John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.

Explanation: Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Abortion, National, Pundits, Glenn Beck,

As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: "I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument. But is it true? Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called  Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment  . Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated. We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy." In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures. Here's a few excerpts: "The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...  "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...  "Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children." Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great). "Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries." And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions. "To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however." This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position. In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference. In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation." Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then,  never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator. Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'" Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have." But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions. Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate. But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career.


U.S. Senator Kamala Harris bragged, boasted or laughed about prosecuting a homeless single mother in a January 2010 speech.

Explanation: What's true: Harris did laugh and speak with satisfaction about presenting the parents of truant children in San Francisco with the threat of criminal prosecution. What's false: Harris spoke with satisfaction about the success of an anti-truancy initiative in stopping truancy among the children of a specific homeless woman. The initiative used the threat of criminal prosecution, but its goal was to avoid the need for criminal prosecution by forcing parents of truant children into an administrative process that provided them with help and resources and significantly reduced rates of truancy in San Francisco.

Politics, 2020 presidential election, Kamala Harris

In early 2019, California Sen. Kamala Harris became one of the first few Democrats to announce her candidacy for the U.S. presidency in 2020. Her announcement on 21 January prompted the kind of scrutiny and commentary that has become typical when any high-profile politician officially declares designs on the White House. In the case of Harris, some observers focused on her background as the San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, and her reputation as a “law-and-order” prosecutor. As part of this scrutiny, old video footage re-emerged online that some commentators said showed Harris “boasting” and “laughing” about prosecuting poor parents — especially one homeless woman — for the truancy of their children. On 28 January, journalist Walker Bragman posted video clips from a speech Harris delivered in 2010 at the California Commonwealth Club, a public-policy forum: Kamala Harris at an event hosted by the Commonwealth Club in 2010, explaining her decision as San Francisco DA to get tough on truancy. Critics of truancy crackdowns say such efforts unfairly target poor parents and children without actually helping students. pic.twitter.com/GKkDpayxuv — Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 28, 2019   These video clips prompted news articles and opinion columns claiming that Harris, purportedly showing a callous and uncaring attitude towards the plight of poor people, had been caught on camera “laughing” and “boasting” about her prosecution of a homeless mother. Fox News posted an article with the headline “2010 video shows Kamala Harris boasting about prosecuting parents, including homeless mom with two jobs, whose kids missed classes.” Nathan Robinson wrote an opinion column for The Guardian with the headline “Kamala Harris laughed about jailing parents over truancy. But it’s not funny”: “Harris cheerfully recounts the story of sending an attorney from her office to intimidate a homeless single mother whose children were missing school. She smiles as she recalls how she instructed her subordinates to ‘look really mean’ so that the mother would take the threat of jail seriously.” The website Grit Post published an article with the headline “Kamala Harris Once Bragged About Prosecuting a Homeless Single Mom Working Two Jobs.” The January 2019 controversy centered on a speech Harris gave on 14 January 2010 at the California Commonwealth Club, at a time when she was the district attorney (D.A.) of San Francisco and was running for California attorney general. She was also promoting her 2009 book Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer. In her speech, Harris recounted her experiences and record as San Francisco D.A. and advocated a “smart-on-crime” approach to criminal justice, which she outlined as a combination of aggressive prosecution of violent crime, along with with her “Back on Track” program, which was designed to reduce recidivism (re-offending) among 18-24-year-old, first-time, low-level drug offenders, many of whom Harris noted were parents. Harris also spoke about the anti-truancy campaign she led as San Francisco D.A., one that preceded a significant decline in elementary school truancy and absenteeism in San Francisco but attracted some criticism for confronting parents with the potential legal consequences of allowing their children to miss school, as well as occasionally imposing criminal penalties. In the lead-up to the remarks that resurfaced in January 2019, Harris discussed the value of education and described the impetus for her truancy crackdown as being the high prevalence of high school dropouts among homicide victims and perpetrators. As she framed it, the anti-truancy initiative was motivated by a desire to prevent, in advance, the kind of educational disengagement linked to future violent criminality and victimization:  … I believe a child going without education is tantamount to a crime, so I decided I was going to start prosecuting parents for truancy. Well, this was a little controversial in San Francisco [laughs] and frankly my staff went bananas, they were very concerned because we didn’t know at the time whether I was going to have an opponent in my re-election race. But I said ‘Look, I’m done. This is a serious issue, and I’ve got a little political capital and I’m going to spend some of it.’ And this is what we did. We recognized that, in that [anti-truancy] initiative, as a prosecutor and law enforcement [official], I have a huge stick, the school district has got a carrot — let’s work in tandem around our collective objective and goal, which is to get those kids in school. So to that end…I sent a letter out on my letterhead, to every parent in the school district, outlining the connection that was statistically proven, between elementary school truancy, high school dropouts, who will become a victim of crime and who will become a perpetrator of crime. We sent it out to everyone. A friend of mine actually called me and he said “Kamala, my wife got the letter. She freaked out. She brought all the kids into the living room, held up the letter, said ‘If you don’t go to school, Kamala’s going to put you and me in jail?! '” [laughs] Yes, we achieved the intended effect. And here’s what we also did — we created what we called the D.A. Mediation Program where we assigned prosecutors to go and sit with the administrators and principals when they met with all the parents. And frankly, you know the prosecutors in my office who volunteered to do this? My homicide prosecutors, my gang prosecutors. And they went over there and I said “When you go over there, look really mean” [laughs] and so they did. And invariably the parents said “Well who’s the mean-looking dude?” and the principal would say “Well that’s someone that mean D.A. Kamala Harris sent over here ‘cos she said she’s going to start prosecuting you if we can’t work this out. And through that initiative we found cases like the case of the woman who was by herself, raising her three children, holding down two jobs, and homeless. She just needed some help. But by shining this infrared spotlight of “public safety” on the fact that her children aren’t in school, we were able to figure that out, get her access to services that exist, and through that process, the attendance of her children improved, we dismissed the charges against her and overall we’ve improved attendance for this population in San Francisco by 20 percent over the last two years. The first fact to note is that Harris, according to her account, did not prosecute the homeless woman in question to the extent of a criminal trial, conviction, and punishment, because that was not the ultimate goal of the program. The anti-truancy program worked in that case as it was intended. By confronting the mother with the negative potential outcome of criminal conviction, San Francisco authorities were able to bring her into a process that involved providing her help and resources that she would otherwise not have received, while also motivating her (albeit in a coercive manner that some observers have criticized) to ensure her children attended school, thus making it statistically less likely they would end up as the victims or perpetrators of crime. As Harris said, that outcome meant her office was able to dismiss the charges against the mother. Harris wrote about the same woman in her 2009 book Smart on Crime, many of whose anecdotes she repeated in her Commonwealth Club speech. There she specified that the provision of services, a key part of the truancy policy that many 2019 critics did not mention, included finding housing for the previously homeless woman: “The picture began to brighten. At one high school, overall attendance among the one hundred students in the [District Attorney] mediation program improved 40 percent. At another elementary school, we saw a 75 percent drop in the number of chronically absent students. Along the way, we learned some things about the situations some of these families faced and found we could help. For example, we met a mother with three children who was homeless and holding down two jobs trying to get her situation under control; we referred her to community resources to find stable housing and get her children to school.” So when Harris recounted with satisfaction the story of that homeless woman, she was in fact describing a case in which the anti-truancy program had the result of forcing the woman, on pain of prosecution, into an administrative process whereby she was provided with housing and services and given both help and coercive incentive, which resulted in her children’s attending school more. Further details on the mechanics and procedures involved in the truancy initiative can be found here, but the key point is that the purpose of the program was not to criminally prosecute or jail parents of truant children. In fact, such an outcome would mean the program had failed. Its purpose was to use the threat of prosecution to “bring parents to the table” and initiate a series of steps that  (crucially) involved providing services and resources to parents and did indeed have the effect of lowering the rate of truancy in San Francisco. That is not to support or defend the program itself, or endorse the remarks made by Kamala Harris in her 2010 speech, or the tone in which they were delivered. Rather, our point here is to accurately describe what the program actually entailed, and therefore what it was Harris recounted with satisfaction before the Commonwealth Club. What Harris was celebrating or “boasting” or “bragging” about was not the prosecution or jailing of a homeless mother, but rather the fact that the successful implementation of her anti-truancy program had avoided the need to prosecute or jail that mother. And it had the effect of bringing her children back to school, an outcome that is linked to a lower statistical risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of crime. It is therefore a significant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the facts to claim, as Fox News did, that Harris was “boasting” about prosecuting parents, or to claim, as Grit Post did, that “Kamala Harris once bragged about prosecuting a homeless single mom working two jobs.” Nathan Robinson, in his column for The Guardian, conflated two separate anecdotes and falsely claimed that Harris had “cheerfully recounted” her instructions to prosecutors to “look really mean” in order to “intimidate a homeless single mother.” Harris was recalling her instructions to prosecutors when attending D.A. mediations involving dozens of parents and school administrators, not gleefully ordering them to target a specific homeless mother for intimidation. It is true, though, that the threat of prosecution and the involvement of San Francisco’s top prosecutor, District Attorney Kamala Harris, was an essential component of the anti-truancy program, even if its end goal was not the criminal prosecution of parents. So it is understandable that some observers in 2019 misunderstood or misrepresented the actual mechanics and purpose of the anti-truancy program and therefore the meaning and significance of what Harris said in her January 2010 speech at the Commonwealth Club.


Merck wins UK okay for Keytruda in lung cancer after price cut.

Explanation: Britain’s healthcare cost-effectiveness watchdog NICE has recommended use of Merck’s immunotherapy drug Keytruda in certain lung cancer patients, after the U.S. drugmaker cut the price further for the state-run health service.

Keytruda is already approved as a cost-effective treatment in melanoma but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) had initially blocked its use in lung cancer. “If companies work with us to price drugs reasonably and manage any uncertainties in the evidence base, we can continue to recommend patients have routine access to the treatments they need,” Carole Longson, director of the NICE centre for health technology evaluation, said in a statement on Friday. Keytruda has proved highly effective in fighting non-small cell lung cancer in patients with high levels of a protein called PD-L1, which makes them more receptive to immunotherapy. The average cost of a course of treatment in Britain is around 29,000 pounds ($36,500) at the full list price but the National Health Service will pay less after getting a confidential discount. ($1 = 0.7934 pounds)


In the last six years of Cianci’s administration violent crime was down in the United States. It was down in the region. It was down in Rhode Island. But it was up in Providence.

Explanation: Plant-based food startup JUST, shortly to launch its egg substitute in Europe as animal alternatives catch on, sees cutting costs as key to leaping beyond the niche alternative market and into the eating mainstream.

Rhode Island, Criminal Justice, Crime, Public Safety, Jorge Elorza,

Demand for plant-based foods is growing fast as consumers worried about the environmental impact of meat production and keen to avoid a meat-heavy diet on health grounds look for alternative protein sources. JUST’s products including JUST Egg, a scrambled egg imitation made from mung beans, are available in the United States, Canada, China and Singapore, with sales evenly split between retailers including Walmart (WMT.N), Safeway and Whole Foods (AMZN.O), and restaurants such as Tim Hortons (QSR.TO). Chief Executive Josh Tetrick said cutting the costs of JUST Egg was key to broader acceptance. It is “really important for us to become one of the lowest cost proteins on the planet,” he said. “Today, our cost is 22 cents per serving. Our goal is to get to 12 cents next year and then ultimately below five.”  The cheapest supermarket eggs from non-caged hens cost around 16 cents each. Tetrick told Reuters that after launching in Europe a next logical step is achieving profitability, in advance of a possible listing to raise money. He has already raised about $250 million from investors around the world, including Mitsui, Temasek, China Construction Bank, Founders Fund, the Benioff family and the Heineken family. Tetrick, whose company employs about 120 people, sees his JUST Egg in European outlets in the next few months. “We will be launching in some locations, retailers and restaurants in Europe,” he said on the sidelines of an event in Zurich last week. Investors are taking notice of the growth in plant-based foods. U.S. startup Beyond Meat’s (BYND.O) stock has nearly tripled since it went public in May even though it is yet to turn a profit. Tetrick said his San Francisco-based company had hired longtime food industry executive Dave Wagstaff, with experience at global giants like McCain and free-range egg brand Happy Egg, to head its European team. “Our partners in Europe today include (Italian egg company) Eurovo, they’re doing the manufacturing and distribution, as well as German poultry group PHW and (online food delivery platform) Delivery Hero (DHER.DE).”  Tetrick said he was confident the company could get a slice of the $260 billion global egg market “if we get it right”. “We figured out the technology, but now we have to execute.”  Tetrick said the company was expecting low- to mid-double- digit million dollar revenues this year and should multiply sales by around seven next year. “Our most important financial objective is operating profitability,” he said. “We’ll get there some time in the next year.”


Many younger U.S. adults skipping flu shots: report.

Explanation: Just over a third of U.S. adults ages 18 to 65 got the flu shot during the 2012-2013 flu season, according to an analysis released on Tuesday, and if that trend holds for the current flu season, many adults may be at risk.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most prevalent flu strain this season is H1N1 - the same strain that caused the 2009 pandemic and afflicts otherwise healthy children and young adults. Flu is now widespread in 35 states, according to the CDC. Rates are particularly high in 13 states, mostly in the South and Southwest: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. “The trend of low vaccination rates among younger adults is particularly troubling this year, when they are more at risk than usual for the effects of the H1N1 strain of flu that’s circulating,” said Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health, the nonprofit health advocacy group that released the latest findings. The analysis found that overall, 45 percent of all Americans got a flu shot during the 2012-13 season, the most recent period for which full season data are available. That was up slightly from 41.8 percent in the 2011-12 season. But among U.S. adults aged 18-64, only 35.7 percent got a flu shot during the 2012-2013 flu season. That compared with 56.6 percent of children age 6 months to 17 years, and 66.2 percent of seniors 65 and older who were vaccinated during 2012-2013. Among U.S. states, vaccination rates were highest last season in Massachusetts at 57.5 percent, and lowest in Florida at 34.1 percent. Only 12 states had vaccination rates of 50 percent or higher: Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Tennessee. The CDC recommends all American 6 months and older get vaccinated each year.


The FDA has updated its warnings for — and recommended limitations on — prescribing a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, citing potentially irreversible side-effects including tendon damage and rupture.

Explanation: Ultimately, any drug comes with potential adverse effects and discussing those risks versus the potential benefits with a doctor is wise. In the case of fluoroquinolones, there are indeed serious risks that need to be considered, especially when other classes of antibiotics may be effective.

Medical, antibiotics, cipro, fluoroquinolone

On 18 March 2017, the author of a blog called “Mountains and Mustard Seeds” published a post about her personal experience with serious medical complications caused by a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones. These drugs include: That post (headlined “This Antibiotic Will Ruin You”) highlights somewhat recent announcements made by the FDA requiring new warning labels and suggested limitations on their use: The antibiotics you took or are taking for your sinus infection, UTI, skin infection, laser eye surgery…ect [sic]…may have already damaged you. Cipro, Levaquin, Avalox, nearly every generic ending in “quin”, “oxacin,””ox,”…are all part of a large family of antibiotics called “Fluoroquinolones.” The FDA finally updated their warning on these antibiotics as of July 2016. They cite “multiple system damage that may be irreversible.” Permanent you guys. […]  In 2010, I took Cipro for a UTI and it changed my life forever. A round of antibiotics literally changed the path I was walking, into a path that I couldn’t even crawl on. Multiple spontaneous tendon and ligament ruptures, spinal degeneration, and arthritis that is widespread. We are talking multiple joint dislocations and surgeries to most of my large joints and spine. Twenty surgeries in the last 7 years if you wanna count. While our post does not seek to verify the author’s personal story, the information presented regarding documented complications from this class of antibiotics is factual. The Food and Drug Administration, since July 2008, has issued a series of increasingly strong notices regarding the rare (but serious) risk of tendon rupture, tendonitis, and neurologic damage resulting in pain or numbness. These alerts culminated in a revised “Boxed Warning” and new prescribing recommendations, as described in a 26 July 2016 FDA safety announcement:  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved changes to the labels of fluoroquinolone antibacterial drugs for systemic use (i.e., taken by mouth or by injection). These medicines are associated with disabling and potentially permanent side effects of the tendons, muscles, joints, nerves, and central nervous system that can occur together in the same patient. As a result, we revised the Boxed Warning, FDA’s strongest warning, to address these serious safety issues. We also added a new warning and updated other parts of the drug label, including the patient Medication Guide. As a 2015 review of adverse effects from fluoroquinolone antibiotics explained, the class of drugs has a long history of use for a broad range of conditions, and uses a unique mechanism that actively destroys bacterial DNA: Fluoroquinolone (FQs) antibiotics were first approved by the FDA for marketing in the 1980s. Since then, FQs have been used extensively to treat a wide range of infections and, although not approved by the FDA for prevention, are also increasingly used as prophylaxis against infection among persons with cancer and other immune compromised states. That same report, which used data collected by the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to demonstrate the reality of these risks, stated that while the exact mechanism by which fluoroquinolones may contribute to tendon damage is unclear, it does likely involve mitochondrial damage as described in the Mountains and Mustard Seed post: The mechanism by which [Fluoroquinolones or FQs] cause tendon injury is unclear. […] FQs cause oxidative stress in tenocyte cells through overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS). This overproduction has direct toxic effects in the extracellular matrix. In addition, FQs cause mitochondrial toxicity and apoptosis. In other words, the drugs cause damage to, and sometimes kill, tendon cells by overproducing oxygen-containing chemicals, and can also harm a cells vital mitochondrial DNA. To be clear, the risks are still somewhat rare. Depending on which drug is used and what studies you base your analysis on, tendonitis and tendon rupture are estimated to occur in 0.14 percent to 0.4 percent of cases, though experts agree the true incidence is likely higher due to underreporting. According to multiple studies, these risks are higher in elderly populations, non-obese populations, and especially patients also prescribed glucocorticoid steroids, which are used to treat inflammation, among other things. Because of the potentially permanent and disabling effect of these risks, the FDA argues, the risk-to-benefit ratio has shifted enough to merit limiting their prescription to cases of absolute necessity, per their July 2016 notice: We have determined that fluoroquinolones should be reserved for use in patients who have no other treatment options for acute bacterial sinusitis, (ABS), acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (ABECB), and uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI) because the risk of these serious side effects generally outweighs the benefits in these patients. For some serious bacterial infections the benefits of fluoroquinolones outweigh the risks, and it is appropriate for them to remain available as a therapeutic option. The author of the “Mountains and Mustard Seeds” post also alluded to potential psychiatric complications: Fluoroquinolones cross the blood brain barrier. This can result in psychiatric events, depression, and suicidal thoughts. I was incredibly fortunate not to have the psychiatric side of this. This, too, is accurate, although the recent changes to FDA warnings were not spurred by any new incidents or developments regarding mental health events. A 2003 study using data collected by the Italian government estimated that psychiatric effects from fluoroquinolones occur in about 1.8 percent of cases, with a majority of those cases being minor and self-resolving.


The WHO coronavirus test “was a bad test.”

Explanation: A review found the World Health Organization’s test did not give false positives when similar viruses were present. The White House provided no evidence that the WHO test fell short. The WHO test lacked FDA approval because it was never submitted to the FDA for evaluation.

A persistent but inaccurate talking point is that the United States turned down coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization. We found that WHO never offered kits to the United States, and when a reporter asked President Donald Trump if that was true, he confirmed, and took it a step further. "No. 1, nothing was offered," Trump said March 17. "No. 2, it was a bad test." There is zero evidence that the WHO’s preferred test is unreliable. Based on a test developed in Berlin, Germany, by the end of February, WHO had purchased and sent materials to over 100 countries for 1.4 million tests. A review from the National University of Singapore reported that the German test gave neither  positives, nor  negatives. In technical terms, it was "highly sensitive and specific," and did not "cross-react with other coronaviruses." Before Trump spoke, top officials explained that the United States wanted a test that came through American commercial vendors and had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The head of the U.S. Public Health Service, Adm. Brett Giroir, said the WHO protocol had not been submitted to the FDA. The head of the White House coronavirus response, Deborah Birx, said that a few months from now, the public would see that other tests used around the world were not as good as the U.S. one. We asked the White House press office if Birx was talking about the WHO test and got no comment. Trump said that the coronavirus test used by WHO "was a bad test." In the lab, the test was found to produce neither  positives nor negatives. The White House produced no evidence that the test under-performed.


On September 18 2020, Twitter user @JohnCammo tweeted that President Trump's "October Surprise" would involve a positive test result.

Just after midnight Eastern time on October 2 2020, news broke that United States President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for novel coronavirus; a screenshot of a September 18 2020 tweet began circulating shortly thereafter:Attributed to user @JohnCammo, it read:Trump’s October surprise will be the announcement of “his infection.” Fake, but quite dramatic. This twist will blow Biden off the screens, the “Trump COVID watch” dominating every minute of every day. Then, 14 days later, Trump will emerge, 100% cured by hydroxychloroquine.Typically, the screenshots were not linked to an actual tweet. On occasion and as seen above, the date and timestamp of the tweet were circled.‘October Surprise’: A Brief HistoryMost Americans are familiar with the concept of an “October Surprise.” In American political parlance, the term is defined as follows:In American political jargon, an October surprise is a news event deliberately created or timed to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the U.S. presidency, or sometimes an event occurring spontaneously that has the same effect. Because the date for national elections (as well as many state and local elections) is in early November, events that take place in October have greater potential to influence the decisions of prospective voters. Thus these relatively last-minute news stories could either completely change the entire course of an election or strongly reinforce the inevitable.The term “October surprise” was coined by William Casey when he served as campaign manager of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. [2] However, there were October election-upending events that predated the coining of the term.Twitter Predictions in General, and Finding @JohnCammo’s TweetA brief scan of @JohnCammo’s timeline didn’t immediately lead to the tweet seen in the screenshots, and it’s not uncommon for Twitter “predictions” to go viral, regardless of how true (or how real) they might actually be.Twitter’s unique features exclude the ability to alter the content of a tweet directly, although on occasion seemingly impressive predictions are created through the tweeting and deleting of multiple prognostications, and then quietly deleting the incorrect ones.On other occasions, they’re just strong inferences or off-the-cuff quips that end up suffused with meaning by later events. The former occurred after Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash:Did a Twitter Post Predict Kobe Bryant’s Death in a Helicopter Crash in 2012?An example of the latter transpired when FARK’s Drew Curtis seemed to predict an eventful 2020 — several years prior:Did FARK’s Drew Curtis ‘Predict’ a Difficult 2020 — in 2015?The original tweet from the @JohnCammo account was not easy to find after it generated significant interest on October 2 2020. But one user helpfully retweeted it:Here’s @JohnCammo’s original October surprise prediction from 9/18 for those who want to see the original and don’t have time to scroll through his millions of replies to find it. https://t.co/Z9XtLoQwYC— ParmesanPopcorn (@ParmesanPopcorn) October 2, 2020The tweet was real, and it was accurately described:Trump’s October surprise will be the announcement of “his infection.”  Fake, but quite dramatic. This twist will blow Biden off the screens, the “Trump COVID watch” dominating every minute of every day. Then, 14 days later, Trump will emerge, 100% cured by hydroxychloroquine.— JohnCammo (@JohnCammo) September 18, 2020It was difficult to find in part because it was not a standalone tweet, but a reply to the following tweet:Can't see everyone, obviously. But watching the video of the Wisconsin event it looks like virtually no one is wearing a mask and it's being held in a county that is in the midst of a major outbreak. Awesome.— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 18, 2020Of note is that @JohnCammo did not just predict Trump’s infection, but ensuing events that have yet to take place as of October 2 2020, and which remain to be seen.TL;DRTwitter account @JohnCammo’s “October surprise” tweet about Donald Trump’s COVID-19 infection was real, and was indeed shared on September 18 2020. The tweet appeared two weeks before news of Trump’s positive test result broke late on the evening of October 1 2020, or early in the morning on October 2 2020 on the East Coast.Comments


On mandatory ultrasounds before abortions.

Explanation: McDonnell's support of mandatory ultrasounds before abortions hasn't changed

Across the country and around the world, pundits are saying Gov. Bob McDonnell performed a career-defining flip-flop Wednesday by urging fellow Republicans in the General Assembly to ease legislation mandating ultrasounds before an abortion. The Guardian in London called it a "U-Turn;" Al Sharpton on "PoliticsNation" called it a "huge turn-around;" Slate called it a "backtrack." Politico wrote: "The conservative blogosphere collectively bemoaned Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s decision to withdraw his support for legislation requiring invasive ultrasounds to be performed before abortions." The narrative, in many of the stories, is that McDonnell’s action will harm his chances to become the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican national ticket this year. So we wheeled out our Flip-O-Meter to see if McDonnell really did change his position in the ultrasound controversy. On the morning of Jan. 31, during an interview on WTOP radio, McDonnell announced his support of legislation requiring physicians, before an performing an abortion, to conduct an ultrasound and present the image of the fetus to the mother. Here’s an excerpt from his talk with broadcaster Mark Segraves:  Segraves: "But what do you support – the idea of having a woman have to take a sonogram before getting an abortion? Is that something you would support?" McDonnell: "An ultrasound – yes, I actually was the original sponsor of that bill about 10 years ago, to give a woman the right to know all the information before she makes the choice." Segraves: "Well, giving her the right to know and mandating a procedure are two completely different things." McDonnell: "Yeah, but I think it gives full information – an ultrasound is used – it’s modern technology, the costs have been driven down, to be able to have that  information before making, what most people say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision, I think, is appropriate." McDonnell didn’t get into the types of ultrasounds or the details of the bill. And the legislation did not specify any type of sonogram that must be performed. Several hours later, debate on the Senate floor cast the bill in a new light. Several Democrats,  for the first time, argued that the common "jelly on the belly" abdominal sonogram -- in which a wand is rubbed over a woman’s stomach -- may not be sensitive enough to render the image of a fetus in the first months of pregnancy. In such cases, they said, the abortion law would require physicians to conduct invasive transvaginal ultrasounds -- even against a mother’s will -- to get an image. The first news account disclosing that the bill would require transvaginal ultrasounds ran on Feb. 3. After that, the story went viral. The bill, which critics called "state-sanctioned rape," earned the ridicule from Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. More than 1,000 people protested at the state Capitol on Feb. 21. Then, on Feb. 22, McDonnell urged the Republican-controlled General Assembly to amend the bill so that no woman would be required to have a transvaginal ultrasound. In a written statement, the governor said he had been initially unaware that the legislation would require the invasive procedure. "I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so," McDonnell wrote. The House amended the bill as the governor requested. The measure is pending in the Senate. So, is there any evidence McDonnell reversed himself on mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds before an abortion? The answer is no. The governor, on Jan. 31, endorsed the general concept of mandating ultrasounds before abortions. Hours later, several senate Democrats revealed the legislation would require some use of transvaginal ultrasounds, even against a woman’s will. There is no record that McDonnell ever endorsed or defended mandatory use of the invasive procedure. Did McDonnell alter his long-held support for requiring women to undergo a non-invasive, external ultrasound before an abortion? The answer, again, is no. He still backs that. Despite all the uproar, we cannot find any change in McDonnell’s stance.


Tougher vaccine rules move forward in California.

Explanation: California lawmakers moved ahead Wednesday with tougher rules that limit parents from choosing whether to vaccinate their schoolchildren as a handful of opponents shouted “We will not comply” inside the Senate.

Immunizations, Health, Sacramento, North America, California, Public health

Senators sent the measure to the Assembly as the nation struggles to stem the highest number of measles cases in decades and as state efforts to strengthen vaccine requirements draw emotional opposition. The California proposal would give state public health officials instead of local doctors the authority to decide which children can skip their shots before attending school. Democratic Sen. Richard Pan of Sacramento said his proposal is needed because some “unscrupulous physicians” have been selling medical immunization exemptions since California ended non-medical exemptions in 2016. Under the plan, doctors would have to certify that they examined the patient and then send the state health department the reason they are recommending the exemption. State and county health officials also could revoke exemptions if they are found to be fraudulent or don’t meet federal immunization standards. “This is about keeping our community safe,” Pan said. He said exemptions would still be allowed for the less than 1 percent of students who should avoid vaccinations because they have a severe allergic reaction or impaired immunity from a liver problem, the HIV virus, chemotherapy or other conditions. But those with legitimate concerns would then be safer in school because the vast majority of their fellow students would be vaccinated, Pan said. “It’s scary to me that this state is becoming a police state,” Victoria Kennicutt of Elk Grove, south of Sacramento, said after watching the debate with other opponents. “It’s an issue that should be between the parents and the doctor, not involving the government.” She said her daughter, Charlotte, broke out in hives after her shots at 6 months and 1 year, developing a high fever that lasted a week and regressing in her speech. She worries that her now-2-year-old daughter’s medical exemption will be voided if the measure becomes law and said she will move out of state rather than comply. The measure passed on a party-line 24-10 vote, with no Republican support. Four Democratic lawmakers did not vote, with two Democratic senators saying it goes too far or reneges on lawmakers’ earlier promise not to infringe on medical exemptions. Several Republican lawmakers said they agree the state should crack down on doctors who sell medical exemptions but that they should be sanctioned by the state medical board through the normal disciplinary process. “Why isn’t the medical board dealing with these bad actors?” Sen. Jeff Stone said. The Republican from Temecula called Pan’s bill “a dangerous intrusion, not only into the doctor-patient relationship but also the personal liberties of the parents and their children.” Pan said the medical board has been frustrated in its efforts. “These families are not cooperating because they’re in cahoots with the physician,” Pan said. “They are truly unable to go after these physicians who are acting unprofessionally.” ___ Associated Press journalist Adam Beam contributed to this story.


Facebook post Says "there is no" COVID-19 virus.

Explanation: The coronavirus is real and infecting thousands of people around the world. As of March 19, COVID-19 had infected more than 191,000 people around the world and resulted in 7,807 deaths.

Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

Since January, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 100 claims about COVID-19. Some of the falsehoods, such as conspiracy theories about the virus’ spread, are quite elaborate. A more recent Facebook post is not one of those claims. In a March 19 post, a Facebook user said the coronavirus doesn’t actually exist. "There is no virus," the user wrote in all capital letters. "The government is trying to enforce martial law and place a chip inside of us as a ‘vaccine.’" 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.) It had more than 8,000 shares as of March 19. (Screenshot from Facebook) The post is bogus — it’s similar to a conspiracy theory that falsely claims the media and politicians have fabricated the threat of COVID-19. There is ample evidence that the coronavirus is real and infecting hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Scientists have traced the first confirmed case of COVID-19 to Hubei Province, China, in November. Several news outlets covered the subsequent outbreak in the city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic. From there, the coronavirus spread to more than 100 countries around the world. As of March 19, more than 191,000 people had been infected and 7,807 had been killed by the virus, according to the World Health Organization. Footage from a variety of news outlets has documented the spread of COVID-19. Scientists have isolated the genetic data and approximate origin of the virus, as well as how different groups of people are affected. They’ve also released microscopic images of coronavirus virions. All three have their origins in bats and cause symptoms like cough, shortness of breath and fever. COVID-19 is a "novel," or new, coronavirus, meaning it had not been previously identified. The WHO has declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a pandemic and global health emergency. On the advice of health officials, several countries — including France, Italy and Spain — have ordered nationwide lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus. Coronavirus prevention measures have caused the plunge of global financial markets, as well as layoffs across the country. To claim that the virus at the center of the pandemic does not exist, as the Facebook post does, is inaccurate and ridiculous.


Deborah Harry was nearly abducted by serial killer Ted Bundy in New York and narrowly escaped with her life.

Explanation: Details of the Blondie singer's claim of a close encounter with infamous serial killer Ted Bundy in New York don't check out.

Deborah Harry, the lead singer of the 1970s new wave band Blondie, has maintained many times over the last three decades that she once had a close encounter with Ted Bundy, narrowly escaping abduction (and presumably worse) at the hands of that notorious serial killer in the streets of New York in the early 1970s. Here’s how the story was related by her early on, in a 1989 newspaper account:  The way Deborah Harry recounts the story is absolutely frightening. The rock singer, best known for her work in the post-disco, New-wave band Blondie, was just trying to hail a cab. It nearly ended in disaster. “I was trying to get a cab on the lower east side of the Village in New York, and it was kind of late,” Harry said. “This was back in the early ’70s. I wasn’t even in a band then … I was trying to get across town to an after-hours club … “A little white car pulls up, and the guy offers me a ride. So I just continued to try to flag a cab down. But he was very persistent, and he asked where I was going. It was only a couple of blocks away, and he said, ‘Well I’ll give you a ride.’         “I got in the car, and it was summertime and the windows were all rolled up except about an inch and a half at the top. So I was sitting there and he wasn’t really talking to me. Automatically, I sort of reached to roll down the window and I realized there was no door handle, no window crank, no nothing. The inside of the car was totally stripped out. ” … I got very nervous. I reached my arm out through the little crack and stretched down and opened the car from the outside. As soon as he saw that, he tried to turn the corner really fast, and I spun out of the car and landed in the middle of the street.” The driver, Harry concluded more than 15 years later, was serial killer Ted Bundy, who was executed last January [1989] in Florida’s electric chair. “It was right after his execution that I read about him,” she said. “I hadn’t thought about that incident in years. The whole description of how he operated and what he looked like and the kind of car he drove and the time frame he was doing that in that area of the country fit exactly. I said, ‘My God, it was him. '”         Harry said it frightens her more now than ever. “Very scary,” she said. “Truthfully, I hadn’t thought of the incident in 15 years. I’m one of the lucky ones.” Between the incident and the time she fully digested what had happened, Harry had come and gone as a music superstar. However, Debbie Harry’s recollections (related many years after the fact) don’t fit the details of what is known about Ted Bundy’s life and criminal activities. For example, her 1989 account opened as follows:  “I was trying to get a cab on the lower east side of the Village in New York, and it was kind of late,” Harry said. “This was back in the early ’70s. I wasn’t even in a band then  … I was trying to get across town to an after-hours club …  Ted Bundy was born to an unwed mother on 24 November 1946 in Burlington, Vermont, he lived in his grandparents’ Philadelphia home for the first three years of his life, and then moved with his mother to Tacoma, Washington. After graduating high school in 1965, he spent the summer working for the Tacoma City Light utility company to save money for college, attended the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma during the 1965-66 academic year. The next summer he worked at a Washington sawmill, then transferred to the University of Washington (UW) to study Chinese before dropping out of that school in early 1968. After leaving UW, Bundy worked at various minimum wage jobs in Washington state, served as a volunteer in the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s presidential campaign, traveled to Colorado, visited relatives in Arkansas and Philadelphia (enrolling for one semester at Temple University), and possibly undertook a trek to Burlington to obtain a copy of his birth certificate, before returning to Washington by the fall of 1969 to re-enroll at UW as a psychology major. He remained in the Pacific Northwest, attending school and/or working in the area (committing his first documented assaults and murders in Washington and Oregon in early 1974), until relocating to Salt Lake City to attend the University of Utah Law School around August 1974. In January 1975 Bundy visited Seattle briefly during a school break before returning to the Utah-Colorado area. He was finally arrested (for the first time) in a Salt Lake City suburb in August 1975 and convicted of kidnapping and assault (for the first time) in Colorado in March 1976. So here we come to the first problem with Harry’s tale: the chronology just doesn’t work. Ted Bundy is not known to have been in New York City in the early 1970s (or at any other time in his life), nor to have begun abducting and killing women prior to early 1974 (and then only in the Washington-Oregon and Utah-Colorado-Idaho areas until after he escaped from a Colorado jail at the end of 1977 and fled to Florida, where he attacked and killed more women before his re-arrest in February 1978). Given that Harry maintains her encounter with the mystery man who offered her a ride took place in the “lower east side of the Village” in the “early ’70s” when she “wasn’t even in a band,” that incident must have occurred prior to the end of 1973, as Harry was definitely in a band (the Stillettos) by then. But there’s no evidence that Ted Bundy was either in New York or attempting to abduct women at that time. The other problem with Harry’s account is that Bundy was never known to have driven or used a “totally stripped out” MurderMobile of the type she described, one devoid even of door handles and window cranks. During his Seattle and Salt Lake City murder sprees, he drove a normal-appearing vehicle, a light brown Volkswagen Beetle. The only modification he made to this car was to occasionally remove the passenger seat and place it across the back seat in order to facilitate the carrying of “cargo.” As Ann Rule, author of the Ted Bundy study The Stranger Beside Me noted, young women who later (erroneously) claimed to have narrowly escaped the clutches of Ted Bundy are a not uncommon phenomenon:  A dozen or more young women have called me since 1980, absolutely convinced that they had escaped from Ted Bundy. In San Francisco. In Georgia. In Idaho. In Aspen. In Ann Arbor. In Utah … He could not have been everywhere, but, for these women, there are terrified memories of a handsome man in a tan Volkswagen — a man who gave them a ride, and who wanted more. They are sure that it was Ted who reached for them, and declare that they never hitchhiked again. For other women, there is a man with a brilliant smile who came to their door, ingratiating, and then angry when they would not let him in. “It was him. I’ve seen his picture, and I recognized him.” With the advent of computer communication, I have heard from more women who encountered Ted Bundy — and lived to tell about it — than ever before. When I lecture, I recognize the haunted look in the eyes of the women who approach me to tell of remembered terror. Just as in the past, I realize they cannot all have met Ted Bundy. That said, we can’t claim it’s absolutely impossible Deborah Harry could have encountered Ted Bundy in New York in the early 1970s, as his every movement and activity wasn’t thoroughly tracked and documented, and he told conflicting stories to different people about when and where he began assaulting and killing women, as noted by Wikipedia:  There is no consensus on when or where Bundy began killing women. He told different stories to different people, and refused to divulge the specifics of his earliest crimes, even as he confessed in graphic detail to dozens of later murders in the days preceding his execution. He told Nelson that he attempted his first kidnapping in 1969 in Ocean City, New Jersey, but did not kill anyone until sometime in 1971 in Seattle. He told psychologist Art Norman that he killed two women in Atlantic City in 1969 while visiting family in Philadelphia. To homicide detective Robert D. Keppel, he hinted at a murder in Seattle in 1972, and another in 1973 involving a hitchhiker near Tumwater, Washington, but refused to elaborate. Circumstantial evidence suggests that he abducted and killed 8-year-old Ann Marie Burr of Tacoma in 1961 when he was 14, an allegation he denied repeatedly. Also, during his time in Philadelphia and (his claimed time in) Ocean City, Bundy would theoretically have been just a few hours’ drive away from New York City, but still no reliable account — not even his own — ever put him in that metropolis or in possession of the type of stripped-out, death-trap automobile described by Harry. Deborah Harry’s later retellings of the story introduced even more anomalies, such as this account from the 2012 Blondie biography Parallel Lives:  “It was late at night and I was trying to get across Houston Street from the Lower East Side to 7th Avenue. For some reason there were no cabs and I was wearing these big platform shoes. This car kept circling round and round, this guy was calling out, ‘Come on, I’ll give you a ride.’ Finally, I gave in and got in the car. I realised I’d made a big mistake. For one, it was very hot in the car, and the windows rolled up nearly to the top. The guy had a white shirt and he was very good looking. Then I realised this guy had the worst BO I have ever smelt. Then I looked over at the door to crank down the window and saw there was no door handle, no crank. I cast my eyes around and saw that the car had been gutted. There was nothing in there. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up, so I stuck my arm out through the crack in the window and managed to open the door from the outside. I was so lucky.” “At the time I didn’t know anything about Ted Bundy,” Deborah later reflected. “I just thought, ‘Thank God I got away from that asshole,’ and I just carried on — and years later, after he was executed, I got on a flight and picked up a Newsweek, and I’m reading this story, and it says ‘Modus Operandi’, and it describes how he looked, the inside of his cars, and the hair on the back of my neck once again went out, and I said, ‘Oh my God, that was Ted Bundy. '”  Harry’s remains the sole personal account that ever put Ted Bundy in New York City, pegged him as possessing terrible body odor, or represented him as driving a car with an interior stripped completely bare — which makes it all the more puzzling how she might have read a magazine article describing a detail (e.g., “the [stripped down] inside of his cars”) that no one but she ever reported. Harry summed up the predominant reaction to her tale as follows:  “I’ve been debunked, actually, by those people that debunk you, or whatever,” adds Debbie, speaking nearly 40 years after the encounter. “They say he wasn’t in New York at that time, but I think they’re really wrong, because he had escaped and was travelling down the East Coast. I think that nobody has ever really investigated that. I didn’t know until later who it was. It was pretty scary.”  Of course, what’s “really wrong” here is that Ted Bundy couldn’t have “escaped” before Deborah Harry claims to have encountered him, because at that time he hadn’t yet ever been jailed, or arrested, or even suspected of a crime. Quite possibly something like Harry’s tale did happen, but it probably didn’t involve the most famous serial killer of the time.


Drug Policy Alliance Says Debbie Wasserman Schultz "voted repeatedly to send terminally ill patients to prison.

Florida, Marijuana, Drug Policy Alliance,

As U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., weighs a potential presidential bid in 2016, a long list of politicians are considering whether to run for his Senate seat. That includes U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, according to a Politico report on Feb. 17. (She’s not a lock on the Democratic side. A Tampa Bay Times Florida Insider Poll suggests U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy of Palm Beach County and newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Graham of Leon County could also be strong contenders.) One group was quick to attack Wasserman Schultz’s potential candidacy: The pro-pot lobby. Last year, she opposed Florida’s medical marijuana ballot initiative, which received almost 58 percent support, two points shy of passage. She also voted against a congressional amendment supported by advocates for medical marijuana. "She’s voted repeatedly to send terminally ill patients to prison. And we’re certainly going to make sure Floridians know that — not to mince words," Bill Piper, national affairs director with the Drug Policy Alliance, told Politico. Did Wasserman Schultz repeatedly take votes to send dying patients to prison? Politico reported in a follow-up article that Wasserman Schultz offered to change her opposition if Orlando lawyer John Morgan, the force behind the Florida ballot initiative, stopped bashing her, which she denied in an interview with the Sun Sentinel. Morgan hopes to get a revised version on the ballot in 2016. Wasserman Schultz’s marijuana voting record The Drug Policy Alliance pointed to several of Wasserman Schultz’s votes, including on a congressional amendment that banned the use of federal money to interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The goal of the amendment, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., was to prevent federal agents from raiding retail operations in states where medical pot is legal. (We looked at a similar claim by another pro-pot group about her vote in 2014.) Wasserman Schultz, one of 17 Democrats in the House to vote against the amendment on May 30, 2014, said she didn’t want to "limit the executive branch’s ability to enforce current federal law at their discretion." The language was attached to another bill and signed into law in December. (She voted against similar failed amendments four times between 2005 and 2012.) Her vote on those amendments "was very much focused on patients, and the fear of arrest they and their caregivers live under," Piper told PolitiFact Florida. He also argued that the Florida ballot measure -- which Wasserman Schultz opposed -- would have protected patients using medical marijuana. Last year, she said the Florida ballot initiative was "written too broadly and stops short of ensuring strong regulatory oversight from state officials." Piper also pointed to Wasserman Schultz’s "no" vote on an April 2014 congressional amendment on a spending bill for Veterans Affairs. The amendment, which failed, would have allowed VA doctors to talk to their patients about medical marijuana in states in which it is legal. But it’s a stretch to say that her "no" vote means she wants dying patients to go to prison. Wasserman Schultz spokesman Sean Bartlett told the Washington Post at the time that she felt it was premature to vote on the amendment. She wanted to wait for the results of a study approved by the federal government to look at marijuana’s potential effects on post-traumatic stress disorder. Do feds put terminally ill patients in prison? Do these votes mean she repeatedly voted to send terminally ill patients to prison? That’s a stretch. Even before her 2014 congressional votes, there were reasons that users were not a priority for the feds. In 2013, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum to federal attorneys telling them to focus on cartels or other criminal organizations. Beyond that, the Justice Department said it was content to allow state and local agencies "to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws." The pro-pot lobby has pointed to cases of growers prosecuted for serving ill patients, including transplant recipient Jerry Duval, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Duval was a state-registered caregiver but prosecutors argued he peddled pot to non-patients. One high-profile case remains pending -- initially dubbed Kettle Falls 5, named for defendants in eastern Washington. Prosecutors say the five defendants were conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana, and they were also charged with possessing firearms. One defendant, Larry Harvey, told USA Today that the pot he grew was for personal medical use. On Feb. 18, the Justice Department dropped the charges against Harvey, 71, who was recently diagnosed with stage-four pancreatic cancer. However, the charges remain for his wife, two other relatives and a family friend. Law professors we interviewed told us that the federal government hasn’t focused on individuals who simply use marijuana for their own medical needs, and that was true even before the congressional amendment passed. "The feds don't send people to prison for using marijuana," Vanderbilt law Professor Robert Mikos told PolitiFact Florida. "They do deny some benefits to users (like access to some VA services). And the law authorizes prison for users. But the law is not enforced so rigidly." George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the amendment passed last year "may well constrain federal prosecution of medical marijuana suppliers in states where their activities are legal." However, he added, the fact that the Kettle Falls case is still going forward shows such prosecutions still can happen. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz "voted repeatedly to send terminally ill patients to prison," Piper said. She voted against amendments to ban the federal government from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. In theory, advocates believe that the amendment -- which passed late in 2014 after multiple attempts -- prevents the feds from going after sick marijuana users in states that allow medical marijuana. However, even before the amendment passed, dying patients who simply smoked joints that they obtained legally were not being hauled off to prison en masse by federal agents. Instead, the federal government focused on major suppliers or distributors. Saying Wasserman Schultz voted to send people to prison significantly exaggerates the issue. The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.


Explanation: Jean-Claude Mas, the Frenchman who sparked a global health scare by selling substandard breast implants, was arrested on Thursday as Marseille prosecutors build a case against him for manslaughter.

An undated police mugshot photo shows Jean-Claude Mas, the founder of the French Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) company, displayed on the "red notice" posted by Interpol on its website. REUTERS/Interpol In the first arrests since the two-year-old scandal made headlines worldwide in December, Mas and a second executive at his now defunct company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) were seized at their homes in southern France shortly after dawn. The detention could lead within hours to Mas being placed under formal investigation on suspicion of manslaughter and causing bodily harm. That could in due course lead to criminal charges, which would carry longer sentences than those he now faces in a fraud case expected to be tried around October. Women who have been campaigning against PIP since French authorities banned its products nearly two years ago welcomed the move as giving them a sense that the law was now in action:   “It’s been too long,” said Murielle Ajellio, who heads an association for women with implants. Up to now, she said: “You feel like you’re fighting against the wind.”   French authorities have been criticized for being slow to react to a case that has sown fear among tens of thousands of women who carry PIP implants. French inspectors ordered them off the market in March 2010, due to concerns over their quality. But only last month did officials in Paris recommend their surgical removal, drawing attention to the problem for patients worldwide who had been fitted with products from the company, which was at one time the third biggest global supplier. Lawyers for women in France who have filed complaints over PIP implants welcomed the arrests and said there must be no escaping justice for the 72-year-old Mas, who has been quoted as deriding those suing him as being motivated only by money. “This is a comfort for the victims,” said Laurent Gaudon, whose clients are pursuing PIP and surgeons who used its implants for fraud. “It’s the feeling that justice is advancing and they have not been forgotten. It’s the assurance that the guilty are at last going to be held accountable.”   Philippe Courtois, who represents 1,300 people with PIP implants, said Mas should not be freed pending any trial. Mas and PIP’s former chief executive Claude Couty were questioned at home, as police conducted searches. They were then moved to police custody in the Mediterranean port city of Marseille, under the orders of prosecutor Jacques Dallest. PIP enjoyed years of success with international sales, but behind the scenes employees, and Mas himself, have admitted to hiding from certification agencies the fact they were using cheap, industrial silicone, not approved for medical use. Health authorities in France and elsewhere have stressed that PIP’s products carry no proven link to cancer, but surgeons report that they have abnormally high rupture rates. Responses to the problem have varied among different foreign authorities. Thursday’s arrests follow an investigation opened in Marseille, close to PIP’s former premises, on December 8 after the death from cancer in 2010 of a woman with PIP implants. Mas and Couty can be held for up to 48 hours while a judge decides whether to open a formal probe and, if so, what bail conditions, if any, to set. A trial date could be years away, given the extent of inquiry required, but the graver manslaughter case could make it harder for Mas to avoid appearing in court later this year on other charges of fraud and deception. That latter case targets half a dozen former PIP executives and could also carry prison terms for them of several years. It has dragged on as investigators have had to quiz up to 2,700 women who have filed complaints over PIP implants. Mas, who sold some 300,000 implants around the world, has acknowledged that he used unapproved silicone but dismissed fears that it constituted a health risk. Earlier in January, leaks from a police document showed Mas admitting to lying about the quality of PIP’s implants and describing the women filing complaints against him as just seeking money. The comments sparked public anger against him. PIP closed down in March 2010 after regulators discovered it was using a non-approved, industrial silicone gel, and pulled its implants off the market. Last month, the French government advised women with PIP implants to have them removed, and said it would pay for the operations in France, sparking alarm around the world. Officials in several other countries, including Britain and Brazil, have asked women to visit their doctors for checks. France has called for tighter European Union regulations on medical devices in wake of the PIP affair, saying suppliers of prosthetics should require the same sort of authorization as manufacturers of prescription medicines.


The Healthy Skeptic: Products make testosterone claims

Explanation: The disease-mongering of Low T (low testosterone) could have been an important subtheme of this column, yet it was barely mentioned. As our medical editor on this review wrote, “Low T syndrome reflects a cure in search of a disease.” The column was solid for what it did – teasing for what more it could have done. What does “feeling manly” mean? What does “virility” mean? Does a 1% per year decline in testosterone levels for most men mean they have a condition that requires treatment? There are conditions attributable to low testosterone that warrant treatment. This story – although it rated well – could have done a better job addressing such questions.

As it usually does, the Healthy Skeptic column itemized costs of the products in question. See “evidence” criterion above The story explained: “Over-the-counter testosterone products may carry hidden dangers. A 2008 study in Clinical Cancer Research found that two men taking a supplement called Teston-6 developed unusually aggressive, fast-growing prostate cancer. Lab tests showed that the product contained hormones (including testosterone) that weren’t on the label, a common issue with noNPRescription products. The manufacturer quickly pulled it from the market. “The problem with these sorts of supplements is that they don’t have to meet the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration,” says Dolores Lamb, a coauthor of the Teston-6 study and professor of urology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.”


Oregon 2nd-grader diagnosed with meningococcal meningitis.

Explanation: A health official says a Lebanon second-grader has been diagnosed with meningococcal meningitis.

The Democrat-Herald reported Thursday that Linn County Health Officer Dr. William Muth said the student attends Green Acres Elementary School. Muth said that the Public Health Department is working with school officials to identify students and staff who had close contact with the student Jan. 9-12. Muth sent a letter to parents saying meningococcal disease is not highly contagious, but close contacts should get antibiotics to prevent disease. The disease is caused by a bacterium that lives in the noses and throat. It causes serious disease only if it enters the blood stream and spreads throughout the body. The disease can be deadly and kills about 10 of every 100 persons infected. ___ Information from: Albany Democrat-Herald, http://www.dhonline.com


Blood Test May Predict Rheumatoid Arthritis

Explanation: There has been recognition that RA results in gradual, cumulative destruction of joints and other parts of the body. Since we now have powerful treatment options, there has been a push to begin using them earlier. However, it’s harder to identify RA in its early stages, when diagnostic techniques such as RF testing aren’t as helpful. Therefore, there is a need for new diagnostic techniques for the identification of patients with joint problems in the early stages of RA. That’s the context, and the social problem, described in the article. The study in question, however, is a little different. It’s about understanding the processes that lead to RA and techniques that may, in the future, lead to a test for patients who may develop RA in the future. There is no available evidence that treatment can stave off RA in patients who don’t have symptoms yet. We would have liked to have seen the article use additional sources besides the press release. Where it does not rely on the press release, it seems to stray too far. The article claims that the investigators "say the finding paves the way for developing a blood test for early diagnosis of the mysterious disease." We don’t believe they said that, neither in the published study nor even the press release. The authors say the technique could help identify people at risk for developing RA in the future — people who are not yet patients — as opposed to patients who have an early stage of the disease. Contrary to the article’s headline, the study in question did not assess a blood test for RA, and there is no blood test now. After the headline, the story really never improved.

Costs are not applicable as there is no diagnostic test developed yet. Quantified benefits do not apply, as this study was not a clinical trial. Quantified harms are not directly applicable to this type of research. Note, however, that there is a harm of assigning a label of "pre RA" to a perfectly healthy person with a positive blood test of unknown significance. There are always potential harms of screening; as in this story, though, they are often ignored.


Explanation: This story reports the results of a review of the new drug for female sexual dysfunction, flibanserin (Addyi). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis studying the impact of flibanserin in women with HSDD. The CNN coverage of this large and exhaustive study had many shortcomings starting with the headline. It is hardly a ‘mixed’ review when you compare a weighty study that found very marginal effects of the drug in nearly 6,000 women, and put that up against a single compelling anecdote of a women who says her life was turned around by the drug. It’s also questionable to give so much weight to the comments of a clinician with known ties to pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for female sexual problems (and without disclosing those relationships). This is an important piece of reporting because how a new drug performs in clinical studies on thousands of patients has a direct relevance to the women who would be encouraged to take the drug and the physicians who would want to prescribe it. Journalists need to be ultra cautious in reporting on such a ‘sexy’ topic and carefully weigh the comments of clinicians and patients who provide what seem to be ‘market-tested’ testimonials. Almost everything about the marketing and medicalization of female sexual dysfunction is controversial: the article acknowledges that controversy, but barely. Most thoughtful clinicians in this area see the problem as a multifactorial one, which may be affected by physiological changes, psychological issues, relationship factors, and/or cultural context. Any journalist weighing in on this subject must, even briefly, step back and ask: Given all these controversies, how can this study be covered in a way that readers, especially women, aren’t misled?

drug costs,female sexual dysfunction,flibanserin,sprout pharmaceuticals

No cost information, whatsoever. This rating is borderline as the article noted: “They said for women using the drug, the number of additional ‘satisfying sexual events’ averaged out to about 0.5 per month.”  What would give this increased meaning is what the baseline was. If the baseline is zero or 0.5, maybe increasing that by half a satisfying sexual encounter might be meaningful. If the baseline is 10, does half an additional encounter make any difference? Later in the article we learn that “10% more patients” had meaningful sexual encounters, but what exactly does that mean? “10%” of what? The article tips decisively into Not Satisfactory territory with its unbalanced focus on unrepresentative anecdotes depicting women who had “life-changing” improvements. We learn the drugs have side effects but nothing about the fainting, falls and somnolence that are known side effects of the drug. The patient with the testimonial is quoted saying: “I should be able to choose whether the side effects are worth the benefit.” We agree. But we also agree that anyone reading this article should get a sense of what those side effects are likely to be and how often they occur. A systematic review is the highest form of evidence and it’s at the peak of the evidence pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid is anecdote and opinion. And yet the story puts these two pieces of evidence on an equal footing and seems to give them equal weight. People who criticize systematic reviews and ‘tear them apart’  have to indicate why the review is faulty. Instead we get a conflicted clinician with known ties to an organization dependent on pharmaceutical money and pharmaceutical companies promoting drugs for female sexual problems saying that the study had “erroneous conclusions.” And the main reason given is that the review included unpublished studies — when withholding those studies from the review would have introduced a clear bias. This is completely unacceptable. If the studies are erroneous, we need to hear a plausible explanation as to why — preferably from someone who’s not conflicted by relationships with drug manufacturers. There are many who would say that HSDD is a construction by the pharmaceutical industry keen to capitalize off women’s sexual health. Whether you agree with that perspective or not, if you are writing about a controversial condition, you must include some coverage of that controversy, otherwise you are at risk of further medicalizing and hyping a condition that maybe doesn’t, in most cases, warrant a medical treatment approach. It was unfortunate not to have included the many and direct ties between those attacking the review (such as the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, which is supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers) and one of their board members, Dr. Lauren Streicher, who has declared ties to Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc and Shionogi & Co., Ltd. We know that patient testimony at the flibanserin hearings at the FDA was supported by Sprout, the maker of flibanserin, which gave financial support to those attending the hearings. But it is unclear if the patient mentioned in this story received such support. The ‘alternative’ in the clinical studies was, presumably, a placebo, yet as some commentators have noted, the drug has never been tested against a more holistic approach that acknowledges the complexity of female sexuality and which address physical, psychological, and social factors. The story notes that the drug has been on the market since October, 2015. This is definitely a novelty and the article reflects that accurately. Other than Dr. Lauren Streicher and the patient Jodi Cole who seem to keep appearing and reappearing in other stories on this study, there is no evidence of being overly-reliant on a press release.


U.S. coronavirus supply spree sparks outrage among allies.

Explanation: From Europe to South America, U.S. allies are complaining about the superpower’s “Wild West” tactics in outbidding or blocking shipments to buyers who have already signed deals for vital medical supplies.

In France and Germany, senior officials said the United States was paying far above the market price for medical-grade masks from No. 1 producer China, on occasion winning contracts through higher bids even after European buyers believed a deal was done, and Brazil’s health minister reported a similar incident. “Money is irrelevant. They pay any price because they are desperate,” one high-level official in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU/CSU group told Reuters. A German government source said: “Americans are on the move, carrying a lot of money.”  Since the virus was first recorded in China late last year, the pandemic has spread around the world. Governments in Europe, the Americas and elsewhere are desperately trying to build up supplies for medics, nursing home staff and the public. Now, with global cases surpassing one million and the outbreak exploding in the United States, the competition for precious stocks is intensifying further. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that the U.S. government is now recommending Americans wear cloth face coverings on a voluntary basis to stem the spread of the virus, but the guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend wearing medical-grade masks. He also said he was signing a directive to stop the export of N95 respirator masks, which provide essential protection for healthcare workers, and other U.S. medical equipment. U.S.-listed multinational 3M Co (MMM.N) said Friday that the White House had ordered it to stop all shipments to Canada and Latin America of respirators that it manufactures in the United States, despite what 3M called “significant humanitarian implications.”      Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the blocking the flow of equipment across the border would be a “mistake” that could backfire, noting that the country’s healthcare professionals go to work in Detroit every day. In another case, an order of 200,000 masks bound for Germany from a 3M factory in China were “confiscated” in Bangkok, Berlin Secretary of Interior Andreas Geisel, said in a statement, calling it an “act of modern piracy.”   “Even in times of global crisis you shouldn’t use Wild West methods,” he said. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security official told Reuters this week that U.S. companies and the government have been paying above market price for much of the gear purchased overseas. The official, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter, said the United States would not stop buying “until we have way too much” and could still be searching out protective gear abroad through August. “We’ve gotten our hands on every bit of it that we can,” the official said. Lea Crager, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency coordinating the search for medical supplies abroad, said disasters often lead to price increases for certain goods. “If it causes some sort of a supply chain disruption, you’re going to see costs rise for an essential commodity,” Crager said. “It just happens.”  In Brazil, Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta said this week that China had ditched some Brazilian equipment orders when the U.S. government sent more than 20 cargo planes to the country to buy the same products. “Our purchases, which we expected to complete in order to be able to supply, many were dropped,” said the minister in an interview on Wednesday. On Thursday, Mandetta said Brazil had finally succeeded in placing a 1.2 billion reais ($228 million) order for equipment, although it will only be delivered in 30 days. A second German source employed by a company now helping Merkel’s government to order masks said the last weekend of March had been a turning point, and drew a link with the United States’ increased presence in the market. Contracts no longer guaranteed delivery, the source said, adding: “Demand is much, much bigger than supply.”     In France, three regional leaders painted a similar picture. Jean Rottner said it was a constant fight to ensure mask orders arrived in his Grand Est region, where the outbreak first took hold before spreading west towards Paris. He said consignments were changing hands at the last minute. “On the (airport) tarmac, the Americans get out their cash and pay three or four times what we have offered,” Rottner told radio RTL France on Wednesday. Rottner’s counterpart in the greater Paris region, Valerie Pecresse, said she had been beaten to an order by a country with deep pockets, although she did not name the United States. “We found supplies a few days ago but failed to buy them after others outbid us,” Pecresse told Franceinfo radio on Friday. “They were prepared to pay three times the market price.”   The French Foreign Ministry said it was verifying the reports. But one official doubted that action would be taken. “It boils down to market forces,” the official said. “The one who pays the most gets the prize.”


Photographs show a new Chinese aircraft carrier.

Explanation: Do photographs show a new Chinese aircraft carrier?

Fauxtography, aircraft carrier, china, fauxtography

In August 2011, China’s first aircraft carrier began sea trials. Given that this ship is a refurbished former Soviet aircraft carrier, not the catamaran-style design shown here, and China reportedly plans to build “up to three additional clones of the carrier” in the long term, it’s unlikely the pictures displayed below are conceptual images of “a new ultra modern Chinese design concept aircraft carrier” currently under construction. We could find no documentation that China is currently engaged in building a craft like the one shown here, or has any plans to do so. The origin of these images is unknown to us and may have no connection with the Chinese military: Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] China’s new aircraft carrier! Wow!These aircraft carriers look formidable and of ultra modern design. There are reports the 1st Chinese aircraft carrier is under construction and could enter service around 2015 or earlier. It won’t be long before we see the real thing. Defense analysts are waiting; watching anxiously. THIS IS QUANTUM LEAP ABOVE ANYTHING WE HAVE ON THE DRAWING BOARD. THEY HAVE THOUGHT “OUTSIDE THE BOX” ON THIS ONE. BETTER SPEED, LARGER CAPACITY, MUCH MORE STABLE, ETC. DEFINITELY A “BLUE-WATER” LONG REACH VESSEL. PLUS THEY CAN SERVICE THEIR NUKE SUB FLEET IN-BETWEEN THE TWIN HULLS (SIGHT UNSEEN) OR EVEN LAUNCH AMPHIBIOUS OPPS FROM SAME. IT WILL BE LAUNCHED IN HALF THE TIME IT TAKES THE USA AT JUST ONE-THIRD THE COST. ADD THE NEW CHINESE STEALTH FIGHTER BOMBER (NAVAL VERSION ALREADY FLIGHT TESTING) IN THE MIX AND YOU HAVE THE MAKINGS OF A FORMIDABLE WEAPONS SYSTEM INDEED.. ALSO LOOK AT THAT EXTRA ”PARKING AND READINESS” STATION BETWEEN BOTH HULL STRUCTURES.. AND OF COURSE THE LAUNCHING AND LANDING CAPABILITIES FROM THE UTILIZATION OF TWIN FLIGHT DECKS AT ONCE P.S. SOME THOUGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ADVISING YOUR GRANDCHILDREN TO LEARN TO SPEAK MANDARIN (FORGET SPANISH) MY “VERY, VERY BRIGHT” 15-YEAR OLD 3rd COUSIN HAS ALREADY BEEN ADVISED TO DO SO BY PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT SUCH THINGS. P.P.S SIX OF THESE VESSELS (TWO PACIFIC, TWO ATLANTIC, ONE INDIAN OCEAN AND ONE MED SEA) WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD DIPLOMATIC “BIG STICK”. NOTE: THE CHINESE ARE ALREADY DRILLING FOR OIL OFF CUBA, BRAZIL AND VENEZUELA. CAN THEY BUILD A FLEET OF THESE THINGS??? A FEW FACTS: THE CHINESE HAVE COMPLETED THE WORLD’S BIGGEST DAM (THREE GORGES), THE WORLD’S LONGEST OVER-WATER BRIDGE (65 TIMES AS MUCH STEEL AS IN THE EIFFEL TOWER). CONSTRUCTED A 15,000′ HIGH RAILROAD INTO TIBET (ALL CONSIDERED MAJOR ENGINEERING FEATS). THEY ARE THE ONLY NATION OTHER THAN RUSSIA THAT CAN LAUNCH MEN INTO OUTER SPACE (OUR CAPABILITY ENDS WITH THE LAST SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH THIS MONTH). THEY HAVE ALSO SHOT DOWN A SURVEILLANCE SATELLITE (ONE OF THEIR OWN) FROM THE GROUND. PLUS THEY “OWN OUR ASS” IN THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT GAME. CHINA’S NEW A/C CARRIER COULD BE TWICE AS FAST AS ANYTHING WE HAVE, PLUS THE STABILITY OF A CATAMARAN TYPE HULL WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE PITCHING, YAWING AND SWAYING COMMON TO OUR PRESENT DESIGNS.


Facebook post Says businesses will give you free baby formula during the coronavirus outbreak.

Explanation: Several formula producers have released statements saying the rumor is a hoax.

Heart-warming stories about businesses stepping up to help people struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic have flooded the internet. Unfortunately not all of them are true. This Facebook post, for example, claims that families can receive free baby formula during the pandemic. It reads: "If any parents have run out of formula or are running low - call the number on the back of your canister and explain to them the virus has affected your abilities to find any formula - they will send you a case free of charge! I know, enfamil and goodstart do this! Saw a few mommies posts & figured it could be worth a try!" 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.) This isn’t a legitimate offer. Several formula producers have released statements addressing the rumor, including the ones mentioned in the text. Infant formula brand Enfamil tweeted about the rumor and released a statement saying it’s false: "Please also note that contrary to rumors in some online social networks, we are not distributing free cases of formula. We are instead focused on ensuring equitable availability for every baby based on what we know and in anticipation of what might develop in the coming weeks. Gerber, a worldwide producer of baby food and infant formula, did the same on its website: "We are aware of rumors claiming that Gerber is giving away free formula in response to the out of stocks. While this is not true, we are committed to our goal of supporting babies and families with dependable, affordable nutrition, and you can find information about discounts by visiting https://gerber.com/coupons." Formula brand Similac also addressed the rumor. It reads: "While some social media posts have rumored we’re providing free cases of infant formula, this is not true. We value you as a customer and appreciate your patience as we all work together to ensure the ongoing and consistent distribution of the Similac products your baby needs. Our focus is on working closely with our local teams, retail partners, and government authorities to help safeguard the availability of infant formula products for all families and their infants." Aptamil, a formula brand in the United Kingdom, said on its website that the company is unable to send out free formula products due to strict regulations in the UK. "This is not true and I’m really sorry to hear that people are spreading false rumours at such a worrying time," an Aptamil spokesperson told Yahoo News UK. "The World Health Organization guidelines on the promotion of breastmilk substitutes strictly prohibit us from giving out free milk under any circumstances." This is a hoax. Formula companies say they aren’t shipping free formula to anyone. !


Beth Chapman, wife of Duane “Dog” Chapman from the reality TV show “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” died in April 2019.

Explanation: Because the rumors of her death appear to stem from dubious clickbait websites with misleading or confusing statements, and because Chapman is still active on social media, and because no member or representative of the Chapman family has suggested she lost her battle with cancer, we rank rumors of Beth Chapman’s death as false.

26 June 2019 Update: The Associated Press has reported that Beth Chapman has died at age 51. Details here. In September 2017, reality TV star and wife to “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” Beth Chapman, revealed she had been diagnosed with Stage 2 throat cancer. At the time, Chapman had surgery and underwent a rocky recovery period, but by November 2017 the family announced that she was cancer free. A year later, however, her cancer returned, and the family confirmed that Chapman had undergone emergency surgery “to clear a throat blockage that was obstructing her airways.” She has been active discussing her battle with cancer on social media since then. On 7 April 2019, Duane “Dog” Chapman confirmed that his wife had again been hospitalized, this time due to a buildup of fluid in her lungs:  Several dubious websites or social media pages have created clickbait that apparently generated rumors Chapman had passed away. For example, a 7 April 2017 YouTube video from the account “StarsNews” ran with the confusing title: “Sad News Dog the Bounty Hunter’s Wife Beth Chapman May Passed Away Expected Soon …,” which has received over 1.5 million views and which, based on the comments on the page, several people took to mean that Beth Chapman had passed away. The image used as the thumbnail for that video has been shared on Twitter with the text “RIP Beth” and on other accounts. Factually speaking, however, Chapman was hospitalized and released. On 7 April 2019, a lawyer for the Chapman family told People that “Beth was hospitalized yesterday. She’s now resting at home.” Indeed, since that time she has posted updates regularly to social media. For example, on 14 April 2019, Chapman posted a picture of herself on Instagram with the statement, “Don’t forget the reason for the season”:  A post shared by Beth Chapman (@mrsdog4real) on Apr 14, 2019 at 1:02pm PDT  On 20 April 2019, another misleading item appeared on the website “everydaydevotional.com” with the headline “Beth Chapman Death 2019: Did Beth Chapman Die from Dog the Bounty Hunter?” Opening the article, the reader is presented with the bolded text “positively yes.” That answer, however, misleadingly referenced a question from the body of the text — “is Beth Chapman alive?” — and not the headline question. Similar to the StarsNews YouTube video, several commenters on the page took this to mean that she had passed away. The same day as that dubious post, though, Chapman posted to her Twitter account.