Hillary Clinton was forced to cancel a campaign event after a video showed her making lizard-like “bizarre eye movements” that prove she’s suffering the lingering effects of head trauma.

Explanation: Hillary Clinton Cancels Event After Bizarre Eye Movements

Like many other claims about Hillary Clinton’s health during the 2016 election, rumors that Clinton canceled a campaign event after exhibiting “bizarre eye movements” are unfounded. The rumor started with a video that was posted to a YouTube channel dedicated to Clinton conspiracy theories on September 22nd. The video shows a slow-motion close-up of Clinton’s eyes while she spoke at an event in Philadelphia on September 19th, and a caption states: Hillary Clinton began to exhibit bizarre eye movement and strabismus (crossed eyes) during her speech in Philadelphia yesterday before unexpectedly canceling today’s scheduled events. It’s true that Clinton postponed a fundraising lunch planned in North Carolina a day after her speech in Philadelphia — but no reason was given by Clinton’s campaign, CBS affiliate WNCN reports: Meanwhile, Clinton campaign officials said Monday afternoon that a Tuesday fundraiser in Chapel Hill was postponed. The Clinton event was billed as “lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton” and had four donation levels to attend. Those contribution levels were described as $100,000, which featured “chair reception with Hillary,” $33,000, which included a “host reception with Hillary,” $5,000, which included “preferred seating” and $2,700. No reason was given for postponement of the Clinton event, which was planned to take place at the home of Betty Craven and Michael Warner. The notion that Clinton suffers from strabismus dates back to a head injury she suffered in a December 2012 fall. Bill Clinton was quoted as saying the injury “required six months of very serious work to get over” back in 2014. Clinton’s political opponents, including Karl Rove, argued that there were long-term effects of the head injury that could affect her judgment and ability to serve as president (Rove later backed off from those claims, but they still persist today). The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Stabismus reports that stroke is the leading cause of strabismus in adults, but it can also be the result of brain damage that impairs eye control or damage to nerves that control the eyes. However, Clinton doesn’t appear to exhibit strabismus in the viral YouTube video. The video does not appear to show horizontal strabismus (cross eyes) or vertical strabismus (a lazy eye) — which are the two main types. Rather, the video is extremely zoomed in and plays in slow motion so it looks strange when Clinton looks from side to side while she talks. A full video of the speech can be viewed here, and Clinton’s eyes don’t look unusual when it’s played in real time. It’s not clear why Clinton canceled her North Carolina fundraiser, but video of her at the rally in Philadelphia doesn’t appear to match strabismus. That’s why we’re reporting this one as fiction.


Chondroitin of little help for arthritis, study says

Explanation: This succinct story – only 348 words – nicely captures the main message of new research showing that the nutritional supplement chondroitin is no better at relieving arthritis pain than placebo. It includes good sources and makes clear that chondroitin, though not proven to be effective, is also not harmful. But the story might help the reader evaluate the evidence if it explained a little more. For example, the authors of the analysis found that the effect of chondroitin on pain was equivalent to an improvement of 0.6 millimeters on a 10-centimeter scale—extremely tiny. This piece of data would have provided readers with a quantifiable estimate of non-efficacy. The story also neglects to note that there are other nonsurgical therapies that can help. Though there is no cure-all for osteoarthritis, conservative care include analgesics, exercise and physical therapy, devices such as canes and braces, and other strategies.

The story mentions the total amount that Americans spent on chondroitin supplements ($810 million in 2005), but not the individual's cost of purchasing the pills. The story states that chondroitin is no better than placebo, a conclusion that might seem difficult to quantify. But the authors of the analysis illustrate this non-difference nicely in a piece of data missing in the news report. The effect of chondroitin on pain, they found, was equivalent to an improvement of 0.6 millimeters on a 10-centimeter scale—in other words, extremely tiny. The story notes that there were no side effects from chondroitin and quotes an editorialist explaining that there was no harm in taking the supplements if patients felt they migh relieve pain. The news story mentions that the research analysis focused on three of the “largest and most complete studies.” It's interesting to note the limitations and flaws of the other 17 studies that the researchers did not analyze. In addition to being small, as the news story notes, these randomized, double-blind trials showed tremendous variance in their results, did not adequately conceal from patients whether they received chondroitin or placebo, and failed to include dropouts in their analyses. The story contained no elements of disease mongering. Osteoarthritis afflicts some 20 million Americans. It’s an important and often painful and disabling disease. The story includes quotes from interviews with two good sources—the lead author of the new research paper and a spokesperson for a trade group for supplement makers. It also cites an accompanying editorial in the journal that published the research. The news story notes that glucosamine is used to treat osteoarthritis (alone or in combination with chondroitin), but neglects to mention other nonoperative strategies that help patients cope with arthritis pain. These include analgesics, exercise and physical therapy, devices such as canes and braces, and others. The news story mentions that chondroitin is a dietary supplement, suggesting that it is available in stores that sell supplements. Readers should be able to infer that chondroitin is not an entirely novel therapy, since there are already at least 20 randomized trials examining its purported benefits. The story did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.


You can be fined $999 and have your license suspended simply for holding a cell phone in your car as of January 2019.

Explanation: Can You Now Be Fined $999 for Holding a Phone in Your Car?

On January 7 2019, the following status update appeared on social media and quickly went viral:Caught using cell phone, or holding it while driving- $999 fine and 3 yr suspended license as of Jan.2019! Ouch…be aware folks! !No specific jurisdiction was mentioned in the post, and we were unable to find any firm or even speculative information about a law of that type which would have proposed or implemented in January 2019. A March 2018 WTLV-TV article (“Viral lies: Can you be ticketed for having a phone in your hand while driving?”) referenced a similar rumor confined to Florida at that time.According to the article, the claim was false as of March 2018:I won’t make you scroll.The answer is no. Not yet… It was posted at the end of February and states that Florida passed a new law that if a police officer so much as sees you with your cell phone in hand that you can be written an expensive ticket.Well, according to the DMV Florida website, which is linked in the post, that is not true. Cell phones are said to be a distraction and you will be written a ticket if you break a road rule while using your phone, but that ticket will be for reckless driving, distracted driving, etc.There was a handful of articles (and anecdotal reports) about laws proposed or rumored in specific states. However, a law involving holding cell phones while driving in Georgia involved a far smaller (USD$50) fine:It’s now illegal to hold your phone while driving in the state of Georgia, part of a sweeping hands-free law that went into effect [in July 2018]. Reading from a phone or using it to record video is banned, too, according to the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, including at stoplights.Those caught breaking the rules — even tapping “play” on a Spotify playlist while not parked — face a $50 fine, which doubles upon their second offense. The law, signed by Gov. Nathan Deal in May, aims to curtail driving fatalities in the state … Drivers can no longer have phones “touching any part of their body” while talking through devices, the safety office stated. Reading emails, social media posts and text messages is banned, as well as writing any such content. While recording videos while driving — a practice frequently seen on social media — is banned, dash cams are OK.In January 2018, an article about a proposed law in South Carolina (“It could soon be illegal to even hold a cellphone while driving in South Carolina”) reported that if a law of the type passed, it would carry fines of $100 and $300 for first and subsequent offenses, not $999. In May 2013, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced a then-new hefty fine for handheld cell phones … for commercial vehicle operators, not regular drivers:A new FMCSA rule restricts the use of all hand-held mobile devices by drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). This rulemaking restricts a CMV driver from holding a mobile device to make a call, or dialing by pressing more than a single button. CMV drivers who use a mobile phone while driving can only use a hands-free phone located in close proximity. […]Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving a CMV can result in driver disqualification. Penalties can be up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000 for employers who allow or require drivers to use a hand-held communications device while driving.We managed to locate one similar “distracted driving” law which purportedly took effect in January 2019, in Ontario, Canada. However, the fine/suspension table provided by that site still did not match the claims in the post:First offence: 3 days suspension and $1,000 fineSecond offence: 7 days suspension and $2,000 fine Three or more offences: 30 days suspension, $3,000 fine and six demerit pointsThe Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS-HLDI) maintains updated lists of cellphone laws relating to driving in various states and jurisdictions. We archived the latter’s January 2019 table, which says that in the state of California “persons are prohibited from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a phone or electronic communication device.” But we were unable to locate a state or federal law. However, that law went into effect in 2017 (not 2019) and involved a fine of around $150, not $999.


Partial rather than full knee replacements better for many – report

Explanation: This story parrots a news release sent out by Oxford University about a study published in the journal BMJ Open. The study concludes that partial knee replacements would — in many cases — leave patients “better off” than total knee replacements. With no independent reporting, the story glosses over how the study was conducted, what was measured, and what the limitations were. It also didn’t discuss harms of surgery, among other problems. An over-reliance on publicity materials appears to be a pattern — last week the Guardian received a 1-star score from us for a different story that also simply restated what the news release said. Knee replacement surgeries are not uncommon. A 2015 study reported that, as of 2010, there were 4.7 million people in the U.S. who had received a total knee replacement. If partial knee replacement (also called a unicompartmental knee replacement, or UKR) is an option for many patients, and the partial version could improve outcomes and reduce medical costs, then this is a finding with the potential to significantly improve life for patients (and make U.S. insurers happier in the process). However, it’s important to highlight the risks associated with such a decision — even if those risks could potentially be reduced by seeing an increase in partial replacement surgeries over time. The importance of this research is that for some people a less-invasive surgical procedure may be an option, but the choice isn’t quite so clearcut as the researchers imply.

This story ran in the U.S. edition of the Guardian. Generally, we expect those stories to acknowledge that the U.S. patients have to pay for their healthcare, and what those costs might be. However, in this case, because the research is looking at some benefits specific to the UK’s National Health Service, we’ll rate this N/A. It does include a small mention on this topic: “Partial replacements are also cheaper, say researchers from Oxford University.” The story tells readers that “Many more people facing surgery for knee problems would be better off with a partial rather than total knee replacement, which should allow them to recover faster.” But it doesn’t tell readers how much faster. It also doesn’t make clear what the benefits of the surgery are compared to, well, not having any surgery at all. In addition to not quantifying the benefits, the story also doesn’t tell readers exactly what the researchers were measuring, which were “quality adjusted life years” (QALYs). QALYs are a way of accounting for both the quantity and quality of a patient’s life, and are used primarily in an economic context. i.e., QALYs are used to assess the cost-effectiveness, or value, of a medical procedure. In this case, the study found that patients had QALY gains for partial replacements, compared to total knee replacements, and that the gains varied depending on both the patient’s sex and age. The QALY outcomes were also influenced by whether the person conducting the partial surgery did such operations frequently. What risks are associated with getting either surgery? The story simply doesn’t tell us. When considering harms, one needs to keep in mind the side effects of surgery, the recovery from surgery, how they function after recovery and then whether there are differences in the need for subsequent procedures. It’s not clear from the story how the study was conducted. In one place it refers to “an analysis of the data routinely collected by the National Joint Registry.” Elsewhere the story cites a researcher as saying that the study was “able to use real data, from very large numbers of people, about their actual operations, their [general practitioner] visit, and their own reported quality of life outcomes in a way that is not always possible.” But, put simply, that’s rather vague. What sort of data were they looking at? How were they using the data? Were there limitations in the data that required researchers to make any assumptions? The story doesn’t tell us. Ideally, such analyses would use experimental data. However, this study uses observational data. Little is provided about where this data came from and how patients who had one procedure or the other differed. The lack of details makes it harder for the reader to understand what was done in this study. One possible concern here would be that there is an assumption that surgery — either partial or total replacement — is a foregone conclusion for patients who have osteoarthritis of the knee. That’s not true — there are other treatment options available. However, the story doesn’t quite say that. It instead says that osteoarthritis is “the main reason for [knee replacement] surgery.” Because there are certainly cases of osteoarthritis where replacement, or partial replacement, are indicated — and it can be inferred that the story is referring only to those cases — this gets a satisfactory rating. The story does not appear to incorporate input from any independent sources. All the quotes were taken from the news release, without attribution. If, as we noted under “Disease Mongering,” the story is focused only on patients that require either partial or total knee replacement, then the only alternatives are, well, partial or total knee replacement. And the story refers explicitly to both. But there are nuances missing. The partial procedure is thought to be a simpler one. As such, it may lead patients to undergo surgery at an earlier stage than they may otherwise have if they had the full replacement. As such, an alternative of waiting would be reasonable. This really is the challenge. There are few things between conservative measures and surgery for patients with knee arthritis. The story makes clear that partial knee replacement surgery is available. This is not the first study to evaluate the outcomes of partial knee procedures (see this 2011 paper, for example). It is not even the first study to compare the outcomes from partial surgery to the outcomes from total knee replacements (see these two studies on the same cohort of patients from 1998 and 2009). So what sets this new study apart? The story does cite a researcher as saying “The main strength of this study is that we were able to use real data, from very large numbers of people, about their actual operations, their GP visit, and their own reported quality of life outcomes in a way that is not always possible.” However, without at least some discussion of the previous work, any comparison is impossible. It appears that all of the information in the story, including the quotes from the study authors, comes from a news release issued by the study authors’ research institution. The story does not credit the news release. For example, this quote appears in both the news story and the news release: “The main strength of this study is that we were able to use real data, from very large numbers of people, about their actual operations, their GP visit, and their own reported quality of life outcomes in a way that is not always possible.”


French foie gras makers worry as bird flu spreads in Europe.

Explanation: New outbreaks in Europe of a severe strain of bird flu pose a fresh worry for French foie gras producers, already reeling from lost sales last year when the virus emerged in southwestern France.

The run-up to Christmas coincides with peak demand for the delicacy, France’s favorite festive treat, made from duck or goose liver. Marie-Pierre Pe from foie gras makers group CIFOG, said on Monday that prices could be 10 percent higher this Christmas after the French government’s decision last year to cull all ducks and geese, and halt output for four months, in a bid to contain the virus. Farmers hope that stricter measures in place at French farms to spare birds from contamination after last year’s crisis will better protect their industry should the current outbreak of the H5N8 strain, already seen in neighboring Germany and Switzerland and other European countries, hit France. “When I heard about new bird flu cases in Europe, I thought: It can’t be true, the nightmare is not going to start all over again,” Pe told Reuters. “We did all that is needed to prepare farmers since the start of the year but we are never immune from birds contaminating a farm,” she said. Producers estimate the freezing of output had cost the industry around 500 million euros ($539 million), including a 270 million euros loss in sales and additional costs for new biosecurity material. The 25 percent drop in output and higher costs will lead to the rise in prices of foie gras products this year, Pe said. Sold whole or as a pate, foie gras is considered a gourmet food in Western and Asian cuisine, but the practice of force-feeding has often been criticized as cruel by animal activists. CIFOG held regular meetings with farmers this year to explain biosecurity measures put in place after the crisis, such as better protecting food and water from wild birds, Pe said. Farmers in southwestern France, the top foie gras producing region, also face stricter rules to avoid contamination between farms, notably through equipment disinfection. As well as Germany and Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Croatia, have also reported outbreaks of the highly contagious H5N8 bird flu in recent weeks. No case of bird flu has been found in France so far this time but the country raised surveillance measures on Thursday to keep wild migrating birds from transmitting the virus to farm poultry. Denmark ordered farmers to keep their poultry indoors on Monday due to the bird flu threat and Germany said it was considering ordering farmers to keep their flocks inside.


Arizona State Senate candidate Bobby Wilson fatally shot his mother in 1963.

Explanation: As of July 2018, Wilson is running as a Republican in Arizona’s 2nd State Senate District. The Republican primary election is scheduled to take place on 28 August 2018.

Arizona Senate candidate Bobby Wilson brought up an extraordinary personal take on the issue of gun violence during a public meeting in July 2018, describing the time, 55 years earlier, when he had used a gun to defend himself against a crazed attacker: The only way to stop a crazy madman from killing innocent people is you better have a good guy there with a gun. And I’m here to tell you I’m living proof of that … When I was 18 years old, somebody was hell-bent on killing me in my sleep one night. At three o’clock in the morning, I woke up to find a rifle in my face — a semi-automatic rifle, at that — and the bullets start[ed] flying, and I started diving for cover. I dodged six bullets before I managed to crawl under my bed where I kept a loaded, single-shot .22 [rifle]. And except for that single-shot .22, I would be dead. I would’ve been dead in 1963. Here’s how an Arizona Daily Star reporter tweeted about the account Wilson gave at that meeting: Wilson, who is repeatedly booed by the audience for various reasons (including saying everyone is good Christians) describes how he was nearly killed in his bed by a man who broke into his home, wanted to kill him. Wilson was able to shoot with a loaded gun he kept under his bed. pic.twitter.com/b0djHCXYLb — Joe Ferguson (@joeferguson) July 10, 2018  What Wilson didn’t convey during that meeting was that the person who allegedly tried to kill him as he slept was his own mother, whom Wilson shot dead. Nor did he mention the fact that his teenaged sister was beaten to death in the same incident. However, his extraordinary anecdote prompted an investigation by the Arizona Republic newspaper, which brought to light some disturbing details from the episode, prompted shocked reactions on social media, and garnered the attention of the national news media. The deaths In June 1963, Wilson was arrested and charged with the murder of his mother, Lavonne Wilson (52), and his sister, Judy Wilson (17), at the family’s home in Hugo, Oklahoma. According to local news reports from the time, as well as Choctaw County court records which we obtained, the 18-year-old Wilson gave shifting accounts of his involvement (although Wilson now denies this). On 23 June 1963, police told the Lawton Constitution newspaper that Wilson (whose legal name was John Robert Wiste) at first claimed he was awakened by an explosion occurring in the early morning hours of 20 June and fled the family home before it went up in flames. He reportedly told police that he returned to the house later that day, found his mother and sister dead, and put them in bed. But according to later news reports, by that time autopsies of his mother and sister had confirmed that they had died before the fire started, and Wilson subsequently led police to the location of a rifle. Two days later, the Lawton Constitution reported that Wilson had confessed to killing both women and then setting fire to the house. (In an email to us, Wilson denied ever confessing to the murders.) The trials After attending his mother’s and sister’s funerals, Wilson was arrested and charged with two counts of murder. His lawyers, Vester Songer and Hal Welch, argued that Wilson had suffered amnesia, could not remember key events from the night of 19-20 June, and therefore was not fit to stand trial or offer a “rational defense.” Choctaw County District Court Judge Howard Phillips ordered that Wilson be admitted to Eastern State Hospital for three months for medical and psychiatric evaluation. In September 1963, Dr. Ruth Annadown, Acting Medical Superintendent at the hospital, wrote to Judge Phillips to say that “It is the opinion of the staff that the patient has a complete amnesia for the allegations.” Having interviewed Wilson, Dr. Walter E. Blevins, Staff Physician at the hospital, relayed the young man’s own description of the night his mother and sister died. It is worth quoting extensively, because it constitutes an account of Wilson’s memories of that night, offered just five weeks afterwards: On interview the patient states that he had gotten along fairly well with his mother until the last two or three years then they began to argue about practically everything, but mostly about the girls he would go with and using the family automobile. The arguments had gotten particularly heated over the past six months. He states that his mother would fly into a rage about the girl he was going with and had told him repeatedly that he would have to quit going with her. On the night that his mother and sister died he states that he had gone to bed and was asleep when his mother came in; she awakened him and started to argue with him about his girl friend and told him that he could not use the family car again. She also told him he would have to leave and proceeded to pack his clothes and put them in the car. He told her he was not going to leave, whereupon she picked up a loaded automatic, .22 rifle at the foot of the patient’s bed and pointed it at him. The patient states that she clicked off the safety on the rifle and he became frightened. He says in his own mind he had to get the rifle because he knew that in her frame of mind she might shoot him. At this point he states that he cannot remember what happened, but when he came to himself his mother and sister were lying on the floor and blood was everywhere. He says that he did not know whether they were dead or not, but that they did not seem to [be] breathing. He says he laid them on the bed and took the gun to the car and thought about running, but decided against this and went back inside the house. He then thought about killing himself, but was afraid someone else might be blamed for it. He then took some gasoline and poured it around in the bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom and then struck a match. He states that there was an explosion and he either jumped or was blown through a window on to the ground. He states that the explosion burned his hands and face. A neighbor hearing the explosion came over and took him to the hospital. In an email, Wilson told us that Dr. Blevins was “mistaken” in his report about the interview, saying that “He actually [was] referring to the allegations of law enforcement at the time, which was [sic] proven wrong at the trial.” According to court records and news reports, Wilson’s first prosecution for murder ended in a mistrial in 1965, but the case was set for a retrial in 1966. Wilson and his lawyers maintained that he still suffered from complete amnesia about the crucial events of 20 June 1963, and Dr. Moorman Prosser, a psychiatrist, gave expert testimony to that effect, writing: He still has a very real and complete amnesia for that period of time when his mother and sister were allegedly shot with a gun held by him. It is my studied opinion that this man cannot recall or recount this period and could not possibly assist you in explaining or accounting for his action in this interval of time. In March 1966, Judge Phillips ordered that a jury decide whether Wilson’s amnesia meant he was incapable of mounting a proper defense. The jury sided with Wilson, but the case was not dismissed outright. As the Arizona Republic reported in 2018, the case was “suspended” on the basis that Wilson might someday recover his memories from that night and be in a position to present a proper defense. In December 1973, with the murder charges still pending and Wilson then 29 years old, his lawyers petitioned Choctaw County District Court to dismiss the case, arguing that the seven-year delay had been unreasonable and denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial: The aforementioned delay, none of which was occasioned by defendant in any respect, has resulted in substantial prejudice to defendant’s right to a speedy trial herein, due to the fact that relevant testimony from witnesses favorable to the defendant is no longer available due to the death of such witnesses, and it now appears and [sic] difficult and unlikely that testimony relevant to defendant’s mental condition at the time of the occurrence of the incident which gave rise to the filing of this information will now be available to defendant. The court agreed and dismissed all charges against Wilson. Later life In a 2017 interview with Arizona’s Green Valley News, Wilson averred that he obtained a degree in political science from the University of Texas at Arlington in 1968 and a law degree from Texas Tech University in 1973. Wilson practiced law in Burleson, Texas, before moving to Phoenix, Arizona, in 1995, taking a position as law lecturer in Maricopa County Community Colleges and starting a private investigation firm. He told the Green Valley News that “I didn’t take the Arizona bar. I’d already done the law thing in spades, and I just wanted to move straight into something else completely different.” However, Wilson told us in an email that he tried to take the Arizona bar exam in 2012 but his efforts to practice law there were thwarted by an old controversy. That old controversy was that Wilson had stopped practicing law in the state of Texas under a cloud of misconduct allegations in the early 1990s. He had been convicted of defrauding a client by committing forgery in Johnson County and was suspended from the practice of law in June 1990, but in the ensuing years Wilson persisted in advertising his services as an attorney and billing and collecting legal fees from client, according to the State Bar of Texas. While disciplinary action was pending against Wilson for alleged professional misconduct in July 1994, the Supreme Court of Texas received a letter written by a “Robert J. Wilson” announcing his resignation from the state bar, and the court thereafter ordered that Wilson’s “law license be cancelled and revoked and his name be … dropped and deleted from the list of persons licensed to practice law in the State of Texas.” The resignation letter read (in part): I have been a member [of the bar] since 1973, and I must report that I no longer desire to be a member of an organization that engages (at least in my case) in a policy of persecution, rather than to protect the interests of the general public. Your office’s handling of the case is not something The State Bar should be proud of. I have dismissed my Counter Claim against The State Bar, but since I no longer am a resident of Texas, I may refile the matter in Federal Court. My decision is not yet firm on this. I no longer intend to return to the practice of law, since I’ve decided life is too short to be engaged in continuing litigation with The State Bar of Texas simply because I stood up for my rights which is obviously not the thing to do when dealing with The State Bar of Texas. The Texas Supreme Court revoked and cancelled Wilson’s state law license the following month. Wilson told us in an email that he had never resigned from the bar; that the resignation letter had been sent by “some unknown person” who had forged his signature. Wilson told us that he had written to the State Bar of Texas in 2012 asking to be reinstated so that he could practice law in Arizona, but his requests were denied. As of July 2018, the State Bar of Texas web site lists Wilson as having been “not eligible to practice law in Texas” since August 1994. Recovered memories In 2010, Wilson published his memoirs in book form as Bobby’s Trials, in which he asserted that he had never confessed to killing either his mother or sister, and that corrupt and abusive police had lied to the local press about the case. In the book Wilson gave a detailed account of the events of that fateful night, claiming that early in his legal career (about ten years after the deaths), he visited a crime scene at a gas station in Texas while representing a client, and the odors of blood and gasoline brought back a full, conscious recollection of what had happened in the early morning hours of 20 June 1963. Since then, Wilson has averred he remembers that his sister was killed when his mother, aiming for him, struck her with the butt of a rifle. He has admitted that he shot his mother dead, but he denies setting the house on fire, claiming instead that his mother’s wild shooting caused jars of gasoline stored in his bedroom to smash and spill, and the house subsequently exploded when a light switch shorted. In Bobby’s Trials he described the event in a markedly different fashion than was recorded by Dr. Blevins back in 1963: I had been in a deep sleep that morning, when suddenly I was startled by my mother shaking me violently and shouting, “Get up!” “I don’t have any pants on,” I said. “Get up now!” The barrel of my .22 caliber Mossberg fully loaded semi-automatic was pointed at me. I slid my feet out from under the bed covers, turned my back on my mother, and pulled up my jeans, when she screamed again. “Don’t turn your back on me, you sorry bastard. Think you can leave me for some worthless bitch like your father did? I’ll show you.” I turned around to face the rifle barrel and the crazed look of a woman out of her mind. She was going to shoot me. I had no doubt. I reached up and pulled the ceiling light string, and the only light source in my room was gone. The room was immediately totally black. I fell to the floor and crawled on my hands and knees behind my steel frame bed, trying to hide and looking for cover. Blam blam blam blam blam blam. She started shooting, six times. Muzzle flashes and bullets flew all across my room. Bullets and empty shells struck the walls, the floor, and the steel bed frame of my bed and ricocheted all around. I heard glass breaking and things falling from the walls. A shadow moved through the open door of our adjoining bedrooms, and Mother thought it was me. She was startled, and her shadow swung that Mossberg rifle by its barrel like a baseball bat. There was a sickening thud and moan as a body crashed into the steel headboard of my bed frame and fell to the floor. I had always kept my small single-shot .22 caliber rifle under my bed … I looked over the top of my bed and could see Mother’s shadow under that single ceiling light bulb. She held the rifle in one hand and was trying to find that string with the other hand as she turned in slow circles while trying to turn on that light bulb. I knew I was a dead man if she managed to turn on that light. There was no question in my mind now that she had gone completely crazy and would kill me and anyone else who got in her way. I only had one chance to survive this encounter, and I took it. I raised and pointed the short rifle toward where her head should be, and I fired. She collapsed near my bed without a sound. I pulled myself up with one hand on my bed, reached for that still swinging light string, and pulled it. I was greeted by the most horrible sight a boy could possibly encounter. Lying in a bloody heap on the floor was my mother, on top of my sister. Both were bleeding profusely from head wounds. Both were still breathing heavily and slowly. One of my mother’s eyes was gone; just a bloody eye socket remained. Sister’s long brown hair was heavily matted in blood. Blood was everywhere. Mother still had her work clothes on. Sister was in her pajamas, now soaked in blood. In an email, Wilson told us that “I stand by the wording and information in my book, ‘Bobby’s Trials,’ it is the most accurate description of what occurred.”


Half of all adults have a pre-existing condition" that could affect their health care coverage.

One of the more popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act is the one that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people who already have health problems. Pre-existing conditions such as hypertension, depression and diabetes are among the most common ailments that can get in the way of being accepted by a new insurance company. The health care law tackled this problem in two steps. Starting with children, as of September 2010, insurers could not deny coverage, charge significantly higher premiums, require an extended waiting period or curtail benefits due to a pre-existing condition. The second step takes place Jan. 1, 2014, when the same protections kick in for adults. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., appearing Aug. 5, 2013, on PoliticsNation on MSNBC, chastised Republicans for wanting to repeal Obamacare, saying many benefits would be lost. "Half of all adults have a pre-existing condition that will go away in terms of insurance coverage on January 1st," Schakowsky said. "I mean, what a blessing that is for sick Americans, for people who are walking around uninsured or underinsured." We know that Americans face a lot of health challenges, but do half of adults have a pre-existing condition? In the eye of the insurer There are a range of estimates for the number of people with health issues that would put them at risk of running afoul of an insurance company. One reason is that insurers have different lists of conditions that raise a red flag. Similarly, researchers can take a conservative approach and use a short list, or be more expansive with a longer one. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, examined five studies on the prevalence of pre-existing conditions. The lowest estimate counted just eight diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. That study came up with about 36 million people between 19 and 64 who have one of those health issues. Another study used a list of 60 conditions and arrived at a number of 60 million who might be vulnerable to denial of coverage, and the GAO itself used medical survey data and reached a high-end estimate of 122 million. As percentages, this translates into a low-end estimate of 20 percent of American adults potentially at risk, 66 percent on the high end, with a midpoint of 32 percent. An analysis from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came up with a roughly similar range of 19 percent to 50 percent. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, notes that projections of the scope of the problem can miss the mark. The administration expected about 375,000 people would enroll in a special insurance program for those who had been denied coverage but as of January 2013, only about 107,000 had. That said, many factors apart from health could have affected enrollments. The main caveat with these studies is they estimate the number of people who have a health issue that might lead to denial of coverage by an insurance company. That describes a group of people who are at risk. What’s missing is an estimate of the number of people who actually run into the problem of being denied coverage. A limited analysis emerged from the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2009. Using data from four of the country’s largest private insurers, committee investigators found that the companies had denied coverage to one out of seven people based on pre-existing conditions during a three-year period. The denial rate rose each year, increasing by nearly 50 percent over the three years while at the same time, the number of new applications for coverage only rose by about 16 percent. Survey says Another line of data comes from the Kaiser Family Foundation and its monthly tracking polls. In June 2013, Kaiser reported that 49 percent of adults said that they or a family member has heart disease, diabetes, cancer or another condition that generally triggers an issue with insurance companies. Within that group, about a fourth of them reported that coverage had been denied or higher premiums had been charged due to a pre-existing condition. This is far from a perfect fit with the other studies. To say someone in your family has a health condition is essentially reporting at the household level, while the GAO and other studies were estimating the number of individuals. And if we do the math, it seems like about an eighth, or 12 percent of the households had actually run into a problem with a health insurance company. The Kaiser survey does affirm that the problem is substantive and relatively widespread, although not necessarily as broad as the higher estimates in the studies. Our ruling Schakowsky said that half of all adults suffer from a pre-existing condition. Studies reflect a range of estimates and Schakowsky’s figure falls at the high end. A government analysis points to a mid-range estimate of 32 percent, a significant fraction of the adult population.


An increase in documented cases of people "scromiting" (screaming while vomiting) is linked to chronic heavy marijuana use.

Explanation: What's true: A rare and poorly understood condition called "cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome" is tied to long-term cannabis use which drives sufferers to experience excessive vomiting and abdominal pain; this condition could plausibly lead to a combination of screaming and vomiting. What's undetermined: The degree to which increased access to marijuana is causing increased cases of the syndrome is not fully established, and it is also unclear how widespread emergency room use of the word "scromit" is.

Medical, Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome, cannabis, drugs

On 5 December 2017, the UK tabloid Metro attempted to revive discussion of an enigmatic and poorly understood disease linked to heavy long-term cannabis consumption by pushing the word “scromit” — a portmanteau of “scream” and “vomit” — onto an unsuspecting public: Doctors said users have been taken to hospital after suffering extreme bouts of ‘scromiting’ – which means they are screaming and vomiting at the same time. This new word was invented by staff at emergency rooms across the US, who are seeing more and more people turn up yelling in pain and throwing up all over the place. Its [sic] believed the scromiting is caused by a condition called Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) which affects people who have consumed weed for a long period of time. Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (called CHS for short) is, indeed, a real condition. It was first described in a 2004 case report of 19 patients in Australia. A 2016 report described the progression of the illness this way: Classically, CHS progresses into three distinct phases: prodromal [early symptoms], hyperemetic [severe vomiting] , and recovery. During the prodromal phase, the patient develops early morning nausea, a fear of vomiting, and abdominal discomfort. Afterward, the hyperemetic phase consists of incapacitating nausea and profuse vomiting. Most patients complain of mild abdominal pain and weight loss. Patients are relieved by taking hot showers. The recovery stage begins with cessation of cannabis use. The majority of patients will develop this symptom within 1-5 years after the beginning of consumption. Among the most pressing mysteries about the condition are what causes some heavy marijuana users to develop it when many other heavy users do not. A 2011 review of the literature has concluded: …the mechanism by which cannabis induced hyperemesis is presently unknown. Similarly unknown is the reason why the excessive vomiting phase of the syndrome is alleviated by a hot bath or shower, even though this, enigmatically, appears to be the most effective short-term treatment of the condition: The most effective treatment during the hyperemetic phase of CHS is the use of hot showers by patients. The effects of this learned behavior are temperature-dependent, fast acting, but short-lived. Hot showers improve symptoms of nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite during the hyperemetic phase. The precise mechanism by which hot bathing produces a rapid reduction in the symptoms of CHS is unknown. Another question is the degree to which increasingly legal marijuana has played a role in increased diagnosis of the disease. While diagnoses have been rising, it is hard to develop a conclusive understanding of a disease only recently defined in the medical literature. One 2015 study attempted to address this by comparing pre-legalization cases of cyclical vomiting in Colorado emergency rooms to post-legalization cases, seeing a marked increase post legalization, but their numbers were limited by a lack of specific information on each patient’s drug use: The prevalence of cyclic vomiting presentations nearly doubled after the liberalization of medical marijuana. Patients presenting with cyclic vomiting in the postliberalization period were more likely to endorse marijuana use, although it is unclear whether this was secondary to increased marijuana use, more accurate marijuana reporting, or both. The final claim made by Metro concerns the use and origin of the word “scromiting,” which they claim was invented by staff at emergency rooms across the United States, “who are seeing more and more people turn up yelling in pain and throwing up all over the place.” Outside of this unsourced statement and its reappearance in articles referencing the original Metro report, we can find no evidence of this term’s widespread and specific use as it concerns any cannabis-related ailment. Based on the term’s inclusion in the internet-slang database Urban Dictionary since at least 2008, its use likely pre-dates emergency room CHS cases. However, the condition, its symptoms, and its occurrence, as described by Metro and other outlets, is accurate. As such, we rank the claim that “people are ‘scromiting’ after smoking too much cannabis” as mostly true, though the condition itself is rare. Finally, this syndrome is reasonably self-limiting, as CHS is generally resolved fairly simply: through cessation of cannabis consumption.


Pro-life activists say Girl Scout cookie sales benefit Planned Parenthood and have called for a boycott.

Explanation: Girl Scout Cookies Fund Planned Parenthood

Girl Scout cookies don’t fund Planned Parenthood. Also, contrary to many allegations, Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA), the national organization, doesn’t have a relationship with Planned Parenthood. Some regional Girl Scout councils have, however, partnered with Planned Parenthood to provide sex education in the past. The first call for a Girl Scout cookie boycott came in 2004 from Pro-Life Waco, a Texas-based pro-life organization. The group became angry when a local council offered a sex education program in partnership with a Planned Parenthood office in Waco. The confrontation led to a showdown between leaders of Pro-Life Waco and then-Girl Scouts of the USA CEO Kathy Clonginger on the “Today” show in March 2004. In a transcript of the exchange, Clogninger defended the council’s decision: The Girl Scouts in Waco, Texas, really made a decision based on local community context, they decided that in this particular situation that it would be in the best interest of girls and their families to discontinue the relationship with Planned Parenthood. Girl Scouts is the largest voice for, and advocate for girls across the country. Know that girls grow up with very complex issues facing them. And so we do, across the country, tackle the issues of human sexuality and body image and all of the thing that’s girls are facing. And we partner with many organizations. We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the country, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls. …It’s really impossible for girls to grow up in today’s society with out having access to good information. We will continue to partner with organizations across this nation, and local community Girl Scouts will make decisions based on their local community partnerships and the needs of their girls and their families. Clonginger didn’t acknowledge a national partnership between GSUSA and Planned Parenthood, and there’s no evidence that there ever was one. GSUSA says that the national chapter “does not take a position to develop materials” or programs regarding human sexuality, birth control or abortion. Rather, those decisions are made at the local level by parents, volunteers and council members: Parents or guardians make all decisions regarding program participation that may be of a sensitive nature. Consistent with that belief, GSUSA directs councils, including volunteer leaders, to get written parental permission for any locally planned program that could be considered sensitive. In 2014, GSUSA CEO Anna Maria Chavez denied a national relationship between GSUSA and Planned Parenthood in a YouTube video: We do not now, nor have we ever, had a relationship with Planned Parenthood. Girl Scouts of the USA believes that reproductive issues are deeply private matters, best left to families. I find it unsettling that anyone would use the Girl Scout brand to have very adult conversations. A box of Girl Scout cookies is not a political statement; it’s an investment in a little girl… Given Clonginger’s earlier remarks, Chavez’s statement has caused some confusion. The simple explanation is that Clonginger acknowledge local “relationships” between councils and Planned Parenthood while Chavez denied a national partnership between GSUSA and Planned Parenthood. There’s also been some confusion about where money from Girl Scout cookie sales go. A sale proceeds from local troops stay within local councils. GSUSA doesn’t get a cut of the revenue, but it does get licensing royalties from bakers of the cookies: Girl Scout troops and groups must pool their proceeds to pay for program supplies, activities, and group travel. Girl Scouts may not earn proceeds as individuals; however, Girl Scout councils offer a wide variety of recognition items, program- and store-related credits, and travel experiences that girls are eligible to earn individually based on their sales. All troop proceeds and other rewards earned through participation in the Girl Scout Cookie Program must be used to enhance each girl’s Girl Scout experience. Each Girl Scout council releases an annual report each year. The only way to know how your local council spends those dollars is to review its annual report, or to ask a local staff member. Comments


Authorities in Kenya warned of a new outbreak of HPV that spreads through kissing and is deadlier than HIV/Aids.

Explanation: The HPV story, according to Brodie, exists in that climate of confusion and misinformation, and exploits it.

In November 2017, unreliable web sites spread a fabricated story about a so-called “new outbreak” of human papillomavirus (HPV), which can lead to genital warts and various cancers. The Native Love web site wrote: Students from Kisii University, Kenya and the general public at large have been warned against kissing carelessly due to an outbreak of Human papilloma virus, which has seen several people admitted at Kisii level 5 hospital after testing positive to the disease. The HPV is gradually circulating Kenya and gradually making its way into the Southern parts of Africa and will soon hit Africa at large. Africans are believed to travel a lot to all parts of the world. So if proper awareness is not created, this is likely to hit the whole world in no distance time. You are hereby advised to warn and inform family members, friends, well wishers and colleagues about this deadly disease that kills faster than HIV/AIDS. The same article was published by Discover Newz and The Daily Berries. It also had a previous iteration in a March 2017 story published by HIN News South Africa. The earliest version of the story that we found dates from May 2016, and was published by Trending In Kenya, a web site that is registered in Nairobi and posts fake articles alleging devil worship and alien creatures, and sensationalist celebrity gossip. Mzansi Live, which is listed by the fact-checking agency Africa Check as a known fake news web site in South Africa, also published the story, but notably switched the location of the university in question from Kenya to Johannesburg. There is no truth to the story, which is not corroborated by any reporting in reliable local news media. The World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa has made no reference to any particular “outbreak” of HPV in recent years. HPV is a collection of strains of viral infection, transmitted by skin and mucous membrane contact (rather than the exchange of bodily fluids) during a variety of sexual activities. It is the world’s most common sexually transmitted infection, but in most cases does not come with harmful symptoms, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Which is why an HPV infection can go undetected for decades. Certain strains of HPV can lead to genital warts and various types of cancer, including cervical and oral cancer. If a case of HPV does result in a cancerous tumor, it often takes years and even decades  to develop, according to the National Cancer Institute. So the fake articles present an implausible and misleading picture of free-kissing college students suddenly falling deathly ill and being admitted to hospital due to an outbreak of HPV. That is simply not how HPV spreads, and it is not an accurate depiction of its repercussions. According to Nechama Brodie, who runs the research and training division of Africa Check, fabricated health scares such as this one are universal, but also occur within a very specific context. “This plays into a well-established trope of poorly-informed myths around healthcare in Africa,” Brodie told us by phone from South Africa. The juxtaposition of HPV and HIV is no accident. “It’s confusing HPV with HIV, and HIV is still a big ‘scare factor,'” Brodie adds. HIV/AIDS looms large in this article, a long shadow cast by the damage it has inflicted in Africa (particularly Southern Africa). The fundamental message conveyed by the story is “this is worse than AIDS,” Brodie says, adding there are rumors HIV “doesn’t exist, [or] HIV was invented by white colonialists, [or] it was introduced to control the black population,” among others. In addition to this strain of misinformation, there are false claims about what causes HIV to spread, and how it could be cured. The apex of this, according to Brodie, came during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki in South Africa during the early 2000’s. Mbeki indulged in “HIV/AIDS denialism,” supported theories that herbal remedies and vitamins could cure AIDS and — most damagingly — refused to approve the provision of cheap antiretroviral drugs.


FDA launching major anti-tobacco campaign aimed at youth.

Explanation: A major new anti-tobacco campaign will be launched in the United States next week aimed at vulnerable teenagers at risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes.

The $115 million campaign by the Food and Drug Administration will target the 10 million people aged 12 to 17 who are open to trying cigarettes or who are already experimenting with them and are in danger of becoming regular smokers, the FDA said. The campaign is the first of several scheduled to be launched over the next two years that will target at risk, rural, gay, African American, and American Indian youth. The goal of the campaigns is to reduce the number of youth cigarette smokers by at least 300,000 within three years, the FDA said. The first, called “The Real Cost” campaign, will launch on February 11 and targets marginalized youngsters who may be starting to turn to tobacco as a way of coping with poor or stressful lives, Mitch Zeller, head of the FDA’s tobacco products division, said at a media briefing on Monday. The ads will appear in print and on TV and radio as well as on billboards and at bus stops, addressing typical teenage issues such as concerns with appearance and the desire to strike out and become independent. One series of ads features a bully who demands money. A print ad shows a small, greasy-haired bully standing inside a school locker yelling, “Outside Now, Punk.” The tag line says: “You wouldn’t take it from a tiny bully, but when you’re hooked on tobacco, you’re taking it from a cigarette.”  Another series of ads focuses on the cosmetic damage cigarettes can cause, especially to the skin and teeth. In one TV ad a young girl goes into a convenience store to buy a packet of cigarettes. She hands over the money but the clerk says “it’s not enough.” The girl reaches up and peels a large piece of skin off her face and slides it across the counter. In a similar ad a young man asks for a packet of menthol cigarettes. When told by the clerk that the money is not enough he takes a wrench, pulls out one of his teeth, and hands that over too. The ads, which were created by the advertising agency DraftFCB, a unit of Interpublic Group have been rigorously tested with the target audience, Zeller said, adding that he is “very optimistic” they will achieve the desired results of turning some kids away from smoking. To judge whether campaign is successful, the FDA plans to monitor 8,000 young people over two years to measure changes in attitudes toward tobacco and on behavior before and after the campaign’s launch. Each day, more than 3,200 people under the age of 18 try their first cigarette and more than 700 become daily smokers, the FDA said. Ninety percent of adult smokers start smoking before the age of 18, “which is why early intervention is so critical,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said at the briefing. The campaigns are expected to cost $400 million altogether. They are being funded with fees paid to the FDA by the tobacco industry under a 2009 law that gives the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and roll your own tobacco. The agency is expected shortly to extend its regulatory authority to electronic cigarettes and cigars. The proposed regulations are currently being reviewed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.


There's a promising new HIV vaccine candidate in the pipeline

Explanation: This story about an experimental HIV vaccine gets off on the wrong foot by describing the research as “promising,” which we’ve previously flagged as one of 7 words that shouldn’t be used in medical news. Why not? As our publisher, Gary Schwitzer, wrote: “The word promising means ‘likely to be successful’ or ‘to give a basis for expecting.’ There is far too much uncertainty in medicine for this word to be applied loosely in the coverage of medicine.” Despite this initial misstep, the story does quickly establish the preliminary nature of the research and cautions that it’s much too soon to know if the vaccine will ultimately be effective in preventing HIV infections. It also does a nice job of putting this research in context with other HIV prevention efforts that have succeeded in slowing the spread of the disease. More attention to the possible costs of a vaccine — a huge issue for the developing world countries most affected by the virus — would have rounded out this otherwise solid effort. This new vaccine approach, if proven ultimately to be effective, safe and affordable, could make a major difference in resource-poor settings around the world. But, as we’ve written about, the field of vaccine research related to HIV is littered with huge obstacles and there are never any guarantees that drug therapies will ever be accessible to the poorest parts of the world, where the need for a vaccine might be greatest. News stories on any vaccine under development should take care to point out these obstacles.

While it might be premature to speculate about the exact costs of an experimental vaccine, offering no discussion at all is a major flaw in this story. Cost is a central, vital part to this narrative because any health technology developed to be used in the world’s poorest countries are only going to matter to those people if it is affordable. The APPROACH trial randomly assigned 393 volunteers from five countries to receive one of seven experimental vaccines or a placebo. While the report notes that “the mosaic vaccine was the best tolerated and also capable of generating anti-HIV immune responses in all the people who received the shots,” one is tempted to ask: Compared to what? How is it possible to determine the benefits of the vaccine when we don’t have any quantitative sense of how the vaccine/ comparators performed? That being said, the story makes it clear that these immune response results, interesting though they may be, are not the outcome that matters — and this is a very important qualifier. It also uses results from previous animal studies to suggest how the vaccine might ultimately perform in people. It does this in a way that isn’t inappropriately optimistic. We’re on the fence with this rating but will give the benefit of the doubt. The story says the Ad26 vaccine was the “best tolerated” of several approaches, but doesn’t tell us what may have occurred in people who didn’t tolerate it so well. The potential indirect harms of a vaccine program could also have been mentioned. The vaccine is expected to work only about 50 to 60 percent of the time, according to the researchers. If people feel less pressure to employ other proven measures to control HIV (condoms, etc) because of the vaccine, then it’s possible some harm could occur due to false reassurance. The story gets good marks for not exaggerating what we should conclude from the available research, i.e. :  “we still don’t know if the vaccine will protect humans from the virus, since the studies so far have only looked at safety and immune responses, not efficacy. And many medicines that look promising in animals, and safe in humans, don’t pan out in clinical trials focused on efficacy.” There is no disease mongering here. Barouch, the lead investigator, is only identified with the vaccine center but his previous disclosures show he has licensed patents to Crucell Holland, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which is funding the current research. The extent of his financial involvement with them should’ve been made more clear. The article mentions many of the other important public health measures to control HIV (education, public awareness campaigns, condom use, etc) and other vaccines in trials. The story makes it clear the vaccine is still in development and not likely to be available any time soon. What is “novel” here is the type of vaccine under development, since it attempts to encompass the diversity in HIV found around the globe. The story fairly establishes the vaccine’s novel approach. There is little evidence of an overreliance on a news release, especially with the use of many caveats warning that this research shouldn’t be overinterpreted and the use of at least one outside source.


In the Illinois Legislature, Barack Obama "voted 'present,' instead of yes or no" on seven votes involving abortion rights.

Explanation: He voted "present," which is similar to "no"

As the Democratic race has tightened, the Hillary Clinton campaign has portrayed Sen. Barack Obama as inconsistent on abortion rights. "In the Illinois state Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted 'present,' instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a women's right to choose," Sen. Clinton said in a December 2007 speech in Iowa. In the days leading up to Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, 2008, several other groups repeated the charge against Obama via e-mails. The facts here are not in dispute. Obama did vote present on seven bills that attempted to restrict abortion. His defenders argue that it was a tactic to disrupt legislation that would be used against Democrats in swing districts. It's worth pausing here to explain what the "present" vote means. The Illinois Legislature allows members to vote "yes," "no," or "present." Bills need "yes" votes to pass, so a vote of "present" counts the same as a "no." Thus, Obama's "present" votes on bills seeking to restrict abortion counted the same as if he had voted "no." All of the bills passed by in the Senate by sizable margins. The seven votes were on proposals that abortion opponents have successfully passed in other places. Two bills outlawed the late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Two bills required parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Three bills were for so-called "born alive" legislation, which require doctors to administer medical care to aborted fetuses that survive the abortion process in hopes that the fetuses can survive. No one questions that Obama opposed the seven pieces of legislation; indeed, he is mentioned in news reports from the time as being against several of the measures. Rather, Obama's critics say he ducked a "no" vote; supporters say it was a tactical move. Those interpretations seem to have split the leaders of the Illinois abortion rights movement. Obama should have voted "no" on those bills, said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Clinton. "We think the way you talk about a bill and the way you stand up is important," she said. "It was a strategy that allowed people to take political cover as opposed to talking about why the bill was a bad bill and clearly saying no." But Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Obama was helping advance a prochoice agenda by voting present. "He always was going to vote 'no' on these bills. We needed to keep some of our moderate Democrats from voting yes, which is something you never want to happen," Sutherland said. By having a well-known supporter of abortion rights also vote present, it gave other Democrats cover, she said. Regardless of the interpretation of the "present" votes, Obama has received extremely positive ratings from organizations that promote abortion rights. Even Grabenhofer's organization, the NOW Illinois political action committee, endorsed Obama twice after the "present" votes. The group did not endorse in the U.S. Senate race in 2004, she said, in part because of the present votes. Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood in Chicago has defended Obama's prochoice bona fides, even though Planned Parenthood has not endorsed in the race. "Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman's right to choose. He has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate," Trombley wrote in a statement posted on the Obama campaign Web site. "I don't know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice," Trombley added. Both Clinton and Obama have their supporters among the abortion rights movement. Clinton arguably has the bigger endorsements. She has been endorsed by the National Organization for Women and EMILY's List, an organization dedicated to electing prochoice women. Obama has some high-profile endorsements as well, such as Kate Michelman, former president, NARAL Prochoice America, who sided with Obama after John Edwards dropped out of the race. Obama also has the support of U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the first executive director of EMILY's List, who has publicly defended Obama as a strong supporter of abortion rights. We checked her statement  here  and found it to be . Two other large groups, NARAL Prochoice America and Planned Parenthood, are not endorsing. Planned Parenthood, however, has given both candidates 100 percent ratings for their records on abortion. We stipulate that there are clearly different interpretations of the significance of Obama's "present" votes. But there's no doubt he made them. So we find Clinton's statement to be .


Hillary Clinton threw a tantrum, and a water glass, after NBC's "Commander-in-Chief" Forum in September 2016.

Explanation: Rumors that Clinton threw a “tantrum” after NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum started with a fictitious quote, and that narrative was later expanded with more fake quotes from other anonymous sources. Meanwhile, no actual evidence has surfaced to prove that any of these events actually transpired.

Politics, election 2016, hillary clinton

Rumors holding that Hillary Clinton had a “meltdown,” threw a water glass at a staffer, and engaged in a curse-filled tirade following NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum with host Matt Lauer have been circulating since the Democratic presidential nominee participated in that forum, which aired on 7 September 2016. While these rumors did seem to be rooted in a little truth — the Clinton campaign was not happy with the questions Lauer asked (or didn’t ask) during the event — claims that Clinton threw a “hissy fit” over it were unfounded. The website Victurus Libertas was the first to promulgate this rumor, publishing an article headlined “Temper! Temper! Hillary Goes on Rampage for Over An Hour — Throwing Glass at Staffer’s Head.” Although Victurus Libertas linked to credible reports from NY Mag  and Yahoo! News detailing that Clinton’s campaign was miffed with Lauer for not fact-checking Republican candidate Donald Trump during the event, they cited Politico as their source for the claim that Clinton had thrown a water glass at a staffer: And Politico‘s headlines read:  “Liberals Lash Out at Lauer, NBC“. It seems to me, no one is “lashing out” but Hillary. Hillary’s meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer — narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was overheard threatening executives at NBC saying “If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?” None of this information appeared in the cited Politico report, however. Politico published an article headlined “Liberals Lash Out at Lauer, NBC,” reporting that Clinton’s campaign and supporters were upset with interviewer Lauer for posing “unbalanced questions”: At an event that saw both Clinton and conservative challenger Donald Trump challenged on their stances toward national defense and foreign policy, liberal operatives and Clinton supporters took exception to what they perceived as unbalanced questions, criticizing Lauer for failing to push back on false statements by Trump and for spending a significant amount of time on Clinton’s email scandal. But Politico did not report that Hillary Clinton threw a water glass at anyone’s head, threatened the firing of Matt Lauer, or called Donald Trump a “fascist fuck.” All of that was invented by Victurus Libertas in an apparent attempt to smear the Democratic candidate, and it served as the basis for a longer, highly embellished version of the rumor that began circulating via e-mail in October 2016: Subject: Matt Lauer & Hillary what REALLY happened…. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE NBC PRESIDENTIAL FORUM WITH MATT LAUER? DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON’S BEHIND THE SCENES TIRADE AFTER NBC’s MATT LAUER ASKED CLINTON ONE QUESTION SHE HAD NOT PRE-APPROVED. VETERAN NBC CAMERAMAN: ‘YOU REALLY HAD TO SEE THIS TO BELIEVE IT … SHE CAME APART – LITERALLY UNGLUED; SHE IS THE MOST FOUL-MOUTHED WOMAN I’VE EVER HEARD … AND THAT VOICE AT SCREECH LEVEL … AWFUL!’ “SHE LOOKED SO ENRAGED THAT WE ALL THOUGHT HER HEAD WOULD EXPLODE … IT WAS A FULL-ON MELT-DOWN, AND THEN SHE SCREAMED SHE’D GET THAT F–––ING LAUER FIRED FOR THIS. IT WENT ON FOR AT LEAST A HALF HOUR; WE ALL THOUGHT THE EMS WOULD BE THE NEXT CALL.”  NBC Associate Producer of Forum: Behind the scenes, NBC technicians and cameramen at the Wednesday night, Commander-in-Chief Forum (Sept 7) report that Hillary Clinton was so angry and incensed that she had been ‘blind-sided’ by one question she was not prepared for and had not approved in advance. “When her time in front of the cameras ended, Clinton shook the hand Lauer extended to her and smiled once more for the wide camera shot and then Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and threw it at the face of her assistant and the screaming started. She was in a full meltdown and no one on her staff dared speak with her — she went kind of manic and didn’t have any control over herself at that point. How these people work with this woman is amazing to me. Most of the small military audience were cordoned off, their seating not close to Mrs. Clinton, but certainly they heard her screaming because it was loud … and she really didn’t seem to care who heard any of it.” Republican Donald Trump also appeared, in a separate telecast from Hillary Clinton’s and arrived with his two sons but no entourage or assistants in tow. The NBC cameramen involved in his segment said he was a ‘true gentleman’ and Trump and his sons spoke to everyone and thanked them for inviting him to speak: “It was a pleasure to answer your questions Matt.” Hillary Clinton’s segment was much different. According to people working on the sidelines, “When Matt posed the one legitimate question about the FBI investigation concerning her homemade server and the unsecured emails, we could see she was beginning to boil and her eyes looked to pop.” “It was toward the end of her interview so she was becoming unglued by the time Lauer finished with questioning. Hillary went ballistic, throwing a huge tantrum and screaming at her staff, “you f–––ing idiots, you were supposed to have this thing set up for me and you’ve screwed it up! If that fucking bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished … and if I lose it’s all on you ass—-s for screwing this up.” Clinton finally stormed off the military ‘set’ and the assistant producer said she was screaming that she wanted to talk to “the idiot who set this mess up … you do not blindside me – ever!” and continued to demand to speak with executives at Comcast, parent company to NBC Universal. Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably. That did not stop her from demanding an executive “on the phone, now!” She was told the executive-in-charge of the forum was ready to talk with her and she was led away by two rather large aides who appeared to help her walk. The TV executives got the message with all of the censuring headlines that followed over the next couple of days when it seemed the entire media turned on Matt Lauer for behaving in a “partisan” manner and “being grossly unfair and critical of the former secretary of state.” Matt Lauer was heavily criticized on air by the Clinton campaign the rest of the week with most of the mainstream media joining in. The media appeared to frame Matt’s one serious question as the Clinton campaign was doing…”an unfair and partisan attack on Mrs. Clinton.” Matt Lauer is still facing major backlash following his 23 minutes with Hillary Clinton. Privately, many reporters said Matt handed the Democrat nominee the expected softball questions, but made the decision to ask about the emails because, “the American people deserve an answer from the former secretary of state.” Calls were made to New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post and Twitter executives with orders to “Crush Matt Lauer”. As you can easily see with all the headlines from these MSM sources, they did as they were told by the Clinton campaign. Hillary also screamed that she would be “treated with respect at the debates or heads will roll.” Staffers at the Clinton campaign report that they fear her wrath and uncontrollable outbursts, and one described Hillary as “an egotistical psychopath”. Since Hillary does not allow any staff to have cell phones when she is in their presence, no footage is available, but Hillary will never let this rest. She has made it clear that she wants Matt Lauer to be “persona non grata – for putting her on the spot.” Interim DNC chairman Donna Brazile, the first black woman to hold the position, was singled out by Hillary during the rant. She screamed at Donna, “I’m so sick of your face. You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting that f–––ing Lauer get away with this. What are you good for, really? Get the f––– to work janitoring this mess — do I make myself clear?” A female NBC executive said that Donna Brazile looked at Mrs. Clinton and never flinched, which seemed to enrage Hillary all the more. The executive continued, “It was the most awful and terrible…and racist display — such a profane meltdown I have ever witnessed from anyone, and I will never forget it. That woman should never see the inside of the oval office I can tell you that. She was unhinged and just continued to verbally abuse everyone — she was out of control.” The earliest iteration of that longer narrative we could uncover was posted to the message board of the web site MTStars, where it was presented without citations, source information, audio, video, or any other documentation that the described these events actually transpired. It should also be noted that no credible news outlets reported that Clinton went on a cursed-filled tirade after the Commander-in-Chief Forum, or that she threw a water glass at a staffer’s head.


Quarter of passengers on British cruise ship fall sick with norovirus.

Explanation: A stomach bug causing vomiting and diarrhea has spread to more than a quarter of the 919 passengers aboard a British cruise ship, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said, as the ship docked in Maine over the weekend.

It also said eight of the 520 crew on the Balmoral, operated by Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines, had also fallen ill with the bug, identified as a norovirus. The Balmoral left Southampton, England on April 16 for a 34-day cruise, making stops in Portugal and Bermuda before putting in at Norfolk, Virginia, where it first arrived in the United States late last month. CDC officials said at that time that 153 passengers and six crew had been infected by norovirus. Health officials and an epidemiologist boarded the ship at its next stop in Baltimore, Maryland to assess the outbreak and the response. The CDC said specimens collected and onboard tested positive for norovirus, and would be sent to CDC for additional testing. Fred. Olsen said in an April 29 statement that a “gastro-enteritis type illness” had affected a number of guests, with seven cases in isolation at that point. It said two U.S. nationals were on board, with the majority of passengers from the United Kingdom. When the Balmoral docked at Portland, Maine, over the weekend, media reported witnesses seeing surfaces being constantly wiped down. The ship was due to stop at St. John,  New Brunswick, Canada, on Monday. CDC said the cruise line had taken actions in response to the outbreak, including increasing cleaning and disinfection procedures, collecting stool specimens, daily reporting of  illness and dispatching public health and sanitation managers   to oversee and assist with implementation of sanitation and outbreak response. Balmoral has capacity for 1,350 passengers, and is the largest and newest ship in the cruise line’s fleet.


Senator Harry Reid said that he was injured in a freak New Year’s Eve workout accident but actually suffered those injuries in a fight with his brother, Larry Reid.

Explanation: Harry Reid Was Injured in a Fight With His Brother – Unproven!

This is an unproven conspiracy theory about how Democratic Senator Harry Reid was injured on New Year’s Eve. Harry Reid’s staff said that the senator broke bones in his face and his ribs when a piece of exercise equipment broke and sent him hurtling into some cabinets on New Year’s Eve. Reid later had surgery to remove a blood clot from his eye and to repair broken orbital bones, his staff said. Conspiracy theories about Harry Reid’s injuries went into overdrive when he announced that he had decided not to seek re-election after the accident had given him down time to “ponder and think.” The theory that Harry Reid suffered the injuries in a fight with his brother, Larry, went viral after the blog site Power Line made the case for it in a series of posts. The site reported that an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor named Easton Elliott said that Larry Reid showed up at a meeting in Henderson, Nevada, on New Year’s Eve drunk and covered in blood and told the group about a fight with a family member: “Easton Elliott didn’t think much more about Larry until, several weeks later, he saw a newspaper story about Larry Reid, Harry Reid’s brother, being arrested for DUI and assaulting a highway patrolman. The story was accompanied by a photograph, and Elliott immediately recognized Larry Reid as the ‘Larry’ who had attended the AA meeting on New Year’s Eve. Putting that fact together with news stories about Harry Reid being admitted to a hospital on New Year’s Day, and with Larry’s references to the Secret Service, he concluded that the family member with whom Larry fought was Harry Reid. He also knew that Harry Reid’s home is within a short distance of the location of the AA meeting.” It’s true that Larry Reid was arrested for drunken driving and assaulting a state patrol officer in February of 2015, the Las Vegas Journal Review reports. But, outside of Easton Elliott’s first-hand account, there’s no proof that Harry and Larry Reid got into a fistfight on New Years Eve. And there’s no way to tell if Easton Elliott is a real person or not. The blog post said that the name “Easton Elliott” was made up by a Las Vegas businessman to use in his second career as an addiction recovery life coach. The only trace of Easton Elliott online is a Linkedin profile that has zero connections. And although Power Line published Easton Elliott’s account, the website didn’t endorse it, or him: “That is Easton Elliott’s account. I can’t vouch for it, of course, but if what he says about the AA meeting is accurate, the inferences he draws seem reasonable.” Despite conspiracy theories like this one about how Harry Reid was injured, there’s no proof that it was from anything more than a freak workout accident at this time.


Statins tied to lower risk of fatal prostate cancer

Explanation: It really isn’t that difficult to address our criteria, as this story demonstrates. You can report on studies that suggest a benefit, but you can also then educate readers about why this may not be the case. This one was a good model for how to report on research. Some journalists become statin-crazy. Statins have been touted as beneficial for people with dementia, arthritis, and pneumonia, just to name a few. More statin cheerleading could have happened with this story. Instead, the reporter stopped to evaluate the evidence, ask questions, seek independent perspectives, and bring it all home to readers in an easily understandable way.

Cost range estimates for statins are given in the story. Story explains that those with fatal cancers were 63% less likely to have ever taken a statin, but then goes on to explain that “it’s also possible that statins don’t prevent certain cancers at all.” Good job briefly mentioning statin side effects of muscle pain, nausea, gas, and liver dysfunction. The story is very clear about the potential holes in the study results and what it would take to actually prove that statins protect against aggressive cancer. No disease mongering here. Ends with “Researchers agreed that until there’s clearer evidence for benefit, men with healthy hearts shouldn’t seek out statin prescriptions for the purpose of lowering their prostate cancer risks.” Important perspective added by independent expert from Duke who was not involved in the study. Final line of the story quotes an independent expert saying “that other strategies for lowering cholesterol — such as eating better and exercising regularly — are ways almost everyone can lower their disease risks in the meantime.” The story states that about one-quarter of adults age 45 and older in the U.S. take statins to lower cholesterol and protect against heart attacks. No inordinate claims of novelty were made. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.


The Baucus health care bill "could be used to ban guns in home self-defense.

Explanation: Gun-rights group says health care bill could harm gun owners

National, Health Care, Guns, Gun Owners of America,

The Gun Owners of America has recently taken aim at an unlikely subject: health care reform. In the last few weeks, GOA has sent out several action alerts to members criticizing the health care reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week. The bill, authored by Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., was supported by all of the committee's Democrats, as well as Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. It will now be merged with another Senate health care bill and go to the full Senate. On Oct. 9, 2009, the day before the Finance Committee began voting on amendments to the Baucus bill, GOA sent an alert to members titled, "ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense." The conservative group speculated about the impact of the health care bill on gun owners, hypothesizing that, in a bid to control spiraling health care costs, the administration will target people who have "excessively dangerous" behaviors that officials believe raise the cost of health care. The group warned that gun ownership — particularly keeping "a loaded firearm for self-defense" — is likely to be high on that list. The memo accuses Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — who would have significant influence over any new health care policy — of having a "well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment" because she vetoed concealed-carry gun legislation when she was governor of Kansas. The Obama administration is so antigun, the group contends, that "it is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense." In this item, we'll scrutinize the claim that the Baucus bill "could be used to ban guns in home self-defense." To start, we turn to the committee-passed version of the legislation itself. The sweeping health care bill would leave in place the current private insurance system in which most people get coverage from their employer. But the bill would set federal rules for the individual market — that is, for policies purchased by people who are self-employed or have lost their coverage. President Barack Obama and other Democrats have often said the new rules are needed because companies that sell policies on the individual market are often able to impose restrictions about pre-existing conditions and put limitations on coverage. The rules for the individual market would also apply to the "small group" market, which serves smaller employers and their workers. We looked carefully at the language in the Baucus bill and found no mention of either "gun" or "firearm." So there's no explicit support in the bill for the group's claim. Okay, says GOA, but guns could still be a target because of the emphasis on discouraging unhealthy behaviors. "The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums," the group said in its alert. The group is right that the bill does allow higher premiums based on behavior — specifically, the use of tobacco. The Baucus bill would allow insurers to alter premiums based on tobacco use, age, family composition and cost differences in different geographical regions. The bill establishes a series of ratios for how much these factors can be used to adjust premiums upward. Tobacco users, for instance, could be charged 1.5 times the standard rate under the bill. (There is no such provision in the House bill.) Another provision could provide a loophole that allows behavioral factors to play a wider role in setting premiums. The bill would expand some rules now in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, that allow employees to be rewarded if they participate in wellness programs. Taking part in a wellness program — such as tobacco cessation or a gym membership — can mean lower premiums or co-pays. The bill would increase the size of discounts that can be offered to beneficiaries who enroll in these programs. Some advocacy groups and labor unions have warned this could be a sneaky way of excluding less-healthy workers. And Mike Hammond, GOA's legislative counsel, said that such policies indicate that the bill "is going in a behavioral direction." So, GOA has a point that the Baucus bill opens the door to rating health insurance premiums based on behaviors. But the group is making a huge leap to suggest that could mean the government would target gun owners. In the alert, GOA leaves out two important pieces of context. —  People with "unhealthy behaviors" would actually get stronger protections under the Baucus bill  . Currently, states oversee the individual insurance market with a patchwork of rules. According to the Senate Finance Committee, only one state fully bars premiums from being adjusted for any reasons. Seven states allow limited adjustments for reasons such as age, while 11 allow premiums to vary based on health factors. The remaining 31 — a majority of all states — have not passed any laws restricting what factors insurers can use in setting rates. Under Baucus's bill, the federal rules would take over and put restrictions on when insurers could charge higher premiums as we explain above. This means that for most states, gun owners — or people with other behaviors that the government might theoretically deem "unhealthy" — would actually get more explicit protection under the Baucus bill than they have now. Today, laws in most states would not keep an insurer from discriminating against gun owners in setting premiums; under the Baucus bill, gun owners would have this protection enshrined in law. —  There's no indication in the bill that gun ownership is contemplated as a future factor in premium-setting  . Even if you assume that health care reform is rushing headlong into a new era in which behavior defines health premiums — which is just speculation at this point — there is nothing in the Baucus bill that says, or even suggests, that gun ownership would be cited as a behavioral factor. Every behavioral factor explicitly cited in the bill concerns pure medical issues, such as a lowered cholesterol level, maintainance of a certain body mass index, quitting smoking or losing a specified amount of weight. GOA's Hammond argues that in his experience, bills that start narrowly have a tendency to expand their reach. "So I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that what can be done will be done," he said. But we find insufficient evidence to support the group's overheated rhetoric. Ultimately, we find that while the GOA is right that a more behavioral approach to pricing health care seems to be gaining steam, it is a giant and overly speculative leap to say that the Baucus bill "could be used to ban guns in home self-defense." There is nothing in the bill itself to indicate that is contemplated. We find the statement .


A vast majority of the production in the United States comes from small independent oil and gas companies.

Explanation: Rep. Dan Boren says most domestic oil is produced by "small independent" companies

National, Corporations, Energy, Dan Boren,

During an April 27, 2011, interview with Stuart Varney of Fox News, Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., argued against eliminating certain tax breaks for oil companies -- an idea that had gained support in recent weeks as gasoline prices soared nationwide. Boren argued that the biggest financial pain from ending such tax breaks would be felt by smaller companies like those based in his oil-rich state. The tax breaks, he said, "go to small independent companies like we have in Oklahoma. Did you know a vast majority of the production in the United States comes from small independent oil and gas companies? And the new rigs that are … drilling right now in the United States, they are not the ExxonMobils of the world. They are the Devons, the Chesapeakes, and even smaller companies that are based in Oklahoma that are employing a lot of … Democrats (in) blue-collar jobs. And the president needs to understand that." We wondered whether "small independent oil and gas companies" actually account for "a vast majority of the production in the United States." We turned to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the trade group that represents independent oil and gas companies. They pointed us to a study the group commissioned from the consulting firm IHS Global Insight and released earlier this month. The study compared the reach of the "independent" sector to the bigger firms in the industry. It defined independents as "all North American operators in the lower 48 states and Alaska, excluding BG, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil, Hess, Marathon, Murphy, Occidental, Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Statoil, and Total." Using the statistical tables provided, we calculated a few relevant percentages. We’ll summarize them here:  U.S. oil and gas production for 2010 (amount produced) Onshore: Independents accounted for 72 percent of production Offshore: Independents accounted for 42 percent of production Total: Independents accounted for 67 percent of production  U.S. oil and gas production for 2010 (dollar value) Onshore: Independents accounted for 70 percent of value Offshore: Independents accounted for 37 percent of value Total: Independents accounted for 62 percent of value  So independents accounted for between 62 percent and 67 percent of domestic oil and gas production in 2010. That’s a healthy majority, but we think Boren’s description of it as "a vast majority" is exaggerated. There’s another factor to consider. Boren said he was referring to "small independent oil and gas companies." The statistics above certainly include some of those smaller companies, but it also includes some that aren’t so small. These include the two that Boren specifically mentioned. Devon Energy Corp. reported $9.9 billion in total revenue and $4.6 billion in net income in 2010, while Chesapeake Energy Corp reported $9.4 billion total revenue in 2010 and $1.8 billion in net income. Both companies are small compared to, say, ExxonMobil Corp ($105 billion in revenues, $9.3 billion in net income for 2010), but they’re hardly run out of someone’s basement. So we think the suggestion that those companies qualify as "small independent oil and gas companies" is misleading. Ultimately, Boren makes a valid point that a majority of U.S. oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies but from independent firms. Still, it’s not a "vast majority," as he said, and some of the firms in the "independent" category -- including the two he cited by name -- are hardly what most people would consider "small."