During the August 2017 solar eclipse, some people in California applied sunscreen to their eyeballs in a mistaken attempt to protect their eyes from damage.

Explanation: Interestingly, two ophthalmologists told us they had seen patients who complained of eye damage after the eclipse, but after inspection it turned out none of them actually had any injury. This is obviously a small sample, but it could suggest that the purported incidents in Redding, California — if they did take place at all — were extremely rare.

Medical, california, eclipse, solar eclipse

After the solar eclipse that crossed the United States on 21 August 2017, several national and international news organizations reported that people had applied sunscreen to their eyes in the mistaken hope of avoiding damage during the eclipse. For example, Fox News reported “Health professionals report cases where people put sunscreen on their eyeballs to watch eclipse.” Forbes magazine wrote “For the eclipse, people put sunscreen on their eyeballs” and in the UK, the Independent wrote “Eclipse 2017: People treated for putting sun tan lotion on eyeballs to watch solar event”. All of these stories depend on one thing: the unverified account of a single person in one location who related what a colleague had purportedly told her. On 22 August 2017, the day after the eclipse, the Redding, California television news channel KRCR published a report which quoted a local nurse practitioner: According to Redding Nurse Practitioner Trish Patterson, some people have reported pain after they put sunscreen in their eye’s Monday because they did not have protective glasses to watch the eclipse. “One of my colleagues at moonlight here stated yesterday that they had patients presenting at their clinic that put sunscreen on their eyeball, and presented that they were having pain and they were referred to an ophthalmologist,” Patterson said. We attempted to contact Patterson on more than one occasion but were unable to track her down, so we were unable to ask her for evidence that might support or corroborate her claim or to speak to the colleague who purportedly told her about the patients. Therefore, we cannot say whether anyone in the Redding, California area did in fact apply sunscreen to their eyes in advance of the solar eclipse in August 2017. It is certainly possible, but it is also possible that a miscommunication (including the possibility of a misunderstood joke or undetected irony) happened at several stages: between Patterson and the KRCR reporter; between Patterson and her colleague; and between her colleague and someone else, if the colleague was not present when the patients purportedly presented themselves. We contacted an ophthalmologist and three urgent care clinics in Redding, California (other than Patterson’s own), and none of them reported seeing any patients with any eye damage related to the solar eclipse. We also tried to find other instances of people putting sunscreen on their eyeballs  by selecting 13 cities across the United States where the eclipse coverage was similar to that in Redding (around 86 percent of the sun was covered), and calling urgent care clinics and ophthalmologists. None reported seeing any patients who had applied sunscreen to their eyes. In fact, only one said they had seen “a few” patients with any sort of eye damage from the eclipse.


The IRS is going to be "in charge" of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets.

National, Health Care, Taxes, Privacy Issues, Michele Bachmann,

During a recent interview with Fox News, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., raised the specter of the Internal Revenue Service -- an agency currently under fire for appearing to target conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status -- collecting a database full of "intimate" details about Americans. Referring to an inspector general’s report on IRS scrutiny of conservative groups, Bachmann said, "So now we find out these people are making decisions based on our politics and beliefs, and they're going to be in charge of our health care. There's a huge national database that's being created right now. Your health care, my health care, all the Fox viewers health care, their personal, intimate, most close to the vest secrets will be in that database, and the IRS is in charge of that database? So the IRS will have the ability potentially -- will they? -- to deny health care, to deny access, to delay health care? This is serious! Based upon our political beliefs? That's why we have to repeal Obamacare. And I still think it's possible." We’ve already rated two of her claims from this exchange, which came during a May 15, 2013, interview on the Fox News show On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. We gave Bachmann a False for saying that the IRS is "going to be in charge of our health care," and we gave her a rating for her claim that "The IRS will have the ability potentially" to deny or delay health care. In this item, we’ll focus on whether it’s correct to say that the IRS is going to be in charge of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." After the interview with Van Susteren aired, Dan Kotman, a spokesman for Bachmann, told PolitiFact that she stands by her charge. As evidence, he cited a passage from a Wall Street Journal editorial published one day before her television appearance. The editorial described a Federal Data Services hub that is taking "the IRS's own records (for income and employment status) and centralizing them with information from Social Security (identity), Homeland Security (citizenship), Justice (criminal history), HHS (enrollment in entitlement programs and certain medical claims data) and state governments (residency). The data hub will be used as the verification system for ObamaCare's complex subsidy formula. ... "Good luck in advance to anyone who gets caught in this system's gears, assuming it even works. Centralizing so much personal information in one place is another invitation for the IRS wigglers in some regional office—or maybe higher up—to make political decisions about enforcement." We see four key questions for fact-checking Bachmann’s claim. First, is the government constructing a database? Second, will the IRS be "in charge" of it? Third, would it include "personal" or "intimate" details? And fourth, would it affect all, or most, Americans? We’ll take these issues in order. Is the government constructing a database? Not by the traditional definition of "database." The "hub" the government is creating is a mechanism for extracting data from a variety of databases that exist at other agencies. The hub doesn’t collect, centralize and store data; it is designed to allow real-time access to data that resides on the servers of other agencies in order to verify transactions related to the health insurance exchanges created under Obama’s law. In an April 22, 2013, release, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a part of HHS, said that it has completed the hub’s technical design and is in the midst of testing it. "The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information," the center said in the statement. HHS pledges "strict privacy controls to safeguard personal information," added Brian Cook, a spokesman for the department. "This is not a huge national database of health records," said Deven McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for Internet freedom. Will the IRS be "in charge" of the hub? No. It’s being built by HHS, specifically by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. To ensure compatibility, the IRS needs to cooperate with HHS on the effort, but the IRS has only a supporting role in building the system, and the IRS will not be able to use the hub to view information in the other agencies’ databases. Will the hub include "personal" or "intimate" details? The hub is not designed to access, much less store, information like body mass index, or whether you have a serious illness or ingrown toenails. The hub will be able to tell if someone has insurance or not, but it will not access records about their health. It could access other "personal" details beyond health status, including adjusted gross income and Social Security numbers, but those already exist in federal databases, so the hub wouldn’t represent an expansion of federal data collection. Would the hub affect all, or most Americans? No. The data won’t be accessed by the hub unless an individual logs on to the new insurance exchanges in order to purchase insurance. An estimated 28.6 million Americans might be eligible for health insurance subsidies on the exchange in 2014, though the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that many fewer Americans will actually sign up, at least at first -- 6 million in 2014 and 22 million in 2017. So the numbers of Americans who might eventually interact with the hub aren’t trivial -- but it’s important to note that even if everyone who’s eligible takes the opportunity to use the exchanges, they would represent a small fraction of all Americans. People who have employer-provided insurance or are on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care or most other forms of government-provided insurance should have no need to interact with the hub at all. Our ruling Bachmann said the IRS is going to be "in charge" of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." The congresswoman chooses to believe that the IRS and the rest of the government intend to delve ever-further into Americans’ personal lives. We can’t predict what will happen in the future, but as best we can tell now, she has mischaracterized the intent and limitations of the hub. It’s not a "database." The IRS isn’t running it. It won’t include "intimate" health data. And most Americans won’t need to interact with it at all.


Dr. Deborah Birx said at a press conference concerning testing for COVID-19 that "At $50 a test, it wasn’t enough to hire another technician to run the machine full-time. So at $100 a test, it is.

Explanation: ‘At $50 a Test It Wasn’t Enough … at $100 It Is’

A quote from the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator about its response to the COVID-19 pandemic has begun circulating online among social media users criticizing it for its implications regarding for-profit healthcare.The quote has been used for a graphic showing Dr. Deborah Birx alongside United States President Donald Trump, with the caption stating:During a COVID-19 press conference, Dr. Birx let it slip that the lack of testing is because it wasn’t profitable enough for private labs:“It takes a tech full-time. At $50 a test, it wasn’t enough to hire another tech to run the machine full-time. At $100 a test it is.”Birx’s remarks were taken from an April 16 2020 press conference she gave alongside Trump. She was responding to a question regarding the lack of available testing for states that might not meet “phase one” of the Trump administration’s alleged criteria for resuming business practices amid the outbreak.According to the White House transcript of the press conference, the reporter asked “Truthfully, for those states that aren’t ready to go to phase one to get through these phases, do we have an idea of how many millions, tens of millions of tests they’re going to need for them to get through these phases? Any number out there? Of tests of any sort?”Birx responded:You’ve heard me talk about tests for a while from the podium, and I think what has happened over the last several weeks is hospitals and clinics that could move to the more point-of-care tests move to those point-of-care tests. And what it’s left is an amazing array of capacity that exists in the country for at least a million more tests per week.So we have a whole team working lab by lab to see what it would take to turn on all of those labs that aren’t running the pieces of equipment now. So you see in the system — I just said to you there’s a million more tests per week — that we have tests sitting there and equipment sitting there. And now we have to really deal with each single lab to really figure out what they need.And I just want to thank Administrator Verma — Seema Verma — who went through with us, and thanks to the lab directors, they really explained to us: highly technical difficulty to run some of these big pieces of equipment. Because you have to allocate the samples, you have to centrifuge, you have to put them on the machine. It takes a tech full-time. At $50 a test, it wasn’t enough to hire another technician to run the machine full-time. So at $100 a test, it is.So those are the kinds of changes we have to make bit by bit by bit. But that alone doubles our testing capacity per week.So we’re committed to work with laboratories to answer every one of their issues with the state and local governments. And, I think, frankly, in every conversation I have — and the governors will say, “I need 5,000 people tested.” And I say, “Well, at the University of X, there are 6,700 tests waiting for you.” So it’s more of making sure that every governor and every public health official knows exactly where every lab is and where the tests are so we can create with them a real understanding so all these tests can be run.So, yes, there is twice the capacity right now.When asked whether she would be assuring state governors that they could have these tests, though, Trump stepped in to claim that the United States had “tremendous testing capacity.” The press conference was concluded shortly thereafter.Comments


The real Hillary Clinton has been dead since 1998 and was replaced with a clone.

Explanation: We couldn’t find anything credible pointing to the existence of grown human clones, let alone a stockpile of Hillary replacement clones, nor could we find anything that indicates the entire Clinton family was wiped out while President Bill Clinton was still in office — and no one noticed.

Politics Conspiracy Theories, 2016 election, election 2016, hillary clinton

While there’s no doubt the 2016 election cycle has been one of the more unusual ones in recent history, perhaps the culmination of the parade of bizarre rumors about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is that she was killed off in 1998 and is now represented by one of her many clones. Rumors have abounded that Clinton’s health is failing, alongside the idea that she has every disease from subcortical vascular dementia to Parkinson’s. These claims were bolstered by footage of Clinton nearly collapsing while leaving a 11 September 2016 ceremony due to a pneumonia diagnosis, which also sparked a new round of death rumors. But on 15 September 2016, a blog called “Ascension with Mother Earth and Current State of Affairs” took the weirdness to a whole new extreme by seemingly mashing all the rumors about Clinton into one giant conglomeration: Fact: Hillary Clinton has been dead since 1998. Another fact: The entire Clinton Family was eliminated and cloned beneath Camp David at the same time — including Chelsea (who’s husband is her handler; Huma is Hillary’s handler) Meaning, none of the current human replicas claiming to be true Clinton’s have a soul, and none are in fact human. This is how and why they always lie in public sly no matter the social cost. They’re soulless beings, performing daily tasks based on a common agenda set forth by their dark nobility handlers. Wow, that’s a lot to digest, right? Let’s go a little further down the rabbit hole shall we. Fact: What you have been watching all of years are human replicas or laboratory grown clones. They can be grown to full maturity in less than 3 days now, and their entire memories transferred–and even stored on computers–then downloaded into replacement clones. There are half dozen Bill and Hillary’s that travel with the Clinton entourages and are on reserve 24/7/355 should the hero clone fail. Sadly, there none left for Hillary on Sunday, so a well trained body double was pressed into action first to walk out of Chelsea’s apartment post fall, then today was made to do public appearances like on Hillary’s campaign plane as well as that faux North Carolina press conference. For starters, there were no known instances of human cloning (let alone advanced cloning that could result in a fully-mature adult in three days), until 2008, when scientists successfully cloned a human embryo. To date, there are no known cloned humans to have grown past the very early stages of gestation: From a technical perspective, cloning humans and other primates is more difficult than in other mammals. One reason is that two proteins essential to cell division, known as spindle proteins, are located very close to the chromosomes in primate eggs. Consequently, removal of the egg’s nucleus to make room for the donor nucleus also removes the spindle proteins, interfering with cell division. In other mammals, such as cats, rabbits and mice, the two spindle proteins are spread throughout the egg. So, removal of the egg’s nucleus does not result in loss of spindle proteins. In addition, some dyes and the ultraviolet light used to remove the egg’s nucleus can damage the primate cell and prevent it from growing. It’s rather subjective to claim that clones wouldn’t have “souls” considering a clone would be, in effect, a distinct living organism and also the idea of a soul is more theological than scientific. The problematic distinction of who has a soul and who does not can be seen in the the late 6th Century European debate over whether or not women had souls. To additionally claim the entire Clinton family was wiped out or “eliminated” in 1998 is of course beyond the pale, as Bill Clinton was the sitting U.S. President until 2001. Hillary Clinton has held high-profile political offices, both as a New York senator and Secretary of State, since 1998 as well. The family has been continuously in the public eye and there is no sign that anything so catastrophic happened to them. Moreover the claim that “their entire memories transferred — and even stored on computers — then downloaded into replacement clones” seems to be plagiarized from science fiction.


After Massachusetts passed a mandatory health insurance law "their mortality rate went down...it saved lives.

Health Care, Medicaid, Virginia, Dave Marsden,

State Sen. Dave Marsden says expanding Medicaid in Virginia will save lives. And he points to Massachusetts’ experience as proof. "When Massachusetts got health care, their mortality rate went down either 2.9 or 3.9 percent -- whatever -- but it saved lives," Marsden, D-Fairfax, said during a June 18 radio interview. Marsden’s comments, made on the John Fredericks Show, came amid fiery partisan debate over whether to expand Medicaid eligibility to as many as 400,000 low-income and disabled Virginians. Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Uncle Sam would pay the entire tab through 2016 and 90 percent of added cost down the road. On June 12, the Republican-led General Assembly passed a two-year state budget designed to close Democratic routes toward expansion. We found Marsden’s comment interesting and wondered whether whether the death rate in Massachusetts really did fall by at least 2.9 percent after then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, signed a health reform bill in 2006 that expanded Medicaid and mandated individual health care coverage. Brent McKenzie, Marsden’s legislative assistant, said the statement was based on a study by  the Harvard School of Public Health that was published in May 2014 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers examined the death rates in Massachusetts counties before and after the reforms were enacted, looking at the periods from 2001-2005 and 2007-2010. They concluded that the death rate per 100,000 people aged 20 to 64 dropped dropped 3.2 percent during the years after the reforms. The data was compared to statistics of people in the same age group from 531 counties in 46 states that had not undergone coverage expansions. The researchers concluded that the decline in Massachusetts was 2.9 percent greater than the average of the U.S. counties that had not expanded coverage. "What we found in Massachusetts after reform was a significant reduction in deaths from the kinds of illnesses where we expect health care to have the biggest impact, including infections, cancer and cardiovascular disease," Benjamin Sommers, an assistant professor of health policy at Harvard and a report co-author, said in a news release announcing the results. The study also found the largest death rate drops occurred in Massachusetts counties that had low insurance coverage prior to the reforms. A key advantage of the Harvard study was its size -- examining an estimated 270,000 Massachusetts adults gained insurance through the reform. Although the study found a correlation between health care coverage and lower death rates, there’s on-going debate over whether the reforms caused that result. The Harvard School of Public Health report estimated that state’s mandatory insurance laws prevented about 320 deaths a year. But researchers cautioned that they couldn’t definitively "establish cause and effect" between the lowered death rate and the reforms. They also noted that the results in Massachusetts "may not generalize to other states." "We find significant reduction in mortality among nonelderly adults in Massachusetts since its 2006 reform relative to a control group in counties of similar counties in states without such reforms," the report says. "Although this analysis cannot demonstrate causality, the results offer suggestive evidence that the Affordable Care Act -- modeled after the Massachusetts law -- may impact not only coverage and access but also mortality." An article in the New York Times said health economists viewed the report as strong evidence that the Massachusetts’ health care overhaul had saved lives, but noted experts also said the study "will not settle the long-debated question on whether being insured prolongs life." Some analysts quoted in The Times and in a Boston Globe article said the results add to a body of research showing health care coverage extends lives. But skeptics questioned whether the death rate drop found in the study would occur so quickly after the Massachusetts reforms took root. The Harvard report notes other studies have looked at the effect of health insurance on mortality and the results have been mixed. A 2012 report in the New England Journal of Medicine found that several states that expanded their Medicaid eligibility programs before Obamacare passed in 2010 saw "significant decreases in mortality." The researchers noted, however, that they "cannot definitively show causality." In contrast, a 2011 study of Medicaid expansion in Oregon did not find a link between health insurance and death rates. A 2013 follow-up study found that the state’s Medicaid expansion led to better mental health and lower financial strain among beneficiaries, but researchers did not find improvement in important physical attributes such as blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. Our ruling Marsden said that after Massachusetts enacted its sweeping health care reform in 2006, its mortality rate dropped by at least 2.9 percent, "saving lives." His statement correctly summarizes a recent study finding the state’s death rate dropped by 3.2 percent among 20-64 year-olds. The decline was 2.9 percent greater than the average of a comparison group of 531 counties across the nation. But Marsden reaches a little when he says the results proved the health reforms "saved lives." Researchers believe that’s the case, but caution they could not establish a "cause and effect" between the lowered death rate and the health reforms. So Marsden’s statement is accurate, but needs a little clarification.


Humira Provides Effective, Non-Steroid Alternative for Eye Inflammation

Explanation: A study of 217 people afflicted with an eye disease called uveitis tried to determine just how well adalimumab, a pricy “biologic” drug, could stave off frustrating symptoms like inflammation inside the eye, floaters, cloudy vision, and blurred vision. Every patient received standard daily injections of a corticostroid called prednisone, but half were also given a placebo injection, and half were given injections of adalimumab, which is FDA-approved to treat other diseases. Adalimumab held uveitis at bay for 24 weeks, or nearly twice as long as the control group at 13 weeks. But that extra uveitis symptom control came with two costs: a significant uptick in “severe adverse events” and a treatment that costs 50 times more than the one it supplemented. The study published in the NEJM was one of two that supported FDA approval of the drug for uveitis. As this news release clearly points out, the study was sponsored by the company that sells the drug and many of the authors served as paid consultants to the company. The Duke Medicine-issued release about the study also grasped the benefits and quality of the evidence very well. Uveitis, or inflammation of and damage to important structures in the eye, is a relatively rare disease that affects about 43,000 new people a year in the United States, according to the Ocular Immunology and Uveitis Foundation. While treatable, left untreated it was once a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Most people are treated with daily injections of a corticosteroid called prednisone. However, steroids like prednisone, used long-term or sometimes only briefly, can lead to diabetes, osteoporosis, and even psychological changes, since they not only only dial back inflammation, but also affect the body’s metabolism. So any drug that can more specifically target the inflammation seen in the eyes of uveitis patients could cut back these risks and improve treatment efficacy. Adalimumab (marketed as Humira) is approved for several other immune system diseases including psoriasis, arthritis and Crohn’s disease. Although adalimumabit is not a cure for those diseases or for uveitis, it is an alternative to steroids. That said, the drug comes with side effects, many of which have to do with its action in suppressing the immune system which increases the risk of infections and cancer.

No dollar signs here, which — as we discovered — is quite an oversight, given the steep costs of adalimumab. Prednisone costs about $0.33 per mg, and chronic uveitis patients take anywhere from 10 mg to 60 mg per day. Looking at the minimum number (which patients are usually tapered to 6 months into their treatment), that’s a cost of more than $1,190 a year. In comparison, the name-brand of adalimumab, Humira, costs about $54.49 per mg. In the study, patients received adalimumab on a bi-weekly basis, receiving some 1,640 mg of the drug over 80 weeks if they didn’t drop out. That adds up to a total of $89,400 — an average of $58,000 per year or $1,120 per week. The benefits are well-represented in the release, and so is their context. By working adalimumab into the standard treatment, most of the key measurements of uveitis are held in check for nearly twice as long in a typical patient — 24 weeks instead of 13 weeks. This represents improvement — but not a cure — for a chronic disease. The harms covered in the study were glossed over in the release, in particular by this sentence: “[P]atients in the adalimumab group reported serious adverse effects, such as respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions, more frequently than those in the placebo group.” Given what was left out, we’ll mark this one unsatisfactory. What’s not mentioned is that 16% patients in the adalimumab group dropped out compared to less than 7% in the placebo group. We also learned that some of the adverse events that triggered dropout weren’t included in the release: “Adverse events leading to discontinuation of participation in the trial were more common in the adalimumab group and included choroidal neovascularization, blurred vision, reduced visual acuity, fatigue, malaise, and suicidal ideation.” Something simple that the release could have characterized about the adalimumab treatment’s harms, but didn’t: it had three times the rate of “adverse events” and twice as many serious adverse events. Including any of these numbers — and some of the harms that taking corticosterids like prednisone can cause (the best we get is “many unwanted side effects”) — would have put the harms and benefits of the adalimumab treatment into clearer context. This is perhaps the greatest strength of the release. It not only clearly explains the reasons for the drug trial and the metrics of measurement, but also the activity through which the drug might work. The report involves a randomized controlled trial, so a strong evidence level is expected, and the release did note the industry sponsorship. It’s well known that studies sponsored by industry report favorable results more frequently, which makes some sense, in that companies wouldn’t test drugs they didn’t have strong preliminary evidence for. But it’s also possible that industry sponsorship can bias the conduct and reporting of such studies to make a positive outcome more likely. We couldn’t find anything that would scare a reader. In fact, the release perhaps went a little too far to the other end of the spectrum and didn’t mention the word “blindness” once, which is a possible outcome of uveitis if left untreated. The release dedicates a whole paragraph to summarizing potential conflicts of interest, which is welcome and we hope to see this kind of transparency showing up in more releases in the future. It further directs readers to the published study’s supplementary documents for more extensive disclosure information. In the PDF of supplementary materials we learned that only two out of the 17 authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Although the release mentions the weakness of corticosteroids in uveitis treatment, it doesn’t go far enough in explaining how steroids compare with adalimumab, even though steroids were given to the patients concurrently with adalimumab in “diminishing doses” throughout the trial. It’s worth noting, especially for comparison with adalimumab, how the long-term use of corticosteroid drugs work against uveitis symptoms by suppressing the body’s entire immune system — and, as a side effect, metabolism — not just one specific target of inflammation. Humira also suppresses the body’s immune system although through a different mechanism. The level of detail is good here, noting that the FDA recently approved adalimumab for noninfectious uveitis, how it was previously approved for other conditions, and in which types of uveitis it’s generally ok to treat. The novelty is somewhat nuanced, but explained well enough: Uveitis is a bag full of symptoms, and the damage involved can span across the entire eye. By measuring how it affected the most frequent symptoms, “the study’s results broaden the applicability of treatment for patients” and possibly help lead to longer-term solutions for uveitis. We didn’t see anything that’s cause for alarm.


HIV-positive basketball star Earvin "Magic" Johnson donated blood to patients with leukemia.

Explanation: The inaccurate attribution of the image of Magic Johnson’s donating blood for leukemia patients “tipped” on social media once again when posted to the official page of comedian D.L. Hughley. While the image itself is unaltered, it shows Johnson undergoing medical tests/treatment associated with his HIV-positive status, not donating blood for transfusions or organizing a blood drive in which he himself participated.

Back in March 2013, a Twitter user posted an image of Magic Johnson (who is HIV positive) having blood drawn alongside the worrisome claim that Johnson was “donating blood for charity,” a rumor which later evolved to indicate the blood was to be used for leukemia and lymphoma patients:   At the time the initial tweet began to circulate, the image was traced back to its original source, which proved to be a documentary titled Endgame: AIDS in Black America. The rumor died down until a fake news site rediscovered the picture and false attribution and ran with them, adding the embellishment about leukemia and lymphoma patients. That article stated:  Retired NBA star, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, has decided to run a blood drive in conjunction with American Red Cross to support the National Awareness Month for Leukemia and Lymphoma. So far, Johnson has had a of 1,827 donors including himself and has saved about 438 patients so far. Many people are finding it odd and a bit terrifying that Johnson is donating his blood as well since he has been diagnosed as HIV+ since November of 1991. Since then, it has been reported that Magic’s HIV cell count remains so low that it is considered dormant. Although considered dormant, the virus still lives within Johnson.


Menopause 'hot flash' medicine could cut symptom by three quarters, trial shows

Explanation: This story covers an analysis of a small study about a potential drug to treat hot flashes associated with menopause, called MLE4901. The story contains no independent sources and doesn’t stretch beyond what’s in a news release. What’s more, it omits the fact that the compound studied here won’t be used in future trials because of its potential to harm the liver. More than half of midlife women experience frequent hot flashes that can last several years, disrupting sleep and eroding their quality of life, according to one federally-funded study. While estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment option, it often isn’t prescribed for long periods and may present cardiovascular and breast cancer risks. Better treatment options would be welcome, but news stories shouldn’t stir up excitement about therapies that haven’t been proven both safe and effective.

The story doesn’t mention how much this therapy might cost or how it might compare to the current standard treatment, hormone replacement therapy. According to the website CostHelper, hormone replacement therapy costs $10 to $85 per month for patients without insurance. The story said women who took MLE4901 — who had been experiencing at least seven hot flashes per day — “had the frequency of their hot flashes reduced by 72 percent and the severity of hot flashes decreased by 38 percent. This improvement started as early as three days after first taking the drug and relief continued for the whole month of treatment.” These are relative risk reductions. It would have been more informative to state how often women typically had hot flashes before treatment, and how often they had them afterward, using absolute numbers. Similarly, the story does not state what sort of scale was used to rate the severity of the hot flashes. Rather than describe the benefit as a 38% reduction, the story could have stated the typical severity of hot flashes on that scale before and after treatment. Also, what were the changes in the placebo group? More: Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk. It also says, “Sleep and concentration improved after three days, too, which was an added bonus. The researchers noted that those improvements could have been related to the reduction in hot flashes.” The story would have been more informative had it quantified both the number of women who experienced improvements after three days — since that was the key finding — and their improvements in sleep and concentration, since that’s a benefit many women would care about. The story states that a “previous study on MLE4901 was associated with liver toxicity in a few participants, which resolved when they stopped taking it. They hope slightly modifying the drug may improve that side effect.” That harm should have been mentioned higher in the story, rather in the second-to-last paragraph. In addition, the story doesn’t say anything about what adverse effects were observed in this particular study — that information should have been included. The story does some things right, mentioning this was a “small study” involving 37 women who had at least seven hot flashes per day. The groups received either MLE4901 twice a day for 4 weeks, or a placebo pill on the same schedule. Two weeks later the groups swapped their treatments. However, it doesn’t explore whether the women in the study were representative of the “millions” the story claimed might be helped by such a drug. For example, it’s unclear how many women in menopause have at least seven hot flashes per day, which seems like a very high number. More importantly, the story is misleading when it states that “larger studies” on MLE4901 are underway. According to a news release, the “specific compound” tested in this trial “will not be taken further in trials, due to side effects that may affect liver function. However, two very similar drugs, which also block NKB but do not appear to carry these side effects have entered larger patient trials, with one such trial launched in the US last year.” It remains to be seen whether the “similar drugs” will have the same effect. The lead of the story refers to “millions of women in menopause who suffer with hot flashes.” The story later states, “About 70 percent of postmenopausal women experience vasomotor symptoms -— the familiar hot flashes — which, in some cases, last for years. However, it’s far from clear how many women might stand to benefit from this type of drug. As mentioned under Quality of Evidence, the story doesn’t make clear how many women experience the high frequency of hot flashes of those who were in this study. The story uses only quotes in a news release and contains no independent sources. Two of the authors of the study are employees of Millendo Therapeutics, which has licensed the rights to the compound. Two other authors are listed on a patent related to this method of treatment. The story does the minimum by mentioning the current standard treatment, hormone replacement therapy. It states: “The previous ‘go to’ therapy was supplemental estrogen, which proved to have side effects like blood clots or even breast cancer.” While it’s laudable to bring up estrogen replacement and its drawbacks, it also misleading to call it a “previous go to,” since it’s still the standard therapy for menopausal symptoms. Also, the story doesn’t say whether this drug has been compared to hormone replacement in terms of effectiveness. Also, the story doesn’t mention other therapies such as low-dose antidepressants and lifestyle changes that might relieve hot flashes. The story states states: “Larger studies on MLE4901 are underway in the U.S. and U.K. that will help gain an understanding of the drug’s safety and effectiveness. Like any new drug, safety and effectiveness have to be proven to the FDA before the drug can be offered in the U.S.” The story quotes a researcher who says “this new analysis confirms the beneficial effect is obtained very quickly — within just three days.” That’s backed by the conclusion of the analysis itself, which reads that the drug “rapidly relieves (hot flashes) without the need for estrogen exposure.” The story appears to be based entirely from a news release. This quote is taken directly from the news release without attribution: The potential for this drug class to really improve many of the symptoms of the menopause, such as hot [flashes], difficulty sleeping, weight gain, and poor concentration, is huge,” lead author Dr. Julia Prague of the Imperial College London. “To see the lives of our participants change so dramatically and so quickly was so exciting, and suggests great promise for the future of this new type of treatment.”


In February and March 2018, hundreds of Canadian doctors signed a petition asking for the cancellation of pay deals from which they would personally benefit.

Explanation: The group has scheduled a protest in Montreal on 24 March, listing among its demands “the cancellation of the doctors’ pay increases, as well as a public consultation on the terms and payments granted to doctors by Quebecois society.”

In March 2018, a series of news articles sparked reports that a group of doctors in Canada were resisting and protesting against a pay increase offered to them by the provincial government in Quebec: Hundreds of Canadian doctors, medical specialists and residents, as well as medical students, have signed a petition protesting their own pay raises, instead asking that the money be reallocated to help nurses and patients in need. “We, Quebec doctors who believe in a strong public system, oppose the recent salary increases negotiated by our medical federations,” reads the letter, originally posted in French, the official language in the Canadian province. It is true that hundreds of doctors signed the petition, but the group opposing the deals makes up only a small fraction of all the doctors in the province of Quebec, a piece of context not mentioned in most reports. On 25 February 2018, MQRP (which stands for Médecins Québécois pour le Régime Public, or Quebecois Doctors for the Public Plan, a group of 500 Quebecois doctors dedicated to retaining the province’s universal public health system) published an open letter explaining their opposition to pay hikes negotiated between doctors’ unions and the provincial government. These increases are all the more shocking given that our fellow nurses, clerks and other employees are suffering very difficult working conditions, while our patients live with the lack of access to needed services caused by the draconian cuts of recent years, and the centralization of power at the Ministry of Health. The only thing that seems to be immune to cuts is our pay. …We Quebecois doctors demand that the pay increases granted be cancelled and the resources of the system be better distributed for the benefit of all health workers and to ensure the system of healthcare that the people of Quebec deserve. As of 21 March, the letter had garnered 944 signatures from people describing themselves as doctors or medical students. It’s not clear whether or how MQRP is able to prevent someone who is not a registered medical professional from signing the online petition, so we can’t be sure how many of the names listed under the letter actually belong to health professionals. Even if they all do, the 944 names listed on 21 March 2018 would still make up only 4.5 percent of the total number of doctors in Quebec. (According to the Collège des Médecins du Quebec, the standards-setting professional body for doctors in Quebec, there are nearly 21,000 active, registered doctors in the province as of 1 January 2018.) Canada’s CBC News reported that the provincial government had struck two major pay deals with doctors: As part of a deal reached earlier this month, the province’s 10,000 medical specialists will see their annual salary rise from $4.7 billion to $5.4 billion in 2023, an increase of 1.4 per cent each year. According to data compiled by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, specialists in Quebec make, on average, $403,537 a year, compared to $367,154 in Ontario. Quebec’s GPs signed an eight-year deal with the province last October that sees their pay increase by an average of 1.8 per cent per year.


Blood test may identify gestational diabetes risk in first trimester

Explanation: This release accurately describes an observational study using second-hand data from another study  which found that a relatively inexpensive blood test (HbA1c or A1C for short), commonly used to monitor diabetes, might help identify women at risk for getting gestational diabetes as early as the 10th week of pregnancy. The release does a good job of explaining that the disorder carries risks — including the development of adult type 2 diabetes long after birth — for both pregnant women and their newborns. The release notes that the study does not scientifically demonstrate that measuring HbA1c levels in early pregnancy can in fact determine a woman’s later risk for gestational diabetes. On the down side, the release doesn’t mention what it would cost in dollars or potential over treatment to screen every women in the early weeks of pregnancy;  offers no information about the overall prevalence and incidence of gestational diabetes or any details about the women whose records were studied; and waits until the last sentence to note that there also is no firm evidence that lowering HbA1c levels with diet and exercise before or in early pregnancy will actually reduce risk for gestational diabetes. Public health and obstetrical associations estimate that 1 to 15% of all pregnant women in the U.S. develop gestational diabetes and no doubt a greater percentage worries they might. There are potentially serious health consequences to gestational diabetes for mother and child and although some mothers at higher than usual risk — for example, women with obesity — are screened early, most women have a screening blood glucose test later in pregnancy. Glucose and insulin levels are complicated to interpret later in pregnancy. The notion that earlier detection with a test that measures average  glucose levels over time might lead to lowered rates of the disorder is seductive. But it’s also true that such a scenario is only speculation at this time. As a consequence, news releases about this topic are of fairly wide interest, but must be careful not to over promise.

blood test,gestational diabetes,National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The absence of cost information is unfortunate in this release. In general, the public has little experience of or understanding of the overall costs of routine, widespread screening. Sources put the cost of A1C screening at anywhere from $12 to $65. There are nearly 4 million live births in the U.S. each year, and many more pregnancies. Even if we use a $35 midpoint price, that’s $140 million just to screen for gestational diabetes. Worth it? Maybe. Particularly given that the glucose tolerance test given later in pregnancy has an average cost of $60 to $85, according to some sources. And the savings to be realized in potentially preventing gestational diabetes could be substantial. In any case, cost considerations are important in the overall scheme of health care delivery and limited health care dollars. The release quantifies the results and potential benefits by noting that each 0.1 percent increase in HbA1c levels above 5.1 percent  in early pregnancy was associated with a 22 percent higher risk for gestational diabetes. The blood test itself is virtually harmless, and overall fairly reliable, but results can be skewed by a variety of unrelated diseases and lifestyle factors, resulting in false positives and negatives. The release notes the observational nature of the data and the relatively small number of women overall in the two groups analyzed and compared. Readers don’t learn much about the population of women studied — age, race, number of pregnancies, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, etc. But given that the release makes clear more research would be needed to prove the association identified in the study, we give this a “satisfactory” rating. No mongering, but no data about frequency of the disorder, either. Although not explicit, it seems clear the research was funded by NIH. There currently is no standardized screening test for identifying gestational diabetes in the first trimester. Earlier research into the usefulness of HbA1c testing for gestational diabetes in early pregnancy have been limited to high risk groups. The release makes clear that this test is far from ready for use in clinical screening. It states: The test is not currently recommended to diagnose gestational diabetes at any point in pregnancy. The release is clear about the theoretical potential of the test to determine early risk, and eventually, the theoretical potential of lifestyle changes to modify that risk. None here.


U.S. ‘wasted’ months before preparing for virus pandemic.

Explanation: As the first alarms sounded in early January that an outbreak of a novel coronavirus in China might ignite a global pandemic, the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment.

AP Top News, Understanding the Outbreak, Technology, General News, Politics, Health, Business, China, Pandemics, Virus Outbreak, U.S. News

A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks, mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers. By that time, hospitals in several states were treating thousands of infected patients without adequate equipment and were pleading for shipments from the Strategic National Stockpile. That federal cache of supplies was created more than 20 years ago to help bridge gaps in the medical and pharmaceutical supply chains during a national emergency. Now, three months into the crisis, that stockpile is nearly drained just as the numbers of patients needing critical care is surging. Some state and local officials report receiving broken ventilators and decade-old dry-rotted masks. “We basically wasted two months,” Kathleen Sebelius, health and human services secretary during the Obama administration, told AP. As early as mid-January, U.S. officials could see that hospitals in China’s Hubei province were overwhelmed with infected patients, with many left dependent on ventilator machines to breathe. Italy soon followed, with hospitals scrambling for doctors, beds and equipment. HHS did not respond to questions about why federal officials waited to order medical supplies until stocks were running critically low. But President Donald Trump has asserted that the federal government should take a back seat to states when it comes to dealing with the pandemic. Trump and his appointees have urged state and local governments, and hospitals, to buy their own masks and breathing machines, saying requests to the dwindling national stockpile should be a last resort. “The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and adviser, said at a White House briefing Thursday. “It’s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.” Experts in emergency preparedness and response have expressed dismay at such statements, saying the federal government must take the lead in ensuring medical supplies are available and distributed where they are needed most. “States do not have the purchasing power of the federal government. They do not have the ability to run a deficit like the federal government. They do not have the logistical power of the federal government,” said Sebelius, who served as governor of Kansas before running the nation’s health care system. Because of the fractured federal response to COVID-19, state governors say they’re now bidding against federal agencies and each other for scarce supplies, driving up prices. “You now literally will have a company call you up and say, ‘Well, California just outbid you,’” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. “It’s like being on eBay with 50 other states, bidding on a ventilator.” For nearly a month, Trump rebuffed calls from Cuomo and others to use his authority under the Defense Production Act to order companies to increase production of ventilators and personal protective equipment. He suggested the private sector was acting sufficiently on its own. More than three months after China revealed the first COVID-19 cases, Trump finally relented last week, saying he will order companies to ramp up production of critical supplies. By then, confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the United States had surged to the highest in the world. Now, the number of people infected in the U.S. has climbed to more than 312,000 and deaths have topped 8,500. Trump spent January and February playing down the threat from the new virus. He derided warnings of pandemic reaching the U.S. as a hoax perpetrated by Democrats and the media. As the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a global public health emergency on Jan. 30, Trump assured the American people that the virus was “very well under control” and he predicted “a very good ending.” His administration was so confident that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Feb. 7 that the government had airlifted nearly 18 tons of donated respirator masks, surgical masks, gowns and other medical supplies to China. On Feb. 24, the White House sent Congress an initial $2.5 billion funding request to address the coronavirus outbreak. The next day, federal health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that the virus was spreading quickly in the U.S. and predicted that disruptions to daily life could be “severe,” including school and business closures. Unfazed, HHS Secretary Alex Azar told lawmakers on Feb. 27 that “the immediate risk to the American public remains low.” During those crucial early weeks when the U.S. could have been tracking the spread of the disease and containing it, hardly anyone was being tested after a series of federal blunders led to a shortage of tests and testing capacity, as AP reported last month. Without data showing how widespread the disease was, federal and state governments failed to prepare. By the middle of March, hospitals in New York, Seattle and New Orleans were reporting a surge in sick patients. Doctors and nurses took to social media to express their alarm at dwindling supplies of such basic equipment as masks and gowns. Trump accused some Democratic governors of exaggerating the need and derided those that criticized the federal response as complainers and snakes. “I want them to be appreciative,” Trump said on March 27. At the start of the crisis, an HHS spokeswoman said the Strategic National Stockpile had about 13 million N95 respirator masks, which filter out about 95% of all liquid or airborne particles and are critical to prevent health care workers from becoming infected. That’s just a small fraction of what hospitals need to protect their workers, who normally would wear a new mask for each patient, but who now are often issued only one to last for days. Trump during a White House briefing on March 26 claimed that he had inherited an “empty shelf” from the Obama administration, but added that “we’re really filling it up, and we fill it up rapidly.” Federal purchasing records, however, show the Trump administration delayed making big orders for additional supplies until the virus had taken root and was spreading. HHS first announced its intent to purchase 500 million N95 masks on March 4, with plans to distribute them over the next 18 months. The following day, Congress passed an $8.3 billion coronavirus spending bill, more than three times what the White House had originally asked for. Eight days later, on March 13, Trump declared the outbreak a national emergency. That was almost six weeks after the WHO’s action. By then, thousands of U.S. schools had closed, the National Basketball Association had put its season on temporary hiatus and there were 1,700 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the country. The government had already sent tens of thousands of masks, gloves and gowns from the stockpile to Washington state, which was hit early with a coronavirus outbreak. But state officials even then said the supplies weren’t enough. Federal contracting records show that HHS had made an initial order March 12 for $4.8 million of N95 masks from 3M, the largest U.S.-based manufacturer, which had ramped up production weeks earlier in response to the pandemic. HHS followed up with a larger $173 million order on March 21, but those contracts don’t require 3M to start making deliveries to the national stockpile until the end of April. That’s after the White House has projected the pandemic will reach its peak. On Thursday, Trump threatened in a Tweet to “hit 3M hard” through a Defense Production Act order, saying the company “will have a big price to pay!” He gave no specifics. HHS declined this past week to say how many N95 masks it has on hand. But as of March 31, the White House said more than 11.6 million had been distributed to state and local governments from the national stockpile — about 90% of what was available at the start of the year. Dr. Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS, testified before Congress last month that the country would need roughly 3.5 billion N-95 respirators to get through the pandemic, but the national supply chain then had just about 1% of that amount. Greg Burel, director of the Strategic National Stockpile from 2007 until his retirement at the start of this year, said the cache was only ever intended to serve as a short-term “bridge-stock.” The stockpile was created in 1999 to prevent supply-chain disruptions for the predicted Y2K computer problems. It expanded after 9/11 to prepare for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks. Congress provided money in 2006 to prepare for a potential influenza pandemic, though Burel said much of that stock was used during the H1N1 flu outbreak three years later. “There’s never enough money to buy everything that we want to see on those shelves,” said Burel, who stressed the stockpile uses its annual funding to prepare for a wide array of potential threats. “Most of the time, commercially available products like masks can be bought in quantity at the time of an event.” This time, it hasn’t worked out that way. As AP reported last month, much of the world’s supply of N95 masks and other basic medical supplies is made in China, the first nation hit by COVID-19. As a result, the Chinese government required its producers to reserve N95 respirators for domestic use. China resumed exports of the precious masks only in recent days. Experts are now worried the U.S. will also soon exhaust its supply of ventilators, which can cost upward of $12,000 each. The White House said Tuesday that it had already distributed nearly half the breathing machines in the stockpile, which at the beginning of March had 16,660; some of them dated back to the flurry of post-9/11 purchasing. An additional 2,425 were out for maintenance. Cuomo said New York may need as many as 40,000 ventilators to deal with the outbreak that is already overwhelming hospitals there. Throughout March, governors and mayors of big cities urged Trump to use his authority under the Defense Production Act to direct private companies to ramp up production of ventilators. It wasn’t until last week that Trump finally said he would use that power to order General Motors to begin manufacturing ventilators — work the company had already announced was underway. The federal government had made an effort to prepare for a surge in the need for ventilators, but it was allowed to languish. Since 2014, HHS has paid a private company, Respironics Inc., $13.8 million to develop a cheaper, less complicated ventilator that could be bought in bulk to replenish the national stockpile. In September, HHS placed a $32.8 million order with the Dutch-owned company for 10,000 of the new model, set for delivery by 2022, federal contracts show. Respironics’ parent company, Royal Philips, said it’s planning to double U.S. production of ventilators to 2,000 a week by the end of May. Steve Klink, a spokesman for Royal Philips in Amsterdam, said the company is now focused on producing its other commercial models and will deliver the first ventilators to the national stockpile by August, long after the White House projects COVID-19 cases will peak. Trump, who pledged on March 27 that his administration would ensure that 100,000 additional ventilators would be made available “within 100 days,” said on Thursday that he’ll use the Defense Production Act to order Respironics and other ventilator makers to step up production. It’s not clear that Trump’s order would translate into the 100,000 new ventilators he promised. In a House Oversight and Reform Committee briefing last week, top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials hedged, saying 100,000 ventilators would be available by late June “at the earliest.” Cuomo predicted on Friday that New York would run out within days. With coronavirus deaths in his state surging, the governor vowed to use his authority to seize ventilators, masks and protective gear from private hospitals that aren’t utilizing them. Meanwhile, federal health authorities are lowering standards. New guidance from the Food and Drug Administration allows hospitals to use emergency ventilators typically used in ambulances and anesthesia gas machines in place of standard ventilators. The agency also said nightstand CPAP machines used to treat sleep apnea and snoring could also be used to keep coronavirus patients breathing, as a last resort. The CDC advised health care workers last month to use homemade masks or bandanas if they run out of proper gear. Across the country, hospitals have issued urgent pleas for volunteers who know how to sew. President Trump provided his own input, suggesting that Americans without access to factory-produced masks could cover their faces with scarves. “A scarf is highly recommended by the professionals,” Trump said during a White House briefing Wednesday. “And I think, in a certain way, depending on the fabric — I think, in a certain way, a scarf is better. It’s actually better.” ___ Associated Press writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP Investigative Reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck ___ Contact AP’s global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org ___ This story has been updated to correct that Trump declared a national emergency on March 13, not March 14.


An habitual alcohol abuser lost his penis to frostbite after a drunken sexual encounter with a snowman.

Explanation: Sunday Sport is a British tabloid newspaper, published by Sport Newspapers, which was established in 1986. It prints plainly ludicrous stories, such as “London Bus Found Frozen In Antarctic Ice”, or “World War II Bomber Found On The Moon”. Defenders of the paper pointed out that it was not intended to be taken seriously.

On 8 December 2016, fake news site Thug Life Videos published an article reporting that a Canadian man named Kenneth Gillespie had been hospitalized for penile frostbite after drunkenly attempting to have sexual relations with a snowman: A 64 year-old was rushed into Centre hospitalier de l’Université Laval [in December 2016] with a most unusual medical complaint. He had frostbite of the P*NIS after getting drunk and trying to have s*x with a SNOWMAN. Kenneth Gillespie is known to locals as a drunk and a bit of a lecherous type, but this latest episode has had dire consequences. He was found passed out clutching onto his frozen junk by neighbors at 1.30am on Sunday morning and they called the ambulance straight away. The doctor in charge of Mr. Gillespie, Dr. Marc Arnadeu said this to a local TV news crew: “Frostbite of that area may sound funny but it is very serious indeed. Frostbite, of course, can cause infection and gangrene and ultimately this has led to Mr. Gillespie’s member being amputated. It’s very sad.” The snowman is thought to be okay, though. It’s since been rebuilt and cleaned … Some in Gillespie’s neighborhood are less than pleased, though. One told the Montreal Gazette this: “ … Several people have already vowed to dismember him after what he did to the kids’ snowman. He left a pile of empty bottles, a wrecked snowman and a trail of frozen man-juice in the middle of the community recreation ground. This b*stard’s worse than Bill Cosby.” On the surface, the tale of the sexy snowman appeared to be typical hoax news cooked up to garner social media traction. But iterations of a near-identical claim had been published several years earlier by Uproxx, The Frisky, and several radio blogs, all of which aren’t generally considered fake news sites. Uproxx’s 25 January 2013 item placed “Kenneth Guillespie” in Britain and made no mention of neighbors referencing Bill Cosby (who was not widely accused of sexual misconduct until October 2014, long after the snowman tale began trekking across the Internet): Regardless, this dude from the UK is obviously a freak in every way, so of course he was able to stick his diseased dong into an ice sculpture and impale it mercilessly until shooting a load. Habitual drunkard Kenneth Guillespie, 64, was found half-naked and screaming in agony next to the remains of the five-foot snow sculpture. And when he arrived for treatment at North Central infirmary in Blackburn, shocked medics found the booze-soaked layabout was suffering from FROSBITE of the JOHNSON. Someone At the hospital said that “Ken’s a regular visitor to A&E. Normally it’s just bumps and scrapes – or someone has giving him an ass whoopin’. “Occasionally he’ll get trapped in something or get an object wedged up him. But this is the most bizarre mishap yet.” But The unemployed former postman may not remain in one peice if the return to the scene of his whitemarish coupling — as local residents are said to be on the warpath. Ian Jessop of the Ramsgreave and Brownhill Community Security said: “ … He left” a pile of empty bottles, a wrecked snowman and a trail of frozen man-juice in the middle of the community recreation ground.” Most accounts cited a (since-deleted) page on a web site called Busted in Acadiana which was dated 21 January 2013 and featured a (once widely-circulated) photograph of what appeared to be news article evidencing the claim: That image led to the original source of the story, Sunday Sport, an outlet described by Wikipedia as somewhat akin to the Weekly World News as an unambiguous peddler of complete fabrications:


Glaxo Touts Experimental Tykerb As Effective Breast-Cancer Treament

Explanation: The story discusses the preliminary results of lapatinib (trade name Tykerb) and chemotherapy in HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients who took lapatinib and the chemotherapy drug Xeloda remained stable (i.e. cancer did not spread further) nearly twice as long as patients who only had chemotherapy (8.5 months vs. 4.5 months). However, many drugs are effective in prolonging response in metastatic disease without impacting length of life. It would be good to get survival data to back up these claims, or at least provide data on quality of life to see whether the addition of lapatinib made a difference and how much. Additionally, the results of this trial have not been scrutinized in a peer-reviewed medical journal. The story provides a powerful, but premature suggestion of equivalence between Herceptin and lapatinib. The suggeston is not evidenced based, as the two drugs have not been compared in a controlled trial. Potential cardiac side effects are a big issue for early-stage breast cancer patients, the group of women for whom this drug is already being tested as an alternative to Herceptin, so further research comparing the two drugs is needed. This story relies solely on sources associated with the drug manufacturer. It also appears to rely heavily on information from a press release by the study sponsor, GlaxoSmithKline. Other oncology researchers are needed for perspective on the results of lapatinib as part of treatment for HER-2 positive cancer. The story mentions that lapatinib is still being tested in clinical trials and is not yet available for sale. The story says that “GlaxoSmithKline plans to submit the drug for regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe by the end of this year,” and later mentions Glaxo’s “high hopes for Tykerb.” It would have been better to get some other perspectives about these prospects, other than comments from the company or company-sponsored researchers.

The story does not mentioned the proposed cost of lapatinib. The story provides early data from a trial of metastatic breast cancer patients. Cancers in these patients remained stable (i.e. it did not spread further in the body) nearly twice as long with the addition of lapatinib to chemotherapy (8.5 months vs. 4.5 months). There were fewer incidents of metastases to the brain in the women who took lapatinib and chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (4 vs. 11 cases of cancer spreading to the brain). However, many drugs have been shown to effective in prolonging response in metastatic disease without impacting length of life so it would be good to get data on survival data to back up these claims or at least on quality of life to see whether it made a difference and how much. Cardiac side effects are reported as less serious than those seen in patients who were treated with Herceptin and chemotherapy. However, this comparison with Herceptin is not a fair one. In trials of Herceptin, the incidence of cardiac problems was about 4% at 3 years, so the reduction to 2.5% with lapatinib appears to be an improvement, but there is not enough information in this story on length of time patients took lapatinib and Herceptin to get those figures (and whether those are statistically different). Although long-term cardiac problems are less of an issue for metastatic patients, this side effect is potentially a big issue for early-stage breast cancer patients – a group of women for which this drug is already being tested as an alternative to Herceptin. The story does a good job describing the trial design and discussing the preliminary outcomes for further metastases and cardiac effects. However, the story provides a powerful but premature suggestion of equivalence between Herceptin and lapatinib and suggests that lapatinib may have superior benefits and reduced harms – despite the fact that the trial was in only 392 patients and it wasn’t a head-to head comparison with Herceptin. There is no evidence of disease mongering. The story accurately notes that only 20-25% of women would be eligible to take lapatinib, as they have the more aggressive form of breast cancer. The story relies solely on sources associated with GlaxoSmithKline. The lead author of the study is cited, however, the study was sponsored by this drug manufacturer. Additional oncology researchers are needed for perspective on the results of lapatinib in metastatic breast cancer patients. The story mentions Herceptin (generic name trastuzumab) and chemotherapy (here, Xeloda) as other treatments for HER-2 positive breast cancer. The story mentions that lapatinib is still being tested in clinical trails and is not yet available for sale. The story says that “GlaxoSmithKline plans to submit the drug for regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe by the end of this year,” and later mentions Glaxo’s “high hopes for Tykerb.” It would have been better to get some other perspectives about these prospects, other than comments from the company or company-sponsored researchers. Tykerb (generic name lapatinib) is a new drug for the treatment of metastatic HER-2 positive breast cancer. The story discusses the mechanism by which this drug would inhibit tumor-cell growth. The story acknowledges that it took a quote from the principal investigator from a statement released by the drug company. The only other perspective in the story comes from a drug company staff scientist. There is no evidence of any independent reporting.


Ebola is real, Congo president tells skeptical population.

Explanation: Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi on Tuesday implored people in areas hit by the nation’s worst-ever Ebola outbreak to accept the disease is real and trust health workers.

Mistrust of first responders and widespread misinformation propagated by some community leaders has led many in affected areas of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to refuse vaccinations. Instead, they turn to traditional healers, whose clinics have contributed to the hemorrhagic fever’s spread. “It is not an imaginary disease,” Tshisekedi said after arriving in the city of Beni on his first tour of eastern Congo since being inaugurated in January. “If we follow the instructions, in two or three months Ebola will be finished,” he optimistically told a crowd after having his temperature taken and washing his hands, as required of all incoming passengers to Beni airport. Congo has suffered 10 outbreaks of Ebola, which causes severe vomiting, diarrhea and bleeding, since the virus was discovered there in 1976. The current one has seen 1,264 confirmed and probable cases and 814 deaths since it was declared last August. It is surpassed only by the 2013-2016 outbreak in West Africa, in which more than 28,000 cases were reported and more than 11,000 people died. Following a series of attacks on treatment centers by unidentified assailants in February and March, the current outbreak is now spreading at its fastest rate yet. More than 100 cases were confirmed last week. Tshisekedi, who won a disputed election last December to succeed Joseph Kabila, also called on Tuesday for the disarmament of dozens of militia that operate in the east and whose presence has complicated the Ebola response. “The time of armed groups is over,” he said. “The new government is reaching out to these children of the country to surrender arms through disarmament programmes.”


New breast cancer screening guidelines at odds with Congress

Explanation: The story provides a good overview of new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on when, and how often, women should receive mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The story summarizes the long-running debate over mammogram recommendations, particularly congressional action on the issue. The story also discusses the differing advice that various organizations provide on when women at average risk of breast cancer should begin mammogram screening, though the story would have been stronger if it had more fully explored both the benefits and potential harms associated with women starting mammogram screening early or having the tests more often (something that a competing New York Times story on the recommendations does well). The story also offers a good discussion of issues related to what the USPSTF recommendations may mean for insurance coverage of mammograms, though it does not tell readers how expensive mammograms may be without insurance. Breast cancer screening is a big deal. As the CDC notes, “Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, breast cancer in the United States is the most common cancer in women, no matter your race or ethnicity.” In 2012 alone, 41,150 women died of the disease. Breast cancer also has a profound impact on the economy, with researchers estimating that it costs the U.S. billions of dollars each year. In other words, it affects the health and well-being of millions of patients and their loved ones, as well as having an adverse impact on the economy. News that relates to the early detection and treatment of breast cancer is clearly news worth covering, particularly when it could inform the decision-making of women and health professionals — and have an effect on women’s access to screening.

mammography,US Preventive Services Task Force

The story does address how the USPSTF recommendations may affect insurance coverage of mammography screening, as well as related congressional action mandating that insurers cover such screening. However, the story does not tell readers the bottom line: how much would a mammogram cost if it were not covered by insurance? While we found varying estimates, a 2011 paper stated that the overall cost of a mammogram was $266 — a considerable sum, and likely out of reach for many women. This was a shortcoming of both the Washington Post and New York Times stories. The story does not offer any detailed information on the potential benefits associated with mammogram screening. Instead, the story uses vague language, describing the USPSTF’s recommendations as saying that “screening mammography had the greatest benefit for women ages 50 to 74” and that “the likelihood of benefit is less” for women in their 40s. Exactly how much different are the potential benefits for these groups? That’s an important point, and the story doesn’t tell us. The story does note that the USPSTF recommendations are aimed only at women with an average risk of breast cancer, and it attempts to explain what that means, noting that it refers to women “who don’t have specific risk factors for breast cancer such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations or a family history of the disease.” That’s useful information for readers, but the story could have noted that there are other factors that place women at elevated risk. A history of prior breast surgery, especially if the pathology demonstrated atypical hyperplasia [an abnormal overgrowth of cells] significantly increases the risk of a subsequent breast cancer. In addition, a woman’s menstrual history, age at first pregnancy, and other factors also influence risk. There are several risk assessment models that are widely available, but are underutilized, to help women and their physicians assess risk. It would have been helpful to at least acknowledge this, as there remains a lot of confusion over just what constitutes “average risk.” The story addresses harms briefly in two places. In one place, the story refers to “the anxiety and potential harm caused by over-diagnosis and false positives,” though it doesn’t explain what over-diagnosis or false positives mean (potentially leaving many readers in the dark). The story also notes that “The most serious potential harm is unneeded treatment for a type of cancer that would not have become a threat to a woman’s health during her lifetime.” But it doesn’t give readers any idea of how serious this harm might be, or how common this scenario is. In short, the story does enough to earn a Satisfactory rating, but could have (and should have) done more. It’s worth noting that the New York Times piece did a top-notch job discussing harms. The story does, however, make clear that women should be informed consumers, and that — if well-informed — women should have the authority to weigh potential benefits against potential harms and make their own decisions about when and how often to get screened. That’s an important point, and one worth making. There is no specific study to evaluate or discuss in a story like this one; the USPSTF’s recommendations are based on an evaluation of all the available research literature on breast cancer screening and mammography. However, the story could have simply said that. As it is, while the story does tell readers what the USPSTF is, it doesn’t say anything about what the task force based its recommendations on. No disease mongering here. The story incorporates input from several independent sources. Comments from Fran Visco of the National Breast Cancer Coalition are worth repeating: “Women are capable of understanding the complexities of the issue, evaluating the evidence and making their own health decisions.” The alternatives in a story like this one are the recommendations from other organizations. And the story does explain varying recommendations from the USPSTF and two other groups: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society. The story makes clear that the use of mammograms as breast cancer screening tools is longstanding and well established. The story also discusses insurance coverage issues that would affect availability for many women. The story does tell readers that the new recommendations on mammograms and breast cancer screening are consistent with the USPSTF’s 2009 recommendations — which triggered a fierce (and still ongoing) debate over the issue. The story also offers a good primer on congressional action related to the debate, particularly as pertains to legislation that mandates insurance coverage of mammograms for breast cancer screening. The story clearly includes original reporting and goes beyond what would be found in a news release.


Arminas Pileckas was murdered because he was trying to protect a Swedish girl from sexual harassment by a Syrian refugee.

Explanation: We have reached out to Swedish police to see if they can verify any additional details of the case and are awaiting a response.

In late January 2019, a meme that referenced a 2016 Swedish crime story and contained some measure of unverified information circulated on social media:  What information is publicly available about this case holds that a 15-year-old boy, identified as Arminas Pileckas, was allegedly stabbed by a 14-year-old schoolmate around lunchtime in the small southern town of Broby in the Swedish county of Skane on 11 January 2016. The victim was taken to a hospital, where he died of his injuries. The narrative shared in the meme reflects the talking points favored by anti-immigration partisans in both Europe and the U.S. in regards to the tragedy. As the digital media outlet Vocativ reported, “Anti-immigrant groups, websites and supporters are now seizing on the school stabbing story in Sweden — and the rumors it’s inspired — as the latest tale of barbaric migrants run amok.” For instance, the right-leaning Swedish website Fria Tider reported that Pileckas “was stabbed to death by a student from the Arab world after protecting a girl whom the killer had harassed.” In the U.S., Breitbart ran with a similar headline: “15 Year Old Boy Was Stabbed to Death by Arab Migrant Because He Was Protecting Young Girl from Sex Assault.” Although such sites cast Pileckas as a hero, criminal proceedings involving children aren’t public in Sweden, so media reports about the motive for the killing are drawn from interviews given by the parents of both children and have not been verified by authorities. Nils Karlsson, a member of the municipal council in the Swedish city of Malmö, said those with detailed knowledge about the case are prohibited from commenting on it publicly because of the young age of the offender. “He was turned over to social services and they operate under very strict secrecy. So those who know more about the case are forbidden by law to talk about it. I highly doubt that Fria Tider has access to accurate information about any motives,” Karlsson told us. Both children were immigrants: Pileckas’ family is from Lithuania, while the 14-year-old suspect is from Syria. As is customary in Sweden, authorities don’t furnish personal information about suspects, particularly minors, and Swedish legacy media outlets typically don’t publish it. Discussion about motives initially surfaced on social media and reports from news outlets operating in the native languages of the suspect and victim. Stockholm-based Arabic language publication Al Kompis identified Pileckas’ killer as Ahmed Mustafa al-Haj Ali. In interviews given to Lithuanian-language news outlets, including Lrytas.lt and the Baltic publication Delhi.lt, the murder victim’s father, Žydrūnas Pileckas, said his son was killed because he had defended a female student against harassment from Ali. The Swedish tabloid Expressen did report an incident that involved the victim, the suspect, and other students in November 2015 that possibly led to the stabbing, but it didn’t go into detail about what happened. According to Expressen, Arminas Pileckas reportedly “protected a classmate against the 14-year-old and urged [that] the classmate be left alone.” But Expressen didn’t state that classmate’s gender or ethnicity and didn’t mention sexual harassment or assault. Ali’s father, Mustafa al-Hajj Ali, told Al Kompis that Pileckas had been bullying his son but adults at the school had failed to intervene. Vocativ published a widely-shared video that purported to show Pileckas slapping the suspect, then chasing him down a hallway, but the video didn’t show what led to the encounter. Ali’s father told Al Kompis that the video was originally shared on the social media platform Snapchat as part of a bullying campaign against his son. The claim that Pileckas was protecting a girl from sexual assault may have morphed out of various unconfirmed reports about the murder investigation alongside widespread but unfounded Internet rumors labeling Sweden the “rape capital of Europe” — a claim pushed by anti-immigrant activists who exploited an influx of Arabic-speaking refugees to Sweden in 2015 for political purposes. But that claim is not corroborated by any official reports, and it’s unlikely that law enforcement in Sweden would do so given the privacy laws applying minors there.


A video investigation showed that Planned Parenthood lies about providing prenatal care.

Explanation: What's true: Prenatal care makes up a small portion of Planned Parenthood's services, and not all Planned Parenthood affiliates offer these services. What's false: Planned Parenthood offers a number of reproductive health services other than abortion -- including prenatal care (and referrals to prenatal care providers) -- at multiple health centers across the U.S. and has not claimed to offer prenatal care at all their centers.

On 24 January 2017, the Facebook page “Live Action” published a video purportedly showing “Prenatal Care Deception” at Planned Parenthood, which has approximately 650 health centers operated by 57 affiliates across the U.S. The gist of the video’s presentation was that Planned Parenthood lies about providing reproductive and health services such as prenatal care, instead focusing solely on providing abortions:  This video quotes snippets of Richards’ saying: “Prenatal care. These are the kinds of services that folks depend on Planned Parenthood for,” and “a president who will fight for pre-natal care!” We could not find the specific origins of the first snippet, but it’s clear that Richards was listing several services that Planned Parenthood provides (and not claiming they offer only or primarily prenatal care), as she said “these are the kinds of services that folks depend on planned Parenthood for. But Live Action apparently omitted the first portion of her statement. The second snippet came from a 2016 speech in which Richards endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The portion of the speech included in the Live Action video was less about what services Planned Parenthood offers and more about what qualities the organization was looking for in a U.S. president: They want a president who believes access to health care isn’t a luxury — it’s a human right. They want a president who understands that being pro-choice also means being able to choose to have a child — and a president who will fight for prenatal care, head start, health care for kids and first class public schools because it takes a village! They want a president who will stand up to the gun lobby and demand safety for kids in schools, folks in church, and women getting healthcare — no matter what. They want a president who will demand nobody is paid less just because they are a woman — we deserve 100 cents on the dollar! They want a president who believes that access to health care isn’t a luxury it’s a human right. They also want a president who understands that being pro-choice actually means being able to choose to have a child. And a president who will fight for pre-natal care, and head start, and health care for kids, and excellent public education. Because as someone so famously said, it takes a village to raise a child. The video also used a quote from Lori Lamerand, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan, to make it seem as if the organization were unjustly touting their prenatal care services. According to the video, Lamerand said: “Prenatal care! Um — and that — that is what we want to focus on. That is what is so vital.” But again, this quote was taken out of context from a speech Lamerand gave during the Pink Bus Tour in 2011, and according to Planned Parenthood, Lamerand “spoke about the vital services like birth control, pap smears, and preventative cancer screenings, which Planned Parenthood provides to women who otherwise might go without.” The context of these quotes is important since Live Action shared this video with the title “the Prenatal Care Deception.” In order to set up the “deception,” Live Action needed to try to establish that Planned Parenthood supposedly unjustly bragged about the prominence of their prenatal care services before offering supposed audio recordings of calls with Planned Parenthood representatives who stated that the organization did not in fact provide these services. Although Planned Parenthood does provide prenatal care services, those services are not a primary part of their operation. According to organization’s annual report for 2014-2015, they only provided 17,419 instances of prenatal care services (compared to 3,533,522 STD tests and 323,999 abortions.) Live Action offered no evidence that Planned Parenthood lied about these numbers, or that Planned Parenthood claimed they provide prenatal care services at all of their health centers. Not only did Live Action present Planned Parenthood’s comments without proper context, their investigation also presented a misleading picture about the services provided by the organization. We can’t verify if every one of the phone call recordings offered in the above-displayed video was genuine, but we can say that the claim “only 5 [Planned Parenthood] facilities out of 97” provide prenatal care is misleading at best. First of all, Planned Parenthood operates more than 650 facilities in the United States. In California alone, we found 13 Planned Parenthood clinics that advertise prenatal services. Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic (PPHP), which operates health centers in Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland counties, New York, provides prenatal care in 6 of their 10 health centers. We also found that many of the Planned Parenthood clinics that do not provide prenatal care services do nonetheless state they offer resources to assist those in need of finding such care: “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.” (We also surveyed several Planned Parenthood offices ourselves. For example, we called the Family First Health Center in Fresno, California, who confirmed to us that they do in fact offer prenatal care services. We also contacted the Planned Parenthood office in Tempe, Arizona (one of the first locations mentioned in the video), who told us that they did not provide prenatal care services themselves but directed us to a nearby facility, the Mountain Park Health Center, that does.) The Live Action video is based on the implication that Planned Parenthood claimed to provide prenatal care services at all of their facilities, or that the organization was misleading the public about how often it provides these services. However, that simply isn’t the case: Mary Alice Carter, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, pointed out the group’s history of being targeted with selectively edited videos, and said that the new video tried to hold the organization to a standard it had not set for itself. “It is safe to say that not every single one of our health centers provides prenatal care, and we’ve never said otherwise,” Ms. Carter said. According to an annual report published in 2015, the most recent period for which information was available, eight Planned Parenthood affiliates of the 59 that existed at the time reported that they had provided 17,419 individual prenatal services. Ms. Carter said that “100 percent” of the organization’s health centers would provide what would be considered an initial prenatal visit, which would include a referral for further prenatal services that would be available elsewhere. It should be noted that the organization’s web site states that “Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 80 percent of our patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy,” and that Live Action chose to compare prenatal services (approximately 17,000 in 2014-2015) to abortions (more than 300,000) for this video, which gave the misleading impression that Planned Parenthood rarely provides reproductive health services other than abortions. In reality, Planned Parenthood provides more STD screenings (4,218,149), contraception services (2,945,059), and cancer screenings (682,208) than they do abortions.


Wyeth Wins U.S. OK to Sell Pristiq for Depression.

Explanation: Drugmaker Wyeth WYE.N won U.S. approval to sell a drug called Pristiq to treat depression, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Friday.

An FDA spokesperson confirmed the approval, but provided no other details. Pristiq is a derivative of Wyeth’s widely used Effexor depression drug and the company had hoped it would be approved long before Effexor loses its U.S. patent protection in 2010 and faces generic competition. But some analysts have dismissed Pristiq as a “me, too” drug, with few distinguishing characteristics and modest sales potential. Wyeth also has tested Pristiq as a treatment for hot flashes in post-menopausal women, but the FDA last summer said it could not approve the drug for that condition until Wyeth resolved concerns about potentially serious heart and liver problems. The company plans to begin a new study in coming months to verify its safety. The drugmaker has not cited any major advantages Pristiq might have over the $3.8 billion-a-year Effexor in treating depression, but has suggested it may be less likely to interact with other medicines because it is broken down differently. “This is a very important condition,” said Wyeth Chief Executive Officer Bernard Poussot, “and physicians need all the options” in treating patients. Despite skepticism among many industry analysts about the drug’s commercial appeal, Poussot said in an interview that Wyeth remains confident Pristiq will eventually garner annual sales of $1 billion or more as a treatment for depression. Mehta Partners analyst Shaojing Tong said Pristiq may surprise naysayers and post decent sales despite its lackluster profile, even after cheaper generic forms of Effexor hit the market. “It could wind up with sales of $500 million to $1 billion because so many patients switch between depression drugs” to obtain relief, and Pristiq will be one of the relatively few available options, Tong said. Wyeth in December said a low-dose 50-milligram form of Pristiq was effective in two late-stage depression trials and far better tolerated than a 100-milligram version that failed to win U.S. approval in early 2007. The 100-milligram version had proved ineffective in one of the Phase III studies, tarnishing overall results of the two trials. Wyeth submitted results last summer of the studies, one conducted in the United States and one conducted overseas, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In studies of the 100-milligram dose of Pristiq conducted more than a year ago, a high percentage of patients complained of nausea and stopped taking the drug, creating doubts that doctors would prescribe it or patients take it even if it were approved. Wyeth scrapped that formulation and began studies of the now-approved 50-milligram pill, hoping it would not cause nausea. The percentage of patients who dropped out of the trials because of side effects was similar to those who received a placebo, indicating the lower dosage pill was tolerated. The FDA in early 2007 refused to approve the 100-milligram formulation, in part because of long-standing quality-control lapses at a Wyeth plant in Puerto Rico where Pristiq was to be manufactured. The problems have since been fixed and the 50 milligram pill is manufactured there. Shares of Wyeth were unchanged in after-hours electronic trading on Friday from their closing share price of $43.62 on the New York Stock Exchange.