession is possible. It is set to unveil measures to cushion the blow on Tuesday. Organisers of the Tokyo Marathon have decided to limit the March 1 race to top-level athletes, banning 38,000 general participants, a person with knowledge of the issue told Reuters. Japan’s Imperial Household Agency said it would cancel Emperor Naruhito’s public birthday address on Feb. 23, his first since his coronation last year. The event regularly attracts tens of thousands of people to the inner grounds of the Imperial Palace in the heart of Tokyo.


In July 2020, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said "only" .02% of the country's K-12 school students — totaling 14,740 children and teens — are likely to die from COVID-19 when and if schools fully reopen.

Explanation: While people of any age with certain underlying conditions are at higher risk of serious illnesses should they catch COVID-19, children are more likely than adults to have mild illnesses, and patients over the age of 18 may have different symptoms than youth, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In July 2020, as America’s total of confirmed coronavirus cases surpassed 3.3 million, U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the advice of public health experts on how to safely reopen the country’s K-12 school system during the pandemic, and campaigned in full force for in-person classes to resume nationwide. The push by the Republican president included threats to withhold federal funding to school systems that did not agree with his approach (see the July 8, 2020, tweet here), unsubstantiated claims that state Democrats had political motivations to keep schools closed ahead of the November 2020 election, and several media appearances in which he and ally Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education, emphasized how opening K-12 classrooms would jump-start the country’s distressed economy. And during that parade of public events, critics of the country’s top education official and the president claimed that DeVos had nonchalantly stated the cost of young American’s lives should schools fully reopen during the pandemic. Facebook statuses and tweets went viral among educators, parents and activists, stating:  It’s unclear from where, exactly, the claim originated. And first, to measure its legitimacy, we did some back-of-the-napkin math. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal government prepared for 56.6 million K-12 students in fall 2019 (50.8 million in public schools and 5.8 million in private education). That means 11,320 — not 14,740 — is .02% of the country’s student population. Apart from the statement’s inaccuracy, our analysis of DeVos’ public appearances found no evidence to show she made the comment. We deemed several speeches at the White House, as well as televised interviews on CNN’s “State of the Union” and “Fox News Sunday” on July 12, 2020, as the likely sources of inspiration for the rumor, considering the timing and content of those events. In the first of those appearances, which took place on July 7, 2020, for instance, DeVos said: It’s clear our nation’s schools must fully reopen and fully operate this school year. Anything short of that robs students, not to mention taxpayers, of their futures — and their futures represent our nation’s future. So it’s not a question of ‘if’; it’s just a question of ‘how.’ The following day, after a meeting of the White House coronavirus task force, she made similar remarks, and praised several school systems for their quick transition to remote learning in the early weeks of the outbreak, including New York City’s Success Academy Charter Schools and Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Simultaneously, she claimed, other local school districts were “doing next to nothing” to teach students during the unprecedented rules against in-classroom learning. Three days later, DeVos addressed CNN’s audience via an interview on why she believed schools should fully reopen in the fall, even though the country’s daily spike in COVID-19 cases was on the rise and did not show signs of a decline. There, DeVos mostly re-emphasized talking points she made during the White House briefings and downplayed the health risks to students should schools fully reopen, essentially affirming the underlying sentiment to critics’ claim about the projected death toll. DeVos stated, referring to “data” that she did not define: There’s nothing in the data that would suggest that kids being back in school is, is dangerous to them — in fact, it’s more a matter of their health and well-being that they be back in school. In both the CNN and Fox News interviews, DeVos pointed to research that suggests children are less likely to suffer severe symptoms due to COVID-19 compared to adults.


Proposed tax changes are a "handout" to BP.

Explanation: National Taxpayers Union ad blasts tax proposal as "handout" for BP

National, Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Corporations, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Message Machine 2010, Oil Spill, National Taxpayers Union,

On Sept. 2, 2010, the National Taxpayers Union -- a conservative advocacy group -- announced that it would be spending $4 million on an advertising campaign that targets higher energy taxes. Here's the narration of the TV ad: "Our economy's hurting, but some senators want to weaken an industry creating jobs. America's energy industry supports 9 million jobs, but Congress may double-tax U.S. energy companies, helping foreign companies owned by China and Venezuela, even BP. New taxes will raise your gas prices, make us more dependent on foreign oil, and cost 600,000 American jobs. Tell Congress BP doesn't deserve a handout. No new American energy taxes." At first, we thought this was an ad decrying the Democratic cap-and-trade proposal, a legislative effort to cap greenhouse gases that Republicans have consistently criticized as a tax on ordinary energy consumers. But that's not what the ad is about. Instead, NTU says the ad is about two changes under consideration by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress -- rules for "dual capacity" taxpayers, and the Section 199 deduction. The ad is correct that the modifications being considered would primarily affect oil and gas companies. Even by the byzantine standards of tax law, these rules are highly arcane. So bear with us as we try to explain how they work and investigate whether the ad portrays them fairly. Our aim is to gauge whether the ad is accurate when it says that making these changes would amount to a "handout" to companies like BP. Let's start with the "dual capacity" rule. This rule stems from a tax code provision that lets U.S. taxpayers receive credit for taxes paid on income derived overseas, so income is not taxed twice. Say you're a U.S. oil company. You go to a foreign country to extract oil. You pay a 20 percent tax to that country on what you extract. When your U.S. taxes are calculated, you'll get a dollar-for-dollar credit for the taxes paid overseas. Where it starts getting complicated is that some foreign countries charge oil extractors a single payment that includes both the tax and a payment for the right to drill in the first place. So, rather than paying 20 percent tax on what's extracted, the company will have to pay more, because the rights to drill are included in the same levy. (The dual nature of these payments is the origin of the term "dual capacity.") Whether the company considers this a tax or a royalty payment matters quite a bit for the U.S. company's tax bill because amounts considered to be foreign taxes provide dollar-for-dollar reductions in tax liability, whereas a royalty only permits a deduction, which is a significantly smaller tax benefit than dollar-for-dollar. So, the greater the amount that's considered a foreign tax, the larger the sum that can be deducted from U.S. taxes. Current U.S. tax law deals with this by trying to determine what part is the true tax (and thus eligible for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit) and what is being paid by the company for a specific economic benefit, such as the right to drill (which is only deductible as a business expense). This is a fairly easy process if the foreign country has a straightforward corporate tax structure. But it gets complicated if the country either taxes "dual capacity" taxpayers at a different rate than other corporate taxpayers or if it has no basic corporate tax rate at all. In such cases, U.S. companies have more flexibility to call the payments they've made "taxes" -- too much flexibility for some critics, who argue that it's an unnecessary loophole that drains the U.S. Treasury of taxes. That's why President Barack Obama, in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and some senators have proposed tightening the rules. We won't get into the guts of the proposed changes here, but the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official, non-partisan arbiter of tax policy changes, found that Obama's proposal would collect an additional $8.2 billion between 2010 and 2020. Oil and gas companies aren't the only sector that would be affected, but they are the main companies that will. Now for the second proposal -- eliminating oil and gas companies as beneficiaries of Section 199 of the tax code. Section 199 is a deduction for companies that produce goods or software or undertake construction projects in the U.S. Passed in 2004, it replaced a previous tax benefit extended specifically to U.S. exporters, struck down as an illegal trade subsidy by the World Trade Organization. Under section 199, U.S. oil and gas companies can take advantage of a lower tax rate. According to Treasury Department testimony in 2009, making oil and gas ineligible is projected to increase federal revenues by $13.2 billion from 2010 to 2019. We won't address the ad's claim that these proposals could result in the elimination of 600,000 jobs, higher gasoline prices or greater dependence on foreign oil, since such estimates are speculative and ultimately not provable. Instead, we'll focus on whether the ad is justified in calling such changes a "handout" to BP or other foreign companies. In the ad's defense, the changes would only affect U.S.-based companies, and by taking away a benefit from a U.S. firm, the government could, in a sense, be advantaging foreign-based firms. Pete Sepp, NTU's executive vice president, said that the two tax provisions were created to take the sting off the U.S. corporate tax code. Because many of the United States' competitors do not tax the foreign earnings of domestic firms -- but we do -- deductions and exemptions like the two in question here help U.S. competitiveness. "Taking away one or both these provisions for oil companies -- provisions that exist for a wide variety of firms -- will, in our opinion, necessarily increase the overhead of oil and gas firms (based) here. That means higher costs for those firms -- costs which foreign-based competitors like BP don't have to shoulder." Still, "handout" is a pretty strong word to describe what's being proposed. In Webster's New World Dictionary, the relevant definition of "handout" is "a gift of food, clothing, etc., as to a beggar." Allowing for some artistic license to exchange "BP" for "beggar," we think the accuracy of "handout" depends on whether the government is affirmatively providing a direct benefit to BP. And it's not clear that the government would be doing this if it made these changes. If the government were to pass these two policy proposals, it would certainly be taking away a benefit granted to U.S.-based oil and gas companies. But would taking away the two benefits from U.S. companies be equivalent to giving a handout to BP? We're not so sure. Mitchell Kane, a professor at New York University Law School who specializes in international corporate taxation, said the use of the term "handout" in this context is "highly misleading," noting that there would be no change at all to BP's tax liability. "There could be competitive effects, but this is a highly speculative claim, and in any event is not what most people think of as a handout," Kane said. "If your co-worker loses her job, and there is therefore less competition in the company for promotions and future raises, does this mean you have received a 'handout?'" There's another reason to question whether BP's British owners are the only ones who would benefit if these provisions were to pass. In a globalized economy, some Americans would actually benefit, since foreign companies employ, do business with and pay quarterly dividends to lots of U.S. taxpayers. According to BP's website, it is the largest oil and gas producer and one of the largest gasoline retailers in the United States, as well as the largest non-U.S. company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. And U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign companies, including BP's U.S. subsidiaries, qualify for Section 199 credits, which weakens the argument that BP would be a clear winner if these changes were made. It's certainly understandable that U.S. oil companies doing business overseas would be opposed to these proposals -- and perhaps feel picked on, since both changes specifically target their industry. Still, we think the term "handout" in this context is questionable -- even hypocritical, since the tax policy the oil companies want to keep in place could easily be described as involving longstanding "handouts" for them.


Beached boats, pink water as drought saps Great Salt Lake.

Explanation: On the southern shore of Utah’s Great Salt Lake, more than 100 boats are sitting high and dry in a parking lot, unable to sail the shallow, drought-stricken sea.

Great Salt Lake, Droughts, UT State Wire, Utah, Lakes, Lifestyle, AP Business, AP Science, AP Travel, U.S. News

North of the nearly empty marina, salt-loving bacteria thriving in the low water has turned the liquid pink. The massive lake, key to the state’s economy and identity, is skirting record-low levels after years of below-average precipitation and record heat. A few dozen lawmakers took a road trip Thursday to see the problems firsthand and learn how they can help — besides praying for more rain and snow this winter. The lake, about 75 miles long (120 kilometers) and 30 miles wide (50 kilometers), is America’s largest outside the Great Lakes. Water levels have always fluctuated, but they have been dropping steadily since 2011. “If this continues ... the ecosystem as a whole is under a pretty significant threat,” said Jason Curry, a spokesman for Utah’s Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The state estimates that the Great Salt Lake’s ecosystem has a $1.32 billion economic effect. It is a home or major resting place for more than 250 species of birds. Salt and other minerals are mined from the lake and used for fertilizer, melting snow on roadways and other products. Its waters are credited with helping produce dry, powdery snow that attracts skiers worldwide to the nearby mountains. It’s generally three to five times saltier than the ocean, allowing swimmers to float easily. The lake is an unforgiving environment for most creatures, but a prime habitat for brine flies and brine shrimp — tiny, clear crustaceans once sold as “sea monkeys” in the back of comic books, whose eggs are harvested and sold worldwide as food for other shrimp, crab and fish. As lake levels drop and the water becomes saltier, even those creatures are threatened. “Brine shrimp are very resilient to salt but even they have a limit, and we’re reaching that limit,” said Don Leonard, CEO of the Great Salt Lake Brine Shrimp Cooperative, a group of companies that harvest and sell the eggs. The low water levels stress the shrimp in a way that produces fewer eggs, Leonard said. Last year, the cooperative had a below-average harvest and had to pay to dredge its harbor just to get its boats on the water. He declined to say how much it affected the industry but said dredging has become a yearly, expensive endeavor to dig out a deeper path for boats. Lawmakers on Thursday took a quick tour of a storage area at a factory that harvests the eggs and visited a plant that extracts minerals from the lake. Joe Havasi of Compass Minerals said the company had to extend its canals that pull brine from the water by about 2 miles because the shoreline has receded by 6 miles. He said the company is eager for a planned breach of a railroad causeway later this year that’s expected to allow some water from the southern half of the lake to flow north, where its operations are. Pouring rain caused lawmakers to scrap much of their tour, which will pick up Friday. Legislative staffer Ivan Djambov joked that it was the downpour they hoped for all summer. “It’s the wrong day for us, but we’re grateful it’s coming, right?” he said. Last year, legislators approved spending $1.5 million to dredge the lake, which will add an additional 6 to 8 feet (1.83 to 2.44 meters) and create a passable channel for boats. Officials said they hope to start that project early next year. Republican state Rep. Mike McKell said lawmakers also will be looking at whether Utah should step up efforts to remove an invasive weed that sucks up tens of thousands of acre-feet of water every year. Lynn de Freitas, executive director of the conservation group Friends of Great Salt Lake, said Utah needs to look at how major water pipeline projects may divert fresh water from rivers that normally flow into the lake. “It’s dire,” she said. “We all have a stewardship responsibility for the lake and should honestly and actively own up to that.”


A meme claiming that tilapia is a “mutant” fish that’s unsafe to eat combines a number of long-running warnings about the fish.

Explanation: 'Mutant' Tilapia Fish is Unsafe to Eat, Contains Cancer-Causing Dioxin

Warnings that tilapia is unsafe to eat have been circulating for years. There are warnings that tilapia is a “mutant” fish that doesn’t have skin or bones. There are warnings that tilapia don’t exist in the wild. There are warnings that eating tilapia is worse than eating bacon or hamburger. And there are warnings that tilapia causes cancer. None of them are true. There are various sources of these rumors. But they were all consolidated into a meme that first went viral in 2017 and resurfaced in April 2018. Without citing sources, the meme repeated old (and untrue) rumors that tilapia is unsafe to eat. Tilapia Are Mutants, Can’t Be Found in the Wild Tilapia are native to Africa and date at least back to the Egyptian period. In fact, tilapia are even featured in ancient Egyptian art, often portraying a symbol of rebirth. So, again, the idea that tilapia are mutants and can’t be found in the wild are baseless. These claims are probably based on the widespread introduction of tilapia into aquaculture in the 1980s. After that point, tilapia was widely farmed in cages and open bodies of water. That helped tilapia go from “unknown in the U.S. in the mid-1990s to the fifth most popular seafood we eat,” the Atlantic reports. The rise of tilapia coincided with the fall of Northeast cod fishery in the 1990s. So, while the tilapia sold in restaurants and grocery stores is most likely the result of aquaculture — claims that tilapia is a “mutant” fish don’t check out. Eating Tilapia Worse that Eating Bacon or Hamburger Claims that eating tilapia is worse that eating bacon or hamburger have persisted for years — but experts counter that there’s no truth to them. They can be traced back to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. The study warns that tilapia isn’t a good food for controlling inflammatory diseases like heart disease. It’s authors continued: “All other nutritional content aside, the inflammatory potential of hamburger and pork bacon is lower than the average serving of farmed tilapia.” Many websites seized on the claims. The popular diet franchise “Eat This, Not That!” warned that tilapia has a fraction of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids as salmon and other fish, and has “sky high” levels of unhealthy omega-6 fats. It’s conclusion? Tilapia is worse than bacon or hamburger. Scientists quickly pushed back. Dr. William Harris, a senior scientist and director of the metabolism and nutrition at the nonprofit Sanford Research Center, noted that “most health experts (including organizations such as the American Heart Association and the American Dietetic Association) agree that omega-5 fatty acids are, in fact, heart healthy: Tilapia and catfish are examples of lower-fat fish that have fewer omega-3s than the oily fish listed above, but still provide more of these heart-healthy nutrients than hamburger, steak, chicken, pork or turkey. Actually, a 3 ounce serving of these fish provides over 100 mg of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Considering that this is about the current daily intake of these fatty acids in the US, even these fish should be considered better choices than most other meat alternatives. Since they are also relatively low in total and saturated fats and high in protein, they clearly can be part of a healthy diet. Researchers at Harvard sounded a similar tune, debunking the idea that tilapia is worse than bacon or hamburger. Tilapia Contains Cancer-Causing Dioxin Dioxins are some of the most toxic substances on earth, and they have been linked to cancer. And it’s true that “more than 90 percent of human exposure” to dioxins comes from food. It’s stored in fat tissue and can accumulate throughout the food chain, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports. But tilapia don’t appear to be at a higher risk for containing dioxins than any other fish. In fact, because tilapia are often farmed and not caught in the wild, their dioxin levels could actually be lower than levels in other species of fish. So, again, claims that tilapia contain cancer-causing dioxin are mostly fiction. It’s possible, but there’s no elevated risk. Comments


Weight-Loss Drugs Face High Hurdles At FDA

Explanation: We like how the blog post linked to the FDA briefing documents, allowing interested readers to do more homework if they wished. That’s a little addition – that can be a big help for readers – and for the completeness of the overall reporting effort. However, the story could have directly included – even at a high level – some of the data from the clinical trials so that readers could have an appreciation for the magnitude of the weight loss seen. The one line – “Qnexa does appear to help many people lose at 5 percent of their body weight” – wasn’t sufficient in our view. The tradeoffs of potential benefits and harms with this drug represent vital public health and safety issues – and, if approved, set the stage for important physician-patient shared decision-making discussions.

No mention of Qnexa’s cost. As the New York Times reported, “Through a regulatory loophole of sorts, many obesity doctors prescribe two separate drugs that, when taken together, are essentially the same medicine.” So, at least some estimate of the cost of those components could have been given. Or analysts could have helped project what expected Qnexa costs would be. Here’s the good part. The story focuses on the regulatory hurdle. We appreciate the sidebar that includes a link to FDA’s 200-page review documents. From those documents, the story notes that “many people lose 5% of their body weight” after using the drug. And there was reference to some data on lowering blood pressure. But here’s where we yearned for more/better info: Instead of riding the patient anecdote, the story could have provided some real data. The past proceedings of the Advisory Committee are readily available. The biggest issue with “diet pills” is that if you have not altered your lifestyle, you will gain the weight back again. As noted in our summary above, the story could have directly included – even at a high level – some of the data from the clinical trials so that readers could have an appreciation for the magnitude of the weight loss seen. The one line – “Qnexa does appear to help many people lose at 5 percent of their body weight” – just doesn’t tell the story. The story sidebar notes – from the FDA briefing documents: “The review noted continued concerns that Qnexa can increase the risk for several possible side effects, including increased heart rate, birth defects and thinking problems such as memory lapses and confusion.” It also included these caveats: “There’s been a long history with obesity drugs that we’ve had to take off the market. You recall the fen-phen episode where a significant number of people got heart-valve defects,” says Janet Woodcock, a top FDA official. Woodcock argues that the agency has to be extra-careful with weight-loss drugs, because chances are it won’t just be obese people taking them. “When you’re talking about a drug where it could go into literally tens of millions of Americans, there has to be attention to safety,” Woodcock says. What might look like a rare problem now could turn into another public health disaster, she says. The story could have helped readers grasp the weight of the evidence – by at least linking to the transcripts and the summary of the FDA Advisory Panel in 2010 which are readily available. There was no disease-mongering of overweight or obesity. Several independent sources were cited. One source quoted captured some of the dilemma regarding alternatives:  “”We go from Weight Watchers to bariatric surgery. And the fact that there isn’t … medical treatments for obesity, including pharmaceuticals, really is a challenge, considering how big the problem is in this country.” The whole story was about the FDA review of the drug and its meeting next week. As noted above, the New York Times reported, “Through a regulatory loophole of sorts, many obesity doctors prescribe two separate drugs that, when taken together, are essentially the same medicine.” This was an interesting perspective that the NPR post didn’t include. As the caption under the story’s photo explains, “The FDA hasn’t approved a new weight-loss drug since 1999.”  But the story didn’t explain, as a Bloomberg story did, that “Qnexa is one of three obesity drugs vying to be the first in 13 years on the market.”  We think that was an important angle to include. It also could have explained that Qnexa is a combination of two drugs that are well known to cause weight loss (phentermine, the phen in phen-fen and topiramate an antiseizure drug that has weight loss as a side effect). It’s clear that this story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.


Images show a genuine Antifa manual created and distributed by the anti-fascist group.

Explanation: The anti-fascist movement has come from multiple theoretical currents; it is based on an agreement on tactics, not ideological uniformity. In the U.S., most activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists. (In other countries, the movement is predominately Marxist. )There is a general agreement to live and let live regarding political disagreements that would be divisive in other activist circles.

A series of images showing a manual purportedly written by “Antifa,” or anti-fascist protestors, was published on various internet forums and websites in August 2017. The first page of the alleged “antifa manual” can be seen below, while the remaining 7 pages have been archived here:  “The Antifa Manual” gained traction on social media around the same time a purported flyer from the anti-fascist group which called for the murder of white children was being circulated. As both of these fraudulent documents shared many of the same telling characteristics, here is a rundown of ways to tell that the manual is fake: Although we’ve only come across one set of images purportedly showing this “antifa manual,” we’ve seen several different claims about where and how this document was found. Although most asserted that this document was found at Evergreen State College, others claimed that it was found at the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville. Others declared that the manual had been “leaked.” The earliest posting of this document that we could uncover was shared on the web site Imgur on 12 August 2017 by a user named “Jebediah88.” As the Anti-Defamation League explains on their web site, “88 is a white supremacist numerical code for “Heil Hitler.” As with the fake antifa flyer, these images purport to show a document that was created by a central or national antifa group and distributed to members in order to inform them about various policies, philosophies, or organizational rules. But there is no overarching antifa organization or leadership. Instead, there are a variety of antifa groups who are loosely organized, as historian Mark Bray wrote in the Washington Post: There are antifa groups around the world, but antifa is not itself an interconnected organization, any more than an ideology like socialism or a tactic like the picket line is a specific group. Antifa are autonomous anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis. They expose them to their neighbors and employers, they conduct public education campaigns, they support migrants and refugees and they pressure venues to cancel white power events. The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists. The actual text of “The Antifa Manual” contains several passages that contradict what we know about antifa groups. The cover page, for instance, states that this document should not be given to “cis white males, non-PoC, non-LGBTQ peoples.” Yet, cis white males (white men whose gender identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth), non-PoC (White people) and non-lgbtq (those who do not identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer) individuals are welcome members of antifa groups. Other passages read more like satire. For example, one paragraph describes “ANTIFA regulators” who will monitor the use of racial epithets. Other passages spout conspiracy theories, such as microchipping all individuals or building a “New World Order.” None of these ideas align with any messages that are actually espoused by antifa groups. Other portions mocked the group’s members (“Those who can’t work will be provided a stipend and unlimited supply of opiates, marijuana, meth and cocaine to occupy their free time”), insultingly described groups of people that antifa supposedly champion (“container ship after container ship will be converted to massive passenger cruise-liners and will ferry poverty-stricken brown people from around the world to the (former) United States and Western Europe”), or were racially insensitive or demeaning. Here are some of the more unbelievable passages:      The NYC Antifa group told us in an email that this “antifa manual” was fake. They also directed us to some general literature published by antifa-supporting outlets, such as the anarchist news web site It’s Going Down, for comparison. It’s Going Down published it’s own manual called “Forming An Antifa Group: A Manual,” which is starkly different from the fake antifa manual addressed above. For instance, the fake antifa manual labeled cisgender White men as the “greatest evil mankind has ever known.” The “Forming an Antifa Group” manual, on the other hand, focuses on tracking and opposing white supremacist groups. The fake antifa manual also outlines various political standpoints of the group. However, the genuine article noted that while antifa groups are aligned in their opposition to fascism, they do not necessarily agree on other political issues:


Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Explanation: What's false: Reusing single-use PET bottles doesn't cause them to release carcinogenic DEHA into the fluids they contain; freezing plastic water bottles doesn't cause them to release carcinogenic dioxins into the fluids they contain. What's undetermined: Whether heating some types of plastic bottles could increase the leaching of harmful phthalates into the fluids they contain.

Medical, bisphenol a, bpa, plastic bottles

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term “plastic bottle” can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don’t freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family — please advise them, especially for their children’s sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow’s oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don’t leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m — APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019   Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as “dioxins” or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a “possible human carcinogen.” However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ” … overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.” Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA “cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.” Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate “is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.” As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don’t think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.


A trojan worm known as Koobface is "spreading like wildfire" via Facebook.

Explanation: Warnings about a 'Koobface virus' spreading via Facebook are several years out of date,

Computers, computer viruses, koobface, Virus Hoaxes & Realities

Koobface is a real piece of malware that began circulating in late 2008 via messages sent through social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. However, since mid-2010 warnings about Koobface circulated online have mutated into a versions which are largely hoaxes:  Virus spreading like wildfire on FaceBook!! It is a trojan worm called “koob face”. It will steal your info, invade your system and shut it down! Do NOT open the link “Barack Obama Clinton Scandal”! If “SmartGirl15” adds you, don’t accept it; it is a virus. If somebody on your list adds her  then  you get the virus too!! Copy and paste to your wall. Koobface is not “spreading like wildfire” on Facebook (social networking increased their protection in the wake of such malware outbreaks, so Koobface largely stopped using them as a means of transmission),  there is no evidence that Koobface was ever widely spread via “Barack Obama Clinton Scandal” messages, and the warning about “SmartGirl15” was just another updating of another long-running Internet  hoax. Back in 2008, the Koobface e-mails arrived with subject lines such as “You look so amazing funny on our new video” and “You look just awesome in this new movie” and offered recipients links to video sites that appeared to contain movie clips. When users followed the links and attempted to play those videos, however, they got error messages informing them that they need to download a file to update their Adobe Flash Flash software, and that download (flash_player.exe) contained malicious Koobface code:  Facebook sent the following instructions to users whose accounts may have been compromised:  We have detected suspicious activity on your Facebook account and have reset your password as a security precaution. It is possible that malicious software was downloaded to your computer or that your password was stolen by a phishing website designed to look like Facebook. Please carefully follow the steps provided: Run Anti-Virus Software: If your computer has been infected with a virus or with malware, you will need to run anti-virus software to remove these harmful programs and keep your information secure. For Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/protect/viruses/xp/av.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/viruses/default.mspx


GSK builds oncology pipeline as drug shown to help myeloma patients.

Explanation: GlaxoSmithKline said an experimental multiple myeloma treatment has shown a meaningful response in patients that have run out of three previous treatment options, in a boost for the British drugmaker’s cancer drug business.

Two doses of belantamab mafodotin helped subdue the disease in adults who had received three prior treatments for multiple myeloma, a cancer of the white blood cells, GSK said on Friday. The company intends to seek market approval and submit data from the trial to regulatory bodies this year. GSK sold its approved oncology drugs to Novartis in 2014, but has staged a comeback in cancer treatment with a deal to buy U.S. firm Tesaro for $5.1 billion last year and an agreement in February to pay up to 3.7 billion euros ($4.09 billion) to Germany’s Merck KGaA for the rights to a next-generation immunotherapy. “We are on track to file belantamab mafodotin later this year and continue to investigate how it could help even more patients with this disease,” GSK’s Chief Scientific Officer Hal Barron said. The drug targets a protein linked to multiple myeloma known as BCMA. “This is yet another positive signal that GSK’s R&D engine is being turned around and should be well received by the market,” said Liberum analyst Graham Doyle. In another recent win in oncology, GSK’s Zejula - formerly Tesaro’s lead compound - was shown to slow progression of ovarian cancer. GSK shares were up 1% at 0923 GMT versus a 0.4% gain in the STOXX Europe 600 Health Care index. Details of the belantamab mafodotin trial, which tracked how patients fared over time and did not feature a comparison group without the novel treatment, would be presented at an as yet undisclosed medical conference, the company added. The interim result gives further credence to a class of molecules known as antibody drug conjugates (ADC) that belantamab mafodotin belongs to. The concept further builds on the established method of using antibodies that block or bind to foreign substances in the body. ADC, in turn, are antibodies with a cell toxin as a molecular add-on. That allows chemotherapeutic agents, which are harmful to all human cells, to be brought to cancer cells at much higher doses than in conventional chemotherapy. AstraZeneca agreed in March agreed to pay up to $6.9 billion to work with Daiichi Sankyo on an ADC against breast cancer, in a challenge to another ADC called Kadcyla, made by Roche. Multiple myeloma is the second most common form of blood cancer. While it can be treated, there is no available cure, GSK said. The condition is expected to claim the lives of 13,000 people in the U.S. in 2019, according to the American Cancer Society. The BCMA protein that is characteristic of multiple myeloma is also being used as a target in cell therapies developed by Johnson & Johnson, bluebird bio Inc, Celgene Corp.


This town (Wilmington, Ohio) hasn’t taken any money from the government. They don’t want any money from the government.

Explanation: Glenn Beck paints beleaguered Wilmington, Ohio, as real life Bedford Falls

Ohio, Economy, Families, Jobs, Pundits, Glenn Beck,

Radio host and Fox News personality Glenn Beck loves to tell a story with dramatic flair. And he’s latched onto one this holiday season that’s familiar to many Ohioans. It’s the story of Wilmington, a town of 13,000 people in Southwest Ohio that has lost about 8,600 jobs since DHL Express, it largest employer, pulled out in 2008. The job losses the small town has suffered since DHL’s departure have been the subject of presidential campaign stops, celebrity charity events and numerous media reports, including two from CBS’s vaunted 60 Minutes. In Beck’s version of the story, Wilmington is real life Bedford Falls, the fictitious town in the holiday classic, It’s a Wonderful Life. Wilmington, Beck said on his Nov. 22 radio show, is ground zero of the recession, and its people – like those in Bedford Falls -- are pulling together to save the town through self reliance and prayer. What makes the Wilmington really special, he continued, is that Wilmington refuses government assistance, a key tenet of the political philosophy he espouses on his shows. "It went from the No. 1 most up-and-coming city, and a city everybody wants to live in, to ground zero. And this town hasn’t taken any money from the government. They don’t want any money from the government," he said on the show. Beck then noted how Wilmington area churches are working together to provide food for the citizens and asking God -- not the state or federal government -- to fill its food pantries. To highlight his Wilmington story, Beck will hold a show titled "America’s First Christmas" at city’s Murphy Theatre on December 15. The proceeds will be donated to a charity in the city. "I’m going there because I think this town needs to be highlighted," he said. "I think this town is going to help the rest of the country, not the other way around." With such a large spotlight headed shining on the small town, Politifact Ohio decided to review Beck’s storyline that Wilmington shuns government assistance. We asked for Beck’s sources, but our e-mails to his producer went unanswered. So, we looked ourselves. We quickly found Beck’s story full of holes. Immediately after DHL announced the closing of its Wilmington air hub, elected officials at the city, state and federal levels began seeking help for DHL workers. The federal government awarded a $3.87 million national emergency grant to Ohio in November 2008 specifically to provide job training and other aid to DHL workers in Wilmington and the surrounding area. It was administered through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The area has since received a second national emergency grant worth $4.1 million. Wilmington and Clinton County benefited handsomely from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus bill, that was passed in February 2009. The tracking website for the stimulus program allows anybody, including Beck, to search by ZIP code to find the total money spent within the postal district. Using Wilmington’s zip code – 45177, which includes the surrounding county – the site shows that the area received $7,009,811 in stimulus money through September. The figure includes money that went to the Wilmington city schools, Clinton County Department of Jobs and Family Services and the Clinton County Community Action Group, a non-profit organization that aids the poor in in the region and provides free weatherization to residents. The city of Wilmington received a $79,231 stimulus grant to provide programs designed to prevent and control crime; a $167,392 grant for investment in rural public transit vehicles, and about $4 million to replace roads, curbs and sidewalks, typically replaced by residents. In addition, the Ohio Department of Development is extensively involved in the community. It has provided money to Clinton County Port Authority to help redevelop the Wilmington air park. It’s also offering Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, a new company operating at the air park, more than $5.2 million in state assistance to grow its business there. Wilmington Mayor David Raizk, who cited several other sources of federal assistance flowing to the city, said he’s chasing any government help he can get. "I’ve beat on more doors than I can count," he says. "Not because we are looking for hand out - but we are looking for a hand up. My job is to get whatever assistance I can get for the citizens here and to help create jobs for them." So where does all this leave Beck’s premise that Wilmington is a place that shuns government help? Beck took enough literary license in his holiday tale to make Frank Capra blush. His statement isn’t just false. It’s also ridiculous enough to earn a Politifact rating of .


President Donald Trump allowed the use of chlorpyrifos in chemical pesticides because Dow Chemical paid him $1 million.

Explanation: Dow Chemical Paid Trump $1M to OK Chlorpyrifos Chemicals Despite Neurological Side Effects

The Trump administration reversed an Obama-era ruling on the health risks chlorpyrifos poses to humans. But the Trump administration attributes its decision to unclear science — not a $1 million payment from Dow Chemical. Chlorpyrifos is used as an insecticide to control termites, mosquitos, roundworms and other insects. The chemical functions as a nerve agent. It blocks enzymes that control messages between nerve cells, killing pests. First registered for use in the United States in 1965, EPA re-registered the chemical in 2006, the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) reports. Legal action initiated is the source of recent debate on chlorpyrifos. The Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council filed an administrative petition with the EPA in 2007. The groups petitioned EPA to revoke all food tolerances, and to cancel all registrations, of chlorpyrifos. After seven years without action, PANNA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in 2014 to compel EPA to issue a final response. EPA was ordered to issue a preliminary decision in 2015, and to take final action by March 31, 2017. The Trump administration denied the petition in March 2017 — a reversal from the Obama administration’s position. That led to speculation that Trump’s decision was motivated  by a $1 million payment from Dow Chemical. Action to Restrict Chlorpyrifos Under President Obama As a result of PANNA’s lawsuit, EPA reviewed human health risk assessments (HRRA) for chlorpyrifos in 2011 and 2014. The ladder HHRA review analyzed new information on chlorpyrifos that found human exposure to the chemical was not safe at levels allowed under current law. In response, EPA published notice of a proposed rule to revoke “all tolerances of chlorpyrifos” in 2015. And, in November 2016, EPA issued a final revised HRRA for chlorpyrifos. It concluded that humans are exposed to harmful levels of chlorpyrifos in food and drinking water under current standards. One study cited in the revised HRRA demonstrated that chlorpyrifos was present in 87 percent of umbilical cords tested. Other studies linked exposure to the chemical to lung cancer and Parkinson’s disease. The November 2016 HRRA for chlorpyrifos found “sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for” inhibiting brain enzymes. A final rule wasn’t published with the March 31, 2017 deadline looming, however. EPA Reverses Obama-era Policy Under President Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in March 2017 that PANNA’s petition to revoke all tolerances and registrations of chlorpyrifos had been denied. Despite the Obama administration’s conclusion that chlorpyrifos exposure led to neurodevelopment effects in children, the March 2017 EPA notice ruled that there wasn’t clear evidence to prove that. Given the so-called unclear science and firm March 31 deadline, EPA states, it had no choice but to deny the petition:  EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. Congress had given EPA until 2022 to complete its registration review of chlorpyrifos, the order states. Because the Ninth Circuit made clear that no deadline extensions would be provided, EPA denied all remaining claims. PANNA appealed the EPA’s decision to the Ninth Circuit. In July, the panel denied the appeal. The court ruled that  PANNA must exhaust EPA’s administrative appeal process before taking the case to court. Fallout from Trump’s Order on Chlorpyrifos Controversy followed the Trump administration’s action on chlorpyrifos in March 2017. An August 2017 report by the New York Times drew EPA’s ire. EPA released a statement saying that the Times “doesn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story,” and EPA Spokesperson Amy Graham added: The New York Times ran a story under the headline “Trump’s Legacy: Damaged Brains” on October 28, 2017. And talk show host Chelsea Handler brought chlorpyrifos back into public debate in November 2017. She summarized her views in a tweet: Chlorpyrifos is a chemical from Dow Chemical Company. It came from the nazis and is a nerve agent that does irreversible brain damage. It was supposed to banned this year, but trump decided to let it be used on fruits and vegetables. Dow gave trump 1 million dollars. Handlers’ tweet was shared nearly 50,000 times within two days. Her comment appeared on a meme that was widely shared on social media and in discussion forums. This marked the first exposure to chlorpyrifos regulatory issues for many people. Comments


Recently-arrived asylum seekers are perpetrating the majority of crime in Sweden.

Explanation: The proportion exposed to one or several ‘crimes against person’ was 11 percent in 2005. Subsequently, the proportion gradually decreased, and then stabilized at a level of around 9 percent. The last three years the trend is not as clear. In 2013 there was a rise to 11 percent, which was supposed to be temporary because the following year showed a decline to 9 percent. In 2015, however, the proportion is again 11 percent. The year-to-year variations in recent years is therefore large.

This is Part II of a three-part series on crime in Sweden. Read Part I:”Is Sweden the ‘Rape Capital’ of Europe?“ Recently, conspiracy and tabloid web sites have been filled with horror stories about refugees in Sweden, accusing them of everything from rape and murder to sheer bad manners. Writing for the British tabloid The Daily Mail on 3 March 2017, Katie Hopkins described the situation in breathless terms: The fears are real. The areas migrants inhabit have become sink suburbs, riddled with no-go zones, even for the police, where hand-grenade attacks are the accepted norm, women stay indoors, and the ambulances and fire engines need police escorts. God help any good people forced to live here … World leaders such as British politicians Nigel Farage and U.S. president Donald Trump have claimed that Sweden is now overrun with crime because the country took in about 193,000 asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016. However, most violence in Sweden can’t be linked to asylum seekers. Instead, economic stagnation in immigrant communities that formed decades ago has resulted in intergenerational poverty, which has in turn fueled the proliferation of street gangs. Data provided by Statistics Sweden show, for example, that unemployment is higher and education levels lower in Herrgården, which is thought of as the most dangerous part of Rosengård, a neighborhood in Malmö. The city of Malmö is often the subject of news reports about the supposed Swedish crime wave. Deputy Mayor Nils Karlsson told us that crime in these areas stems from Sweden’s failure to integrate previous generations of immigrants. Since the vast majority of the ethnically-Swedish population is college-educated, employers usually choose people with academic degrees over those without degrees, even for entry-level positions — in short, the same disparities that fuel crime all over the world: People with a background outside Europe have a much larger unemployment rate than people like me. In some areas of Malmö, the unemployment rate is 40 percent, while in other parts it’s about 1 percent. That is not a well-integrated society. If you’re growing up and your parents don’t have a job and don’t have much money, of course you’re not going to see that many alternatives for yourself. The key to stopping crime is getting people to work. The problem here is the level of education for the people coming here doesn’t match the job market anymore. Sweden’s governmental agency that conducts crime research, Brå, has not performed a study that takes into account the nationality of crime suspects since 2005, as the law currently prevents them from tracking the national origin of crime suspects and victims. In 2005, they found that people with non-Swedish backgrounds were 2.5 times more likely to be crime suspects, but Brå pointed to a Stockholm University finding that economic opportunity and social mobility play a decisive role in criminal activity: In the empirical analyses we follow all individuals who completed compulsory schooling during the period 1990 to 1993 in the Stockholm Metropolitan area (N=66,330), and we analyze how background factors related to the family of origin and neighborhood segregation during adolescence influence the gap in recorded crimes, which are measured in 2005. For males, we are generally able to explain between half and three-quarters of this gap in crime by parental socioeconomic resources and neighborhood segregation. For females, we can explain even more, sometimes the entire gap. Resources in the family of origin appear to be the strongest mediator. In addition, the residual differences are virtually unrelated to immigrants’ country of origin, indicating that ‘culture’ or other shared context-of-exit factors matter very little in generating the gap. (The term “context-of-exit” means the circumstances under which migrants left their home country). The experts we interviewed all noted that critics are conflating recently-arrived asylum seekers with other populations when they talk about “migrant crime.” Many of the persons committing crimes in areas such as Malmö or the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby are young people who were either born in Sweden to immigrant parents or were born outside the country but arrived in Sweden at a young age. Joakim Palmkvist, a long-time crime reporter for the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan, which is based in Malmö, explained that there is no massive new crime wave being perpetrated by newly-arrived refugees in Sweden’s suburbs — instead, crime today is an iteration of gang violence that has been going on in the country since the 1990s, starting with American exports such as the motorcycle gangs Hell’s Angels and Bandidos. Sitting in a small meeting area in Sydsvenskan‘s newsroom, Palmkvist explained that the motorcycle gangs were the “first wave” of gang organization in Sweden. They set the stage for the “second wave,” which to a large extent consisted of the children of people who fled the Balkan war. The current spate in violence in these areas is the result of a power vacuum in the organized crime community and the younger “third wave” — children of immigrants who have lived in Sweden most of their lives — who are now trying to establish themselves. What sets the so-called third wave apart from earlier waves is its chaotic nature, loose structure, and disconnection from wider society. The bar of what can spark a homicide is also lower than it has ever been; a wrong look or a leer at a girlfriend could lead to a shooting, Palmkvist said: The second wave, a couple have been killed off, trickled away, retired, some have gone to prison as well … The third wave is coming into that vacuum and they are fighting amongst each other to see who will be the main man. Crime researcher Johanna Olseryd pointed out that Brå’s annual crime survey showed that homicides aren’t increasing, but they are changing in nature: Less people are being victimized in the general population, but then we have a small group of people who are victimized repeatedly… Also when it comes to lethal violence, we haven’t seen an increase there but we have seen an increase in the proportion of cases that are perpetrated with guns. There’s been a change in the type of homicides that occur in Sweden — more guns and more homicides connected to a criminal milieu. We haven’t had an increase in total, but we can see the share of cases that have occurred with guns in these areas have increased. Police in Malmö are currently handling 14 homicides, a number that has overwhelmed local investigators, said Erik Jansåker, police chief for Malmö’s southern areas. One of the most rattling of the recent deaths was that of 16-year-old immigrant Ahmed Obaid, himself an immigrant. No one knows for certain why he was targeted in Rosengård while standing by a bus stop. A bouquet of yellow flowers still rested against a light pole at the bus stop on 16 March 2017, two months after his shooting. Officer Johannes Schultz, who patrols the neighborhood on foot, told us that Obaid’s shooting death sent a chill through the community: That changed the whole society in Rosengård. Even 17, 18 year-olds say they are afraid to go out when it’s dark now. Because he got shot and no one knows why. He was not a criminal. There have been less people out in the evenings than it was before that. But people tend to forget and it’s getting warmer, so it’s easier to be outside. Karlsson said that while the country’s crime is historically low he can understand the fear that the violence can engender, as when it does happen, it tends to be high profile: Despite us having taken in many immigrants during the 1990s when we had the Balkan crisis up to now, even with that immigration, the level of crimes have decreased. But Sweden is a small country and Malmö is a small city, and if someone gets shot many people will know that person. I can understand why people are scared. Yet, Karlsson, said, crime in Sweden has been alternately sensationalized and ignored. He told us that both liberals (who think of Sweden as a paradise) and conservatives (who say it is overrun with violence) have both gotten it wrong: Saying everything is great is not helping because you have to say there is a problem before you actually fix it. Sweden has been quite good at spreading the reputation about how perfect we are, which of course now backfires. But we used to have and still do have a low crime rate … since the early 1900s. Research from Brå backs him up — crime data show a general downward trend since 2005:  In this graph from Sweden’s crime study, the dark solid line represents citizens who said they were victims of crime. The dotted line represents people who said someone in their household had been the victim of property crime, while the light solid line represents people who said they were victims of crimes on their person, a broad legal term that can mean anything from homicide to trespassing. Brå explained that overall, crime figures are trending down: The proportion of people who say they have been victim of any crime during the year have declined over the past decade, from 26 percent in 2005 to 24 percent in 2015. Primarily, the proportion of households who are victims of property crimes decreased, from 13 percent in 2006 to 10 percent 2015.