In January 2017, Dr. Anthony Fauci predicted a serious pandemic during U.S. President Donald Trump's tenure in office.

Explanation: Did Dr. Fauci Predict a Serious Pandemic During Trump’s Presidency — in 2017?

White House Coronavirus Task Force lead member Dr. Anthony Fauci was a widely familiar face throughout the coronavirus pandemic (due in part to what many perceived as a soberingly honest approach to the crisis), and by late March 2020, Fauci was rumored to have “predicted” a virus like COVID-19 and its ripple effects back in January 2017.So relatively candid was Fauci in daily coronavirus briefings that the media regularly raised concerns for his job security. On April 1 2020, The Atlantic published an editorial speculating that Fauci might be unceremoniously dismissed from his high-profile job over his tendency to honestly address the American public.Around the same time, numerous Twitter users made reference to Fauci predicting a Trump-era pandemic in 2017:Fauci is in on it. He knew it was coming. Was talking about this in 2017— Murph am I (@Optimurph_Prime) April 1, 2020Dr. Fauci in 2017, "No doubt Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak". https://t.co/kguFPV3Y6A— Jacqline Lee (@leejac424) April 1, 2020January 11, 2017“Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is ‘no doubt’ Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.”— 2020 Climate Referendum C Ettinger (@lowerthetemp) April 1, 2020And how exactly did Dr. Fauci know in 2017?? pic.twitter.com/Uhg4vQ8guN— Grumpy's AF Brat (@shannonschoono) April 1, 2020Over on Reddit’s r/conspiracy, the claim appeared in the form of a screenshot (with yellow highlighting) on March 25 2020:Fauci: ‘No doubt’ Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak…. said it 2017!!! from conspiracyThe text of the screenshot are transcribed below, with the highlighted portions marked in bold text:Fauci: ‘No doubt’ Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak January 11, 2017Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is “no doubt” Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak.During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.“The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with,” he said.That person did not elaborate on why they shared the screenshot to r/conspiracy, but overall interacted a great deal on COVID-19 related Reddit threads.The screenshot showed a January 11 2017 item published by healthcare news aggregator Healio.com. The text shown in the screenshot was accurately represented, and the piece continued with commentary from other experts on infectious disease:Ronald Klain, who coordinated the U.S.’s Ebola response for the Obama administration, said Trump’s virtual silence about the Zika outbreak and harsh comments about American volunteers infected during the West African Ebola outbreak is “not the kind of leadership we need in our next president.”“It’s hard to think of a more important time to show a willingness to speak out in the public health community and the global health community than it is right now on the eve of Donald Trump becoming our next president,” Klain said. “The risks have never been higher, and the question of his perspective on these issues has never been more dubious than it is with Donald Trump.”Fauci and others noted some of the disease outbreaks that recent administrations have faced, including current President Barack Obama, whose administration was tested early on with an H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. More recently, the administration was forced to repurpose almost $600 million in federal funds set aside for the Ebola outbreak when Republicans rejected Obama’s request for $1.9 billion to fund the nation’s Zika response.The reporting concluded with additional commentary attributed to Fauci in January 2017, first about the Zika virus, and then “the things we are not even thinking about.” Fauci’s primary emphasis appeared to be the recurring nature of pandemics in general:Near the end [of the pandemic preparedness conference], Fauci speculated about the possibility that there will be a resurgence of Zika this summer … Fauci said other concerns for the Trump administration include the potential for a new influenza pandemic and outbreaks of diseases that are not yet on anyone’s radar.“What about the things we are not even thinking about?” he said. “No matter what, history has told us definitively that [outbreaks] will happen because [facing] infectious diseases is a perpetual challenge. It is not going to go away. The thing we’re extraordinarily confident about is that we’re going to see this in the next few years.”A February 2017 Healio.com item in “Infectious Disease News” was similar in content and tone. Several portions of the separate report matched the earlier one verbatim.On January 12 2017, Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) published a brief on Fauci’s remarks two days before on pandemic preparedness. It explained the purpose of the event at which Fauci spoke about the threat of pandemics:As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, has worked with five presidents who all faced pandemics early in their presidencies. At “Pandemic Preparedness in the Next US Presidential Administration,” a gathering of students and global health experts from academia, government and advocacy at Georgetown on [January 10 2017], Fauci and other global health leaders encouraged the incoming Trump administration to plan accordingly.“If there’s one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience, it is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases,” Fauci said.The event was organized by the Center for Global Health Science and Security (GHSS) at Georgetown University Medical Center in partnership with the Harvard Global Health Institute.Fauci was one of several experts quoted in the coverage of the pandemic-related presentation, but he was the only one appearing nightly on television screens during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Others quoted in reporting on the talk tended to emphasize the same points — that when it comes to pandemics, it was less a matter of “if” than “when”:Realizing that a pandemic is inevitable is a significant first step that the incoming Trump administration can take towards improving pandemic preparedness. “No matter how much an administration believes and wants to believe that the secretary of health and human services and other members of the cabinet on the domestic side will be totally focused on a domestic agenda, something will happen at an unexpected point that will change that thinking,” said Bill Steiger, PhD, chief program officer at Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, an international organization dedicated to fighting women’s cancers. “So you might as well prepare for that from the beginning.”Trump wasn’t the only president discussed by those epidemiology experts. Although Fauci’s remarks addressed a then-incoming Trump administration, he lamented a months-long wait for Zika outbreak funding requested in February and granted in September 2016:Setting up a funding mechanism to pay for pandemic response in advance is another critical step the Trump administration can take to prepare for a pandemic, said Amy E. Pope, JD, deputy assistant to the president and deputy homeland security advisor on the National Security Council staff at the White House. There are resources that can be quickly deployed when a community is devastated by a hurricane but not a pandemic, Pope said. “That means we are negotiating with Congress every time we need resources to address an emerging infectious disease and you all know that is a terrible way to do business and does not leave us in a very safe place,” she said.Fauci faced that situation during [2016]’s Zika outbreak. “We need [a public health emergency fund] because of what we had to go through for Zika,” he said. “I mean, it was very, very painful when the president asked for the $1.9 billion in February [2016] and we didn’t get it until September [2016]. That was a very painful process.”Fauci’s excerpted January 2017 commentary was in no way unique; preparing for pandemics before they manifested was a recurring topic whenever Fauci (and other public health experts) was quoted. In November 2018, Fauci once again banged the drum in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presentation, citing several examples of inefficient investment of time and money in “chasing after” new strains:Fauci explained that when influenza pandemics occur, post hoc development of vaccines is often ineffective in response to the pandemic. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, for example, the first human outbreak occurred in March and began to spread worldwide by April. Egg-based vaccines take approximately 6 months to develop and produce, so public health officials presumed that the vaccine would be ready by the typical peak of influenza season in December and January. The vaccine was barely available when the pandemic peaked, and by the time vaccine doses were finally ready to administer, the pandemic had waned; only 90 million doses were used out of the 162 million doses that were produced.Fauci said that the current vaccinology practice of “chasing after” prepandemic influenza is costly and ineffective. For example, influenza experts projected that the 2005 H5N1 outbreak would be a major event, and the United States president at that time requested $7.1 billion for pandemic preparedness, including the development of a vaccine; however, the outbreak never reached the pandemic level in humans. In 2013, significant investment was channeled into developing, producing, and stockpiling a vaccine for the H7N9 strain. However, the H7N9 virus circulating by 2017 had mutated, and the 2013 vaccine no longer provided adequate protection. This required developers to start chasing prepandemic influenza vaccines anew. Fauci argued that the large investments would be better invested in efforts to develop a universal vaccine rather than strain-specific ones.Fauci’s January 2017 Georgetown University keynote speech was cited in the May 2017 National Academies book Global Health and the Future Role of the United States, as was a 2012 paper he co-authored in the New England Journal of Medicine. Once again, Fauci et. al. emphasized the “perpetual” challenge of pandemic preparedness, and once again he cited pandemics from previous administrations:By virtue of their unpredictability and global effect, infectious diseases remain a perpetual challenge for the global community (Fauci and Morens, 2012). Since 1997, each U.S. presidential administration has been faced with an emerging or reemerging infectious disease that assumed high political priority, including HIV/AIDS, H5N1 influenza, SARS, MERS-CoV, Ebola, and Zika (Fauci, 2017).Fauci’s long view of presidents and pandemics is reflected in his National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) biography, which begins:Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.A March 8 2020 profile of Fauci in the New York Times is featured on that page (“Not His First Epidemic: Dr. Anthony Fauci Sticks to the Facts”), and in February 2017, Fauci himself wrote a reflection on his January 2017 pandemic presentation, explaining his work on pandemics across six presidential administrations, and concluding:If history has taught us anything, it is that the new [then-incoming Trump] administration is likely to experience at least one infectious disease crisis of significance. We have learned from the past decades that it is important to have strong global surveillance systems; transparency and honest communication with the public; strong public health and health care infrastructure, or capacity building efforts where needed; coordinated and collaborative basic and clinical research; and the development of universal platform technologies to enable the rapid development of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics. We also have learned that it is essential to have a stable and pre-established funding mechanism to utilize during public health emergencies similar to a FEMA-like emergency disaster fund. What we know for certain is that emerging infections will continue to be a perpetual challenge, requiring the attention of all Presidents to come.To be clear, it was absolutely true Dr. Anthony Fauci “predicted” a pandemic occurring during the Trump administration, as part of a January 10 2017 keynote speech about pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University. Fauci’s regular appearance at White House Coronavirus Task Force briefings and the singling out of his remarks on one occasion inadvertently created the impression that Fauci only said such things on one occasion, or that his prediction was specific to Trump. In reality, Fauci regularly warned of coming pandemics, a lack of preparedness for them, and the difficulty in preparing for viruses like SARS-nCoV-2 in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak. His pleas for more robust government response to the threat were frequent, perhaps emphasized by his 2017 warnings going unheeded until the COVID-19 pandemic was well underway. And while we’ve rated this True, the claim could also be rated also Decontextualized due to sloppy and selective presentation.


China agrees to WHO sending experts to study virus.

Explanation: China has agreed that the World Health Organization will send international experts there as soon as possible to increase understanding of a new coronavirus and guide the global response to the outbreak, the U.N. agency said on Tuesday.

In a statement after a two-day visit by WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who met Chinese President Xi Jinping as well as the health and foreign ministers, it said that a better understanding of the virus’ ability to spread from person to person was urgently needed to advise other countries. “The discussions focused on continued collaboration on containment measures in Wuhan, public health measures in other cities and provinces, conducting further studies on the severity and transmissibility of the virus, continuing to share data, and for China to share biological material with WHO,” the WHO said. This would contribute to developing vaccines and treatments. “The two sides agreed that WHO will send international experts to visit China as soon as possible to work with Chinese counterparts on increasing understanding of the outbreak to guide global response efforts,” the WHO added, without giving a time frame. Xi said earlier on Tuesday that China was sure of defeating the “devil” coronavirus that has killed 106 people, spread across the world and rattled financial markets. Tedros can reconvene the WHO Emergency Committee on very short notice as needed, to consider whether the outbreak constitutes an international emergency, the WHO said in the statement, which made no reference to evacuations of foreigners that both sides say were discussed in the Beijing talks. The WHO’s independent panel met twice last week, but declined to declare a global emergency.


How barbershops could help lower blood pressure

Explanation: This well-written CNN story describes a multi-year study that looked at whether providing blood pressure screening and access to pharmacists in black-owned barber shops might be effective in reducing high blood pressure among the African-American men who patronize these establishments. The study was presented as part of the 67th annual scientific session of the American Association of Cardiologists. The story is strong and scores well because it discusses critical data from the study, offers comments from independent sources and provides information on limitations. It didn’t delve into either costs or harms, but in this case, there seems to be minimal need for either, due to the nature of the research. One minor point we think the story could have made: It remains to be seen if this style of intervention ultimately leads to a reduced risk of stroke, serious heart disease, and/or heart attacks, especially if there is not a long-term barbershop program in place. This was a unique choice for a study presented at the ACC conference. Often, the studies presented at the conference are industry-funded and focus on specific (and often very expensive) drugs or devices. We were heartened to see the news media give this study broad coverage, and found this story especially refreshing to read.

There was no mention of costs in this story although the costs of some antihypertensive drugs can be moderately high. Neither did the story disclose that study participants received vouchers for monthly haircuts as well as a small monetary payment to offset the costs of drugs and transportation as enticements to continue with the program, information that was contained in the journal paper but excluded in the story. Regardless, we don’t believe that information is that important to readers in this case so we’ll rate this category as non-applicable. The story clearly states that men in the intervention group experienced a much greater reduction in their blood pressure readings as compared to the control group. It included this quantified statement, “It turned out that, when the guidance was coupled with medication, a blood pressure level of less than 130/80 was achieved among 63.6% of men who participated in the study’s program, versus 11.7% of those who didn’t.” This was a tough one to rate. On one hand, It is hard to envision harms arising from men participating in what appeared to be a safe screening and treatment program for high blood pressure. On the other, the journal paper about this study reported that three individuals experienced acute kidney injury, although that problem disappeared once medications were altered. So, there are risks, and the story would have been stronger had it included them. This was a strong point of the story. It explains that the research compared the results of an interventional group with those of a control group of matched participants and barber shops. It also points out several limitations to the study which readers can consider when evaluating the worth of this research. No disease mongering here. The story includes comments from both a barber-participant in the study and a researcher unconnected to this project. We did not detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The story explained the alternative–not receiving special help at the barbershop–and what the outcomes were. It also discussed similar past efforts to help black men at risk of colon cancer. Perhaps more could have been said about the effectiveness rates of other public health programs, but we feel this wasn’t critical. The story makes clear that this research was conducted in the Los Angeles area and cautions that a national study would be needed to show the approach’s applicability in other locales. Readers would not assume that this kind of health care assistance was available in black-owned barber shops elsewhere. The story does a good job discussing this study in the context of previous research, which has involved the use of barber shops and beauty salons as places where patrons might be receptive to health messages. This does not appear to rely on a news release.


City Government, Crime, Florida, Broward County Police Benevolent Association,

The police union in Hollywood has launched a high-profile battle in an effort to oust Chief Frank Fernandez, and they have literally taken their message to the sky. In March, the Police Benevolent Association floated a banner from an airplane that flew over the beach and downtown that declared, "Hollywood a high crime area. Thanks Chief Fernandez!" Then on April 15, the PBA posted a billboard on Pembroke Road that stated: "Hollywood is #1 in Broward homicides in 2013. Thanks Chief Fernandez!" We decided to investigate whether the homicide statistic is accurate and if Fernandez can be blamed for it. Hollywood police department battles To understand the backdrop of the billboard requires a bit of history about the years of feuds between city officials and police union leaders in this city of 145,000. In 2011, the city declared financial urgency and cut officers’ pay, which led to protests from the union and officer turnover. Fernandez became the city’s assistant city manager overseeing public safety in 2012 and chief in 2013, and he’s been tasked with trying to turn around the long-troubled department. Though Hollywood has a popular beach front that draws tourists and snowbirds, it’s also had some famous scandals in recent years. In 2007, a handful of officers convicted in a scheme that included selling heroin to undercover agents posing as mobsters. (The chief at the time was accused of leaking information about the probe before the arrests, forcing the FBI to bring it to a close prematurely.) A separate group of officers drew national attention in 2009 after one of them crashed into a vehicle, and video captured employees saying they would "do a little Walt Disney" to protect the officer and doctor a police report. News reports in the Sun-Sentinel indicate Fernandez has had some success: He has increased recruiting, made physical improvements to the police station and brought a close to contract negotiations. Fernandez also brought in outside consultants to audit the agency, and they found problems with its use-of-force policy, missing internal affairs files and forgotten rape kits, the Sun-Sentinel reported. The union disputes the audit and says it was written by a hired consultant tasked with finding fault. The billboard is the latest round in the battle between the police union and city leaders who say it’s just another ploy. Hollywood crime statistics Jeff Marano, president of the police union, sent us Hollywood crime statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The data showed homicides in the city rose from five in 2012 to 16 in 2013. A spokeswoman for the city didn’t dispute the numbers but said they come with some caveats. First, the homicides were either drug- or gang-related or domestics, Raelin Storey said. "There were not random acts of murder taking place in the city of Hollywood," she said. The reasons behind the homicides aren’t the point, Marano said. "A homicide is a homicide," he said. "It’s a dead person." Assessing whether the number of homicides placed Hollywood in the No. 1 slot in Broward was more complicated because statewide data for 2013 hasn’t been published yet. (Marano said he determined Hollywood was the highest by speaking with a Hollywood homicide detective who speaks with his counterparts at other departments.) So we decided to do our own research and contact law enforcement agencies in Broward County to ask them to supply the number of homicides in their city in 2013. We mostly focused our search on the larger cities or the ones that had more than five homicides in 2012. The results: Hollywood: 16 Fort Lauderdale: 13 Pompano Beach: 8 Lauderhill: 6 Lauderdale Lakes: 5 Oakland Park: 5 Miramar: 4 Pembroke Pines: 0 We did not find any city that had a higher number of homicides than Hollywood in Broward. Not surprisingly, the city pointed to statistics that give residents a more favorable impression of safety in their city. The data from FDLE showed other serious offenses, which include sexual assaults, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and larceny and motor vehicle thefts. In total, those offenses dropped 13 percent in Hollywood in 2013. FDLE data showed that the crime rate dropped from 5,869 in 2012 to 5,050.9 in 2013. Experts pick apart union’s billboard We sent the union’s statement and the city’s recent murder statistics to a few criminologists. Several experts told us that when examining small numbers from one year to the next, a jump can appear significant even when it’s not. To draw meaningful conclusions requires looking at several years of data and examining the nature of the homicides. "Homicides are rare events in Hollywood, and as such the rates can bounce around quite a bit," said James Lynch, chair of the criminology department at the University of Maryland and former director of the federal government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. We asked Marano to explain why the union pinned the number of homicides on the chief. Marano cited the chief’s "poor leadership" and deployment of officers, specifically "not enough officers assigned to street level crimes." But the experts we interviewed rejected the idea that the chief was to blame for the number of murders in one year. "Let’s assume the facts are correct," said Robert Friedmann, a professor emeritus of criminal justice at Georgia State University. "So does that mean blame chief for it? Unless the chief is the one who shoots the people, I would say absolutely not." While there are steps police departments can take in an effort to reduce crime, there are several factors -- including neighborhood and economic conditions and drug and gang activity -- that influence the number of murders in a city in a given year. Those conditions are entirely or largely out of the control of the police, said Ronald L. Akers, a criminology professor at the University of Florida. "We like to attribute declines in crime rates in a community to good police work, but there is not strong evidence to support that," Akers said. "Similarly, one may want to attribute increases in crime to bad police work or an ineffective police department, but again, where is the evidence to support that? What have the police done any differently in 2013? What if the number of murders come down again in 2014?" Our ruling The police union’s billboard states, "Hollywood is #1 in Broward homicides in 2013. Thanks Chief Fernandez!" Hollywood had 16 homicides in 2013, and we could not find any city that had any more homicides than Hollywood. While the number is correct, the union cherry-picked crime statistics to find one that puts the city in the worst light. At this point, we have no idea if the number is part of a trend or an aberration. We also know that overall, crime decreased. The billboard places the blame on Chief Fernandez, but criminologists say the chief can’t be blamed for the number of murders, especially when it is such a small number.


Connecticut confirms 4th case of measles.

Explanation: Public health officials in Connecticut are confirming the state’s fourth case of measles this year.

Immunizations, Health, Measles, General News, Connecticut, Public health

The state Department of Public Health said Friday the latest case is in a “school-aged child” from Fairfield County. The child contracted measles earlier this month and was not infectious while at school. It is not connected to three previously confirmed cases in Connecticut reported in January and April. Health Commissioner Renée Coleman-Mitchel said the best protection against the highly contagious disease is vaccination. New data released this week showed immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella among kindergarten students in Connecticut has continued to decline in more schools. Democratic State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, who supports eliminating the state’s religious exemption for immunizations, said Friday it is imperative the state increase vaccination rates.


Opossums stop the spread of Lyme disease because they kill up to 4,000 ticks a week.

Explanation: Opossums Kill Ticks, Help Stop the Spread of Lyme Disease

Claims about possums and ticks are mostly true — but the amount of ticks one possum kills in a week has been skewed. An “Awesome Possum” meme, as it has become known, was posted at the image-sharing community website FunnyJunk.com in mid-March. Within days, it had been shared thousands of times on Facebook, and the legend of the Awesome Possum was born: INSERT PIC The idea is that even though possums are scary looking scavengers that prowl in the night for animal carcasses to feed on, they actually serve an important purpose: preventing the spread of Lyme disease by “hoovering up and killing” up to 4,000 ticks a week, each. As it turns out, there’s scientific evidence to support the “Awesome Possum” claim. It comes from Richard Ostfeld of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y. The Cary Institute reports: And now ecologists have learned something else about opossums. They’re a sort of magnet when it comes to riding the world of black-legged ticks, which spread Lyme disease. “Don’t hit opossums if they’ve playing dead in the road,” said Richard Ostfeld, of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y. Ostfeld is forest ecologist and an expert on the environmental elements of infectious diseases like Lyme disease. Several years ago, scientists decided to learn about the part different mammals play in the spread of the ticks and the disease. They tested six species — white-footed mice, chipmunks, squirrels, opossums and veerys and catbirds — by capturing and caging them, and then exposing each test subject to 100 ticks. What they found, is that of the six, the opossums were remarkably good at getting rid of the ticks — much more so that any of the others. “I had no suspicion they’d be such efficient tick-killing animals,” Ostfeld said. Indeed, among other opossum traits, there is this: They groom themselves fastidiously, like cats. If they find a tick, they lick it off and swallow it. (The research team on the project went through droppings to find this out. All praise to those who study possum poop.) Extrapolating from their findings, Ostfeld said, the team estimated that in one season, an opossum can kill about 5,000 ticks. So, it’s true that ticks are very good at removing and eating ticks — but not quite as good as the Awesome Possum meme claims. Researchers estimated that one possum could kill about 5,000 ticks in one season — not 4,000 ticks in one year. And the idea that possums stop the spread of Lyme disease is based on a simple cause-and-effect theory: possums help stop the spread of Lyme disease by killing ticks, which carry the disease. That’s why we’re calling this one mostly true. Comments


The 1866 "Ex parte Milligan" precludes states from enforcing regulations that prevent residents from freely traveling or earning a living.

Explanation: The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations relating to matters completely within its territory, and not affecting the people of other States, established directly by legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and safety.

In April 2020, as debate continued in the U.S. about the need to keep social-distancing restrictions in place to limit the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, a popular social media post cited an 1866 legal precedent that supposedly precluded governments from using a state of emergency (such as a pandemic) as a reason for restricting individuals’ rights to freely travel or earn a living:  The social media post (a lengthier version of which can be found here) read as follows: This is NOT an opinion. This was the ruling of The United States Supreme Court shortly after the “civil war” in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day: “Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in case of emergency …” ”Section 98 therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and or attempts to enforce such suspension within 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE; even the governor and President.” However, the cited case, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), was a Civil War-era case about an Indiana resident named Lambdin P. Milligan who was arrested in 1864 by order of a military commander, tried by a military commission, and sentenced to death. Milligan contended that as he was not serving in the U.S. military, was not a prisoner of war, and was not living in a part of the U.S. that was in rebellion against the federal government, the U.S. military had no jurisdiction to arrest, try, and sentence him. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him that it was unconstitutional for civilians to be tried by military tribunals while civil courts and authority were still functioning. The Milligan case has no real relevance to the issue of whether federal, state, or local governments may impose mandatory temporary restrictions on movement and travel and business operations in order to deal with emergencies, such as pandemics. Moreover, the quoted material cited in the post was not part of the Milligan decision (obviously no mid-19th century source would make reference to the U.S. having 50 states), nor part of any valid court ruling or law that we could find. (What source the cited “Section 98” refers to remains a mystery to us.) Moreover, states have previously used police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders and to control the spread of disease within their borders, including enforcing the use of isolation and quarantine. Such powers have been upheld in other legal rulings, such as Jacobsen v. Massachusetts — a 1905 Supreme Court case affirming the legal right of state legislatures to pass laws mandating use of smallpox vaccine by residents — which held that state governments may enact “reasonable regulations” in order to “protect the public health and safety” so long as those regulations do not conflict with federal constitutional authority:


Cortisol levels in children's hair may reveal future mental health risk

Explanation: This story reports that in an Australian study of 70 children (average age 9.5 years), those who had experienced a higher number of traumatic events also had higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol in samples of their hair. The researchers are hypothesizing that the cortisol levels might be a marker of future mental health problems in the children, as people with depression and other mental health problems, as well as physical problems like diabetes, sometimes have high levels of cortisol. Here’s the problem with this story: The study being reported on never actually looked at whether cortisol levels had anything to do with future mental health diagnoses. And in fact, cortisol levels were found not to be correlated with current depressive symptoms in these children. Moreover, the study had such a small sample as to make any conclusions resulting from it highly uncertain. So it’s a huge stretch to claim that cortisol in hair “may reveal future mental health risk” in children. We wish the story had been more cautious, especially in its headline, when discussing the implications of this very preliminary research. Childhood lays the foundation for one’s health over a lifetime, so identifying people who have risk factors for health problems early on — as with a simple hair test — is an attractive idea. This might allow for early intervention to modify risk and get people into treatment sooner, lessening the impact of disease or behavioral problems on their lives.

Although the hair test is far from ready for any practical, clinical use, the story speculates that it could be a tool to identify children at risk. If it’s not too soon to make such predictions, it’s not too soon to give readers an idea of what the test might cost. The magnitude of the correlation or association between cortisol and traumatic events was not mentioned, and it is very small. As per the scientific article, the history of traumatic events accounts for only 5 to 13% of the variance in the cortisol levels; the biggest effect on those levels was male or female sex, with boys having about two times higher levels than girls. So many, many other factors are influencing cortisol levels besides these reports of traumatic events. None were mentioned. The other side of the early identification/screening coin is that labeling a child with a mental illness early on and with minimal evidence also has adverse effects with regards to self-image and development. The worst problem with this article is that it makes the classic mistake of jumping to the conclusion that because of the association found, the cortisol test may be used to predict future disease. This goes far beyond the data and we cringed at the headline. The sample size (14 boys and 56 girls) is far too small to even suggest this has some hope of being a diagnostic or screening test. The study authors even admit in their paper that the sample is disappointingly small and a lot more work has to be done to prove the hair-cortisol test’s veracity. The sample included mostly girls because they tended to have more hair to snip from. We also question how good the reported history of traumatic events is, in that it is based on questionnaires to parents. As is a problem for all retrospective studies like this, memories are not perfect, and we would think that some parents would be reluctant to reveal some types of trauma such as physical abuse, witnessing of domestic abuse, and sexual abuse. There’s a big difference between those types of trauma and, for example, moving one’s home or having a skateboard accident and breaking your ankle (or worse). Also, the scientific article notes that no correlation was found with current depressive symptoms and the hair cortisol level, which may not bode well for their overall theory that the cortisol may predict future mental health problems. None. There are no conflicts of interest as determined from the authors’ disclosures in the published study. But the story quotes only the first author of the study in the article, and would have done well to get opinions of the work from at least one independent source. It’s pretty unfortunate that the story did not get an outside perspective, given the nature of the article and its claims. Alternatives to testing cortisol levels in hair were mentioned — as in saliva and blood. Alternatives regarding ways to identify children at risk would seem to abound and likely explain much more than any lab test ever will. For example, kids who come from homes where they aren’t provided with adequate food, from parents with mental health problems, etc. (sociological/environmental variables). We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here but it’s really only a partial Satisfactory. Again, since the story speculates aggressively about the clinical usefulness of this test, we’d like to see some information about how widely available it is. Is this a highly specialized test available only to researchers? Could consumers request such tests from any lab? Such context is important to help readers understand the impact of this research. The news article didn’t give any idea of how novel the research is. Apparently from the scientific article, no prior studies have tried to look at history of past traumatic events and correlate with cortisol levels. Even the hair test, as late as 2016, is described as “relatively new” by the researchers, especially in kids (hair tests for cortisol in adults go back quite a few years). Other background with regard to studies using hair and cortisol and mental illness were reviewed in the scientific article and the Guardian story might have provided a bit more background. We couldn’t find any evidence of any news release about this study. However, because there are no independent sources quoted, we can’t be sure that the story didn’t rely on such a news release that we weren’t able to find (e.g. one that may have been emailed to reporters). The best the story can score here is Not Applicable.


In 2017 and 2018, teenage boys widely purchased and used a urethra-covering adhesive band called the Jiftip.

Explanation: What's true: The Jiftip product does exist and appears to be for sale. What's false: There is scant evidence that anyone (including teenagers) is buying the product.

Business, birth control, consumer products, science

Odd new inventions and commercial products are a frequent source of attention-grabbing news headlines, especially if they stretch credibility. That was the case in 2017, when news outlets around the world reported on Jiftip, an adhesive band designed to offer men an alternative to condoms during sex. In August 2017, Inked published an article with the headline “Teens seal their penis holes closed to avoid using condoms!”  At some point after this, probably thanks to the headline of the Inked article, the rumor mutated from an adhesive product into do-it-yourself territory, prompting a flurry of concerned e-mails to us: Apparently teens are now super glue-ing their urethras shut to avoid using condoms. I hope this is fake! I saw an article on Facebook that was so outrageous I feel it had to be wrong. It states that teens are gluing their penises shut to avoid using condoms. TEENS SEAL THEIR PENIS HOLES CLOSED TO AVOID USING CONDOMS! In August 2016, the Hong Kong-registered Sumina Global Limited registered “Jiftip” as a trademark in the United States. Some 18 months earlier, a businessman named Momo Sumina — whose LinkedIn profile lists him as Sumina Global’s marketing director — applied for a United States patent for “seminal and urinary fluid emission arresting devices, systems, and methods of using the same.” This was a new version of his 2014 application for an invention that Sumina billed as “Urethra Shield — Alternative to the Male Condom”:  In the 2016 patent application, Sumina wrote: A fluid emission arresting device is provided. In some embodiments, the fluid emission arresting device may comprise: a barrier layer made of a flexible material which may comprise a generally planar exterior surface and a generally planar interior surface. An adhesive layer may be applied to the interior surface of the barrier layer and may be configured to attach to the glans of the penis to position the barrier layer over the urethra opening to block fluid from exiting the urethra opening. In further embodiments, once the device is attached to the penis over the urethra opening, the barrier layer may prevent fluid from exiting the urethra so that the urethra may function as a fluid reservoir. United States Patent Office records suggest that the patent application has not been granted as of June 2018. In 2017, Sumina Global posted a short instructional video on how the adhesive device is purported to work:  The Jiftip web site features a shopping cart, where users can — at least in theory — purchase three Jiftip strips for $9, or ten for $24. Before completing an order, customers must agree to the following terms and conditions: While the web site now features repeated emphatic disclaimers about the safety (or otherwise) of using Jiftip (calling it a “backup for your pullout”) the makers of the product previously made bold claims about the safety of using the adhesive to have sex without a condom, variously promoting Jiftip with the slogans “Bareback sex without the worry” and “feeling and freedom of raw sex is safe now.” Sumina, in his original 2014 patent application, billed his invention as an “alternative to the male condom.” The Jiftip web site now stresses the opposite: “Is Jiftip a condom alternative? NO! It’s a sexual pleasure enhancement device.”   The device certainly exists, as the detailed patent application and instructional videos make clear, and the online store embedded in the Jiftip web site would also suggest that the product is for sale. However, we could find no evidence, beyond the web site itself, of anyone actually having bought a pack of the adhesives. Despite the fact that Jiftip is such a novelty and has prompted global headlines and giggling coverage on countless radio talk shows, we were unable to find a single Facebook or Twitter post or photo by a member of the public who had decided to experiment with the widely-publicized product or signed up as a beta tester, nor have we found any product reviews written by journalists or published on consumer web sites. The product is not available for purchase on Amazon, eBay, or Google. The Jiftip web site itself features two comments from men who present themselves as having either used or ordered the product. We asked the makers of Jiftip for some figures relating to sales and beta-testing signups, as well as possible plans for future retail marketing, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. While Jiftip does exist, the prevalence of its usage appears to have been greatly exaggerated in some news reports, and there is absolutely no evidence that “teens” are opting for it at all, much less at a higher rate than their older counterparts, which is probably a good thing.


China seeks to identify cause of mystery pneumonia infecting 44.

Explanation: Chinese health authorities are trying to identify what is causing an outbreak of pneumonia in the central city of Wuhan, officials said on Friday, as the tally of cases rose to 44 and Singapore said it would screen arrivals on flights from there.

Authorities this week said they were investigating 27 cases of infection after rumors on social media suggested the outbreak could be linked to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The World Health Organization said it was aware of the reports, is monitoring the situation and is in contact with the Chinese government about it. “Investigations are still being carried out and authorities cannot yet confirm what pathogen is causing this illness,” said WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic. He added that there are several  potential causes of viral pneumonia, many of which are more common than SARS. Chinese municipal health officials in Wuhan said in a statement on their website on Friday that they had ruled out common respiratory diseases, such as influenza, bird flu and adenovirus infection, as the cause. Eleven of those infected were in critical condition and the rest stable, they said, adding that all had been isolated and doctors were observing 121 people with whom they had been in close contact. Clean-up efforts at a seafood market where some victims were vendors have been completed, the city officials said, adding that no obvious human-to-human transmission had been seen and no medical staff had been infected. On Friday, Singapore’s health ministry said it would begin temperature screening on passengers arriving on flights from Wuhan. In 2003, Chinese officials covered up a SARS outbreak for weeks before a growing death toll and rumors forced the government to reveal the epidemic, apologize and vow full candour regarding future outbreaks. The disease, which emerged in southern China late in 2002, spread rapidly to other cities and countries in 2003. More than 8,000 people were infected and 775 died. Wuhan police this week said they had summoned eight people who “posted and forwarded false information online, causing adverse social impact”.


North Dakota governor says controlling hotspot is weeks away.

Explanation: North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum said Friday that it’s likely going to take weeks to control the spread of the coronavirus in the Fargo metropolitan area, noting problems finding contact tracers and reaching people in certain neighborhoods.

Health, General News, North Dakota, Fargo, Virus Outbreak

Cass County, which includes Fargo, leads the state with 1,032 positive COVID-19 tests, including 43 new cases reported by health officials on Friday. Burgum last week assigned a task force to spearhead new testing, tracing and isolation strategies for the Fargo and neighboring Moorhead, Minnesota, area. “I think we’ve got a ways to go,” Burgum said at his Friday briefing. “One of the things we’re looking for is, again, execution and cooperation at the local level.” Burgum said 250 people were recently invited to participate in contact tracing in Fargo and 78 showed up. He said the issue is “about us learning how to do better” because trying to arrest a contagious disease takes communication and personal responsibility. The good news, the governor said, is the number of positive tests in the state’s hotspot dropped for the second straight day, where the Red River Valley COVID-19 Task Force has begun testing some people more than once. Of the 2,310 tests completed statewide in the last day, 909 were people who had been previously screened. Many health experts consider hospitalizations and deaths as key figures for tracking spread of the virus. The number of hospitalizations reported Friday dropped by three, to 35. There were two new deaths reported Friday, one in Cass County and one in Grand Forks County, raising the total to 42. Statewide, the number of active cases increased for the fourth straight day, for a total of 648, including 428 in Cass County. Despite what he called a “little bit of a fire burning” in Fargo, Burgum said the Friday report contained “all in all good numbers” and provided “a lot of hope for us.”  Burgum and state Schools Superintendent Kirsten Baesler announced Friday that a virtual graduation ceremony for high school seniors scheduled May 30 will feature Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Carson Wentz, actor Josh Duhamel and Nashville recording artists Tigerlily, all of whom are North Dakota high school graduates. Burgum said the event is not intended to replace ceremonies at individual schools but called it another “star-studded celebration” for students. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia.


The European Union ordered reporters to not reporting whether a terrorist is Muslim.

Explanation: Bolton’s organization also failed to note that the ECRI’s report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups.

In November 2016, rumors began to swirl that the European Union had ordered the media not to report when terrorism suspects were Muslim, presumably because of pressure from Islamic groups. The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which  appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute:  The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state. The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016:  The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton’s group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate. Both the Mail and the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2016. As the latter group puts it: The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit “Islamophobic” acts against Muslims. Criticism of the report centered around this passage: ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker’s history of mental instability and not his religion. While the ECRI did call for an “independent press regulator,” it also stated that it did not want government officials “encroaching on [media outlets’] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups.” It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices. From the ECRI report: The Leveson Report, published in November 2012, pointed out that “certain parts of the press ride roughshod over others, both individuals and the public at large, without any justifiable public interest”, and that a significant number of news stories fail to meet standards of integrity and propriety and reflect a culture of “recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm these may cause and the rights of those who would be affected”. It also noted a “significant and reckless disregard for accuracy”. The report stated that the Press Complaints Commission was not independent and had failed its purpose, and recommended replacing it with a new, independent, self-regulatory body established by statute, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals, and with a range of sanctions available to it.


Some Doctors Question New Cancer Treatment

Explanation: This story shows how "a shortcut the Food and Drug Administration allows for granting regulatory approval to certain medical devices" has allowed the NanoKnife, an experimental treatment with very limited evidence, to be touted as the latest cure for cancer. The story hits nearly all of our marks, although we wish there were more detail in areas such as costs, potential benefits, and the overall evaluation of the evidence. This device is the type one might see advertised on the side of a bus or in the back pages of of a weekly tabloid. Health reporters often ignore these claims to focus on the higher profile blockbuster drugs being sold by major drug companies or some breakthrough discovery in a major scientific journal. The promotion and use of these under-researched devices can have devastating consquences for patients. In addition, one of the major drivers of increasing health care costs is the introduction of new technologies. While additional costs may be justified if there is an improvement in patient outcomes associated with the new technology, newer is not always better. The NanoKnife is the latest in a series of new devices, approved by the FDA, that have yet to demonstrate a substantive improvement in patient outcomes. Hospital promotion of new technologies is now rivaling that of other commercial interests with unsubstantiated claims.

The story says that each machine "costs as much as $300,000." It does not provide a per-treatment cost, which would have been nice. It does say, though, that "Medicare doesn’t specifically pay for use of the NanoKnife, though hospitals and doctors get reimbursement under more general medical-treatment billing codes. Some private insurers, including Arkansas BlueCross BlueShield, decline to cover its use because of the lack of "scientific evidence of effectiveness in improving health outcomes."" As with the harms, it is difficult to quantify the benefits because of the lack of evidence. Here we think the story relies a little too much on anecdotal evidence. On balance, the story presents a complete picture, though. Because of the lack of evidence, it is difficult to quantify the harms. But the story did a nice job of addressing the harms. "Some side effects have been reported. Because the device uses large electrical bursts, it can trigger fast heartbeats. Four such cases out of about three dozen patients were described in a recent report by Ken Thomson, a radiologist in Melbourne, Australia. AngioDynamics says that these cases have all been treatable and that the company has taken technical steps to minimize such future occurrences. One case reported to the FDA was of a U.S. patient who in July suffered a serious hemothorax, or blood buildup between the chest wall and lungs. The patient had to stay in the hospital for 16 days, and doctors said an artery "most likely" was punctured during the operation. AngioDynamics said in the FDA report that such a puncture is a "possible complication" of any such operation." This is more detail than is provided in most stories, even when there is much more evidence available. The entire reason for this story is to evaluate the disconnect between the claims being made for these machines and the lack of evidence to support those claims. It does a great job walking readers through the way the machine is supposed to work, the health benefit claims and the paucity of credible evidence for the machine’s benefits. One quibble: AngioDynamics says that the machine has been tested in "small number of human patients". What were the results? Why does the company think the results are promising? This story does not engage in disease-mongering. The story quotes a number of outside experts, including Riad Salem, chief of interventional oncology at Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital; Ken Thomson, a radiologist in Australia who studied the devices; and  Tim Clark, director of interventional radiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia. Importantly, the story also makes the distinction between the claims the company is making and the claims being made by the clinics and hospitals who have bought the machines (and are trying to recoup their investments.) It quotes the CEO of the machine manufacturer saying, "We are not part of the whole PR machine. It’s not something we are happy about." The story does not do a very good job of contrasting this treatment with other treatments. This is disappointing because one of the claims made by the manufacturer’s CEO is: "We think this is a very promising technology for treating cancer that is otherwise untreatable." Some specifics about those cancers and how they are otherwise treated would have been nice. Because the NanoKnife has not been compared to a more traditional surgical approach, the benefits of the new technology are hard to define. Unfortunately the story relies on a biased statement by the CEO of the manufacturer as its sole comparator. The story says that the NanoKnife is "currently being used in about 13 U.S. hospitals including Baptist Health Medical Center in Little Rock, Ark., University of Louisville, and Shands Hospital/University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla." It later says, "The NanoKnife, which is also available in five hospitals outside the U.S., has so far been used to treat about 300 cancer patients world-wide." The story  makes it clear that similar devices have been used for other procedures, but that this is a relatively new therapy for cancer. This story does not rely on a news release.


Florida’s hepatitis A outbreak prompts vaccine push.

Explanation: The Tampa Bay area has been hit especially hard by hepatitis A cases this year.

Health, General News, Florida, Hepatitis, St. Petersburg, Tampa

The region has led the state this year with 466 new hepatitis A cases in Pasco County, 369 in Pinellas County and 145 in Hillsborough. The Tampa Bay Times reports that Pinellas health officials were the first in Florida to deploy “foot teams” into areas where people at risk for hepatitis A tend to gather. They’ve administered 789 vaccines since May. Now, other counties are undertaking similar efforts. Since January 2018, Florida has recorded 3,395 cases of hepatitis A. The virus affects the liver and spreads through contaminated feces. It causes symptoms like fever, dark urine, yellow-tinged skin or eyes, fatigue and gastric issues. People pass it along by eating or drinking tainted food or water, or through sex. Since 2016, outbreaks have hit 29 states, beginning in California and Michigan, Kaiser Health News reports. More than 25,000 cases have been reported nationally in the last year. In the Tampa Bay area, reports of food service workers infecting others at local restaurants have dominated the news coverage about hepatitis A. Workers who handle food and don’t wash their hands after using the restroom or forgo using gloves can pass the virus onto others. Public health experts say the majority of hepatitis A cases come from white men in their young adult years to middle age. Most are transient, with limited access to sanitation methods and are more commonly drug users. Free hepatitis A vaccines are part of an aggressive effort to beat back an outbreak that recently prompted Florida Surgeon General Scott Rivkees to declare a statewide emergency. The local health department has already visited one motel in St. Petersburg three times this year. It’s where people rent rooms by the hour, the month, and anything in between. Many of the renters would be homeless, and are at risk for hepatitis A. ___ Information from: Tampa Bay Times (St. Petersburg, Fla.), http://www.tampabay.com.


Individuals with a high net worth are ineligible to serve in the military because they are more likely to be insubordinate.

Explanation: What's true: Active duty servicemen (or women) can be honorably discharged should they be on the receiving end of an unexpected windfall. What's false: Individuals with a high net worth are expressly prohibited from serving due to a propensity for insubordination.

A long-circulating military rumor maintains that individuals with a high net worth (a million dollars in this iteration) are prohibited from serving due to a supposed propensity for refusing orders:  My colleague works remotely from Japan, as her husband is stationed there. I’m not sure which branch of the U.S. military he serves in, but she stated that if you have a net worth of one million dollars, you are not allowed to serve because people with a high net worth also tend to refuse orders. Is this true? I’ve never heard that before and can’t find anything about it on the web. It’s certainly unambiguous that the majority of active servicemen and women are of modest means. While many now-wealthy folks once served, individuals who’ve abandoned lucrative careers or opportunities (or were born into money) often so rarely opt to serve that such a scenario is newsworthy. However, examples to the contrary remain, one being Senator John McCain’s son James McCain: Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or a retinue. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq … Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What [Sen. McCain] almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father’s New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud. Further back in history, all four of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.’s sons served in the military despite the family’s wealth: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. was killed in action in August 1944, President John F. Kennedy was awarded a Purple Heart for heroic actions in the same year, Senator Ted Kennedy enlisted in 1951, and Robert F. Kennedy enlisted in 1944 six weeks before his eighteenth birthday. None circumvented active duty despite their families’ wealth and fame. Clear examples to the contrary regarding wealth and eligibility to serve contradict claims that net worth is an absolute barrier to service due to a high likelihood of insubordination. A similar rumor was addressed in a 20 July 2010 Stars and Stripes column titled “Can winning the lottery get you out of the service?” Although the question addressed in that item didn’t directly pertain to eligibility to serve, it did confirm the existence of scenarios in which newly acquired wealth disrupted a military career: Seaman Don Burdette was one of thousands of sailors aboard the USS Nimitz in 2004. But he was the only one to win millions. And after Burdette hit the California lottery for a $6.5 million payday, it was only a matter of days before the Navy bid him bon voyage. The Rumor Doctor came upon Burdette’s story after a reader downrange asked if it is possible to be discharged after winning a big jackpot. The Doctor scoffed at first, having shot down many ridiculous notions, but it turns out that all the services have some type of system in place that would allow the nouveau riche to slip off their boots and begin a new life. Burdette had served more than two years of a four-year contract at the time. He asked his division chief and others what he should do. They suggested he take the money and sail away. It took about a week-and-a-half to process his request for an honorable discharge, which ultimately had to be approved by his captain … Marines who win the lottery can request an early discharge due to “unique circumstances,” said Marine Corps spokeswoman Maj. Shawn Haney. However, the scenario described didn’t involve a question of eligibility to serve, merely a situation where wealth arose as a factor in the trajectory of a military career. That article also noted that sudden infusions of wealth were a potential distraction of which the military wasn’t unaware, making such discharges perhaps best for all involved (again, in scenarios where individuals received unexpected windfalls in the course of service): And it just makes good sense, said Coast Guard spokesman Lt. Paul Rhynard, who believes it’s unreasonable to expect a Coast Guardsman who recently won the lottery to perform his duties the same as before. The Coast Guard no longer has any leverage over him, Rhynard said. “He’s not worried about whether he loses his job or not,” Rhynard said. Further supporting information can be found in military forms pertaining to requests for discharge following a “once in a lifetime opportunity”: This provision of AR 635-200 provides for those soldiers who desire to leave active duty but who do not qualify under any other provision of AR 635-200. Recent guidance (MILPER Message NR 97-095) emphasizes that requests under this provision will not be approved unless discharge is clearly “in the best interests of the Army,” not necessarily in the best interests of the soldier. Individual requests which serve only the interest of the soldier, particularly those involving soldiers with critical military skills or bonus recipients, will not be approved except under exceptional circumstances. Requests for separation more than three months before ETS normally will be disapproved. So while branches of the service were aware of and provided for scenarios in which an individual’s sudden wealth placed their continued enlistment at odds with the best interests of the military, we could locate no specific provision barring wealthy individuals from serving, due to probable insubordination or otherwise. It appeared to be true that servicemen or women who encountered a windfall could under some circumstances be relieved of their obligation to serve, but the request seemed to be most often triggered by the individual and not their relevant military branch. It’s possible the rumor was a byproduct of the idea such continued service was not in the “best interests” of the military, but that specific wording was derived from a protocol related to new wealth, not existing high net worth.


Explanation: The GOP says Bill White allowed a "gigantic abortion mill" to be built

Abortion, Texas, Republican Party of Texas,

Jan. 22 marked the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which protects a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. In honor of the occasion, the Republican Party of Texas linked Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Bill White to what it called a "gigantic abortion mill" in Houston. We saw the claim in an e-mail the party distributed last week: "In Houston, former mayor and now Democratic contender for governor Bill White has presided over the construction of what may be the world's largest abortion clinic. White bills himself as a moderate Democrat, but his administration allowed this 6-floor, 78,000 square foot facility to be built." In its e-mail, the GOP added a dramatic kicker: "And there's more to this awful story: White's director of Health Policy was one Elena Marks. Ms. Marks is (or was) also the Texas head of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Bill White's connection to this gigantic abortion mill is undeniable; he holds no claim to being a moderate Democrat." That's quite an indictment. Is it true? Katy Bacon, White's campaign spokeswoman, said: "Bill White had nothing to do with a Planned Parenthood facility." Bryan Preston, communications director for the state party, said: "It happened under his watch, and he had someone working with him in his administration that he appointed that is closely connected to Planned Parenthood." What we found: This March, Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, which opened more than 75 years ago, plans to move from its current location to a building it began refurbishing in 2008 with $17 million in private donations. The seven-story, 78,000-square-foot former Sterling Bank building on Houston's Gulf Freeway will be the biggest Planned Parenthood facility in the United States, according to Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla. The new facility includes a surgical suite that will provide the same services that the current location has offered since 1973. Currently, the clinic performs about 20 abortions per day. Tafolla said more than 90 percent of the clinic's services relate to preventative care, such as breast exams and cervical cancer screening. The city issued Planned Parenthood a demolition permit to begin the project in 2008, and several building permits since for various aspects of the construction, Tafolla said. However, the mayor has no role in approving such permits, said Janice Evans, director of communications for Houston Mayor Annise Parker, White's successor. Evans said: "We have thousands of building permits, they do not come to (the) city council." Andy Icken, Houston's deputy director of public works, said his department reviewed Planned Parenthood's application for building permits to make sure they complied with the city's building code. Icken also said that nobody from the mayor's office interfered with the application process. According to the Houston Department of Health and Human Services, facilities seeking to perform abortions apply to the state Department of State Health Services to be licensed in Texas. City officials do not sign off on whether facilities can perform abortions. What about Elena Marks, White's then-director of health and environmental policy? Did she play a role in getting city approval for the facility? Marks didn't return our phone calls, though we confirmed separately that Marks served on the board of directors for Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas from 1993-2004. In 2007, Marks joined the national board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which doesn't supervise local affiliates but sets general policy for the entire organization, according to Tait Sye, a federation spokesman. Marks previously was the board chair of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the PAC for the national organization. Contrary to the GOP's claim, Marks was never the Texas head of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; the position doesn't exist. Since 2001, Marks has personally donated about $3,500 to Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas. Her latest donation was in March 2007, according to a search of campaign finance records kept by the Texas Ethics Commission. We found no evidence that Marks used her official position to ensure approval of the building permits. This much is true: White was mayor when Planned Parenthood started renovating a building to become its new facility. Using the GOP's logic, White also "presided" over Hurricane Katrina and the Houston Astros going to the World Series and countless other coincidental events. But as far as we could tell, White was no more responsible for the Planned Parenthood construction than he controlled the weather, baseball playoffs or other non-mayoral events. We rate the Texas GOP's claim ridiculously . This story was updated to correct the number of abortions Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas performs each week to 20 per day.


Researcher Judy Mikovits was arrested without a warrant and jailed without charges for making a controversial scientific discovery.

Explanation: After a flurry of motions were filed by each party, Judge Brent Adams in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County ruled in favor of WPI, which fired Mikovits in September for insubordination. In essence, the judge’s “default judgment” rejected Mikovits’s replies to the complaint and upheld all of WPI’s claims, which include breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. “It is so surprising,” [WPI attorney Ann] Hall says of the judge “striking” Mikovits’s reply, noting that that the judge emphasized that he had never taken this action in his 22 years on the bench.

Editors’ Note: Snopes reviewed Judy Mikovits’ court case and debunked several of her claims in a piece written by Alex Kasprak in 2018. After the “Plandemic” video went viral in May 2020, an outpouring of reader inquires prompted us to add to our reporting in the interests of ensuring that search engines connect readers with the full story. In the midst of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, millions of viewers in America and elsewhere were exposed in May 2020 to a 22-minute installment from the forthcoming film “Plandemic,” a conspiracy-based “documentary” holding that (as synopsized by The Washington Post) “doctors and experts shaping public policy in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic have silenced dissenting voices and misled the public for sinister reasons.” The primary (and virtually sole) source offered by filmmaker Mikki Willis for the contentions made by the movie in that 22-minute installment is Judy Mikovits, who over the course of the segment spins a tale of a government conspiracy led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and has been the prominent public face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. That one installment of “Plandemic” offers far too many bits of misinformation to debunk in a single fact check, so we’ll start here by attempting to unpack the introduction of Mikovits the film offers in its opening in an attempt to establish her as a credible expert voice. The installment opens with the following voice-over narration describing Mikovits’ background, then segues into a Q&A dialog between Willis and Mikovits: Dr. Judy Mikovits has been called one of the most accomplished scientist of her generation. Her 1991 doctoral thesis revolutionized the treatment of HIV/AIDS. At the height of her career. Dr. Mikeovits published a blockbuster article in the journal Science. The controversial article sent shockwaves through the scientific community, as it revealed that the common use of animal and human fetal tissues were unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases. For exposing their deadly secrets, the minions of Big Pharma waged war on Dr. Mikovits, destroying her good name career and personal life. Now, as the fate of nations hang, in the balance, Dr. Mikovits is naming names of those behind the plague of corruption that places all human life in danger. “So you made a discovery that conflicted with the agreed-upon narrative?” “Correct.” “And for that they did everything in their powers to destroy your life?” “Correct.” “You were arrested?” “Correct.” “And then you were put under a gag order.” “For five years, if I went on social media, if I said anything at all, they would find new evidence and put me back in jail. And it was one of the few times I cried, and it was because I knew there was no evidence the first time, and when you can unleash that kind of force to force someone into bankruptcy with a perfect credit score. And so that I couldn’t bring my 97 witnesses, which included the heads, Tony Fauci and Ian Lipkin, the heads of public health in HHS, who would have had to testify that we did absolutely nothing wrong.” “And so what did they charge you with?” “Nothing. “But you were in jail.” “I was held in jail with no charges. I was called a fugitive from justice. No warrant, literally drug me out of the house. Our neighbors are looking at ‘What’s going on here?’ You know, they search my house without a warrant, you literally terrorize my husband for five days, they said if you don’t find the notebooks, if you don’t find the material — which was not in my possession but planted in my house as if you took intellectual property from the laboratory — it was intended to appear as if I took confidential material, names, and intellectual property from the laboratory and I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I didn’t. Heads of our entire HHS colluded and destroyed my reputation, and the Department of Justice and the FBI sat on it and kept that case under seal, which means you can’t say there’s a case or your lawyers are held in contempt of court. So you can’t even get a lawyer to defend you. So every single due process right was taken away from me, and to this day remains the same. I have no constitutional freedoms or rights.” The “blockbuster article” of Mikovits’ that this opening refers to was a paper published in the journal Science in 2009 that seemingly tied chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to a retrovirus called XMRV — a finding that, if true, could be a boon to developing treatment for CFS patients. But “Plandemic” makes absolutely no mention of the fact that, as we detailed in a previous article here at Snopes.com, other scientists couldn’t replicate the results of the study, mounting evidence suggested that Mikovits’ findings were actually the result of lab contamination, questions arose over whether Mikovits’ had misrepresented data, and in December 2011 the editors of Science retracted the paper in full, saying they had “lost confidence in the Report and the validity of its conclusion.” Chicago Tribune reported in 2011: Not long after she arrived [at WPI], Mikovits’ team announced a breakthrough. The scientists said they had found evidence of a retrovirus called XMRV significantly more often in the blood of patients diagnosed with CFS than in blood from healthy peers. The journal Science published their paper online Oct. 8, 2009. But as the [Chicago] Tribune reported, Mikovits and others quickly galloped ahead of the findings, which had not been replicated by other scientists. Though she lacked published data to back her up, Mikovits began tying XMRV to autism and other mysterious disorders. A lab offered an XMRV blood test. Patients took antiretroviral drugs meant for HIV patients. At the same time, other scientists began reporting that they could not find evidence of the retrovirus in the blood of patients with CFS — or in anyone else’s. Researchers wondered publicly whether lab contamination could explain Mikovits’ results, and one scientific team published evidence that XMRV was, indeed, a lab contaminant. Mikovits vehemently denied contamination had occurred and attacked scientists unable to replicate her findings. “Some are not trying in completely good faith,” she said in a 2010 interview with the Tribune. Then, a study published in September [2011] showed that the WPI could not reliably find evidence of XMRV in the blood of patients. On Sept. 29, WPI fired Mikovits, according to court filings, and Science said a few days later that it was investigating allegations of data manipulation. “Plandemic” also grossly misrepresents events that occurred shortly before and after the retraction of Mikovits’ paper by Science, presenting them as the result of Mikovits’ having “made a discovery that conflicted with the agreed-upon narrative” — an act that supposedly made Mikovits the target of a vast conspiracy — by the ubiquitous and powerful “they” — to “destroy [her] life.” What “Plandemic” doesn’t mention was that in September 2011, a few months before Science retracted her paper, Mikovits was fired by her employer, the Reno-based Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), for insubordination connected with her refusal to share a cell line with a former collaborator, Dr. Vincent Lombardi (the first author of 2009 Science paper that proposed the XMRV-chronic fatigue link). According to an affidavit provided in subsequent legal proceedings by another WPI employee, Max Pfost, after learning of her firing, Mikovits asked Pfost to remove notebooks and samples from WPI’s facility and provide them to her. Pfost, who said he “worked closely” with Mikovits and “considered her my boss” at WPI (and whom Mikovits called her “assistant”), stated in his affidavit that he complied with Mikovits’ request, and that Mikovits planned to transfer “grants and research and projects away from WPI based upon the information she [had] stolen”: On Sept. 27, 2011, there was a package delivered to the laboratory at WPI from Japan. The package was addressed to Dr. Lombardi. I opened the package and discovered that it contained cell lines that he was not allowed to have according to Mikovits. I called Judy Mikovits and informed her about the cell lines from Japan addressed to Dr. Lombardi. Mikovits informed me that she “would take care of it.” I have since been told by Annette Whittemore, the Founder, President, and CEO, that Dr. Lombardi was indeed allowed to use the lines from Japan. Judy called [me at home on Sep. 29, 2011] and said she had been fired for insubordination and insolence. She was very angry. She stated that she had had enough of WPI … She stated that WPI would go down and that I should get out too. … [Mikovits] stated that she planned to move the grants from WPI. She stated that she was going to try to move the RO 1 grant and the Department of Defense (DOD) grants and stop the Lipkin study. I expressed some skepticism to Mikovits about whether she could take the research and samples, and stated that Dr. Lombardi would take over the projects and continue on behalf of WPI. Mikovits stated that she was in charge of the research at WPI so technically it was her research and she could move it somewhere else at any time. … Mikovits gave me the keys to her desk and the keys to her office in order that I could gain access and take the WPI materials for [her]. Mikovits then directed me to remove samples from the lab at WPI and all the notebooks from WPI containing irreplaceable research and data and provide them to her at a later date. She kept her laptop computer with the information from WPI with her. [The next day] I went to WPI to attempt to obtain the samples and notebooks for Mikovits … I went into Mikovits’ office and retrieved the materials … I took between 12-20 notebooks for Mikovits. I put half of the notebooks in a backpack and carried the remaining [notebooks] out … I took the notebooks to my car and concealed the notebooks … I drove the notebooks to my mother’s home in Sparks, Nevada, where I stored them in her garage. On or about October 16, 2011, Mikovits flew back to Reno for the purpose of retrieving the notebooks and WPI property … I gave her all of the notebooks I took from WPI … She informed me that she would store them in a safe location. Mikovits rented another car and drove the notebooks to the Los Angeles area. Mikovits informed me that she was hiding out on a boat to avoid being served with papers from WPI. … [Mikovits] has been in contact with Lipkin through others about transferring grants and research and projects away from WPI based upon the information she has stolen. The materials that Mikovits asserts in “Plandemic” were “not in my possession but planted in my house” as part of a conspiracy to make it look like she “took intellectual property from the laboratory” are presumably the notebooks and samples that her subordinate attested he took from the WPI lab at Mikovits’ direction, after she had been terminated by WPI and locked out of her lab, and subsequently delivered to her. In “Plandemic,” Mikovits declares that she was arrested without a warrant and “held in jail with no charges.” But according to contemporaneous reporting, WPI filed a civil lawsuit against Mikovits to compel the return of their “misappropriated property,” and WPI reported the lab notebooks and other materials as stolen to the police force of the University of Nevada at Reno. Mikovits was subsequently arrested as a fugitive in California (where Pfost said she was “hiding out on a boat” to avoid being served in the WPI lawsuit) pursuant to a warrant issued by University of Nevada at Reno police, which listed two felony charges: possession of stolen property and unlawful taking of computer data, equipment, supplies, or other computer-related property. Mikovits spent several days in a California jail until she was released following an arraignment hearing upon posting $100,000 bail and promising to return to court for a Nevada extradition hearing. She subsequently surrendered to police in Reno and returned some of the notebooks taken from WPI at that time. Mikovits also asserts in “Plandemic” that the indefinite conspiratorial “they” searched her house without a warrant, yet in her 2014 book “Plague” she described three Ventura County (California) Sheriff’s deputies arriving at the door “brandishing a yellow piece of paper” and informing her that they had a search warrant, and later in that same book she referred to a search warrant for her home in Nevada issued by the Washoe County District Attorney’s office. As well, in “Plague” she mentioned her attorney questioning the court as to “why Mikovits was arrested on a no bail warrant” — thereby describing a specific aspect of the arrest warrant which she maintains did not exist. (A copy of the California search warrant, which includes reference to the existence of a separate arrest warrant, is viewable here.) Although the criminal charges against Mikovits were eventually dropped, WPI was successful in civil court, obtaining an injunction preventing Mikovits from altering or distributing misappropriated materials and requiring her to return them to WPI. When Mikovits failed to comply with the injunction order “because of concerns for the safety of patient data,” WPI submitted a motion for an Order to Show Cause why Mikovits should not be held in contempt of court: Mikovits, who is also facing related criminal charges for possessing stolen property, returned some of the notebooks and a laptop after being briefly jailed. But WPI filed an affidavit from a computer expert that said all the files had been recently deleted on the laptop. WPI attorney Ann Hall further asserts that Mikovits returned only 18 of the notebooks, withholding half a dozen more that include experiments done between 2006 and 2009.


Utah investigates 21 cases of lung disease linked to vaping.

Explanation: Utah health officials say they are investigating 21 cases of a severe lung disease linked to vaping.

Health, General News, Utah, Marijuana, Lung disease, U.S. News

The state Department of Health announced the new number Monday, a jump from the five cases in teenagers and young adults reported last week. The department says the cases stem from the use of a mix of nicotine and marijuana electronic cigarette products. The symptoms of the disease include coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. The department advises that people who vape experience any of the symptoms that they should visit doctors. Health officials say the first five people found with the disease were hospitalized. Their conditions have improved after treatment.


On the heels of the Las Vegas shooting, two military veterans-turned-congressmen waded into the debate over the country’s response to gun violence. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., a former Marine, appeared with Rep. Scott Taylor, R-Va., a former Navy SEAL, on ABC’s This Week Oct. 8 to discuss issues surrounding gun control and the Second Amendment. As the conversation turned toward background checks, Taylor argued the measure doesn’t necessarily help reduce gun violence. "Actually," Moulton countered, "background checks have been unequivocally shown to reduce gun violence." We previously found that around 90 percent of Americans support background checks on every gun sale. While the belief that background checks reduce gun violence appears firmly ingrained, we found that proving the theory — especially "unequivocally," which means without a doubt — is not so clear cut. Moulton’s office pointed us to research by the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety that explored the relationship between background check laws and gun violence rates. Under federal law, background checks are not required for private sales. But 19 states and D.C. have laws on the books that require some sort of background check on private sales of at least some types of private guns. Everytown for Gun Safety compared the rates of gun violence in states that require background checks for private sales to states that do not. They compared the fatality rates along several categories: women shot to death by intimate partners, suicides by gun and law enforcement officers shot and killed in the line of duty. The group found that states with comprehensive background checks had a roughly 50 percent lower rate in each category:  But experts told us that while stark differences between the two groups of states is noteworthy, it should not be taken as unequivocal proof that background checks reduce gun violence. Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy studies at Duke University and gun control expert, said the comparisons do not control for all of the other variables that may differ between the two groups of states, like relative levels of gun ownership. "No reasonable person could believe that universal background checks could, all by themselves, cut these rates of gun violence in half," he said. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said that without controlling for other factors, the data is insufficient for concluding a cause-and-effect relationship about background checks and a reduced gun violence. Moulton’s office also pointed us to research by Webster and several colleagues. The study looked at the effects that a Connecticut law requiring handgun purchasers to get a license had on subsequent homicides. Under the Connecticut law, a prospective handgun buyer had to clear an application process that included a background check to obtain a 5-year license to buy handguns (the law did not not apply to rifles and shotguns). Measures such as the Connecticut law are known in academic circles as "permit-to-purchase laws." Researchers found the Connecticut law was associated with a 40 percent reduction in gun homicides between 1996 and 2005. They determined this by comparing Connecticut’s homicide rates after the law went into effect to rates that would have been expected if the law was never passed, an estimate referred to as "Synthetic Connecticut" in the graph below (we’d note this methodology was not without some controversy). Researchers also discovered the large drop in homicides was found only in gun-related killings, not homicides caused by other means, which suggests the law was the driving force behind the reduction. But Webster cautioned that the associated reduction in gun violence could not be attributed solely to background checks, because they were part of a larger regulatory scheme under Connecticut’s permit-to-purchase law. The law required all would-be gun buyers to apply for a permit in person with the local police before making a purchase, regardless of whether the seller was a licensed dealer or private seller. The law also raised the legal age to buy a handgun from 18 to 21 years and obliged would-be purchasers to undergo at least eight hours in a gun safety training course. It also criminalized the sale of a handgun to anyone without a license. Webster said the effects of comprehensive background checks alone couldn’t be de-coupled from the other law’s other provisions. "Just passing a comprehensive background check law — without other measures relevant to standards for legal gun ownership and accountability and without commitment to really enforce the comprehensive background check laws — may not be sufficient to reduce gun violence if there is not concerted effort to enforce the law," Webster said. "Bottom line," he said, "comprehensive background checks laws saved lives, but when coupled with permit-to-purchase laws." Experts we spoke to appeared to agree Moulton was partially right, but overstated the case. According to his reading of the scientific literature, Webster said background checks on all gun transfers are necessary to stop prohibited people from getting guns. But it hasn’t been established scientifically that background checks could do so alone, separate from a broader system of laws and regulations, he said. "The best evidence for impact on mortality rates is when comprehensive background checks is coupled with permit-to-purchase law requirements," Webster said. "The impact of these laws depends on the legal standards for gun ownership, systems having necessary records and whether the laws are actually enforced." David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University who has written extensively about firearms policy, said he tends to agree with the general thrust of Moulton’s claim, but believes "unequivocally" is too strong a word. "Stronger gun laws and fewer guns are associated, all else equal, with lower rates of gun violence," Hemenway said. "Among all the gun laws, there is probably the best evidence that background checks help reduce gun violence. A handful of studies find that they appear to reduce interpersonal firearm violence (and gun trafficking)." Cook also said research into the relationship between background checks and gun violence is less clear cut than Moulton suggested. "The true state of play in the scientific literature is somewhat equivocal," he said. Moulton said, "Background checks have been unequivocally shown to reduce gun violence." Research has shown background checks to be associated with reduced gun violence, and they’re believed to be a necessary measure to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands. But it hasn’t been scientifically established that background checks alone could reduce violence, separate from a broader system of laws, regulations and enforcement. In short, the scientific literature is fuzzier than Moulton claims, experts said. We rate this .