Lung Cancer Breath ‘Signature’ Presents Promise for Earlier Diagnosis

Explanation: Image courtesy University of LouisvilleThis release discusses a study testing the efficacy of a test using the breath of lung cancer patients. Since patients with lung cancer are known to have specific chemicals in their breath — known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — which are caused by the disease, detecting them after the patients underwent surgery could indicate a recurrence of the disease. These chemicals are, in effect, markers for the presence of disease. The release notes the study showed a reduction in the amount of these compounds after patients had undergone surgical resection of the lung, but doesn’t give any numerical information about the level of reduction, other than to say it is “significant.” The release provides a nice description of costs and describes the test’s potential benefit to reduce harm from repeat CTs. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States with 224,000 new diagnoses each year and 158,000 deaths, according to the American Cancer Society. Both early detection and successful monitoring of disease recurrence might reduce those numbers considerably. Current monitoring for lung cancer recurrence after surgery is based on X-ray computed tomography (CT) scans. A breath test using chemical markers to detect recurrence could potentially be cheaper, simpler and less risky than repeat CT scans. However, it’s important to keep in mind that a positive breath test would still necessitate a follow-up CT scan and with almost every screening test, there is a risk of missed diagnosis.

Academic medical center news release,Cancer

The release does mention that the cost of materials to conduct the test is “around $20” which is considerably less than the cost of CT scan imaging which is now being used. It is unclear, however, how much patients would be actually charged. The release should’ve been clearer about the actual cost to patients. The release provides a good narrative of the potential benefits of the breath test (lower cost, reduces exposure to repeat CT scans) but does not provide any quantification. The release notes that “The researchers found a significant decrease in overall carbonyl VOC levels following surgery; in fact, three of the four carbonyl VOCs normalized after surgery, matching levels of the control group.”  We aren’t told what a “significant decrease” means or what a “normalized” level would be. The release would have been more complete if it had given us some idea of the test’s ability to accurately detect or rule out lung cancer recurrence. The release points out that the test could potentially reduce harms by reducing a patient’s repeat exposure to radiation from CT scans. However, the harms of the test itself — i.e. false positive screens that cause substantial anxiety and necessitate additional testing — are not addressed. As noted above under “Why This Matters,” the concern is that using this test to guide surveillance testing (whether to order the CT) could be a problem if the test is not actually very accurate when used in that role — false positive and particularly false negative results could lead to harms. We have no data (certainly not from the study in question) that could address these concerns. All we know from the release is that VOC levels dropped after surgery and were comparable to levels in controls. The study provided no data on how well this test would perform for cancer surveillance — which would require prospectively evaluating the breath test against the standard CT tests to determine its predictive values. The news release might have more appropriately stated that the breath test is being evaluated as a tool to monitor for disease recurrence — not being used as a tool. There’s no disease-mongering here. The release earns a satisfactory here for providing both funding sources and pointing out that three of the seven researchers have ties to a medical equipment company which deals with breath analysis. The information, however, lies at the end of the story in a portion commonly referred to as “boilerplate” information, which readers often ignore. Incorporating such info into the body of the release better serves readers. This release effectively points out that current practice uses periodic CT scans as the method of monitoring the potential recurrence of lung cancer in patients. It states that the breath analysis might be a substitute for the more expensive imaging procedure. Early on the release states, “Now the test is being used to monitor for disease recurrence.” That sentence might confuse some readers into thinking the test is already in use. You have to read to the end to learn from a researcher’s quote that “Our next step is getting approval from the FDA.” So that’s a signal to readers that the test is not yet available, and may not be for some time. In addition, the comment about FDA approval doesn’t give us any sense of the hurdles/obstacles that remain before the test would be validated for clinical use. The release doesn’t make a strong claim of novelty — and that’s appropriate. A quick online search found that besides this research from the University of Louisville in Kentucky, at least two other institutions are developing breath tests for lung cancer detection: Georgia Institute of Technology and the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University  and the University of Leicester. The release said “A subset of four VOCs—called carbonyl compounds because of their carbon base—have been discovered in the exhaled breath of lung cancer patients.” Discoveries sound novel. But this study, more than a decade old, describes the use of VOCs for lung cancer detection. While the release doesn’t claim to be “first,” it might have mentioned related work that has been done in this field of research. The release doesn’t use any unjustifiable or sensational language.


FDA Panel Backs Novartis Drug For Treating Parkinson’s Dementia

Explanation: The story reports that an FDA advisory panel recommended an existing drug (rivastigmine) be approved for a new use – the treatment of dementia in people with Parkinson’s disease. The story adequately tells readers that the drug is not new, but is being considered for a new purpose. It doesn’t seem to exaggerate the condition (although more info might have been useful). However, several other areas could be improved, including discussion of costs, side effects, benefits, a description of the evidence upon which claims are based, and other treatment options. It would be a concern if this story leaves readers thinking there may be a good treatment option for Parkinson’s dementia that’s about to become available, when this may not be the case. It isn’t clear that this treatment even works in Parkinson’s, and if it does work, that any benefits are meaningful either in the short-run or long-run.

The story does not mention any cost information for Exelon (rivastigmine). The story does not quantify any benefits. What’s more, the story doesn’t give any idea what the benefits might be or what improvemements might be expected. See comments in “Evidence” section. The story reports the panel believes the drug to be “safe” but does not describe any side effects or harms of rivastigmine. These may include nausea/upset stomach, vomitting, loss of appetite, and headaches. The story does not describe any evidence for therapeutic claims that the drug works for treating Parkinson’s Disease. Additionally, it appears the FDA panel recommended approval of this drug for Parkinson’s based solely on studies from the manufacturer. Another issue is that while this drug might provide some improvement in dementia symptoms among some people with some forms of Alzheimer’s, those improvements may be small and not all people will show improvement. It’s not known whether long-term outcomes, such as nursing home admission, is improved with the drug. It’s not clear that this drug would have the same effects in a different population (those with Parkinson’s), and if so, whether those effects would be meaningful. There are no obvious elements of disease mongering. The story provides simple, straight-forward descriptions of both Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, although more information might have been useful. The story does not provide any independent input about the therapeutic claims of rivastigmine for treating dementia in people with Parkinson’s. The story does not mention other treatment options, such as memantine. The story fails to mention a projected date for or the next steps in obtaining FDA approval. While the FDA usually follows the advice of the advisory panel, which in this case recommended the drug’s approval for treatment of dementia associated with Parkinson’s Disease, the FDA does not have to follow the panel’s recommendation. There is no discussion of when the FDA might approve the drug for this indication. The story tells readers that the drug is currently on the market for treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. In other words, the story adequately reports the drug is not new, but is being considered for a new purpose. There is no obvious evidence the story relies on a press release.


Tumor-free flounder: Study underscores Boston Harbor rebirth.

Explanation: A canary in a coal mine? How about a flounder in a harbor?

Health, Boston, Fish, North America, Science, Tumors, Harbors, Massachusetts

In a study published last week in the journal Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts declared that flounder in Boston’s once notoriously polluted harbor are now tumor-free. It’s turnaround from the late 1980s, when more than three-quarters of the species in Boston Harbor were found to have signs of liver disease, including cancerous tumors. But Michael Moore, the Woods Hole biologist who authored the study published in the academic journal Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, said his team hasn’t found a tumor on a flounder since 2004. “The fish aren’t getting liver tumors anymore,” he said. Moore has been monitoring harbor flounder since 1986, when the poor health of the once-bountiful, bottom-feeding fish became emblematic of the harbor’s broader environmental challenges. The health of the flounder that generations of Bostonians had fished helped spur a series of lawsuits. A landmark federal court decision in 1985 compelled Massachusetts to properly treat sewage dumped into the harbor, resulting in billions of dollars in public works projects. Chief among them was the completion of a new sewage treatment plant on the harbor in the 1990s and the opening of a massive underground tunnel directing discharge from the sewage plant nearly 10 miles out of the harbor into Massachusetts Bay in 2000. The results have been dramatic, with porpoises, seals, humpback whales and other marine animals that had been rarely if ever seen in the harbor now regularly popping up, says Tony LaCasse, the spokesman for the New England Aquarium that overlooks Boston Harbor. “The people of Massachusetts spent billions of dollars to reclaim their harbor, and it worked,” he said. The turnaround of the harbor — once considered the country’s dirtiest — can also be seen in the improved water quality in the rivers that feed into it and the high marks its beaches have received for cleanliness in recent years, according to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the drinking water and sewage agency created in the wake of the 1985 decision. “The empirical data is irrefutable,” Frederick Laskey, the authority’s executive director, said. “The clean-up of Boston Harbor is the greatest environmental achievement of this generation.”


Montana joins other states with vaping product bans .

Explanation: Montana officials temporarily banned flavored e-cigarettes Wednesday after a judge ruled against vape shop owners who sued the state to keep their products on the shelves.

General News, Marijuana, Montana, Vaping, Public health, Tobacco industry regulation

District Judge Jennifer Lint said in her ruling Tuesday that people’s health is threatened by the deadly outbreak of a lung illness tied to some vaping products and that flavored electronic cigarettes are making it easy for kids to become addicted to nicotine. “Preventing further harm to the public health is more important than preventing economic harm to vapor product businesses,” Lint wrote. With the ruling, Montana will join other states, including New York and Massachusetts, that have banned flavored e-cigarettes at the same time health officials are investigating vaping-related lung illnesses in the U.S. As of last week, there were 2,400 confirmed and probable cases of lung illnesses and 52 deaths nationwide have been attributed to vaping. The 120-day ban took effect Wednesday afternoon, said Department of Public Health and Human Services spokesman Jon Ebelt. The restrictions include the sale of all flavored e-cigarette products, including flavored nicotine, THC and CBD e-cigarette products, both in store and online. The rules do not require businesses to destroy their inventory. Officials said the ban would give the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention time to identify the cause of the illnesses. Federal health officials are examining vitamin E acetate, an additive used as a thickening agent. When inhaled, it may interfere with normal lung functioning. There have been seven vaping-related lung illnesses, including one death, in Montana, according to Ebelt. Business owners argued that there was no connection between flavored vaping liquids and the rise of the lung injuries, which they said appear to be caused by black-market products. They also argued that they don’t sell to minors and that their products are used by people trying to quit or looking for a safer alternative to tobacco. But the judge sided with state health officials, who said the rise of youth vaping and the unexplained increase in lung illnesses are two emergencies that left them no choice. Lint repeatedly said in her order that flavored vaping products provide an easy “on-ramp” to hook kids on nicotine, threatening the progress made in reducing tobacco use. “This has always been about protecting our most vulnerable, and we are pleased that the court chose to stand with Montanans and their health by allowing the emergency rules to go forward,” Public Health and Human Services Director Sheila Hogan said in a statement. Ron and Deanna Marshall, owners of one of the businesses that sued, Freedom Vapes, did not immediately return a message left at their Hamilton store. Before the ruling, Freedom Vapes advertised a “Happy (Resistance) Hour” for Wednesday afternoon. The shop had planned to offer half-off prices for flavored nicotine liquid “until a judge makes a ruling.” That Facebook post was later deleted and replaced with one that said, “We will be making an announcement soon on the flavored juice ban.”


Missouri student on Columbia campus has active tuberculosis.

Explanation: University of Missouri officials say a student on the Columbia campus has active tuberculosis and may have infected other people.

Columbia, Health, Tuberculosis, Missouri, University of Missouri

The school announced Monday that the Boone County health department is working with university health officials to determine whether other students and staff need testing. Privacy laws prohibit the release of any information about the student. The ill student left campus voluntarily. Only students with active infections can spread the disease to other through close contact. So far this year, six cases of active tuberculosis have been reported in Missouri.


“Trump administration just FIRED 54 scientists & cut off 77 grants at Fauci's NIH for not disclosing their ties to Communist China!”

Explanation: 54 scientists were fired or resigned as part of a probe by the National Institutes of Health into scientists allegedly failing to disclose financial ties to foreign countries, primarily China. 77 scientists have been removed from the NIH system, meaning they are no longer eligible for NIH grants. Grants weren’t “cut off.”   All the scientists worked at NIH-funded institutions, such as universities. They were not employed as NIH scientists. Fauci leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, not the NIH.

Ethics, Science, Facebook Fact-checks, Facebook posts,

A total of 54 scientists have lost their jobs as a result of an ongoing federal investigation into whether they properly disclosed financial ties they had to foreign countries, primarily China. But a Facebook post that cites the terminations is a little loose with the facts. And it misleadingly links Anthony Fauci, one of the leading federal experts fighting the coronavirus pandemic, to the National Institutes of Health’s investigation. Here’s what the June 15 post said: "Trump administration just FIRED 54 scientists & cut off 77 grants at Fauci's NIH for not disclosing their ties to Communist China!" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The National Institutes of Health, or NIH, is the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world, and 156 of its funded researchers have received Nobel Prizes for their work, according to the Congressional Research Service. NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, a Cabinet-level agency led by Secretary Alex Azar, an appointee of President Donald Trump. Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is part of NIH. The director of the NIH is Francis Collins. In 2018, NIH announced it had concerns about protecting the integrity of U.S. biomedical research, "including the failure by some researchers at NIH-funded institutions to disclose substantial contributions of resources from other organizations, including foreign governments, which threatens to distort decisions about the appropriate use of NIH funds." The agency said it would work with other government agencies, NIH-funded academic institutions and others to investigate any failures by researchers to report substantial contributions. In a June 12 report, NIH said 54 scientists have resigned or been fired. There were also 77 scientists who have been removed from the NIH system, meaning they are no longer eligible for NIH grants. An NIH spokeswoman told PolitiFact that all the scientists worked at NIH-funded institutions, such as universities. They were not employed as NIH scientists. She said NIH is not releasing specific information on the scientists involved. In 93% of the cases, the hidden funding came from a Chinese institution. The journal Science, which first reported on the update, said NIH has been in the forefront of federal efforts to identify and block behavior that many U.S. government officials say poses a significant threat to the country’s economic well-being and to national security. Prominent Harvard case One prominent case of this type is that of Charles Lieber, the former chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department. He was indicted June 9 on charges of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his participation in China’s Thousand Talents Program. He has pleaded not guilty. Here’s a summary from the U.S. Justice Department: Lieber’s research at the Lieber Research Group has been funded by more than $15 million in research grants from the NIH and the Defense Department. The grants required the disclosure of all sources of research support, potential financial conflicts of interest and all foreign collaboration. It is alleged that, unbeknownst to Harvard University, he became a "strategic scientist" at Wuhan University of Technology in China and a contractual participant in the Thousand Talents Plan. Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, Wuhan University of Technology allegedly paid Lieber a salary of up to $50,000 per month, living expenses of up to 1 million Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber allegedly caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber "had no formal association with WUT" after 2012, that "WUT continued to falsely exaggerate" his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber "is not and has never been a participant in" China’s Thousand Talents Plan. A Facebook post claimed: "Trump administration just FIRED 54 scientists & cut off 77 grants at Fauci's NIH for not disclosing their ties to Communist China!" There are 54 scientists who were either fired or resigned as a result of an NIH investigation into scientists failing to disclose financial ties to other countries, with the vast majority of cases involving China. There were also 77 scientists, not grants, who are no longer eligible for NIH grants; it’s not that grant money to them was cut off. It’s also wrong to say NIH is Fauci’s agency; Fauci leads one division of NIH. For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is .


The proportion of Rhode Islanders entering substance abuse treatment primarily due to marijuana use has reached its highest point in 20 years.

Rhode Island, Consumer Safety, Crime, Criminal Justice, Drugs, Economy, Government Regulation, History, Marijuana, Public Health, Public Safety, Recreation, Regulation, Small Business, Taxes, Kathleen Sullivan,

When the House Judiciary Committee was considering legislation to tax and regulate marijuana, Kathleen Sullivan, Warren’s substance abuse coordinator, stepped forward to warn the committee about the dangers of marijuana use. "We do know that the proportion of Rhode Islanders entering substance abuse treatment primarily due to marijuana use has reached its highest point in 20 years," she told the committee during the April 29 hearing. When we contacted her for details, she emailed statistics collected from the states by the U.S. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. Her data on admissions for substance abuse treatment, primarily for marijuana, ranged from 1993 through 2011, a year shy of the 20 years she spoke of. According to those statistics, the rate of admissions in 1993 was 96 per 100,000 Rhode Islanders age 12 and older. In 2011, the rate was 166 admissions. But this wasn’t the highest that the rate has ever been over the past two decades. It peaked at 218 in 2009 and then declined in the next two years. The number of admissions, unadjusted for population, peaked that year as well, and then dropped. When we looked at the number of admissions that the federal agency reported online for 2012 and 2013, we found that the decline has continued, showing a drop each year since 2009. In her email, Sullivan qualified her statement saying: "I was referring to the overall trend in marijuana admissions." So we took another look at the data and examined the trend in admission rates, even though she didn’t make this distinction in her testimony. The trend from beginning to end for admissions per 100,000 teens and adults has been up over the past two decades. But if you look at the trend line since 1999, there has been no statistically significant increase. We also contacted the U.S. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration directly and officials there told us there are limitations to the data that make Sullivan's position problematic. One major problem is that an individual can be counted more than once each year depending on how many times he or she has been admitted for treatment, explained Kelley Smith, a statistician with the administration's Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Smith said the data, known as the Treatment Episode Data Set or TEDS, do not support the assertion that the number of Rhode Islanders entering substance abuse treatment has reached its highest point in 20 years. "Not according to TEDS," Smith said in an email. "According to TEDS, the percentages have remained relatively stable." Our ruling Kathleen Sullivan said the proportion of Rhode Islanders entering substance abuse treatment, primarily for marijuana, has reached its highest point in 20 years. Her documentation shows a peak in 2009, but then admissions decline through 2011. More recent data show the decline has continued. Further, our trend analysis shows no increase since 1999. And a federal statistician at the agency that compiled the data said admission rates have been "relatively stable" over the past 20 years. We rate her statement .


A Harvard study proved that “unvaccinated children pose no risk” to other kids.

Explanation: Describing her “open letter” published on an anti-vaccine blog as a “Harvard study” is, in our view, quite a bit of a stretch.

In 2017, the conspiracy-peddling Neon Nettle junk news website published an article headlined “Harvard Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk.” The referenced “study” was, in fact, not a study but rather an “open letter” penned by a woman named Tetyana Obukhanych and published on the anti-vaccine website Thinking Moms’ Revolution — a site that promotes a $2,000.00 “ion detox” machine as a treatment for autism. Obukhanych’s letter, first published in 2015, continues to be shared and re-shared online despite its numerous shortcomings. We will discuss Obukhanych’s academic background toward the end of this post, as such details matter less than the content of the misleading or false claims made in her open letter, which we will address one-by-one. Broadly, Obukhanych argues that laws requiring mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren are misguided because most vaccines included in such laws (in her estimation) do not prevent the transmission of disease, and therefore an unvaccinated child would pose no added risk to a vaccinated child in a school setting: It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. I have outlined … the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection … or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received [these vaccines] pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted. Obukhanych’s repeated refrain is that accepting (or, more to the point, rejecting) these vaccines “cannot alter the safety of public spaces,” such as schools, because they afford only personal protection. The result is a viral story that provides a highly shareable but flawed justification to parents for use against other parents who accuse them of endangering their children by not vaccinating them. In most cases, Obukhanych’s reasoning is problematic and her conclusions unsupported by science. Tetanus, as stated in Obukhanych’s post, is a non-communicable disease. Vaccination against tetanus, which is caused by the release of a toxin produced by C. tetani bacteria, does not prevent the spread of those bacteria; it merely affords one’s body the ability to destroy the toxin they produce. That fact does mean a child without a tetanus vaccination poses no additional risk to others. It is worth mentioning, however, that 2 in 10 people who develop tetanus die from the disease, and that the tetanus vaccine (which is generally included in a three-vaccine combination) is uncontroversially safe for use in nearly all populations. Obukhanych attempts to make a similar argument against Hepatitis B vaccination, arguing that since it is a blood-borne disease, it is unlikely to be spread amongst children: Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Obukhanych confidently asserts that Hepatitis B does not “spread in a community setting,” but while non-sexual and non-needle based transmissions are rare, they are not impossible, as the disease can be transferred from mother to infant or via cuts. Although the risk of a school-aged child’s contracting the disease is lower than an adult’s, the risk to the former of being chronically infected from the disease is significantly higher. Approximately 90% of infants and 25%–50% of children aged one to five years who are exposed to hepatitis B become chronically infected. For adults, around 95% recover completely from exposure to the same disease. On a population level, the hepatitis vaccine has been clearly successful in reducing the disease burden worldwide, thanks to high vaccination rates globally. While the impact of one child may seem negligible on a broad level, not vaccinating for hepatitis B very much impacts the “safety of public spaces.” Obukhanych’s argument against the Hib vaccine, which imparts immunity against Haemophilus influenzae type B bacteria (a common cause of meningitis, pneumonia, and epiglottitis, but, despite the name, is unrelated to influenza), attempts to make it sound as of the vaccine actively endangers the safety of public spaces. Her argument does so by ignoring entirely the fact that the Hib vaccine has been highly successful at reducing influenzae type B infections and focuses instead on the unproven assertion that several isolated influenzae type A or other “untypeable” strain outbreaks that have occurred since its introduction as a recommended vaccine were caused by vaccination. To make that case, Obukhanych cites a 2011 paper regarding the increasing incidence of H. influenzae type A diseases in adults in Utah. That paper was one of several which have documented increases in influenzae type-a (or other “untypeable”) infections in localized communities. That paper does not, however, make the argument that this increase (or other similar outbreaks) has a direct causal relationship with influenzae type b vaccinations (although that paper and others have speculated about it). The study explicitly stated that the cause remained unclear: “Several studies in addition to ours suggest an increase in invasive disease caused by to non-type b H. influenzae among adults. The reasons for this change are unclear, and might reflect changes in the organisms, changes in the number of persons at high risk, or perhaps waning of cross-immunity induced by exposure to Hib.” More recent research has still not provided complete answers to that question, but non-type-B outbreaks primarily affect older adult populations and have limited relevance to a schoolyard scenario. What is clear is that vaccination against type-B influenzae has greatly affected “the safety of public spaces.” Before the introduction of the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old contracted Hib disease each year, and about 3%–6% of them died. Since the use of the Hib vaccine began, the number of cases of invasive Hib disease has decreased by more than 99%. Obukhanych’s argument against the diphtheria vaccine is that it is only good for personal protection. She makes this argument by correctly stating that diphtheria is caused by a strain of bacteria (Corynebacterium diphtheria) and by correctly stating that vaccination does not prevent transmission of those bacteria. This is an impressive bad-faith argument. Her argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the most dangerous infections associated with the disease are not caused by the bacteria themselves, but through the colonization of them by a virus (a bacteriophage called ß-corynebacteriophage) which induces the bacteria to produce a dangerous toxin. The diphtheria vaccine imparts immunity by preventing the bacteriophage from colonizing C. diphtheria, and this action does two things that directly “alter the safety of public spaces” in a positive way. First, one result of diphtheria vaccinations is that any C. diphtheria transmitted from one vaccinated human to another are not anywhere near as dangerous as the same bacteria transmitted by an unvaccinated person, since those bacteria not likely to be infected and therefore not likely to be producing the dangerous diphtheria toxoid. Uncolonized C. diphtheria can cause mild illnesses, but nothing close to as severe as true diphtheria. Second, uninfected C. diphtheria bacteria are less likely to be spread between individuals in the first place, meaning the vaccine quite literally reduces the chances that the disease will be transferred between individuals. In the 1900s in the United States, 76 people per every 100,000 died from diphtheria. Since the diphtheria vaccine’s introduction, fatalities from diphtheria have become nearly non-existent in the United States and other developed countries. Obukhanych’s argument against the acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine is similar to her attempted argument against diphtheria, which is that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the disease, commonly known as whooping cough and caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis: An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. That study was big news, as it provided a possible answer to the question of rising cases of whooping cough documented in the United States and other places around the world. The study provided evidence that the acellular pertussis vaccine, which replaced a “whole cell” version of the vaccine in many countries in the 1990s, does not prevent asymptomatic transmission of B. pertussis — cases in which the bacteria, but not the symptoms created by their infection, are transferred unknowingly between humans. Although the vaccine prevents the dangerous coughing that can sometimes prove fatal, Obukhanych is correct in stating that it may not prevent the bacteria’s transmission. However, Obukhanych’s characterization of the study as being evidence of harm for which the FDA had to issue a warning is misleading. The authors of that study made it explicitly clear that maintaining a high level of vaccination currently was of utmost importance because of the result: “It is important to note that our data in combination with human data show that vaccination with aP provides excellent protection from severe pertussis. Therefore, any short-term plan for addressing the resurgence of pertussis should include continued efforts to enhance aP immunization.” Responding to similar findings published in 2015, epidemiologist Benjamin M. Althouse told the New York Times that “until we get that vaccine, it is more important than ever to be vaccinated, and we need to keep the vaccination levels high.” Obukhanych’s argument against the polio vaccine is probably the most bad faith of them all. Her broad claim is that the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) does not prevent the spread of wild polio (the form of the disease that was in circulation worldwide before vaccination) and instead only works in countries such as the United States where polio eradication is complete. First, such a claim is patently false on its face. The inactivated polio vaccine is, for example, singularly responsible for the eradication of polio in most of the Scandinavian countries, which suggests that it has quite successfully blocked transmission of the disease. Her statement that “wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine,” is broadly true for the United States, but not for the world as a whole. Second, Obukhanych misrepresents a study’s results to suggest that it provides evidence the IPV vaccine does not protect against the wild poliovirus. She does this to make the clever-sounding argument that a vaccinated child might pose a risk to unvaccinated children, but she does so by ignoring everything but a single sentence found in a single diagram in a lengthy New England Journal of Medicine study that sought to address the vaccine’s effectiveness against wild polioviruses. In her post, she references a footnote to a table showing the viral load of the feces of a control group of infants and a group treated with IPV after they were inoculated with OPV. Her interpretation of the figure is that “high counts of live virus were recovered from the stool of children in all groups, [making] it clear that IPV cannot be relied upon for the control of polioviruses.” In fact, the study’s authors viewed those results as evidence of IPVs success against wild poliovirus strains, which (not to put too fine a point on it) is the opposite of the argument she claims the paper is making (emphasis ours): In our study, the prevalence of excretion after receiving trivalent OPV was high (more than 90% for any poliovirus) and was similar among all three groups, including the control group, but viral titers were lower in both IPV groups, suggesting an effect of IPV vaccination on replication of polioviruses. These data from stool titers are consistent with a body of literature suggesting that previous vaccination with IPV can reduce the prevalence, duration, and titers of poliovirus in the stool. The World Health Organization’s view tracks that study’s view of IPV as well, stating that it “has been used successfully to eradicate polio in a few countries, notably in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, [and that in the] numerous countries that have been introduced to IPV over the last decade no evidence of continued circulation of poliovirus strains has been observed, indicating that IPV may successfully inhibit community transmission of poliovirus.” Obukhanych bills herself as a recovering “mainstream” academic who has seen the error of her field’s ways. She claims a PhD in Epidemiology from The Rockefeller University in New York and states on her Patreon page that she “held postdoctoral research training appointments in prominent immunology laboratories affiliated with Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine.” Her publication record supports the notion that she held positions at, or worked with, these institutions, though she has few publications to her name. Despite not being a physician, she is a “Founding Director” of Physicians for Informed Consent (an organization described in multiple science-based medical blogs as a “radical anti-vaccine” group), and she has produced a self-published e-book titled Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health. She also sells access to her teleconferenced lectures for $20.00 a month.


Jason Brian Dalton, who as accused of killing six people during a shooting spree in February 2016, is suing Uber for $10 million in damages.

Explanation: Dalton was arrested 21 February 2016, and has been incarcerated at the Kalamazoo County Jail since.

A $10 million lawsuit that was reportedly filed against Uber by a man accused of shooting eight people while working as a driver for the company in Kalamazoo, Michigan, has turned out to be a hoax, according to law enforcement officials. The handwritten, rambling letter was purported to be from Jason Dalton, who is awaiting trial on charges of killing six people on 20 February 2016 (between picking up fares as an Uber driver). Dalton, 45 — who faces 16 charges related to the shootings, including six counts of murder and two of attempted murder — told police that a “devil” in the Uber app took over his body, and that his memories of the shootings are spotty. The hoax lawsuit, which was mailed to U.S. District Court in Detroit and filed Tuesday, claims that Dalton had worked for Uber for years, although the company has said he was only approved in late January, less than a month before his shooting spree: This company is a hostile workplace environment. I am tired of being treated like a 2nd class citizen by Uber. Uber discriminates against my mental health. I’m currently in prison because of Uber…. I seek $10 million dollars in punitive damages and emotional distress. The letter also alleges that the company would call him late at night and tell him that if he didn’t go to work, he was fired. (Uber doesn’t set schedules for its drivers.) “He said he has no idea what it is,” Kalamazoo County Undersheriff Pali Matyas told local news outlets. “He said he didn’t send it, didn’t authorize it, doesn’t know who did.” In a previous e-mail statement, Matyas wrote: To let you know, the Dalton lawsuit was a hoax. I was suspicious last night when I saw the envelope the lawsuit came in was postmarked Philadelphia. We investigated and Dalton did not send it, did not authorize it and does not know who sent it. Further it was not his handwriting and it is not a jail envelope.


Health Care, Public Health, PunditFact, Celine Gounder,

An assertion from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that vaccinations are about freedom and should be left to parental choice spawned a raft of reaction from the pundit and political world. One claim we heard a lot is Paul should know better. After all, he is an eye surgeon. In an interview on CNBC on Feb. 2, 2015, Paul hailed vaccines as a medical triumph but said he sees the controversy of whether it should be mandatory as an "issue of freedom." Further, he said he heard of many "tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." Dr. Celine Gounder, a physician who frequently appears on news channels to analyze health news, addressed his comments on CNN Newsroom the following day. "Frankly, Rand Paul as an ophthalmologist should be out there saying measles is one of the most common causes of child blindness worldwide," Gounder said. "And as an eye doctor, he should be advocating for measles vaccination for that reason." Gounder’s claim, as it relates to Paul’s life as an eye surgeon, got our attention. And it’s correct. Gounder’s point is backed up by sources such as the World Health Organization and a host of academic studies and review papers that she sent us. ‘Worldwide’ is key Conjunctivitis, or pink eye, is a common side effect of a measles infection. "Whoever you are, wherever you are," people with measles can’t stand bright sunlight, said Dr. James Cherry, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. But for children in poor countries, eye damage from measles can be much worse. Blindness by measles in children is not common across North America and Europe, areas with high vaccination rates and access. The leading causes of blindness in those continents are lesions of the optic nerve, according to the WHO. In low-income countries, where access to vaccines that prevent measles is limited and malnutrition is prevalent, corneal scarring from measles and a deficiency of vitamin A are the major causes. In the United States, based on the most recent CDC data from more than 20 years ago, the leading complication (and complications from measles of any sort in the U.S. are not common) was diarrhea followed by middle ear inflammation and pneumonia. "In the U.S., children could potentially develop eye problems during an episode of measles if they are malnourished," said Dr. Richard Semba, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ophthalmology professor. "This would probably be rare." Vitamin A is important for eyes to function as they should, as well as for the body’s immune system and growth. If your teacher or mom didn’t tell you, the vitamin is found in eggs, whole milk, butter and liver, as well as leafy green vegetables and red, orange and yellow fruits. Measles is most common in countries of sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia and south Asia, together home to 85 percent of all blind children. In these places, measles is endemic, according to a 2004 review paper by Semba. That paper found measles blindness accounted for anywhere from 15,000 to 60,000 cases of child blindness per year. Here's how Semba explained blindness happening from contracting the highly contagious measles virus: The cornea, the front transparent layer of the eye, requires vitamin A to work. The retina, which is the back layer of the eye that receives visual images (like the film in a camera), requires vitamin A in order to allow us to see at night. A measles infection can reduce the levels of vitamin A that the body needs for normal health. As a result, during a measles episode, a child can develop ulcers in the cornea during a measles episode that makes it hard to see at night. The end result is "a devastating loss of vision and blindness," Semba said. Dryness in corneas can result in night blindness, corneal ulceration, scarring and resulting blindness, studies show. Countries with vaccination programs for measles have reduced the problem of widespread eye disease, according to WHO. The organization also recommends that children in developing countries who contract measles receive two doses of vitamin A supplements a day apart. "Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50 percent," WHO says. Paul’s spokesman sent us a link to a New York Times reporter’s account of watching Paul get his Hepatitis A booster shot Feb. 3, 2015, but did not answer our questions. Our ruling Gounder suggested Paul should be singing a different tune about vaccinations, one that mentions, "Measles is one of the most common causes of child blindness worldwide." She was careful to say worldwide. In developed countries, measles does not typically lead to blindness. But in low-income countries, it is certainly one of the leading drivers of blindness in children, experts agree.


Nobel Prize for seeing how life works at molecular level.

Explanation: A German and two American scientists won the 2014 Nobel Prize for Chemistry on Wednesday for smashing the size barrier in optical microscopes, allowing researchers to see individual molecules inside living cells.

U.S. citizens Eric Betzig and William Moerner and Germany’s Stefan Hell won the prize for using fluorescence to take microscopes to a new level, making it possible to study things like the creation of synapses between brain cells in real time. “Due to their achievements the optical microscope can now peer into the nanoworld,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said as it awarded the 8 million crown ($1.1 million) prize. Scientists, who have been looking down microscopes since the 17th century, had long thought there was a limit to what could be seen. In 1873, Ernst Abbe stipulated that resolution could never be better than 0.2 micrometers, or around 500 times smaller than the width of a human hair. But the three Nobel winners bypassed this limit by tagging objects with fluorescent markers and scanning them to build up a far more detailed images. Today, such “nanoscopy” is used widely to visualize the internal molecular machinery of cells. “This is very, very important to understanding how the cell works and understanding what goes wrong if the cell is diseased,” Hell told a news conference by telephone after learning of the award. Modern nanoscale microscopes can follow protein interactions involved in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and cancer, or watch the transcription and translation of DNA to make proteins, or track the development of fertilized eggs as they divide and become embryos. The previous limit meant optical microscopes could see objects about the size of the smallest bacteria, but not the detailed workings of individual components inside cells. Light is a common theme of both this award and the Nobel Prize for Physics, which was given on Tuesday for advances in low-energy light-emitting diodes. “It’s no exaggeration to say that super-resolution fluorescence microscopy has revolutionized imaging, so this year’s Nobel Prize for Chemistry is very well deserved,” said Stefanie Reichelt, head of light microscopy at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge. Other techniques, such as electron microscopes, can provide greater resolution but require preparatory measures that kill cells, making them of no use for observing living processes. “If you want to see living things, you must use something which does not destroy the sample, by using normal light,” Anders Hagfeldt, a member of the Swedish academy and professor of physical chemistry at Uppsala University told Reuters. “It was said it could not be done, basically. Now, with these three laureates here, it is possible.”  Hell, who is director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Germany, said he was “totally surprised” by the prize, while Betzig said he was stunned. “I have been walking around a daze for the last hour, on a nice day in Munich, fearful that my life has changed,” he told Reuters by phone from the southern German city, where he was scheduled to give a lecture on Wednesday. Moerner, who is attending a conference in Recife, Brazil, told Reuters TV: “I knew there was a chance but really had no idea... it’s something that makes your heart race.”   Betzig works at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Ashburn, United States, while Moerner is professor at Stanford University. Chemistry was the third of this year’s Nobel prizes. The prize is named after Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, and has been awarded since 1901 for achievements in science, literature and peace in accordance with his will. The chemistry prize has often lived in the shadow of physics and its star scientists such as Albert Einstein, though it was the field that was arguably closest to the heart of Nobel’s own work in developing explosives. As winners of the chemistry prize, the laureates enter an exclusive club of researchers such as nuclear pioneer Ernest Rutherford and Linus Pauling, the only person to win two Nobels on his own — for chemistry in 1954 and peace in 1962.


Teacher saves caged puppy from drowning in Illinois lake.

Explanation: A teacher who rescued a caged puppy from drowning in a cold central Illinois lake over the weekend says the dog had been “clearly abused.”

U.S. News, Drownings, Champaign, General News, Lakes, Illinois, Science, U.S. News, Dogs

Bryant Fritz, who teaches middle school science at Next Generation School in Champaign, was preparing to fish Saturday when he found a black and white puppy submerged in rising water and trapped inside of a dog crate in Kaufman Lake. Fritz told The News-Gazette on Sunday that he waded into waist-high, freezing water in the Champaign lake before reaching the cage. “It was pretty clear the dog had been in the cold water for several hours. I immediately pulled her out of the water and dragged the crate to the shore,” he said. He then realized the dog had other medical issues. “When I got her up to the shore, there was blood all over the place,” Fritz said. “She was missing a bunch of fur on the back side, and the bottom of her paws were missing skin. She probably weighed 15 to 20 pounds; she was definitely a puppy. She was shaking so bad. Her eyes were shut. She was so miserable.” He took the dog to his truck, turned up the heat as high as he could and headed to the University of Illinois Veterinary Hospital, where he had called ahead to staff to let them know he was coming. On the way, he stopped at his house to wrap the puppy in a blanket “to get her as warm as possible.” University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine spokeswoman Chris Beuoy noted the puppy has been responding favorably to treatment for hypothermia. The hospital’s staff also cleaned the wounds and put her on antibiotics and pain medicine. “We weren’t sure if the dog would need additional care for her wounds, but she received more treatment for her wounds on Sunday,” Beuoy said. After Champaign County Animal Control takes custody of the pooch, Fritz hopes that he will be allowed to adopt her and give her a loving home. “As I filled out the paperwork when I brought her to the hospital, I realized I wanted this dog to be a part of my life,” the teacher said. ___ Information from: The News-Gazette, http://www.news-gazette.com


Breakthrough study demonstrates survival advantage with immune checkpoint inhibitor for advanced kidney cancer patients

Explanation: News releases from academic centers can fall victim to the hyperbole and excessive optimism often seen in the commercial realm. This release from MD Anderson Cancer Center avoids the worst excesses and we liked much of what was written, including the description of the study design and quantification of the survival benefit. But some important omissions are evident. We can perhaps forgive the release for not including a discussion of cost. But there were other significant deficiencies, including lack of a meaningful discussion on potential harms of the treatment, no mention of the study funding source, and no disclosure that the principal investigator (quoted extensively in the release) is a consultant to the manufacturer of nivolumab. These are important elements to help readers understand the true extent of this “breakthrough.”  Although a somewhat uncommon form of cancer, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an important topic. As is noted by the news release, a significant number of patients with the disease present with metastases making treatment difficult. Existing therapies are not ideal with only moderate improvements in survival. The demonstration of an immunotherapy for RCC that is more effective than existing treatments is encouraging. We should note that the “breakthrough designation” from the FDA  is “… intended to expedite the development and review of medicines with early signals of potential clinical benefit in serious diseases to help ensure patients have access to new therapies as soon as possible” (our emphasis added).

Cancer treatments are very (some would same ridiculously) expensive and the two treatments highlighted in this release are no exception. To put it into perspective, we calculate the monthly cost of nivolumab to be in the vicinity of $12,600 (not including administration fees) and of everolimus at $11,500 month. calculation nivolumab = 3mg/kg x 70kg = 210mg @$30/mg=$6,300 x 2 = $12,600 everolimus = $11,500 for 30 tablets The primary outcome measure for the study was median survival. The news release notes, “In the randomized phase III clinical trial, patients whose disease progressed on antiangiogenic therapies were treated with either nivolumab or everolimus. Median overall survival was 5.4 months longer with nivolumab (25 months) compared with everolimus (19.6 months).” We are also told, “More than 12 months later, 31% and 27% of patients treated with nivolumab and everolimus, respectively, continued to show a response.” If one is discerning, it becomes clear that this new treatment buys a patient about 5 months of survival time. That’s certainly valuable time, but it’s debatable whether that amounts to the kind of benefit patients associate with the term “breakthrough.” The release says only that there were “fewer treatment-related adverse events, including fatigue and nausea, and improved quality of life with nivolumab.” But that’s not really a satisfactory accounting of the harms of treatment. As the article in the NEJM notes, “Treatment related adverse events of any grade occurred in 319 of the 406 patients (79%) treated with nivolumab and in 349 of the 397 (88%) treated with everolimus.” The release should have given readers more insight into what these harms are and how often they occur. The release provides a good deal of information on the study design, number of subjects treated in each arm and provides additional comments on secondary outcome measures. The release appropriately notes the number of cases of RCC diagnosed worldwide and the frequency on metastatic disease on presentation. We would have preferred it if the prevalence of the disease had been described as a rate (per 100,000), so we could appreciate how rare it is. The news release fails to note that the study was funded by the manufacturer of nivolumab (Bristol Myers Squibb) and that Dr. Sharma is a consultant to the company. This is important context. Although not named specifically, other therapies are mentioned: ” A number of targeted therapies have been approved in recent years for the treatment of advanced RCC, with five antiangiogenic and two mTOR inhibitors (including everolimus; these drugs block a protein that regulates cell growth, proliferation, survival, etc. ), showing benefits in pivotal phase III trials” To be sure, this is not really a true comparison of options, just a listing. But since the main alternative is the treatment used in the trial, this may be a moot point. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt on the rating. The release makes it clear that “Nivolumab, marketed as Opdivo, is currently used to treat metastatic melanoma and advanced non-small cell lung cancer.”  However it is silent on the availability of everolimus (Afinitor). The release also did not mention insurance coverage for these treatments. The release establishes novelty in the lead sentence: “For the first time, an immune checkpoint inhibitor has been proven to increase survival among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a patient population for whom treatment options are currently limited.” It also establishes that the drug “is currently used to treat metastatic melanoma and advanced non-small cell lung cancer.” The language of the release is somewhat hyperbolic given the small magnitude of the benefit. Examples: “breakthrough” … “this is a new way forward” … “this study sets a new benchmark for therapeutic strategies for advanced RCC patients” … “portends paradigm change.” However, the term “breakthrough” is technically consistent with the FDA designation of nivolumab as a “Breakthrough Therapy.” We’ve been critical of that designation because we think it skews patient expectations and may set them up for disappointment. But we’ll give the benefit of the doubt on the rating. We remind readers, as the release does, that the “Breakthrough Therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of medicines with early signals of clinical benefit in serious diseases to help ensure patients have access to new therapies as soon as possible.”


A recent invasion of New Guinea Flatworms in Florida poses a significant risk to human health and a sighting of this non-native animal should be reported to authorities by calling 911.

Explanation: What's true: Since as early as August 2012, increasing numbers of the infamously invasive New Guinea Flatworm have appeared in Florida. These animals can theoretically transmit the rat lungworm parasite to humans. What's false: The primary risks posed by the New Guinea flatworm are to the ecosystem it invades and not to human health. As such, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does not recommend calling 911 to report their sightings. The New Guinea Flatworm does not (and can not) eat rats or mice, despite claims to the contrary.

Medical, ecosystem, florida, goodfullness

On 21 March 2017, a viral post from a web site called Goodfullness.com (titled “If You See One of These Slugs Inside Your House, Dial 911 Immediately!”), argued that the invasion of the New Guinea Flatworm in Florida poses a acute risk to human health that necessitates calling 911. While this post (and many others like it) frames their invasion as a new event, it is not. This non-native species, also called Platydemus manokwari, was first spotted in August 2012 and confirmed by a team of researchers in 2015 in a scientific report that made significant news at the time: In the USA, the accidental introduction of P. manokwari through human agency to Florida is probably recent, with our first specimens found in August 2012. The species is apparently now well established, with several different locations found in 2014 in Miami Dade County. While viral posts implied that the discovery of a New Guinea Flatworm in one’s home necessitates a police response, authorities suggest otherwise. We reached out to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to ask if their department recommended reporting sightings of the New Guinea Flatworm to 911. They told us, via e-mail, that it is not necessary: The FWC is aware that New Guinea flatworms have spread to many parts of Florida, and people do not need to report sightings. Indeed, the primary danger of the New Guinea Flatworm is to the ecosystem rather than to human health. The pest has an infamous track record of damaging the ecosystems to which they have been introduced, as discussed in a 2014 study on their occurrence in France: Examined from an environmental perspective, P. manokwari has demonstrably had a serious negative impact on the biodiversity of native snail populations in the Pacific region […] and wherever it is deliberately or accidentally introduced it will continue to pose a threat not only to native molluscs, but possibly to other slow-moving soil invertebrates […] It may also indirectly have a negative impact on vertebrate species dependent upon these soil invertebrates. From a human health standpoint, the Goodfullness.com post makes a number of assertions about the risks P. manokwari presents to humans and other, larger creatures: These worms have the ability to consume rats and mice and when they dine on these animals, they pass on lungworm infections. From there, the infections are then transmitted to humans who are exposed to any air particles that have been contaminated by the rodent droppings. According to Florida International University professor of biology Timothy Collins, who actively studies their occurrence in Florida, the New Guinea Flatworm does not prey on rats, and typically eats “snails, earthworms, [and] slow-moving arthropods”. The New Guinea Flatworm is, however, a possible carrier of a parasite that passes through the feces of rats — the rat lungworm (Angiostrongylus cantonensis). This parasite generally causes mild symptoms that generally resolve without treatment, but is capable of a more serious infection called eosinophilic meningitis, according to the CDC: Some infected people don’t have any symptoms — or have only mild symptoms that don’t last very long. Sometimes the infection causes a rare type of meningitis (eosinophilic meningitis). The symptoms can include headache, stiff neck, tingling or painful feelings in the skin, low-grade fever, nausea, and vomiting. The rat lungworm, as it turns out, utilizes a complex life cycle which requires three hosts, one of which can be a flatworm or snail, as described in a 2012 review of the parasite: When rats eat infected slugs or snails, they ingest third stage larvae which eventually grow to sexual maturity and reproduce in the heart. Single-celled eggs hatch in the lung, and first stage larvae migrate up the bronchial tree, are swallowed, and 6–8 weeks after infection are excreted with feces. Slugs or snails then eat rat feces and acquire the first stage larvae. Slugs and snails are obligatory intermediate hosts which support parasite development from the first to the third larval stage. If one’s food were to accidentally come in contact with the mucus of an infected flatworm, or if one were to directly consume the animal itself, you could potentially contract a rat lungworm infection, Collins told us via email: Angiostrongylus cantonensis, or rat lungworm, is carried by many animals, including Platydemus. For example, it has been reported in the Giant African Land Snail in Florida. There are published medical cases of people becoming infected with Angiostrongylus after eating lettuce over which snails infected with Angiostrongylyus have crawled. He tempered this analysis, however, with the caveat that there have yet to be any confirmed cases of the New Guinea Flatworm carrying the rat ringworm in Florida, and provided us with this simple advice: The average person can avoid risk by not handling the flatworms, or if they do, by not putting their hands near their eyes or nose before cleaning them carefully. In addition to the health risk, Platydemus have been reported by some brave soul to taste terrible, so eating them is a bad idea all around. This advice is in line with the CDC’s position as well: Don’t eat raw or undercooked snails or slugs, frogs or shrimp/prawns. If you handle snails or slugs, wear gloves and wash your hands. Always remember to thoroughly wash fresh produce. When travelling in areas where the parasite is common, avoid eating uncooked vegetables. This invasive creature is a big problem for local ecosystems, and it is an issue that Collins and other scientists are actively researching. However, while there are indirect potential risks to humans from the New Guinea Flatworm in Florida, these risks in no way necessitate calling 911.


U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin was "partly right" that a woman's body has a way of shutting down so that a pregnancy doesn't occur if she's raped.

Explanation: Gingrey defense of Akin's rape comments misses the mark

So you might have heard that U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta got himself into some trouble last week when he talked about rape. Gingrey, now in his sixth term in the House, said fellow Republican Todd Akin of Missouri was "partly right" when Akin said last year that a woman’s body has a way of shutting down if she’s raped to prevent pregnancy. PolitiFact Georgia wanted to see whether there was any accuracy to Gingrey’s remarks. "[I]n a situation of rape, a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur," Gingrey said during a question-and-answer segment at a meeting Thursday of the Smyrna Area Council of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce. "[Akin’s] partly right on that." Gingrey, an obstetrician/gynecologist who said he’s delivered more than 5,200 babies, explained some more. "And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart." Akin later apologized for his remarks and said rape can lead to pregnancy. His initial comments were largely cited as the reason Akin lost his campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who feared Akin’s comments would hurt him with women voters, gave Akin a verbal stiff arm. Gingrey said Akin’s remarks weren’t helpful. Gingrey’s effort to clarify what Akin said, first reported in The Marietta Daily Journal in its Friday editions, made the rounds within hours on several national political websites. The Democratic Party leader in Gingrey’s district has already announced plans to challenge the incumbent next year. On Monday, Gingrey’s Twitter site, deluged with criticism of Gingrey’s remarks, had been removed. Gingrey sent The Atlanta Journal-Constitution a statement Friday. "I do not defend, nor do I stand by, the remarks made by Rep. Akin. … In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued," Gingrey said. Gingrey’s office did not respond to our messages for further comment. Some doctors and organizations said there is no accuracy to the Georgia congressman’s claims. "While chronic severe stress and anxiety may impact fertility sometimes, the fact is that a woman cannot prevent ovulation or conception with their emotions, especially in an acute traumatic situation like rape," said Barbara Croft, a board-certified OB/GYN based in Atlanta who has been in practice for 30 years. Croft called Gingrey’s comments patronizing, condescending and unscientific. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a Washington, D.C.-based organization with about 56,000 members, including Croft, echoed her comments. "While chronic stress, for example from extreme exposure to famine or war, may decrease a woman’s ability to conceive, there is no scientific evidence that adrenaline, experienced in an acute stress situation, has an impact on ovulation," the group told us via email. Gingrey is a fellow with the organization, which is defined as a board-certified OB/GYN whose professional activity is devoted to the practice of obstetrics and/or gynecology. For decades, some politicians and newsmakers -- mostly social conservatives -- have said women who are raped are less likely to become pregnant. Their definition of a legitimate rape is a woman who is sexually assaulted. The Washington Post reported that National Right to Life President John Wilke wrote an essay in 1999 that the "physical trauma" of rape has a way of preventing pregnancy. The newspaper’s website has a link to the essay. The link contains an analysis of Akin’s remarks by the Rev. Robert Fleischmann, the national director of Christian Life Resources. "Statistically speaking, it appears something happens in a rape, either with the victim or with the perpetrator, that reduces the incidence of pregnancy," Fleischmann wrote in August. "Fertility specialists continually debate the role of emotions, unresolved conflicts and trauma play in female infertility." There is some discussion on websites such as FertilityFactor.com that severe stress, eating disorders, excess exercise or extreme weight loss can interfere with regular menstruation. Some studies widely reported by news outlets conclude that the rate of rape-related pregnancy is higher than the rate of pregnancy from consensual sex. The likelihood of a rape-related pregnancy is usually in the 5 percent range, the studies show. Most of these studies, though, were done in the 1980s or 1990s. The Chicago Tribune, citing a Mayo Clinic publication about infertility, reported in August that mental stress can temporarily alter an area of the brain that controls the hormones that regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle. The Tribune article reported that it is a chronic kind of situation that occurs over months or years, not the acute trauma of a rape. Our conclusion:  Gingrey said it’s "partly right" that a woman's body has a way of shutting down so that a pregnancy doesn't occur if she's raped. There is some information that suggests that some conditions, particularly stress, can reduce fertility. But our research found it is not typically the stress of a rape. There’s scant scientific evidence to support Gingrey’s argument.


In clinical trial, cream reduces squamous cell carcinoma risk

Explanation: Getty Images This release reports on a large multi-center clinical trial intended to gauge the preventative value of using a cream containing 5 percent fluorouacil as a means of reducing the occurrence of both squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinomas. It says that the cream appears to reduce the risk of squamous cell carcinomas among the elderly veterans in the trial by 75 percent, although it has no statistically significant effect on reducing basal cell carcinomas. The release also states that the protection appears to only extend for the first year. The release omits mention of the drug’s hefty price tag but it does clearly state both the benefits and the risks of using the medicinal cream. These skin cancers — squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas — are among the most common forms of cancer afflicting Americans and to date, the only effective preventative has been the use of sunscreen with varying success. This trial suggest a two-to-four week-long application of this cream can reduce the risk of developing one kind of skin cancer by as much as 75 percent for one year. Given the costs of treating these cancers, both in money and resources, this finding, if borne out, is a positive step in reducing the burden that cancer places on society.

The release does mention costs twice, by saying that treating these cancers surgically is more costly, and that the use of the cream “can reduce the resources needed to treat these carcinomas.”  But it doesn’t mention that the fluoroucil cream is fairly expensive. According to GoodRx, one 40g tube of 5% fluorouracil cream ranges from $73 to $136 a different pharmacy retailers. The cost may be considerably reduced by insurance plans, but the release does not address that either. Also of note, according to results in the published study, at least 11 patients must be treated with the cream in order to possibly prevent one additional cancer, leading to a drug cost of over $14,000 to prevent that one cancer. That may exceed the cost of surgery. The release clearly states:  “After the first year, 20 of the 464 veterans in the control group developed a squamous cell carcinoma that required surgery, but only five of the 468 veterans who got 5-FU did, a statistically significant 75 percent reduction in the risk, according to the study. For the subsequent three years, there was no longer a significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who required surgical treatment for an SCC. There were six outcomes measured and only the difference in squamous cell carcinomas at one year was statistically significant while the other five were not. This suggests that the one statistically significant difference could have been caused by chance alone or that there truly is a difference but only in this one period of time. The release describes harms in the following paragraph: The cream does have common side effects including reddened, more sensitive and often crusty skin, effects that resolve when the application of the cream stops, Weinstock acknowledged. After the study’s first six months, 21 percent of the 5-FU group rated the side effects as “severe,” and 40 percent rated them as “moderate.” The release explains that half of the participants in the study received the 5 fluorouacil cream and the other half received a cream lacking that ingredient. It mentions the total number of patients in the trial (932) and notes that it was a multi-center trial that spanned several years. It gave real numbers of resulting cancers that led to the claimed 75 percent reduction and pointed out that while the cream was effective for squamous cell carcinomas, it had no statistically significant effect on the incidence of basal cell carcinomas. No indication of disease mongering here. However, the release missed an important opportunity to inform readers about the nature of these typically slow-growing cancers which rarely spread. There’s no context provided on what these cancers are or the burden they put on patients or the health care system. The release points out that the study was funded by the Veterans Administration but omits the fact that several members of the research team received support from pharmaceutical firms. However, there’s no indication that those connections played any role in the conclusions from the trial. The study mentions that surgery is the normal response to these skin cancers and that Mohs surgery is the procedure of choice in many cases. It also points out that “current means for preventing new carcinomas in high-risk patients — sunscreen or oral medications” — are available. The release notes that the cream, available as a generic, has been used to treat other conditions. That suggests the cream is widely available. The release quotes the study author claiming this was “the first study of its type. I’m hopeful there will be other studies that show other sorts of regimens that last longer and do a better job over time as science progresses. This is an important first step.” It also notes that further research is planned. The release does not rely on unjustifiable language.


Texas Veterans Commission Says one out of three U.S. homeless men is a veteran.

Explanation: Veterans commission representative says one in three homeless men is a veteran

Poverty, Veterans, Texas, Texas Veterans Commission,

Times are especially tough for new veterans, a state official said in a Dec. 5 news article in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Ericka Walmsley, a Texas Veterans Commission employment representative, is quoted saying: "When their term is up and they get out, there’s almost nothing for them now." One of three homeless men in the United States is a veteran, the newspaper quotes Walmsley saying. One in three? We asked Walmsley for background on that figure; she pointed us to a Web page kept by HelpUSA, a group that says its mission is to provide housing and the supportive services necessary for the homeless and people in need to become and remain self-reliant. The page has this statement: "While the causes are many, the singular reality is staggering: 1 out of every 3 homeless men you see on the street is a veteran." At the commission’s Austin headquarters, spokesman Duncan McGhee pointed us to a chapter in a report posted online by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development stating: "Among homeless men, 33 percent report being veterans, and a very high proportion (98 percent) of homeless veterans are men." Case closed? We weren’t sure, considering the posted chapter doesn’t indicate when or how that ratio was reached and the data appeared to have been collected in 1996. While seeking elaboration on the statistic from HUD, we ran the reported ratio by Neil Donovan, executive director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the Homeless, which describes itself as a national network of groups and individuals committed to ending homelessness. Donovan said the latest research indicates the share of homeless men who are veterans is not 1 in 3. HUD has completed an Annual Homeless Assessment Report since 2005; its latest rendition, issued in June 2010, says veterans accounted for 11 percent of the nation’s 1.2 million sheltered homeless adults in 2009 — or about 132,000 people — down from 13 percent in 2007. That percentage is derived from data collected on adults who used an emergency shelter or transitional housing program from October 2008 through September 2009. The report says too that a check of homeless, in shelters and not, on one night in January 2009 suggests that 13 percent were veterans, compared to 15 percent the three previous years. "Many veterans confront the same issues that lead others into homelessness, such (as) lack of affordable housing and inadequate income and savings," the report says. "But they also have barriers that can be particularly acute among service-men and -women returning from active duty, such as the lingering effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse. These issues can make it difficult for veterans to find and maintain gainful employment, which in turn can make it difficult to pay for housing." Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts "have not yet become homeless in great numbers," the report says, "perhaps because it takes some years for the mental disabilities associated with war to become acute." A forthcoming companion report focused on homeless veterans will provide a baseline understanding of homelessness among veterans, the report says. Separately, an online search led us to a Dec. 7 speech by Eric Shinseki, the U.S. secretary of veterans affairs, in which Shinseki estimates the number of homeless veterans at 107,000 — down, he said, from 131,000 two years earlier and 250,000 a decade ago. In his posted remarks, Shinseki says that when he became secretary in January 2009, he taught himself to say, "Veterans lead the nation in homelessness, depression, substance abuse, and suicides. And they rank right up there in joblessness as well. It was a punch in the gut for me, and I repeated that line until it sunk in. I didn’t want to become inured to its impact by letting it become part of the day-to-day background noise." Next, we heard from Brian Sullivan, a HUD public affairs officer, who said the 1-in-3 ratio is outdated; it comes from a 1999 report drawing on 1996 data that depended on a count of homeless men identified as veterans in 76 different communities, Sullivan said via e-mail. "By today's data collection and reporting standards, it's not considered terribly relevant," his e-mail said. In an interview, Sullivan said the 1999 study was based on a one-day snapshot of the homeless and a smaller sample size than more recent HUD assessments. The latest HUD tally draws on data from more than 3,000 communities, tabulating the homeless on a single day and also counting those using emergency shelters or transitional housing programs during the year. Sullivan suggested we check for updated counts with Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who helped lead the latest HUD assessment. Culhane replied by e-mail that he’s comfortable with the 13 percent figure. "I cannot vouch for the (1-in-3) estimate and am not sure it was ever correct," Culhane wrote. When we queried Mary Cunningham, a researcher who specializes in homeless issues for the Washington-based Urban Institute, she said the 1-in-3 figure is outdated but added that all "of these numbers should be treated as rough estimates. In general, it’s important to remember that there are far too many homeless who are veterans." McGhee of the Texas commission pointed us to a March 2010 report by Project CHALENG, a federal effort to enhance the continuum of care for homeless veterans. The report says that homeless veterans are under-counted, but there also are fewer veterans, period. "In 1990, there were 27.5 million veterans, a total that has decreased to 23 million today. Similarly, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of poor veterans, decreasing from 3 million in 1990 to 1.8 million in 2000. Since most homeless veterans are poor, it is believed that there has been a corresponding drop in the number of homeless veterans as well... it does appear that a significant, long-term reduction in the numbers of homeless veterans has occurred," the report says. We also reached Lawrence Cann of HelpUSA, whose Web page was the Texas commission employee’s source for the 1-in-3 figure. "Given that many veterans do not report themselves as veterans or even seek services or shelters, we have not revised our 1-in-3 number," Cann’s e-mail says, though in response to our inquiry he said the group would add Web links to other sources for homeless counts. When we looked at the HelpUSA site again, the 1-in-3 reference had been changed to 1-in-4. McGhee stood by the 1-in-3 ratio. To shore up his position with more recent data, he led us to the 2010 strategic plan adopted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which advises President Barack Obama and Congress on that issue. The plan terms the 107,000 count of homeless veterans nationwide (cited by Shinseki) "a reasonable figure." Using U.S. Census Bureau statistics to extrapolate the percentage of males among veterans (93 percent), McGhee comes up with a figure of 99,720 homeless male veterans — slightly more than one-third of the total number of adult homeless people calculated from the January 2009 one-night survey. Bottom line: Experts outside Texas agree the claim that one-third of homeless men are veterans is based on obsolete data, though some cautioned that it’s hard to pinpoint how many homeless men are veterans and one sorting of the data appears to justify the claim. We rate the statement Barely True.


On Aug. 21, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump articulated a belief that he is "the chosen one," the "King of Israel," or the "second coming of God.

Explanation: What's true: In a brief aside during remarks about the ongoing U.S.-China trade war, Trump said "I am the chosen one." What's false: Trump's "chosen one" aside was likely tongue-in-cheek, not a sincere profession of any belief in his own messianic status. Separately, in a series of tweets, Trump quoted a radio host who claimed Jewish people in Israel admired the U.S. president so greatly that it was as though Trump were the King of Israel or the second coming of Christ. Trump never himself articulated any such belief.

In August 2019, we received inquiries from readers about multiple claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had, in one day, called himself the “second coming of God,” the “King of Israel,” or “the chosen one.” On Aug. 21, the left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a meme that featured a quotation attributed to Trump: “I’m the King of Israel. I’m the chosen one” along with an unattributed quotation that read: “The Anti-christ will pretend that he is the son of God.” (That quotation is not Biblical in origin, and appears to have originated in a famous medieval text about the antichrist, written by the French Benedictine monk Adso of Montier-en-der.) The same Facebook page posted a second meme on similar themes, writing: Today, Trump: Promoted the idea that he is “King of Israel.” Retweeted that he’s “the second coming of God.” Then said he’s “the chosen one.”   And in a third post on the same subject, Occupy Democrats published a meme that read: “Trump says he’s ‘the second coming’ and ‘the chosen one.’ I say we throw him in the sea to see if he can walk on it.” Other mostly left-leaning sources posted similar claims on Twitter, garnering a high volume of retweets. One of them wrote: “When the president of the United States starts declaring that he is: – ‘The King of Israel’ – ‘The Chosen One’ – ‘The Second coming of God’ It means he is out of his goddamn mind & it’s time for the 25th amendment now.” When the president of the United States starts declaring that he is: — “The King of Israel” — “The Chosen One” — “The Second coming of God” It means he is out of his goddamn mind & it’s time for the #25thAmendmentNow. — Ryan Knight 🗽 (@ProudResister) August 21, 2019   The @BarristerSecret account tweeted that Trump had “unironically [declared] himself ‘the second coming of God,'” and the controversial surgeon and left-leaning activist Dr. Eugene Gu claimed the president had “[praised] himself as ‘the King of Israel’ and ‘the second coming of God. '”  Vanity Fair also published an article with the headline “Trump Declares Himself ‘King of Israel,’ ‘the Second Coming of God. '” The reality was much more complicated, and the claims and reports mentioned above largely misrepresented what Trump actually said or wrote by removing them from their proper context or issuing inaccurate descriptions of them. ‘The chosen one’ While speaking with reporters about the ongoing U.S. trade war with China, Trump did briefly say “I am the chosen one,” but it’s quite possible, even likely, that he was merely speaking tongue-in-cheek or for rhetorical effect. His remarks came on Aug. 21, while he was speaking with reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. In response to a question about recent talk of an impending economic recession, linked to the U.S.-China trade war, Trump held forth on what he presented as sharp economic practices by China, a common topic of discussion for the president. He said: “One thing I have to do is economically take on China because China has been ripping us off for many years. President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama and others should have done this long before me. My life would be much easier — although I enjoy doing it — but my life would be much easier if I just said ‘let China continue to rip off the United States.’ It would be much easier, but I can’t do that … “… Somebody said ‘It’s Trump’s trade war’ — this isn’t my trade war, this is a trade war that should have taken place a long time ago, by a lot of other presidents … Somebody had to do it. [Turning to the sky] I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it, so I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade, and you know what? We’re winning …” President Trump: “I am the chosen one.” Full video here: https://t.co/BEh8qCGe79 pic.twitter.com/6pbll1a0NT — CSPAN (@cspan) August 21, 2019   The concept of a “chosen one” — an individual predestined by prophecy to perform the role of a savior or messiah for a particular people — has roots in various cultures and religious traditions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, it has evolved beyond those parameters to gain much looser and more secular connotations. It is a common trope in fiction and literature, especially science fiction and fantasy (think of Harry Potter), and is also frequently invoked, sometimes with tongue in cheek, in the context of sports. For example, the basketball player LeBron James famously had “Chosen 1” tattooed on his back, after Sports Illustrated published a cover story about him, describing the then-phenomenally promising high school junior as “the chosen one.” In theory, Trump could have been seriously declaring a sincere belief that he is destined by prophecy to be the savior of the American people, or indeed the world, when he said as an aside “I am the chosen one,” during a discussion with reporters about U.S.-China economic relations. However, it seems much more likely to us, especially in light of his somewhat theatrical glance to the skies, that he was either using the phrase as a figure of speech born out of his apparently rather certain belief in his own talents, or that he was simply speaking with tongue firmly in cheek, or a little bit of both. If the U.S. president refers to himself as “the chosen one” again, and with less ambiguous, more clearly messianic connotations, we will update this article accordingly. ‘The King of Israel’ and ‘the second coming of God’ Trump never declared or called or described himself as “the King of Israel” or “the second coming of God.” Further, he did not even quote someone who personally professed that belief, and the person he did quote was not even claiming that others held that belief. As such, many sources, including those mentioned above, grossly misrepresented the pronouncements made in this episode. However, in a decision that concerned many observers, the president did directly quote the conspiracy theorist and radio host Wayne Allyn Root as saying that “The Jewish people in Israel love [Trump] like he’s the King of Israel” and “like he is the second coming of God.” Trump did this in a series of tweets, also on Aug. 21, which he prefaced by writing “Thank you Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words”:  …. like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God … But American Jews don’t know him or like him. They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore. It makes no sense! But that’s OK, if he keeps doing what he’s doing, he’s good for ….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 21, 2019   Trump almost entirely accurately quoted remarks Root made on his “Newsmax” TV show on Aug. 20. In response to a caller who lamented the purported irrationality and blind loyalty of Democrat voters, Root held forth on the traditional support for the Democrat party among Jewish voters in the U.S., in contrast with what he presented as widespread support for Trump among Jews in Israel. He said: “… 75 percent of all Jews vote Democrat and they don’t like Trump. And this is the greatest president for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America. Trump’s the best president for Israel in the history of the world. And the Jewish people love him like he is the king of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God. And in America, American Jews don’t like him. They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying any more, it makes no sense.” The remarks in question can be watched here (beginning at 36:45). Root was echoing similar statements Trump himself made earlier that day. Speaking to reporters at the White House, the president addressed the controversy over Israel’s reversed decision to bar U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., from entering the country. Trump proclaimed: “Where has the Democratic party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people [Tlaib and Omar] over the state of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” Root’s original remarks came in the form of a simile, meaning it should have been clear by definition that he was not claiming that Trump actually is the King of Israel or the second coming of Christ, nor even that Jewish people in Israel believe he is those things. Rather, in order to emphasize what he perceives as the U.S. president’s popularity among Israeli Jews, Root was indulging in rhetorical license, using the device of a simile, by saying Israeli Jews loved Trump as if he were the King of Israel or the second coming of Christ. (It is a matter for a separate discussion that the second component of Root’s simile was woefully theologically illiterate. An important distinction between Christianity and Judaism is that Judaism traditionally rejects the notion of Christ as a messiah, thereby rendering the concept of a second coming inapplicable, and this part of Root’s simile nonsensical by definition.) Root later emphasized the fact that he was engaging in simile, rather than claiming Trump was, in fact, the king of Israel or the second coming of Christ, or even that Israeli Jews regard him as such. During a discussion with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Root’s “Newsmax” TV show, Root said: “… They [liberal opponents] took everything I said out of context … Did I really say, on national TV, on my ‘Newsmax’ show last night, that Donald Trump is the second coming of Christ, and he’s the king of the Jews? No. I said in Israel they treat him like he’s the second coming of Christ and the King of the Jews. And it’s a New York expression, you know, it’s like you and I could have been having an expression [sic] and I’d say, ‘Are you kidding me? In Israel they treat him like he’s the King of the Jews.’ Does that really mean that I believe he’s the King of the Jews? … Obviously, I didn’t say that.”    We know that certain Christians in the United States and beyond have professed a fringe belief in Trump as a Christ-like or messianic figure. It’s even possible, theoretically, that Trump himself might harbor similar suspicions of his own destiny. But the series of statements he made on Aug. 21, 2019, did not constitute evidence of any such belief on his part. The president did say “I am the chosen one,” but he made the remark as an aside, combining it with a theatrical glance towards the heavens, while making a broader point about his engaging in a supposedly overdue trade war with China. The context, along with Trump’s penchant for flippant and tongue-in-cheek asides, makes it highly unlikely he was choosing that moment to earnestly articulate some sincere belief in his own messianic destiny. In a series of tweets, Trump quoted a controversial conspiracy theorist, Root, who had lavished praise upon the president, professing that Jewish people in Israel so admired Trump that it was as though he was the “King of Israel” or “the second coming of God.” But Root (as he later confirmed) was using exaggerated language as part of a simile. He was not making the factual claim that Israeli Jews literally believe that Trump is the King of Israel, or the second coming of Christ (the latter of which claims would make no sense for theological reasons, anyway.) So the widely promulgated claim that Trump, simply by quoting Root’s remarks, was in effect declaring himself to be the King of Israel or the second coming of Christ, was inaccurate by a considerable distance. Trump did not even quote someone who professed that belief, and the person he did quote was not even claiming that others held that belief.


Chilean girl with cystic fibrosis tells president: Let me die.

Explanation: A 14-year old Chilean girl with cystic fibrosis has asked to be allowed to die in a film she made pleading with President Michelle Bachelet to authorize her euthanasia.

In a video that news media said had been uploaded to her Facebook page on Sunday, Valentina Maureira said from her hospital bed: “I am asking to speak urgently to the president because I am tired of living with this sickness and she can authorize the injection to put me to sleep forever.”  Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition that affects the lungs and other organs. Maureira’s brother had died of the disease, her father, Freddy Maureira, told local Radio Bio Bio. “She has already had five operations ... which have caused her a lot of suffering and pain,” he said. “It was promised that things would get better, but for her it was worse.”   The video had surprised him, he added. A spokeswoman from the Universidad Catolica clinic in Santiago confirmed that Valentina Maureira was a patient at the hospital and said she was stable, with no immediately life-threatening conditions. Government spokesman Alvaro Elizalde said on Thursday that the health ministry was in contact with the family to ensure Maureira was receiving the psychological and medical treatment she needed, but ruled out euthanasia as an option. “We have to be completely clear, the current norm, the current law in Chile does not allow the government to agree to a request of this nature,” he said. In Chile, as in many countries, euthanasia is against the law. The Catholic Church retains a strong influence on society, and the country is one of a handful to ban abortion under any circumstances. Center-left Bachelet, who is a year into her second term, has introduced reforms, including a bill being debated in Congress that would relax the abortion law. These have angered conservatives. Bachelet’s agenda has not mentioned euthanasia.