The typical Wisconsin worker makes $5,000 less each year than our neighbors in Minnesota" under Gov. Scott Walker’s policies.

Economy, Workers, Wisconsin, Mary Burke,

Democrats ripping jobs gains under Republican Gov. Scott Walker often point to the post-recession progress in Minnesota, where the jobs recovery has outpaced that of Wisconsin. Walker, meanwhile, prefers comparisons to Illinois and its budget problems and big tax hikes. In September 2013, we rated a Minnesota lawmaker’s claim that the Gopher State is "kicking butt relative to Wisconsin" on employment, school test scores, workforce education and other rankings. But we haven’t, until now, tested claims of an income gap. Gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke proclaimed such a gap in June 6, 2014 remarks to delegates gathered in Lake Delton for the state Democratic Party’s annual convention. "As you know," Burke said, "our current governor has made quite a name for himself. His divisive brand of politics may have made national headlines, but those policies have hurt middle-class families right here in Wisconsin." She added: "But the people of Wisconsin, we know Scott Walker. He promised us 250,000 new jobs. But what did we get? We’re 9th out of 10 midwestern states in job growth -- ninth out of 10! And the typical Wisconsin worker makes $5,000 less each year than our neighbors in Minnesota." Let’s see if Burke’s statement about a Minnesota advantage in the Walker era holds up. What the numbers show Burke’s campaign cited one source for numbers on earnings. We looked at it and two others. All show Minnesota on top. -- The annual average wage of Minnesota workers was $47,370 as of May 2013 -- $5,060 higher than the $42,310 figure for Wisconsin, according to survey-based estimates published by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 2013 data is the most recent available. -- Average earnings per job in 2012 were $53,928 in Minnesota, $4,931 more than Wisconsin’s $48,997, according to the most recent U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data. That figure takes in a larger group -- not only workers’ wages and salaries but "proprietor’s income" from self-employment. -- The same data, stripped down to exclude proprietor’s income to focus more on regular salaries and wages, shows a gap of $5,757 in Minnesota’s favor, according to research by Dale Knapp at the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. So Burke’s figures are solid. More about the numbers In her convention speech, Burke argued in a general way that Walker’s policies are linked to the wage gap. Given all the factors that influence a state’s economy, experts agree the actions of a governor have a limited effect. Nevertheless, Burke’s claim misses the mark by pinning the gap solely on Walker. The Minnesota-Wisconsin wage gap dates to at least the 1960s, and gradually has grown despite ups and downs. When we asked Burke campaign spokesman Joe Zepecki about that, he argued that Walker's economic policies -- which Walker touts as turning the state around -- haven't improved it or closed that gap. As examples, he cited Walker’s refusal to accept the federal expansion of Medicaid and his opposition to a minimum wage increase. By any of our three measures, the gap did not narrow in Walker’s first two years. It grew significantly based on the average earnings per job data. It held steady if you use the other two methods. The average earnings data shows the Minnesota wage advantage averaged 7.4 percent during the second four-year term of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who preceded Walker. So far under Walker the average is 8.8 percent. The gap of 9.1 percent in 2012, Walker’s second year, is the highest since 2000, when Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson was in charge. It’s not that Wisconsin’s average wage has fallen during the Walker era. It’s up 5.5 percent in two years, right around the national average increase. But Minnesota has fared somewhat better, which creates the increase in the gap. In combing through the annual average wage data for the two states, there are some interesting disparities between specific jobs. Minnesota ran up part of its lead on these: Occupation Minnesota average wage Wisconsin average wage Registered nurse $71,160 $64,460 Management, all positions $107,130 $97,920 Dentist $193,100 $177,430 Police and sheriff patrol officer $58,220 $54,140 Social worker (child/family/school) $59,830 $49,720 School bus driver $32,500 $29,190 Computer systems analyst $81,560 $75,170 Lawyer $126,520 $105,080  Wisconsin holds the upper hand in other categories, including: Occupation Minnesota average wage Wisconsin average wage Farm, fishing, forestry $30,910 $31,260 Retail Salesperson $23,730 $24,420 Mortician, undertaker, funeral director $58,340 $65,720 Chiropractor $72,810 $90,170 Pediatrician $185,550 $200,480 According to a bankrate.com calcuator, the Minneapolis area’s cost of living is 8.5% higher than that of the Milwaukee metro area. Our rating Burke told delegates at the state Democratic convention that "the typical Wisconsin worker makes $5,000 less each year than our neighbors in Minnesota" under Walker’s policies. The gap is real and Burke hit the mark with her description of it. The gap has grown or held steady in Walker’s time depending on the measuring stick used. Burke didn’t say Walker created the gap, but the disparity is a longstanding one, and one that existed and grew under governors of both political stripes. We rate her claim .


Doctors in India have been successful in treating coronavirus with a combination of drugs (Lopinavir, Retonovir, Oseltamivir along with Chlorphenamine) and are going to suggest the same medicine globally. India’s ministry of health has advised that the anti-HIV drugs, Lopinavir and Retonovir, are used in some groups of Covid-19 patients. But it is unclear how successful this treatment has been. The other two drugs from the claim are not mentioned in their guidance. Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody against coronavirus. Researchers in the Netherlands have released research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, on an antibody against the new coronavirus. A 103 year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from Covid-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China This has been widely reported in the media. Apple has reopened all 42 China stores. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Apple announced that it had reopened all 42 stores in mainland China after a closure of almost six weeks. Cleveland Clinic developed a Covid-19 test that gives results in hours, not days. The number of new cases in South Korea is declining. Italy is hit hard, experts say, only because they have the oldest population in Europe. Whilst it is true that an older population has contributed to a high number of deaths in Italy, it may not be the sole reason. Scientists in Israel are likely to announce the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Scientists in Israel and elsewhere are working on developing a vaccination to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus, but it won’t be ready for the public for over a year. Three Maryland coronavirus patients fully recovered and are able to return to everyday life. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Montgomery County, Maryland confirmed that three residents who previously had the virus no longer tested positive. A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research. At least one group of Canadian scientists has recently announced some progress in understanding Covid-19. A San Diego biotech company is developing a Covid-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. Tulsa County's first positive Covid-19 case has recovered. This individual has had two negative tests, which is the indicator of recovery. Correct, this patient has recovered according to official Tulsa County sources. Two negative tests is one of three official indicators of recovery among people with Covid-19 (who showed symptoms). All seven patients who were getting treated for Covid-19 at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi have recovered. There is a news story reporting that seven patients in this hospital in New Delhi had recovered. However, these were not the only Covid-19 patients in the city. Plasma from newly recovered patients from Covid -19 can treat others infected by Covid-19. This is being used as a treatment in some countries, but clinical trials have not yet proved that this is effective. Claim 1 of 15


Turkey will hire more medics, stop exporting face masks: minister.

Explanation: Turkey will hire 32,000 more medical staff and stop exporting locally-made face masks so its own services can use them as the coronavirus spreads across the country, the health minister said on Monday.

Fahrettin Koca announced Turkey had ordered rapid testing kits from China, as well as medicine that he said he been used to treat coronavirus patients - though he did not give details on the treatments. “Masks produced in Turkey will not be exported while we need them here,” Koca told journalists in Ankara. Turkey’s death toll from the coronavirus increased by seven to 37 on Monday as the number of confirmed cases rose by 293 to 1,529, Koca said. It has carried out more than 24,000 tests, he said, adding without providing details that some patients had recovered. “The cases were mostly from abroad initially, but I can say that through contacts, it has increased ... I can say it has spread almost across the whole country,” the minister said. “We have activated the rapid test kit. Today, 50,000 arrived from China. On Thursday, 300,000 additional kits will come, and we have made arrangements to use up to one million kits,” he added, saying some medical staff had been infected. Earlier, the Hurriyet newspaper quoted Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu as saying authorities had raided warehouses storing masks. The government would seize factories if local producers did not agree to sell the masks to the health ministry by Monday night, Soylu was quoted as saying. “God is our witness, they have 10-12 hours or we will seize their factories tomorrow,” he added, according to the report. Turkish producers had been exporting medical gear to a number of countries, including Iran. But Ankara has been increasing controls on the trade to meet its own demands. Last week, it moved to limit private sales by mandating a doctor’s prescription for some masks. Separately, Soylu was quoted as saying 10,750 people had been quarantined across the country, and anyone violating the quarantines would face fines.


Business associates of" William Browder "sent a huge amount of money – 400 million – as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made several false and misleading claims during his press conference in Finland with President Donald Trump and in an interview with Fox News.Putin spoke after he and Trump held a summit in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16.We don’t typically fact-check foreign leaders, but in this case, Putin’s comments were part of a high-profile event with the U.S. president. And besides, there are no fact-checking organizations in Russia, according to the Duke Reporters’ Lab.In the July 16 joint press conference, Putin claimed that business associates of William Browder evaded taxes in Russia and gave “a huge amount of money — 400 million — as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.” There’s no evidence of such large contributions to Clinton’s campaign.Browder is no longer a U.S. citizen. Those affiliated with a U.S. investment firm the Russian government has linked to Browder gave just $17,700 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and a total of $1.76 million to candidates, committees and outside groups in the 2016 election cycle.While $1.1 million went to Democratic candidates and committees, another $205,600 was given to Republicans.Clinton raised a total of $563.8 million, and outside groups supporting her campaign raised another $231 million.Putin, July 16: Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over one and a half billion dollars in Russia. They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States and yet the money escaped the country, they were transferred to the United States.They sent a huge amount of money – 400 million – as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s their personal case, it might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.Putin made an offer that special counsel Robert S. Mueller could come to Russia to observe questioning of the 12 Russian military intelligence agents indicted on July 13 for hacking into Democratic Party and Clinton campaign computer networks — but in exchange Putin wanted Russian law enforcement to be able to sit in on interviews with “officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States, whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia.” He then mentioned Browder.Browder, founder and CEO of investment firm Hermitage Capital Management, was born in the United States but renounced his citizenship in 1998. He helped get Congress to pass the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which banned some Russians from entering the United States and froze their assets held in U.S. banks. The act is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who worked for Browder and exposed a tax fraud scheme linked to the Kremlin. He was arrested in Russia and died mysteriously in jail in 2009. In retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, Russia prohibited U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children.Browder told CNBC on July 16 that Putin’s allegations about funneling money to the Clinton campaign were false. “I did not,” he said. “I’m not a U.S. citizen. I don’t live in the United States. I’ve been living in Britain for 29 years. I make no campaign contributions, and so that’s not true.” (Browder also wrote in Time magazine about Putin’s claim and Browder’s history with the Russian government. )This charge against Browder also came up in the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., other Trump campaign officials and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Donald Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting after he had been promised incriminating information on Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya told the Wall Street Journal in July 2017 that she wanted to give the Trump campaign information about Browder. The Journal reported that “she said she wanted to inform the Trump campaign of allegations that an American firm Mr. Browder worked with, Ziff Brothers Investments, had dodged taxes in Russia and later donated to Democrats.”Veselnitskaya’s talking points for that meeting, obtained and published by the New York Times in 2017, claim the Ziff Brothers “took part in financing both Obama” campaigns and that “[i]t cannot be ruled out that they took part in financing the campaign of Hillary Clinton.”Those affiliated with the Ziff Brothers gave $17,700 to the Clinton campaign. And donations to other Democratic committees — $1.1 million — don’t come anywhere close to Putin’s $400-million accusation. For the record, affiliates of Ziff Brothers gave $22,362 to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, and $20,750 to Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign.In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, which took place shortly after the summit between Putin and Trump, Putin pushed back at the U.S. intelligence community’s finding that Russia interfered with the 2016 election to help Trump.First, Putin made the curious defense that “every single grain” of information contained in the pilfered emails was “true and the Democratic leadership admitted it.” Second, he said there is no trace of interference — at least as it involves a company controlled by one of his close associates, Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a man described as “Putin’s cook” or “Putin’s chef.”Putin, July 16: And now for the specific accusations. First of all, special counsel Mueller has accused a certain private company in Russia that is not even a very big enterprise. The core area of competence is a restaurant. And now this company hired American lawyers and defending its integrity and reputation in American court. So far, American court has not discovered any trace of interference whatsoever. Do you know it or not? Millions of Americans know about it. That’s misleading.The “certain private company in Russia” referenced by Putin is Concord Catering. Prigozhin and his two companies, Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering, were indicted by special counsel Mueller on Feb. 16. In all, the indictment included charges against three Russian organizations and 13 Russian nationals, which resulted in U.S. sanctions against all defendants, including Prigozhin and his companies. The special counsel’s office alleges that Concord financed an extensive social media campaign designed to help Trump win the presidential election. Concord entered a not guilty plea on May 9.Putin says the “American court has not discovered any trace of interference whatsoever” on Concord, but the case hasn’t progressed very far. It has yet to even get to the discovery phase, which has resulted in a flurry of charges and counter-charges between the government and Concord’s lawyers.At a court hearing on May 16, Eric Dubelier, one of Concord’s American attorneys, complained that the government refused to turn over pretrial evidence that it has amassed on his client. In a court filing on June 29, Mueller’s office said the attorneys for Prigozhin and his companies should not get access to pretrial evidence unless the Russian businessman comes to court.On July 16 — the same day as Putin’s press conference with Trump and his interview with Wallace — Prigozhin’s lawyers asked the court to dismiss the charges, claiming that a conspiracy did not exist and the underlying law used by the U.S. government to bring charges was “unconstitutionally vague.”At this point, no evidence has been brought to trial — as both sides wrangle over discovery materials — so to declare that the U.S. court “has not discovered any trace of interference whatsoever” on Concord is misleading. There is, however, plenty of evidence in the indictment.The special counsel’s office alleges that the Internet Research Agency, a Russian-based online propaganda company, oversaw the pro-Trump social media campaign, and Concord “spent significant funds” to finance the organization’s pro-Trump activities.The Internet Research Agency, described in the indictment as the “organization,” began in April 2016 to “produce, purchase, and post advertisements on U.S. social media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Trump or expressly opposing Clinton.” In June 2016, it began to stage political rallies. For example, the defendants paid “one U.S. person to build a cage on a flatbed truck and another U.S. person to wear a costume portraying Clinton in a prison uniform” for a “Florida Goes Trump” rally in August, the indictment says.“Concord controlled funding, recommended personnel, and oversaw [the Internet Research Agency’s] activities through reporting and interaction with [the organization’s] management,” the indictment says. Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, the general director and highest-ranking official of the Internet Research Agency, “frequently communicated” with Prigozhin about the social media campaign.“Prigozhin approved and supported the organization’s operations, and defendants and their co-conspirators were aware of Prigozhin’s role,” the indictment says.By September 2016, the Internet Research Agency’s monthly budget was more than $1.25 million U.S. dollars. To conceal the payments, Concord paid the Internet Research Agency through 14 bank accounts held in the names of various Concord affiliates.Putin seems to be following the Concord case closely. He knew the company had hired a U.S. law firm to represent it, and he seemed to be familiar with the dispute between the government and the company over pretrial evidence. But his statement that the court “has not discovered any trace of interference whatsoever” distorts the facts. In his interview with Wallace, Putin also denied that a video played during his annual state of the nation address showed an animated depiction of nuclear warheads raining down on Florida. But it did.Wallace asked Putin about the video, which highlighted a new generation of Russian missiles that Putin described in March as “invincible” intercontinental cruise missiles capable of evading U.S. missile defenses. Given that the video — unveiled at Putin’s annual state of the nation address at the beginning of March — showed warheads hitting Florida, Wallace asked, “Aren’t you escalating the arms race, and aren’t you being deliberately provocative?”Putin countered that the footage “did not specify that it — the missile is about to hit the United States.” He said Wallace needed to “look at [the video] more carefully.” Putin went on to say that there was no “caption” on the map indicating that it was Florida, and he scolded Wallace, saying, “don’t try to scare your population with make-believe threats.”Citing anonymous “sources with direct knowledge,” Axios reported on July 15 that the video enraged Trump, and that Trump later “lashed out at the Russian president in a phone call.” The article notes that “the motion graphic in Putin’s video appeared to show missiles raining down on Florida — the home of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.” We would also note that U.S. Central Command, known as CentCom, is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.Here’s the full exchange from the Fox News interview:Wallace: Last year, Defense Secretary Mattis said that Russia is the greatest threat — Russia is the greatest threat to the United States and, he has since made it clear, an even greater threat than terrorism. In March, you introduced a new generation of Russian missiles, including what you called an invincible missile you said — that could evade — defeat all of our missile defenses. And you even released a video that showed this super missile flying over the United States and hitting Florida very near where President Trump’s estate is at Mar-A-Lago. Aren’t you escalating the arms race, and aren’t you being deliberately provocative?Putin: As far as the footage is concerned, well, they did not specify that it — the missile is about to hit the United States. You have to look at it more carefully. Secondly –Wallace: It shows Florida —Putin: It — that was not signed Florida. There was not a caption saying Florida. They could — take a more careful look at it. There was never a caption, “Florida.”Wallace: No, but you can see it on the map.Putin: It was flying over the eastern coast of — no, no, no, it couldn’t be seen on the map. Just take a closer look, and don’t, don’t try to scare your population with make-believe threats. And now — I’m pretty sure I can give you as a present this footage.So was it Florida?Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden certainly thought so. On the day after Putin’s video was unveiled, Hayden told CNN “one of the stunning aspects of the demonstration” was that Russia “would actually use an absolutely recognizable part of the United States to show where the targeting was.”Here’s a screenshot from the video: And here’s a Google image of Florida:It looks like Florida to us, but just to be sure, we reached out to David Folch, a professor in the Department of Geography at Florida State University. He teaches several courses in Geographic Information Systems and, well, he lives in Florida.“Definitely Florida,” Folch told us via email. “You can see the shape of the Tampa Bay area, outline of Cape Canaveral, Lake Okeechobee, etc., etc.”We’ll allow that, as Putin said, there was no caption identifying the land mass in the video as Florida. But it’s Florida.


Rick Perry Says President Barack Obama’s overturning of the Mexico City Policy means federal tax dollars can be used "to fund abortion all over the world.

Explanation: Rick Perry says Obama's repeal of policy means tax dollars funding abortions all over the world

At a Los Angeles anti-abortion rally, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said "folks in Washington" have failed "to protect citizens at every stage in life." In President Barack Obama’s first week in office, Perry said, he "chose to overturn the ‘Mexico City Policy,’ which basically means that your federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortions all over the world." Perry’s June 12 statement landed in national news stories, including reports by National Public Radio and the Associated Press; readers asked us whether Perry was correct. Back story: Obama rescinded what is known as the Mexico City Policy on his third day as president in January 2009, according to news accounts posted online. The policy, first put in place by President Ronald Reagan, requires foreign nongovernmental groups getting U.S. family planning funds to agree that they will not perform or "actively promote" abortion as a method of family planning outside of the United States, even if using money from other sources. Those family planning grants are distributed through the U.S. Agency for International Development and are used to fund a variety of activities, including distribution of contraceptives and training of health care workers. Groups may also use the funds to provide emergency treatment for women who have been hurt by or become ill from an abortion. The Reagan administration announced the expanded restrictions at the 1984 International Conference on Population in Mexico City (the source of the policy’s name), saying that the United States "does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it is a part." Since then, the Mexico City Policy has been in place during Republican administrations and repealed during Democratic ones. According to a 2001 Congressional Research Service report, the policy defined abortion promotion — banned under the Mexico City Policy — as working "to increase the availability or use of abortion as a method of family planning." Prohibited activities included operating a counseling service that includes information on the benefits and availability of abortion, advising someone that abortion is available and lobbying a foreign government to legalize abortion as a method of family planning. The policy allowed for several exceptions. Among them: A group receiving U.S. funds was allowed to perform abortions if a woman’s life was threatened or if a pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Aid recipients could also continue to treat women who had been injured during legal or illegal abortions So, is Perry correct that the policy’s 2009 removal by Obama means federal tax dollars can fund abortions all over the world? Not so, says Ellen Starbird, deputy director of USAID’s office of population and reproductive health, because regardless of the Mexico City Policy, a 1973 federal law known as the Helms amendment prohibits U.S. foreign aid from paying for abortions as a method of family planning in foreign countries. A 2010 CRS report says that after 1973 but before the Mexico City Policy came to be, no U.S. funds could be used directly to pay for abortion as a method of family planning abroad, though in countries where abortion was legal, foreign NGOs receiving U.S. aid could use other money to perform them. In those cases, the report says, the groups were required to keep "segregated accounts for U.S. money in order to demonstrate compliance with the abortion restrictions." Once the Mexico City Policy was in place, groups that wanted U.S. family planning aid couldn’t provide abortions, regardless of the funding source. Conversely, now that the policy has been lifted, foreign NGOs that perform abortions can receive U.S. family planning aid. Seems straightforward. But as we’ve learned with other abortion-related fact-checks, it’s not. After learning about the funding restrictions in the Helms amendment, we circled back to Perry’s office. Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier stood by Perry’s statement, saying that "if U.S. taxpayer money is going to groups that provide abortions, regardless of any other services they provide, it’s going toward promoting and funding abortions." Likewise, Kellie Fiedorek, a lawyer for Americans United for Life, a pro-life advocacy group, told us that without the policy intact, "Americans’ tax dollars may still go to NGOs that provide abortions." Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a pro-life think tank, told us that a group’s ability to move its money around is the key to assessing whether Perry’s statement is accurate. "If you believe money is fungible, then what Perry said is true," Ruse said. That concern also has played prominently in debates in Congress and statehouses over providing domestic abortion providers with funding for other services. Proponents of the Mexico City Policy also say that groups newly getting USAID money for family planning can then free up other funds for abortions. USAID spokesman Nicole Schiegg told us that the agency "has a robust compliance system in place to ensure that our funds are not used for prohibited activities." Starbird told us that if a foreign NGO that provides abortions receives U.S. family planning aid, it is required to keep that money separate from its own. The groups are not allowed "free rein" with the funds, she said. Starbird said each award to a foreign NGO is for a specific purpose, and written agreements specify limits such as the Helms’ restriction. She also said recipients are required to account for how the funds are spent, including any money awarded for overhead or indirect costs, and USAID workers monitor the programs. For longer perspective, we asked Barbara Crane, an author of a 2001 article on the Mexico City Policy for Science magazine, about Perry’s statement and the funding issues raised by the policy’s proponents. Crane, a former USAID employee working for Ipas, an international NGO that supports abortion rights, suggested the government takes a chance on money being misspent whenever it makes an award. Crane said, though, that if the government holds groups accountable for delivering the services for which the aid money was awarded, "there is little opportunity for … the organization to divert funds to support current or new activities in other areas." We unsuccessfully sought independent research into how foreign NGOs have spent USAID family-planning money. Separately, Perry’s office offered no evidence of U.S. family planning funds enabling particular NGOs to perform abortions. We also could not determine how many foreign NGOs receive U.S. family planning aid and also perform abortions. Starbird told us that the agency doesn’t ask groups seeking family planning money whether they provide abortions. But Crane, of Ipas, speculated that most don’t engage in abortion-related activities, and many are working in nations that have strict abortion laws. Where does that leave us? With the policy’s repeal, foreign NGOs that perform abortions can receive U.S. family planning money. However, longstanding federal law bars any aid from being spent on abortions, and USAID polices how its family-planning grants are spent. But Perry’s statement retains a sliver of truth in that it’s possible some aid could be misspent or that U.S. aid could free up other money to go toward abortions. We rate the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to .


Searching for a great gift for all ages? Look no further, Amy Schumer has the product for you. In a recent sketch on her Comedy Central show Inside Amy Schumer, Schumer and fellow comedian Kyle Dunnigan play infomercial hosts pitching viewers on the perfect "stocking stuffer": a handgun. A hopeful buyer laments that he can’t get a gun because he has a criminal record riddled with felonies. "Caller, you bite your tongue, you silly goose!" Schumer’s character says. "You can absolutely get a gun if you have several felonies, as long as you buy it on the Internet or at a gun show." "If you go to a gun show, you can get an unlicensed seller to sell you a gun, no questions asked," Dunnigan added We’ve looked at similar claims before. Because this sketch is getting a lot of attention, we wanted to recap whether a felon can actually buy a gun on the Internet or at a gun show. This isn’t the first time Schumer has tackled gun issues; she has been a vocal advocate for stricter gun laws since a gunman killed two and injured many others at a showing of her feature film Trainwreck in a Louisiana movie theater in 2015. But it is her first time on the Truth-O-Meter. The 'gun show loophole' To be clear: The kind of transaction Schumer’s character describes is illegal. Federal law prohibits felons from getting a gun unless their rights have been formally restored. Felons can theoretically get around this obstacle, however, by buying guns from unlicensed sellers who are not required to conduct criminal background checks. This is sometimes referred to as the "gun show loophole," even though it refers to all private sales, and not everyone considers it a loophole. Schumer’s sketch was referring to this aspect of current gun law, said a spokesman for Everytown for Gun Safety, gun control advocacy group Schumer promotes at the end of the sketch. Anyone who repeatedly buys and sells firearms "with the principal motive of making a profit" is supposed to get a dealer’s license, whether they deal out of a brick-and-mortar store, a gun show, or online, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Licensed firearm dealers must run background checks on non-licensed buyers before selling them a gun. But the law does not require a dealer’s license for private hobbyists and others who occasionally buy and sell guns. If an individual buys a gun from someone who is not required to have a license, the purchaser does not have to undergo a background check. So a violent felon could buy a gun from a hobbyist over the Internet or at a gun show because he or she would not be subject to a background check. The purchase would still be illegal, because of the buyer’s felon status, but it would not create an immediate red flag. The same thing can happen at a gun show. There are a few important limitations on these sorts of private transactions. First, it is illegal for private sellers to transfer a gun to someone they either know or reasonably believe is prohibited from owning a gun, for example, if the seller knows the buyer is a felon. But private sellers "can give themselves plausible deniability by not asking the necessary questions," Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California Davis, previously told PolitiFact. So in the case of Schumer’s show, she and her co-host would not have that cushion of plausible deniability because the hopeful buyer told them outright that he is a felon. The giant "gun show" banner doesn’t make a difference. Second, private sales, online or otherwise, cannot take place across state lines, so the buyer and seller must be in the same state. And there are many restrictions on shipping guns, so the actual transaction is likely to take place in person, as opposed to the buyer entering credit card information online, and the seller shipping the gun to the buyer’s house. And third, several states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington — and the District of Columbia require background checks for all private gun sales. With all these restrictions, how many people actually buy guns without a background check? The truth is we don’t really know. The only statistics floating around are outdated and flawed. Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 that isn’t yet published. The national survey of 4,000 non-institutionalized adults found that 22 percent of the people who purchased guns — at gun shows, stores or elsewhere — underwent no background check, Matthew Miller, professor of Health Sciences and Epidemiology at Northeastern and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told us in January. When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check. One more thing: Later in Schumer’s sketch, another hopeful buyer calls in to ask if he can get a gun even though he’s a suspected terrorist on the no-fly list. "You’re fine, sweet potato fry," Schumer’s character says. A March 2015 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined how many people applying for gun purchases went through the FBI’s instant background check system and also were on the FBI’s list of "those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity." Between February 2004, and December 2014, 2,233 people on the list applied to buy a weapon. Of those, 2,043 were allowed to proceed. Our ruling Schumer’s character said, "You can absolutely get a gun if you have several felonies as long as you buy it on the Internet or at a gun show." The kind of transaction Schumer described is possible, though illegal, and far more complicated than her comment suggests. Federal law prohibits felons from buying guns. But with some effort, they could purchase a gun from private sellers over the Internet or at a gun show without getting caught, because private sellers are not required to run background checks. Schumer is doing a comedy bit, but compared with similar claims we’ve checked, her phrasing makes it sound like buying guns with a felony is easy and lawful. That is not the case. The context is significant. We rate her claim .


A driver in Las Vegas shouted "Allahu Akbar" as she deliberately struck multiple pedestrians with her vehicle, and police have been instructed to suppress that detail of the story.

Explanation: A female driver accused of intentionally running down multiple pedestrians in Las Vegas did not shout "Allahu Akbar" during the incident.

On 20 December 2015 a female driver (later identified as a 24-year-old Oregon woman named Lakeisha Holloway) reportedly struck multiple pedestrians with her vehicle on the Las Vegas strip. One individual, 32-year-old Jessica Valenzuela, died in the accident: Woman from Oregon in her 20s is driver of Oldsmobile according to @LVMPD – her 3 y/o was in back. Confirmed intentional act @KTNNews — Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) December 21, 2015  On 21 December 2015, the notoriously unreliable web site Before It’s News published an article reporting that Holloway had shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “Allah is great”) during the incident:  According to one eye witness “As we were walking across the street, this car comes flying through the red light. She ran up on the sidewalk and smashed into a group of people walking accross the street and into the group of people at the corner. She did not slow down and appeared to accelerate as she hit the sidewalk.” According to that witness. there is a huge row of plants and bushes separating the sidewalk and the strip, but the woman driver ran through both, at a speed he guessed to be 40-45 miles per hour. “People were flying off the front of her car and people were smashing into other people as she plowed through the crowd.” The witness went on to say “As this unfolded, the only thing I recall as this happened is the insane sound of her car accelerating and the voice from the car was screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ I’ve heard the sound enough times on the news that I was waiting for a bomb to blow up or guns to start firing.” This was an act of Islamic Terrorism, perpetrated by an Islamic woman driving a car with a three year old child inside, who INTENTIONALLY rode onto the sidewalk to strike innocent people. Police, however, have been instructed by their superiors to NOT use the word “terrorism” in relation to this incident, because Las Vegas does not want tourists to be frightened away from the city. Witness:Female Killer In #LasVegas Shouted 'Allahu Akbar'As She Ran Over 37 Innocent Pple Last Night https://t.co/g1UeFwVigt #tcot @foxnews — Patty (@littlebytesnews) December 21, 2015  The claim appeared concurrently on numerous questionable websites (all with identical wording), but we found no version of that claim reported by a credible news site. Although Las Vegas police didn’t release any specifics about what motive might have been behind Holloway’s deadly actions, media reports hinted at a non-terroristic impetus:  #BREAKING Strip suspect to police: “I am hurting, and I want others to feel my pain!” Coverage on News 3 Live @ 3 pic.twitter.com/b5DBgzbbrk — NBC KSNV News 3 (@News3LV) December 21, 2015  On 21 December 2015, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) issued a press release [PDF] about the incident which stated that: About 30 minutes after the initial incident was reported, an adult female, later identified as 24-year old Lakeisha Holloway, went to the valet area of the Tuscany Hotel located at 255 East Flamingo Road, and asked an employee to call the police. It was believed Holloway was involved in the incident on the Strip and she was taken into custody without incident. A three-year old female was in the vehicle with Holloway who was believed to be her daughter. The child was uninjured and was turned over to Child Protective Services where they will assist in locating other family members. The investigation indicated this incident was intentional and as a result of the investigation initiated by multiple details of the LVMPD, Holloway was arrested and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department transported to the Clark County Detention Center where she currently faces the following charges: – Murder with a Deadly Weapon – Child Abuse or Neglect (felony) – Leaving the Scene of an Accident (felony) Once the remaining victims’ statements and medical records are put together, it is anticipated that Holloway will face a multitude of other charges. LVMPD published video of a press conference to Facebook on 21 December 2015:  Just heading to Absinthe; the show at Ceasars Palace. Was walking down the strip heading to our show; as we parked at the Paris for dinner and walked down the street to go to the show. As we were walking accross the street, this car comes flying through the red light, we had right of way and walking accross the intersection, she ran up on the sidewalk and smashed into a group of people walking accross the street and into the group of people at the corner. She did not slow down and appeared to accelerate as she hit the sidewalk. There’s a huge row of plants and bushes seperating the sidewalk and the strip, she ran through both, probably 40-45 miles per hour. People were flying off the front of her car and people were smashing into other people as she plowed through the crowd. My friend was walking ahead of us as he was making a joke of the minion characters that were lined up on the sidewalk, wanted to pose for a picture, the car hit a bush and the bush smacked into his legs; he buckled from the impact and fell down in writhing pain. He is listed as one of the 36 injured but I will not name his name. We spent the last 5 hours on the strip giving our report to police and this is the first chance I’ve had to come on here and post. I’ve been following this story HERE as I know this is the only place to get the REAL news! As this unfolded, the only thing I recall as this happened is the insane sound of her car accelerating and the voice from the car was screaming Allah Akbar! I’ve heard the sound enough times on the news and posts on here that I was waiting for a bomb to blow up or guns to start firing. My friends ducked into the Hard Rock Casino which is right by the Paris and waited to see if something else was going to happen. After 30 minutes we went back to the street with total chaos, cops and ambulances shutting everything down and a systematic closure of casinos closely. We were told to leave if able, and not to linger but more and more people gathered to see what was going on. I thought this shit wouldn’t hit Vegas but I am first hand proof that’s it’s here, in Sin City with evil Islam at its roots! This bitch was crazy and was screaming with both windows down! I didn’t notice a kid in the car but after reading the news that a toddler was in there it makes me sick! I’m coming down from an adrenaline rush like I’ve never had. I’m ex-Air Force and I wish I was active duty so I could FRY these fuckin radicals from my country! Watch yourselves people; they come out of no-where and will hit you where you least expect it! I don’t think it’s a coincidence it was in front of the Paris either, fuck these fucking terrorists!! Our attempts to contact the official public information department of the LVMPD have so far been unsuccessful, probably due to the large ongoing investigation into the Vegas strip incident of 20 December 2015. However, an individual in the Homicide division with whom we briefly spoke confirmed that potential ties to Islamic terrorism are not currently a focus of the investigation. The rumor’s credibility deficit was so severe that even an InfoWars article described it as “from a dubious source [which] cannot be considered genuine at this time.” On 21 December 2015, the LVMPD repeatedly addressed iterations of the rumor on Twitter and implored social media users not to spread misinformation about the tragedy: @SuperStation95 In times like these it is irresponsible to spread misinformation. There is no evidence that was said, as it did not happen. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @PatriotBroker This is false and we have addressed the misinformation with @SuperStation95. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @Proud__Infidel There is zero evidence that was shouted as it did not happen. Please refrain from spreading misinformation. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @myassinyomouth There is zero evidence that was shouted as it did not happen. No good can come from sharing misinformation. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @TexasSheri @OOAKDEALS NP. In times like these information, correct or not, spreads like wildfire. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @qb_ramirez There is zero evidence that was shouted as it did not happen. This is a tragic, isolated incident. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @qb_ramirez it’s part of a criminal investigation which is ongoing. In any case, releasing critical evidence prematurely can be detrimental. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @DebtAssassin @lvphillies08 there’s no evidence of anyone hearing anything either. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015  @ginah89121 @JerseyGirl @lvphillies08 @DebtAssassin There is no evidence this was shouted. Please help by not continuing the rumor. — LVMPD (@LVMPD) December 22, 2015


Global spa, wellness industry estimated at $3.4 trillion: report.

Explanation: A growing middle class and consumers’ evolving attitudes toward health and travel have fueled a global spa and wellness industry worth an estimated $3.4 trillion in 2013, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Nutrition and weight loss, preventative and personalized health, complementary and alternative medicine, and beauty and anti-aging treatments were the biggest growing sectors, the report compiled by the non-profit research center SRI International showed. “All across the world we have seen, from Asia to Europe to Africa to North America, more and more people are consciously thinking about healthy food, exercising, looking to nature, getting massages and doing yoga,” said Ophelia Yeung, a senior consultant for SRI International who led the study. Spa treatments and products, alternative and complementary treatments and weight-loss programs once considered beyond the means of many people, she added, are becoming more mainstream with a growing middle class. While medical care treats illness and disease, wellness is focused on prevention through a variety of healthy habits, nutritional eating, exercise and treatments. To compile the report researchers looked at wellness sectors ranging from mind and body fitness to beauty and anti-aging, spas and workplace wellness. The global spa industry generated $94 billion last year, according to the Global Spa and Wellness Economy Monitor report, up from $60 billion in 2007. With more than 32,000 spas, Europe had the highest revenue of $29.8 billion, followed by the Asia-Pacific region with $18.8 billion and North America with $18.3 billion. Emerging markets in the Middle East and Africa have been growing the fastest in terms of adding spas. In Asia, China and India are leading growth, while in Europe it is Eastern Europe, Russia and the Baltic states. Thermal/mineral springs generated $50 billion worldwide but the biggest industry sector was wellness tourism, or travel associated with maintaining or enhancing one’s personal well-being and health, which accounted for $494 billion. “Wellness travel is a very fast growing segment within travel. That’s because as people become more conscious about a healthy lifestyle they naturally want to extend that when they travel,” Yeung explained. The report showed that the number of people taking international and domestic wellness tourism trips grew by 12 percent from 2012 to 2013. That was 36 percent faster than overall tourism trip growth, which is estimated at 9 percent. The SRI report was commissioned by the annual Global Spa & Wellness Summit. More than 400 wellness industry leaders from 45 countries attended the 2014 summit in Morocco earlier this month.


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is planning a six-day “Citizens Academy” training, including instruction on firearms and how to make arrests, for Chicago residents in September 2020.

Explanation: What's true: ICE is setting up a Citizens Academy they say will allow the agency to engage with civilians and "debunk" misconceptions about ICE. The academy will conduct scenario-based training on "defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests" in Chicago so residents can see how ICE agents do their work. What's false: However, the agency's descriptions of the program do not say ICE will train members of the public to carry out arrests themselves, and ICE has explicitly denied activists' claims to that effect.

As so-called undocumented immigrants in the U.S. struggled to avoid deportation and risked their health during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, government agencies created potential new challenges for them. In July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) department announced they would be offering a six-day Citizens Academy training starting in September in Chicago, which would allow civilians and ICE officers to “engage” with each other. Snopes readers shared the following letter from ICE, reportedly sent to potential participants across Chicago, and asked us if it meant the agency would be training civilians to assist in the apprehension of undocumented people. The answer is complicated. We found that this was an actual letter sent by ICE. Although they said they were planning to conduct trainings in September and would show civilians how they made arrests, the notion that this would lead to civilians actually apprehending undocumented people was disputed by the agency. Immigration advocates, however, were skeptical. In order to understand the actual nature and likely outcome of these trainings, we reached out to ICE, as well as immigration advocates, and looked at past examples of such academies. According to an ICE press release, the interactive program would occur once a week over six weeks. Participants would learn about ICE policies and procedures from ERO officers, while officers would hear participants’ perspectives and “debunk myths” about ICE. The curriculum will include, but is not limited to, classroom instruction, visiting an immigration detention center, learning more about the health care ICE provides to those in its custody, and examining ICE’s role in ensuring dignity, respect and due process of an immigration case from start to finish. Many in Chicago received letters from ICE inviting them to apply. The letter said, “attendees will participate in scenario-based training … including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests.” Nicole Alberico, an ICE spokesperson, responded to Snopes’ request for more information about the training (emphasis ours): …the academy is not to train members of the public to do the work of trained, federal law enforcement officers. ICE ERO Citizen’s Academy is modeled after other law enforcement community outreach programs – including ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), FBI and local police departments – all with the goal of directly engaging and educating the public. Chicago ERO is looking for a diverse set of influential community leaders – regardless of their stance on ICE – to apply. The spokesperson said that they also had not determined whether media would be permitted to attend the training, as they were considering health precautions because of the pandemic and privacy concerns. In sum, according to their own descriptions, ICE plans on showing civilians how they as an agency carry out arrests but will not be training civilians to do arrests themselves. According to one report, such a Citizens Academy has already taken place in Los Angeles for years, with participants simulating drug busts, arrests, and stakeouts. According to one graduate, the course immersed people in what the agents do. While the Chicago program was to be run by ERO, the Los Angeles Academy was being run under ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department. The goal of such training appeared to be to get more people to understand ICE’s perspective, see how they operate, and eventually construct a positive image of the agency in various communities. There is no available evidence that such trainings led to civilians participating in actual arrests.


US experts reviewing low-carb, other diets for guidelines.

Explanation: With keto-friendly recipes sweeping social media, some followers of low-carb eating are hoping for a nod of approval in the upcoming U.S. dietary guidelines that advise Americans on what to eat.

Nutrition, AP Top News, Health, North America, U.S. News, Healthy eating

It may seem minor, but backers say low-carb’s inclusion could influence nutrition advice that doctors give and help shape government food programs like school lunches. Currently, the guidelines cite the Mediterranean, vegetarian and other diets as examples of healthy eating. “The main point is to get away from a one-size-fits-all diet,” said Nina Teicholz, who has written about low-carb diets. Last year, U.S. health officials said low-carb diets will be reviewed along with other eating styles for the 2020 update to the guidelines. Backers are hopeful because the panel of experts selected to review the evidence includes members nominated by Atkins Nutritionals and a beef industry group. The group had its first meeting last week and is expected to issue a report to help shape the guidelines by next year. Low carb’s consideration comes amid skepticism of nutrition research for producing confusing advice. Low-carb supporters say rising obesity rates show conventional wisdom about nutrition, reflected in the guidelines, doesn’t work for everyone. Some nutrition experts caution that evidence for low-carb diets is new and that it’s unclear what the long-term effects might be. They say criticism of the guidelines is overblown, and blame the food industry for distorting messages to market low-fat snacks full of sugar and massive portions. They note the guidelines have cautioned against sugar since they were introduced in 1980 , and that key recommendations have been largely consistent and remain sound. Low-carb diets generally limit foods like bread, pasta and sugar to less than 30 percent of calories, or around 750 calories for someone eating 2,500 calories a day. The idea of restricting carbohydrates has been around for decades, and many remember the Atkins craze. The ketogenic diet has been used to treat people with epilepsy and has resurfaced as a very low-carb diet embraced by celebrities. Charles Garrison, a mortgage officer in Florida, decided to try the keto diet, including food like waffles made with almond flour. “I don’t plan on being super strict about it forever,” he said. Low-carb diets can work well for people with type 2 diabetes who are more sensitive to carbohydrates. But the benefits of low-carb can also be overblown, and people still have to make sure their overall diet is healthy, said Kevin Hall of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Some nutrition experts say sticking to low-carb diets can be hard, and that people should make changes that can last. Marion Nestle, a nutrition researcher who helped write the 1995 guidelines, said she prefers guidance that encourages healthy habits, such as the types of food to eat or limit. “People don’t eat nutrients, they eat food,” she said. Adding low-carb diets could further muddle messages. The guidelines, now more than 120 pages , also advise people to limit the saturated fat commonly found in meat and butter — foods many link with low-carb diets. Instead of adding another diet to the mix, simplifying the guidelines would be more useful, said Stanford University health policy researcher John Ioannidis. “If we eat more, that will make us obese. That’s 100% correct,” he said. ___ Follow Candice Choi on Twitter: @candicechoi ___ The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Missouri physicians warn against bug-borne diseases.

Explanation: Missouri residents should be on the lookout for diseases caused by mosquito, flea and tick bites, according to a recent report.

The 12-year study by the Centers for Disease Control found that bug-borne diseases have more than tripled across the U.S. from 2004 to 2016, the Columbia Daily Tribune reported . During that time period, nine new bug-borne diseases have been introduced. Missouri ranks around the average for mosquito-borne diseases, but is in the top 40 percent in cases of disease caused by tick bites. Christelle Ilboudo, an infectious disease physician for University of Missouri Health Care, said she’s seen more patients are coming in with symptoms. “It seems we have had an increase in cases,” Ilboudo said. “Most cases are seen in the clinic setting without patients seeking to get hospitalized.” Kathy Kinnaman, a nurse practitioner at the Boone County Medical Group in Osage Beach, said she believes increased awareness is causing more patients to seek treatment for bug-borne diseases. She said the most comment cases she sees deal with tick bites. “A tick bite is a tick bite no matter how long you think that tick was on you,” Kinnaman said. “If it actually got onto you and started sucking, then it could cause illness.” Health professionals say ticks should be removed immediately and bites should be monitored closely to see if any symptoms develop. Bites can be prevented by using insect repellant and wearing long sleeves in areas where the bugs live, Ilboudo said. “Some of these diseases can make people very, very sick, so it is not something to take lightly,” Ilboudo said. “The symptoms can be very nonspecific, meaning they may just have a fever and some muscle aches, and most people tend to ignore that.” ___ Information from: Columbia Daily Tribune, http://www.columbiatribune.com


United States health care facilities face an intravenous bag shortage because of the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Maria in September 2017.

Explanation: Most of the people who have contacted him since his remark began spreading online, he said, have offered similar stories.

Medical, Health Care, hospitals, hurricane maria

On 28 December 2017, a tweet from a man in California focused attention on one of less-reported aftereffects of the damage caused by the massive Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico on 20 September 2017. Ben Boyer’s post criticized the Trump administration’s response to the disaster while describing a recent hospital visit: My wife’s nurse had to stand for 30 mins & administer a drug slowly through a syringe because there are almost no IV bags in the continental U.S. anymore. See, they were all manufactured in a Puerto Rican factory which still isn’t fixed. Meanwhile that stupid swollen prick golfs. This is true. Hospitals in both Puerto Rico and the mainland United States have reported shortages of intravenous fluids and bags since Maria tore through the island — where several medical manufacturing plants are located — in September 2017. According to a Food and Drug Administration analysis released in November 2017, medical manufacturing is a significant part of the island’s economy: Prior to the devastation brought by Hurricane Maria, the medical product manufacturing sector provided, on average, approximately $800 million in local wages over a 12-month period, according to our analysis. This manufacturing industry is a key part of the island’s manufacturing base and is supported by a highly skilled workforce. Among the manufacturers affected was Baxter International, the largest IV bag supplier in the United States; the company says on its website that it ships more than a million units of IV solutions a day. The FDA responded by saying that Baxter and other companies to get priority access to the island territory’s electrical grid. On 28 December 2017, the FDA sent us the following statement: The FDA has been working very closely with industry and local and federal officials to help address the shortage situation for IV saline and other products as a result of Hurricane Maria. This remains a key area of focus for the agency and we expect that the shortage of IV fluids will improve in early 2018 based on the information we are receiving from the manufacturers. In the meantime, we are continuing all of our efforts to increase supplies while concerns remain. Baxter sent us a statement confirming that all of its facilities in the territory are connected to the local electrical grid, with backup diesel generators on tap in case of power outages. The company said it expects to “return to more normal supply levels for products made in Puerto Rico in the coming weeks.” The company did clarify, however, that its Puerto Rican operations did not include manufacture of saline IV solutions, and that production of those products continues to run normally. Baxter added: We are also bringing additional units to the U.S. market through a recent permanent approval from the FDA for IVs produced in one of our North American manufacturing plants. We expect to see this incremental supply benefitting current customers and providing us the opportunity to service other customers in the beginning of 2018. The FDA said in a follow-up statement released on 5 January 2018: FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said a key area of focus is addressing the I.V. saline shortage, which has affected patients, health care providers, and hospitals. He noted that, based on information from the companies, the shortage of I.V. saline fluids is expected to improve early this year. The number of deaths caused by the hurricane remains unclear. Although Puerto Rican authorities initially reported that around 50 people had been killed in the territory as a result of Maria, several accounts have surfaced contradicting that estimate. In early December 2017, Gov. Ricardo Rosselló ordered a recount of the death toll. He said in a statement: We always expected that the number of hurricane-related deaths would increase as we received more factual information — not hearsay — and this review will ensure we are correctly counting everybody. Boyer told us via email that his wife was receiving the treatment as part of her ongoing care for brain cancer; she was first diagnosed in 2009, and her tumor (which is inoperable) became aggressive again in 2015. At the time of his post, he said, he was unaware of the ongoing IV bag shortage: Obviously I knew about the hurricane; I lived in San Juan as a little kid and have been back to Puerto Rico many times. Both my parents worked their whole careers in health care and I knew that was part of the island but didn’t know about the current situation until our excellent nurse told me. At the time he was giving my wife her pre-meds before her chemo infusion – steroids, stomach aids, saline flush, etc. He said of the attention his tweet received: Twitter is very weird in that it’s very hard to tell how something blew up – I know it only had a couple of likes and comments for the first 5 or 6 hours and then clearly some big account RTd it – I wish I knew who it was! After that I started to see lots more RTs including several big names I recognized. As you can see from my account, I mostly tweet dumb jokes, but this was just such a wild thing and I hadn’t heard it from anyone else so I thought it would be informative. Very soon after it started to spread I started seeing lots of nurses and medical professionals jumping on it and I realized that (a) it was a story most people didn’t know about, and (b) it was clearly massively widespread and growing.


Wisconsin bill "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products.

Explanation: Health care advocate says Wisconsin bill would give drug makers immunity from lawsuits over injury or death

Civil Rights, Consumer Safety, Corporations, Health Care, Legal Issues, Government Regulation, Public Health, Wisconsin, Robert Kraig,

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called state lawmakers into special session on Sept. 28, 2011, he touted two dozen legislative initiatives he said would put Wisconsin back to work. Reiterating his campaign promise to create 250,000 private-sector jobs, the Republican governor asserted that more than anything else, "employers and workers want a sense of certainty." Health care advocate Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, was certain he didn’t like what he saw in some of the bills on the table. Kraig’s Milwaukee-based group describes itself as a coalition that works to "advance progressive values and shape the public and political debate around health care, economic development and consumer protection." In a news release and in a blog post on Oct. 3, 2011, Kraig said several bills were "masquerading as job-creation measures which damage the civil justice rights of consumers who are injured by corporate malfeasance" -- in other words, curbing the rights of injured people to sue. "Shockingly," Kraig added, "one bill in the current session dangerously grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products." Immunity from lawsuits -- even in cases of injury and death? The bill Kraig criticized was proposed by Sen. Rich Zipperer, R-City of Pewaukee. As long as a drug or device is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer or seller of that drug or medical device would be immune from liability, according to the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau. Zipperer spokewoman Hannah Huffman said, however, that there are exceptions. Immunity would not apply if FDA approval were gained through fraud, she said. And although manufacturers could not be sued for a defect in the design of a drug or device if the design had been approved by the FDA, the manufacturer could be sued if it failed to follow the design in the manufacturing process, she said. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families in Washington, D.C., told us she believes the immunity bill would apply to all drugs but perhaps not to all medical devices. Zuckerman, who has done research on the FDA approval processes, said it would depend on how the word approved is interpreted in the bill. Every year, only about 3 percent of new medical devices gain FDA approval, while the rest are "cleared" under a less-stringent process by the agency, she said. So, Zipperer’s bill gives broad immunity, with some exceptions, to drug makers but perhaps less immunity to device makers. We asked Kraig for evidence to back what essentially was a blanket statement that the bill "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity." Kraig initially said his statement was "over broad and should have included the qualification that this bill covers drugs and medical devices approved by the FDA." Later he argued the statement was fair because most people, when they hear a reference to drug makers or medical device manufacturers, would understand that those companies make products that in the vast majority of cases must be approved by the FDA. Kraig also argued that the bill is dangerous because in recent years the FDA’s regulatory powers have been weakened and therefore its approval of a drug or device does not provide as much protection as it once did. As evidence, he cited a report that is critical of a Michigan law that gives immunity to drug manufacturers and that Kraig said is similar to the drug manufacturers part of the Wisconsin’s bill. And he cited a national report on problems people encountered after using drugs and medical devices that had received FDA approval. But arguing a bill is unnecessary or unwise does not get at the question we are examining: Whether the bill does what Kraig said it does in terms of immunity. Our conclusion  Kraig said a bill proposed by a Wisconsin lawmaker "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products." He acknowledged that his statement was "over broad," in that immunity applies only when FDA approval has been granted. The bill doesn’t give blanket protection to drug and device makers. But its primary intent is to give them immunity, with some exceptions. We rate Kraig’s statement .


I’ll Take a Sperm Test, to Go: First at-Home Male-Infertility Test Debuts

Explanation: The Trump administration plans to stick with its proposed 2020 biofuel blending requirements, the White House said on Wednesday, despite anger among farmers that the plan does too little for corn growers.

The decision could undermine President Donald Trump’s support among farmers, an important constituency in the November 2020 election. Some U.S. farmers have already been hurt by the United States’ prolonged trade war with China. “The Administration is moving forward to finalize the 2020 RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) in line with the agreement that the President made this fall,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said. Deere confirmed he was talking about a proposal unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency in October, which was intended to compensate the biofuel industry for the administration’s expanded use of refinery waivers, but which the industry has largely panned as insufficient. Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, oil refiners are required to blend some 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into their gasoline every year, but small facilities can be exempted if compliance would hurt them financially. The Trump administration’s EPA has roughly quadrupled the number of the so-called Small Refinery Exemptions, something corn farmers and biofuel producers say has deeply undercut demand for ethanol. The oil industry says the waivers are needed to preserve blue-collar refining jobs and disagrees with the claim that the waivers destroy demand. The EPA plan, devised after weeks of negotiations with both the oil and biofuel industries to resolve the issue, would raise the biofuels volumes that some refineries must blend in 2020 based on U.S. Energy Department recommendations for volumes that should be exempted. Biofuel interests wanted the regulation to be based on volumes that have actually been waived, since the EPA has routinely waived more blending volumes than the DOE has recommended. On Tuesday, more than 1,700 farmers and biofuel advocates sent a letter to Trump, criticizing EPA’s proposal and asking him to directly intervene in the debate. By then, the decision had already been reached. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told the Iowa Corn Growers Association during a meeting in Washington on Tuesday that the administration was sticking with the EPA’s proposal, two sources familiar with the matter said. The plan is expected to be finalized by Friday, one source said. The final rule for 2020 blending requirements is already past its end-November deadline. “EPA has reviewed all comments received during the comment period from the public and we plan to finalize the rule this winter,” EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said. Support across key Midwestern states helped propel Trump to the presidency in 2016, a trend he is hoping to replicate in next year’s election. But some farmers have threatened to withdraw support because of his administration’s handling of biofuel policy. The biofuels news, however, comes amid progress in the United States’ trade war with China, a dispute that has been especially damaging to U.S. farmers. It also comes as Congress readies a vote on the nation’s new trade pact with Mexico and Canada, an agreement also expected to boost farmers’ fortunes. Renewable fuel (D6) credits for 2019 traded at 12.75 cents each on Wednesday, down from 13.25 cents in the previous session, traders said.


Nursing home with most virus deaths fined $10K a day.

Explanation: Regulators in Maryland will fine a nursing home that has had the most virus-related deaths in the state $10,000 a day.

Health, General News, Nursing homes, Maryland, Virus Outbreak

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the nursing home is Sagepoint Senior Living in La Plata, which is south of Washington in Charles County. State regulators say that the nursing home failed to use appropriate protective equipment and failed to separate residents who have coronavirus or who were suspected of having it. The state also said that the facility failed to obtain lab results in a timely manner. The Office Of Health Care Quality will issue the fines to the 165-bed facility until it complies with state regulations. The fine is the first civil penalty issued against a nursing home since the pandemic began. According to state data, Sagepoint has had 34 COVID deaths among patients. One employee has also died.


Zinc may ward off viruses but there are dangers

Explanation: This story and its sidebar raise important concerns about the potentially toxic effects of too much zinc, but provides insufficient detail to allow consumers to accurately gauge the risks. It fails to discuss the limitations of animal studies and a small case series suggesting neurological impairment from excessive zinc, and makes vague references to studies suggesting links between zinc and health problems. Finally, in a story whose main point was to discuss the harm that can result from too much zinc, it was strange to see no mention of a strongly worded FDA advisory warning consumers not to take the zinc-based nasal spray Zicam. We often hear the claim that we consume too little or too much of certain foods and nutrients, and that changing our habits may lead to better health. Good reporting can help consumers focus on changes that are most likely to be beneficial. Articles such as this pointing out potential for harm are also critically important for consumers.

While it probably can be assumed that the zinc-containing products discussed in the story are relatively inexpensive, the story contained no direct discussion of costs. Readers would have benefited from this information, for example, when evaluating the value of zinc-based cold remedies. The story mentions that zinc lozenges "may help and probably won’t hurt" when it comes to colds, but how much will the reader have to pay for a shot at this benefit? Readers’ perceptions would no doubt differ if the product costs $2 vs. $20. The sidebar to this story notes that zinc lozenges have been tested in patients with colds or the flu in 14 studies over 25 years. It noted that benefits were seen in about half of the studies, but no benefits and potential harms were observed in other studies. It quantified the benefits found in one study, where colds, coughs and runny noses were of shorter duration in the zinc group compared with the group that received a placebo lozenge. While it would have been nice to see a description of the studies that found no benefit and/or harm (Were they more or less rigorous than the studies reporting benefits? ), the story does enough to fulfill this criterion.


The Cutting Edge: Robotic Surgery, Today!

Explanation: Let’s start by saying there is nothing inherently wrong with a gee-whiz TV segment that does a live demo of cool new medical technologies. In a perfect world the segment would be coherent and would feel apropos of something, but even that is not essential. Television is an ideal medium for this kind of demonstration. The problem is that when they put the segment together, the producers disposed of fundamental journalistic practices as efficiently as the daVinci Si HD bags up old organs to throw them away. Even if we accept that this piece is nothing more than a few minutes of techno-tainment, it still has inexcusable, almost inconceivable lapses in journalistic hygiene. It does not say how much these technologies and treatments cost It doesn’t say whether any independent research has been done to verify the claims of benefits It does not mention risks It fails to explore what treatment options patients have, beyond assuming they are inferior It doesn’t seek opinion from anyone who can provide insight about whether and how these things improve care, if at all  Yes, it is wonderful, even inspiring to see a doctor peel a grape and thread a needle with these tools. It’s great entertainment and eye-opening. [See the video in order to appreciate how fun and fascinating the demo is. The transcript does not do justice to how engaging the segment is.] But as journalists, the producers were simply asleep at the switch. One hopes this would not be the case for the medical professionals who use these technologies on patients.

The story makes no mention of how much all of this equipment costs, or how much it adds to the price of medical treatment. This is a serious–and baffling–omission. The gee-whizness of the story almost immediately begs the question of how much all of this stuff costs. Not a word is mentioned. The established daVinci models cost about $1.5 million. The price of the new Si HD has not been published yet. It is certainly higher than $1.5 million. Analyses have been done that suggest that because surgeries done with daVincis generally produce fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, the devices actually result in lower total costs. This may be true. But again, the story should have mentioned costs. The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of any of the procedures discussed. Yet it allows interested sources to claim the benefits of better outcomes and fewer side effects. The piece is silent on the potential harms of robot-assisted surgery, which include misapplication [as hospitals that have invested in it seek to use it as much as possible] and exposure to inexperienced users [because this surgery has a learning curve of a reported 18 procedures]. The piece discusses the advantages of belly-button laparopscopic surgery but does not discuss any risks. Being the 9th person in the world to undergo a procedure is not necessarily a good thing. The story presents no evidence that the techniques and technologies profiled are safe or effective. The anecdote at the beginning highlights a prostate cancer patient, who emotionally discusses his desire to live for his family and friends. Yet his case says nothing about the type of surgery he had, trans-navel, and whether that might improve his prognosis. There is no evidence it will. This is therefore a clear case of disease-mongering–using an irrelevant anecdote for nothing more than generating emotions to make the technology seem necessary. The piece at various points says the robot-assisted procedures reduce pain and recovery time and allow previously inaccessible levels of control over minute movements. The segment vividly demonstrates how the device can be used to thread a needle and peel a grape. This all appears to oversell the benefits, another form of disease-mongering. And the host at one point suggests the robotic surgery tools could "make human hands a quaint artifact of the past"–a statement that makes accuracy and plausibility look like quaint artifacts too. Sources include: While it does not appear Michael Stifelman of NYU has a standard, disclosable financial conflict of interest regarding the daVinci’s maker, he clearly is an interested party as someone who has devoted his career to use of robotics in surgery. He leads a center that has invested heavily in the technology, needs to generate a lot of patient cases to pay for it, and has ambitions to play the role of leader in the field. There is nothing like balance or context in sourcing here. The segment refers to laparoscopic surgery not done through the navel, and surgery not assisted by a robot, only to assert their inferiority. Several technologies are mentioned in this segment. Navel surgery is presented as cutting-edge–the patient is said to have "ma[d]e medical history" as the ninth to have his prostate removed via his navel. Yet the piece says surgeons are also using the technique to perform a variety of surgeries, including hysterectomies and removal of lymph nodes. In either case, the piece doesn’t say where navel surgeries are being done. The story reports that 930 daVinci surgical robots are in use around the country, but that’s a census of mostly the old da Vinci machines, not the featured daVinci Si HD Surgical Systems, with the newer, finer controls and optics. This machine was introduced in April. It is not clear where these newer models are in use. It is reported that voice-activated robot assistants are being developed at Georgia Tech and Emory University, and it’s clear on the video that the devices are not yet on the market. The new generation of daVinci surgery robots was just introduced in April, so it’s safe to call that novel. Surgery through the navel is not widely practiced yet, and the piece is reasonably clear on this. It would have been useful to explain that laparoscopic surgery–through the navel or not, or with a robot or not–is standard practice for many types of surgery. The life-assistant robots mentioned briefly at the end are clearly just in development. We can’t be sure what motivated ABC to devote so much airtime to this segment at this time.


Researchers identify CTE biomarker that may lead to diagnosis while alive

Explanation: The story focuses on a recent journal article that reported finding higher levels of the protein CCL11 in individuals who were posthumously diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) than was found in healthy individuals or in those who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Currently, CTE can only be diagnosed after an individual has died, and this finding is presented as a first step toward developing a diagnostic tool for CTE that can be used while patients are still alive. This is a very preliminary basic science research study and probably not worth publicizing to a general audience. As the story explains, no one really knows how relevant this finding is yet, and if it will lead to anything clinicians can use. The story at least makes that very clear, and tapped an independent source to provide context. CTE has been a huge news topic lately because of its association with professional football players. For this reason, research related to CTE is likely to get a lot of attention from readers. This one certainly did, garnering coverage from several large news media organizations (the Los Angeles Times, for example, and the New York Post (which hailed the finding “monumental”). The totality of all this coverage on a preliminary finding could leave readers with the impression the research is closer to clinical use than it really is.

The relevant research finding is so far removed from a clinical diagnostic tool — and the story makes that clear — that it’s tough to expect much from the story in regard to cost. The story discusses benefits here: The paper evaluated the brains of 23 deceased football players with CTE, and compared them to the brains of 50 deceased people diagnosed with Alzhiemer’s disease and the brains of 18 deceased non-athletes. When compared to the brains without CTE, researchers found those brains with CTE had significantly higher amounts of CCL11, even when compared to those brains with Alzheimer’s, another degenerative brain disease. Furthermore, they found that the more years someone played football, the higher amount of the protein. How much higher was the protein, in numerical terms? And how do they know it’s significant–that the higher level means anything? All lab values have normal ranges–how do they know if these measurements were abnormal? Instead of providing insight on this, the story explains that it’s really too early to tell if any of this means anything valuable. So why report on it now? If a story is going to speculate about the potential clinical benefits of a new research finding (and this one does), the story should also discuss the harms. It’s worth pointing out, for example, that any test such as this would produce false-positive and false-negative results. Such results could cause unnecessary concern and anxiety and perhaps the loss of a lucrative career — or false reassurance that nothing is wrong when a degenerative process is underway. The story discusses the number of people involved in the study, their different conditions, and why each group is relevant. However, the story would have been stronger if it had noted that the samples used in the study were from the brain and cerebrospinal fluid of individuals. That would better explain why researchers don’t know if the relevant protein can be found in the blood. As it is, the story tells readers that higher levels of CCL11 were found — but not where. The story also makes it clear that there’s a lot more work that needs to be done. No disease mongering here. The story does incorporate input from one independent source — who raised valuable points about the limitations of this discovery and the amount of work that remains to be done. There do not appear to be any conflicts of interest. The story makes it clear that there is no method for diagnosing this brain disorder in living people, and it mentions that other biomarkers are being tested. However, the information was relayed in a somewhat confusing way. The story notes that a diagnostic approach focusing on CCL11 may only be “one part of a larger process.” It then quotes a researcher from the study as saying: “This may be one of the abnormalities [of the disease], but it may take 2-3 to be useful to diagnose CTE.” The story then refers to other studies that have attempted to identify other means of diagnosing CTE in living patients. However, it offers little information on those other diagnostic tools. Presumably, they have significant limitations since we are still unable to diagnose CTE in the living. But perhaps other biomarkers have been found, but not yet incorporated into a reliable diagnostic tool. Either way, we wish that had been more clear — as well as the relevance of these previous studies to the CCL11 research. Once readers get past the first couple paragraphs, the story makes clear that this research is far removed from clinical applications. The story quotes one of the researchers involved in the work as saying “This is something new.” What is new is, apparently, the discovery that CCL11 levels are correlated to CTE. Whether other biomarkers have been identified (as discussed above, under “Compare Alternatives”) but not yet incorporated into diagnostic tools is not clear from the story. Because the story uses a word-for-word quote by one of the researchers from the news release — without disclosing the quote came from a news release — the story rates Not Satisfactory on this criterion.


The Village of Deerfield, Illinois, has approved an ordinance banning the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Explanation: Chicago Suburb Approves Ordinance Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons

The Deerfield Village Board approved an ordinance banning the possession of assault weapons, including the AR-15, on April 2. After the ordinance goes into effect in June 2018, residents could be fined up to $1,000 per day for possessing a semi-automatic weapon within city limits. The ordinance states “assault weapons have been increasingly used in an alarming number of notorious mass shooting incidents at public schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation including, but not limited to, the recent mass shooting incidents in Parkland, Florida (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School; 17 people killed), Sutherland Springs, Texas (First Baptist Church; 26 people), Las Vegas, Nevada (Music Festival, 58 people killed), and Orlando, Florida (Pulse Nightclub, 49 people killed).” The village released an FAQ to summarize the assault weapons ban. Weapons meeting the definition of “assault weapon” under the ordinance are those that are semi-automatic, have the ability to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and have at least one additional feature defined in the ordinance. Police won’t go door-to-door to confiscate assault weapons. Rather, gun owners have been asked to voluntarily surrender the weapons and high-capacity magazines—or to render them inoperable: The Village intends to enforce this ordinance in a manner consistent with other local ordinances. This ordinance will initially be enforced primarily through education and voluntary compliance. A police officer may issue a citation for a violation of this ordinance in the manner provided by law. Weapons being illegally possessed will be confiscated as authorized by the ordinance. Any other enforcement of this ordinance, including search or seizure to effect this ordinance, must comply with the requirements of State and Federal law. Members of the Department will not go “door to door” to ensure compliance. Violators of the assault weapons ban could face a $250 to $1,000 fine for each day that they’re in violation of the ordinance. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action announced that it would support a legal challenge brought against the group Guns Save Life. The result of the legal challenge remains to be seen, but the ordinance is based on a similar ban approved in nearby Highland Park. That ban was upheld by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015 — and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Chicago also has an assault weapons ban on the books. Comments


“Only 6% of the people actually died from COVID.” The others “died from other reasons.”

Explanation: In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump misconstrued data on coronavirus deaths. As of Sept. 3, 185,092 Americans had died due to COVID-19. A CDC report found that 6% of people who died from COVID-19 only had the virus. The majority had other conditions as well, but that doesn’t mean COVID-19 wasn’t to blame. The National Center for Health Statistics told us that COVID-19 was responsible for nearly all of the deaths involving the virus.

In the past week, President Donald Trump has repeatedly spread a false claim that COVID-19 is not as deadly as his own public health agencies have reported. He retweeted a now-deleted post that alleged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "quietly updated" the number of coronavirus deaths. He shared another tweet from a senior legal adviser for his reelection campaign that linked to an article whose headline said "only 9,210 Americans died from COVID-19 alone." And, in a Sept. 1 interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump said it himself: "I saw a statistic come out the other day, talking about only 6% of the people actually died from COVID, which is a very interesting — that they died from other reasons." "Well, they had comorbidities, which you’ve gotten criticized for," Ingraham responded. She’s right — the president misconstrued data on coronavirus deaths. As of Sept. 3, CDC data show 185,092 Americans had died due to COVID-19, and some estimates put the death toll higher. Trump’s claim traces back to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the CDC. Each Wednesday, the agency releases new provisional death counts for the coronavirus. The data is based on death certificates. In that report, the NCHS notes in a section titled "Comorbidities" that, "for 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned." "For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death," the report says. Those lines have inspired a rash of claims on social media, including those retweeted by the president, that say the CDC "adjusted" its coronavirus death counts and the disease is not as deadly as previously thought. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let’s recap why they’re wrong. Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn’t mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. "The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with "Good Morning America." "That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn’t die of COVID-19 — they did." "The numbers that you’ve been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that." So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. "The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID," said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the "underlying cause of death." "The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person’s death," Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven’t heard back. Trump’s claim is inaccurate and ridiculous.