Facebook post Says a warning label on a box of disposable masks shows that they are ineffective at protecting against the spread of COVID-19.

Explanation: The N95 respirator offers the most protection against viral particles for the wearer because it can filter very small aerosol particles. But other masks, like the ones in the photo or homemade fabric masks, are effective in reducing the spread of the disease because they help stop asymptomatic individuals from unknowingly spreading the disease.

Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

Online rumors continue to claim that different face masks are ineffective in protecting against the spread of COVID-19. We recently fact-checked this  claim, yet new versions on Facebook are now pointing to a warning label that appears to be on the side of a box of disposable surgical masks. The label in the image reads: "This product is an ear loop mask, this product is not a respirator and will not provide any protections against COVID-19 (coronavirus) and other viruses or contaminants." The photo appears to be legitimate. But the words on the label are being misinterpreted as evidence to suggest that masks are not effective. One person who posted the picture wrote: "Gee....wonder how many people are gonna tell me I haven't done my research now? Black and white. Right there. Even the people making the masks know it's all bull." But that’s not what this photo shows. This is a misunderstanding about the kind of protection standard masks provide and a misreading of the disclaimer, which isn’t saying the masks are ineffective at limiting the spread of COVID-19. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Certain medical-grade masks, such as the N95 respirator, offer the most protection against viral particles for the wearer because it can filter aerosol particles as small as 0.3 micron. But other masks, like the ear-loop ones in the photo or homemade cloth masks, are effective in reducing the spread of the disease, or what health experts call "source control." When you wear these masks it is most helpful to people around you. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend that the general public wear medical-grade masks like the N95 because they are in high demand, and officials say they should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. As an additional public health measure, the agency recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings to help slow the spread of COVID-19 (emphasis ours): The "CDC still recommends that you stay at least 6 feet away from other people (social distancing), frequent hand cleaning and other everyday preventive actions. A cloth face covering is not intended to protect the wearer, but it may prevent the spread of virus from the wearer to others. This would be especially important if someone is infected but does not have symptoms." Jeremy Howard, a data scientist at the University of San Francisco, wrote an article in the Conversation in favor of universal mask wearing. Howard says that researchers were looking at the wrong question at first – how well a mask protects the wearer from infection – and not how well a mask prevents an infected person from spreading the virus. He said masks function very differently as personal protective equipment versus "source control." A photograph of a box of disposable masks shows a warning label that says the masks "will not provide any protections against COVID-19." Such disclaimers don’t mean that the masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of the disease, but that they don’t protect the wearer as well as medical respirators such as the N95 recommended for use by health care professionals. Disposable and homemade cloth masks are recommended for people to wear because it protects others around them in case they have the virus and may not be showing any symptoms. The users sharing this image are making a  interpretation of the type of protection standard face masks provide.


Whales live as long at SeaWorld" as they do in the wild.

Animals, Science, Tourism, Florida, SeaWorld,

More and more, critics are making the case that keeping killer whales in captivity is harmful to the animals and dangerous for the people who train them. SeaWorld, the theme park that showcases the trained whales, is now fighting back. A new ad, part of a multimedia blitz for the company, is headlined, "Fact: Whales live as long at SeaWorld," and it is written in the voice of Chris Dold, a SeaWorld veterinarian. The ad, which has appeared in the Tampa Bay Times, takes specific aim at criticism leveled by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, an animal-rights group that has been among the theme park company’s biggest critics. Here’s a portion of the ad’s text: "You might have heard attacks from PETA saying our killer whales live only a fraction as long as whales in the wild. They say, ‘In captivity, orcas’ average life span plummets to just nine years.’ But the author of an independent study, Dr. Douglas DeMaster, of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, ‘Survival in the wild is comparable to survival in captivity.’ There’s no other way to say it… PETA is not giving you the facts." PETA, meanwhile, pushed back against the ad’s conclusions, citing the average age of whales that have died since 1965. According to PETA’s documentation of captive whale deaths, the average age of death is 12 years old for SeaWorld’s female orcas -- which are expected to survive in the wild for about 50 years. For males -- which are expected to survive in the wild for 30 years -- the average age of death is 16. SeaWorld currently has in its care several whales in their 30s and one in its 40s. Keeping whales in captivity is a complicated issue, and the critical 2013 documentary Blackfish has brought more attention to it. Clearly, longevity is just one factor, and it isn’t the same thing as the quality of the whales’ daily lives. Here, though, we wanted to drill down on SeaWorld’s specific claim that the whales at their parks live just as long as they do in the wild. SeaWorld’s evidence We posed SeaWorld’s claim to DeMaster, the scientist quoted in the ad. He’s the science director of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal government agency. Most of the independent experts we contacted agreed that DeMaster is the key scientist to ask about this issue. DeMaster said that SeaWorld is correct -- "as long as you use data from 2005 to 2013." (PETA’s data, by contrast, goes back 40 more years.) On three occasions -- in 1988, 1995 and 2013 -- DeMaster has compiled data that comprehensively compared survival among captive and wild marine mammals. In the 1988 and 1995 papers, DeMaster found differences in the survival rates of marine mammals, including killer whales (also called orcas), depending on whether they lived in the wild or in captivity. The 1995 paper, for instance, found that captive orcas had a 94 percent chance of surviving to the next year in captivity, compared to 98 percent in the wild. That changed by the time DeMaster completed his latest research, in 2013. By then, he found, the annual survival rate for both captive and non-captive killer whales had converged at 98 percent. "According to recent information there was an improvement in the annual survival rate, to quite close to what you might see in the wild," DeMaster told PolitiFact. DeMaster cautioned that he’s not sure of the reason for the improvement in survival, and he said he doesn’t take a position on whether or not large mammals should be kept in captivity. Meanwhile, an Associated Press analysis also cited in the SeaWorld ad -- which is based on the same data DeMaster used, the federal government’s Marine Mammal Inventory Report -- found that the average life expectancy for a killer whale born at SeaWorld was 46 years, which it said was close to the 49-year average life expectancy of a wild orca. Critiquing the SeaWorld evidence So SeaWorld has support for its claim. But the company glosses over some important caveats. • None of the statistical comparisons take into account quality of life, as opposed to length of life. Science is better at measuring longevity than it is at judging how humane a life in captivity is. The mathematical approach "is totally irrelevant," said Dave Duffus, an associate professor of geography at Canada's University of Victoria, who participated on the panel with DeMaster in New Zealand. "To me the important variable is not how long, rather it is how well, which isn’t a scientific question as much as it is a logical question. Everything about the quality of captive life is in opposition to the wild, which is the product of thousands of generations of natural selection." • Merely reaching parity with wild populations isn’t necessarily a major achievement. Simple logic would suggest several reasons why marine mammals should live longer in captivity. Captive animals don’t have to worry about predators, food shortages, fishing nets, or pollution, and they’re given nutritional supplements, vaccines and veterinary care. "It would sort of make sense that any animal given better medical and nutritional care would live just as long, or longer, than one not given this sort of care," said Paul Nachtigall, director of the Marine Mammal Research Program at the University of Hawaii. • The ad focuses on longevity, not survival rates; those are different statistics. The ad’s headline refers to how long whales live, and the text uses terms like "life span" and "life expectancy." But those are different things than the statistic DeMaster used that’s favorable to SeaWorld -- annual survival rates. Many experts, including DeMaster, told PolitiFact that annual survival rates are better measurements than longevity. Whales have not been in captivity long enough to know whether they are able to live a full-length life in that setting, DeMaster told PolitiFact. They’ve only been in captivity since the 1960s. Jaap van der Toom, a Dutch biologist who has studied marine mammals, has made a similar point. "Longevity is basically an incidental finding: it is determined by the oldest animal you find in your sample," he has written. "You can only determine the longevity of a group of animals after all the members of that group have died." Well before SeaWorld released its ad, van der Toom published a cheat sheet about how to spin statistics. Referring to the same group of animals, he said, you could use different statistics to paint opposite appraisals. "If you want to paint a positive picture," you could say that "the life expectancy is 19.5 years" or "the majority of the animals will become older than 13 years," he wrote. In effect, that’s the approach SeaWorld took. But if you wanted to offer a negative spin, you would say that "within five years, 23 percent of the animals will have died," or that "one-third of the animals will survive no longer than eight years," or "within 14 years, 50 percent of the animals will be dead." Van der Toom summed up: "To paraphrase an old song: " ‘t ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it." • The data on wild orca populations is sparse. There is data on whale life spans from the Pacific Northwest, but there are orcas all over the world, and there’s no guarantee that all of them have similar life spans and survival rates. In the 1995 paper, DeMaster cautioned that "comparisons between survival in captivity with survival in the wild will remain tenuous until additional demographic studies are conducted on wild populations." Our ruling A SeaWorld ad said "whales live as long at SeaWorld" as they do in the wild. At its core, this claim is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue. Recent independent data suggests that survival rates for captive and wild orcas are about equal, but that by itself isn't all that significant, experts told us. The data is limited and comparisons between orcas in captivity and in the wild are tenuous. Experts also noted that logic suggests captive whales should live longer because they don't face predators and receive medical care, which makes SeaWorld's claim further misleading. Lastly, experts said that a simple measurement of survival rates (or lifespan) serves as a smokescreen from the more fundamental question of the conditions for whales in captivity. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details.


Provenge vaccine prolongs life in prostate cancer patients

Explanation: This story provides many of the key details readers need to understand the results of the trial of Provenge – being evaluated as a treatment for advanced prostate cancer – but the overall tone of the story emphasizes the good news while soft-peddling the caveats. Even though the story points out that only a third of men receiving the experimental approach were alive three years after they entered the trial, it would be understandable if readers concluded that Provenge is a dramatic advance in prostate cancer treatment and offers substantial advantages, with no disadavantages, compared to the chemotherapy typically offered similar patients. This USA Today story was about half the length of the AP report we also reviewed. Important facts were omitted that undercut the usefulness of the story; for example, the failure to note that the lead researcher owns stock in the company developing the drug or that the FDA declined to approve this drug two years ago because of concerns about potential side effects and questions about its actual effectiveness. While some cancer experts quoted elsewhere termed the trial findings an "incremental" advance, all of the comments included in this story portrayed the results as a dramatic advance. The story did not explain that the results have not been peer-reviewed and that independent experts have yet to see the raw data.

The story merely said the cost has not been announced without noting (as many other stories did) that other biotech treatments cost thousands of dollars per month. The story does report that 32 percent of the men receiving Provenge were alive three years later, compared to 23 percent of the men who received placebo infusions. However, it does not explain that the four month survival advantage in the lead sentence is derived from comparing the median survival of 26 months among men in the treatment arm to 22 months among men in the placebo arm of the trial. The story implies an exaggerated sense of the effect of treatment when it features the founder of a prostate cancer patient advocacy group who "knows men who have died waiting for Provenge to be approved." The statement obscures the fact that more than two-thirds of the men receiving Provenge died within three years and that there was no effect on disease progression. The story reports that 1 percent of study participants dropped out due to side effects and that the most common problems were short-term chills, fever and headache. The AP story – which we also reviewed – had a more complete listing of side effects observed in the trial. The story should have also noted that Provenge was denied approval two years ago, in part because of concerns about possible side effects, including a possible increase in stroke risk, even though no difference was seen in this trial. The lead of this story stated that Provenge helps cancer patients live longer without answering the question, "Longer than what?" Only later did the story point out that this study used a placebo control and did not directly compare Provenge to standard treatment with chemotherapy The story mentioned that the participants had advanced cancer, but it should have also emphasized that this treatment has not yet been shown to improve outcomes for men earlier in the course of the disease. The story also included a puzzling reference to another experimental prostate cancer vaccine that extended survival by more than eight months, according to the quoted source. The story does not explain this apparent contradiction with the lead that says Provenge is the first cancer vaccine to extend survival. The story really didn’t discuss the condition of advanced prostate cancer itself in any detail, so this is N/A. The story quotes a researcher not connected with this trial. However, while it points out that the company developing the drug announced the trial results, it failed to point out that the company paid for the trial and that the lead researcher quoted in the story owns stock in the company. The story does point out that chemotherapy is the standard treatment for similar patients. It also makes clear that this trial did not directly compare the experimental therapy with standard chemotherapy. However, readers are likely to come away with the impression that the new therapy has been shown to help patients live longer than standard treatment. The story states that the company plans to apply for FDA approval later this year. The story pointed out that after decades of expermentation this is the first cancer vaccine to demonstrate a survival benefit. However, this story did not mention that this same treatment was denied approval two years ago. The story does not appear to rely primarily on a press release.


New Blood Test May Rule Out Heart Attacks More Quickly

Explanation: It simply isn’t good enough to report on a new test being “more predictive” or “more sensitive” without giving actual data. How much more predictive? How much more sensitive? Why should readers care? Diagnosing a heart attack in the emergency room is as much of an art form as it is a science. Only a minority of people suspected of having one are actually diagnosed using a combined approach of a medical history, an electrocardiogram, a physical examination and finally laboratory tests. As our understanding of various blood markers improves, our tests have become more specific and the ability to correctly diagnose patients in a shorter period of time has improved. The use of a more specific maker of heart muscle injury and heart attack is important. As independent physicians quoted in the story explain, a more sensitive test could save a lot of money, could help with many emergency decisions and treatment,  and may result in improved outcomes. Because of significant gaps in important details, this story misrepresents what the authors of the study concluded.

There is no discussion of cost – not of the new troponin I test nor of any existing test. Explaining sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value is admittedly a task in and of itself. But the difficulty in explaining the concepts and applying them to the results of a study does not exempt a story from trying. The story only referred to the new test being “more predictive than other biomarkers” or “more sensitive than the existing one.” But even those relative references weren’t quantified. No sense of the scale of improvement of was provided. That’s not helpful. Since the sensitivity and specificity of the new test was not quantified, the story provided only a glowing report of progress – of benefit. There was no discussion of potential harms. Most physicians and most organizations would frown on making a diagnosis of a heart attack based simply on a blood test. Up To Date, an authoritative resource suggests that patients with a suspicion of having a heart attack have an electrocardiogram, undergo a brief medical history, have a physical examination and have blood drawn for biologic markers. The story suggests that this new blood test can be used alone to make the diagnosis or rule it out. Exaggerating the benefits of a test without placing it into the context provides the readers with a false impression of the test and its utility. Making decisions on the basis of a single blood test could lead to patient harm. There was no critical analysis of the quality of the evidence. The story didn’t even include the following limitations provided by the researchers in the journal article: Our study had several limitations. First, the final diagnosis of acute MI was based substantially on in-house troponin measurements, which might bias the biomarker evaluation toward troponin assays. Because both the index test and reference standard included a change in troponin levels over time, there is the potential for a type of incorporation bias, which may overestimate the measure of diagnostic accuracy of serial hsTnI levels. However, hsTnI appeared to facilitate identification of patients with non–ST-elevation ACS, a diagnosis independent of troponin values. Second, the number of patients with availability of biomarker values differed, which potentially could affect the results. Third, the proportion of patients with MI was rather high compared with that of other studies involving consecutive patients with chest pain, but the number is in line with different European cohorts.Still, this and the fact that only white European patients were enrolled might limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. There was no disease mongering. The story mentioned that the study was funded by two pharma companies but it did not include any of the individual disclosures included in the journal article itself. And, in terms of sourcing, while the story did include quotes from two independent physicians, neither of them directly addressed the quality of the evidence. One said “we can rule out heart attacks more quickly with the new test” but it wasn’t clear if she had used the test or if she was commenting on the data reported. So we don’t know why she was used as a source. The other spoke in only very general terms about the ultimate goal of such research and about the need for such a blood test – but nothing about the evidence itself. The only comparisons are very broad and lack substantiation with actual data. The study compared the existing test for troponin l and a more specific test and examined the data using different break points and time. Here’s the authors conclusions, “Among patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, hsTnl (the new test) or cTnl (the existing test) determination 3 hours after admission may facilitate early rule out of MI (heart attack). A serial change in hsTnl or cTnl levels form admission (using the 99th percentile cut off value) to 3 hours after admission may facilitate early diagnosis of AMI.”  The story conclusions don’t seem to match those of the authors. The availability of the new test is left as a mystery by this story. Is it experimental? Is it growing in use already? Is it in widespread use? We’re not told a thing about its availability or use. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one for trying to establish the relative novelty of this troponin I test but how it is novel or superior – as already outlined – is not adequately addressed. There’s no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.


Spanking kids can cause long-term harm: Canada study.

Explanation: Spanking children can cause long-term developmental damage and may even lower a child’s IQ, according to a new Canadian analysis that seeks to shift the ethical debate over corporal punishment into the medical sphere.

The study, published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, reached its conclusion after examining 20 years of published research on the issue. The authors say the medical finding have been largely overlooked and overshadowed by concerns that parents should have the right to determine how their children are disciplined. While spanking is certainly not as widespread as it was 20 years ago, many still cling to the practice and see prohibiting spanking as limiting the rights of parents. That point of view highlights the difficulty in changing hearts and minds on the issue, despite a mountain of accumulated evidence showing the damage physical punishment can have on a child, says Joan Durant, a professor at University of Manitoba and one of the authors of the study. “We’re really past the point of calling this a controversy. That’s a word that’s used and I don’t know why, because in the research there really is no controversy,” she said in an interview. “If we had this level of consistency in findings in any other area of health, we would be acting on it. We’d be pulling out all the stops to work on the issue.”   Durant and co-author Ron Ensom, with the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, cite research showing that physical punishment makes children more aggressive and antisocial, and can cause cognitive impairment and developmental difficulties. Recent studies suggest it may reduce the brain’s grey matter in areas relevant to intelligence testing. “What people have realized is that physical punishment doesn’t only predict aggression consistently, it also predicts internalizing kinds of difficulties, like depression and substance use,” said Durant. “There are no studies that show any long term positive outcomes from physical punishment.”   While banned in 32 countries, corporal punishment of children retains at least partial social acceptance in much of the world. Debates on the issue typically revolve around the ethics of using violence to enforce discipline. With the study, Durant hopes parents will start to look at the issue from a medical perspective. “What we’re hoping is that physicians will take that message and do more to counsel parents around this and to help them understand that physical punishment isn’t getting them where they want to go,” she said. She also hopes that countries that allow the practice - including Canada - will take another look at their child protection laws. Canada is one of more than 190 countries to have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 1989 treaty that sets out protections for children. The treaty - which has been ratified by all UN member states except for the United States, Somalia and South Sudan - includes a passage stating that countries must protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence”. “If we had two or three studies that showed that if you took 500 mg of vitamin C a day you could reduce cancer risk, we would all be taking 500 mg of vitamin C a day,” Durant said. “Here, we have more than 80 studies, I would say more than 100, that show the same thing (about corporal punishment), and yet we keep calling it controversial.”


Medicating Children With ADHD Keeps Them Safer

Explanation: This article reports on new findings that link medicating kids with ADHD to “safer” behaviors as they get older. The story clearly takes the viewpoint that this is the case, and yet we aren’t given enough evidence from the study itself–or other studies alluded to–to make this assessment for ourselves. Instead, we’re given partial “truth-isms” like this statement, which doesn’t really paint the full picture: “Accidents are the most common cause of death in individuals with ADHD.” What’s missing? That’s also true for kids who don’t have ADHD, with “unintentional injury” being the top cause of death among all U.S. kids–and young adults, too. If it were clear that this was an opinion piece designed to advance an argument, we’d be more forgiving of these shortcomings. But we found the piece in the general health section of the website (not with the opinion columns), and the headline reads like a straight news story. Readers may be confused — as we were — as to whether this is objective, balanced news or just a columnist’s attempt to persuade. The diagnosis of ADHD is common, the impact of the condition is significant and the medications used have potential for adverse effects. Controversy exists on the number of children treated, and the balance of harms/benefits–and news coverage and commentary that doesn’t acknowledge these nuances does a disservice to the concerned reader.

Costs of the drugs are not discussed, nor is whether they are generally covered by insurance, or how long kids would have to take them (for a few years? into adolescence? into adulthood?). The story provides some percentages but no absolute numbers. It says: The researchers found fewer and less severe injuries and health problems among the treated children: a 3.6% reduction in sexually transmitted infections; 5.8% fewer children who sought screening for sexually transmitted infections (suggesting they had had an unprotected sexual tryst); and 2% fewer teen pregnancies. That adds up to a lot fewer teenagers in trouble. The Princeton news release about the study provides actual numbers related to outcomes, including injuries, which is missing from the Wall Street Journal story even though the story makes a claim about injuries being less likely. In absolute numbers in a sample of about 14,000 teens diagnosed with ADHD, it translates into 512 fewer teens contracting an STD and 998 fewer having a substance abuse disorder. There also would be 6,122 fewer yearly injury cases for children and teens under 19 years old. We would have liked to have seen both types of statistics included in the story. There is no mention of harms in the story. The adverse effects of the drugs in question would be key information–do they outweigh the benefits put forth in this story? The story explains that the study is a retrospective review of data from Medicaid in one state. Readers need more details to ascertain how strong a conclusion can be made from this kind of data review. They should be told specifically that this kind of study can’t prove that medicating kids with ADHD “reduces risky behavior” nor “keeps them safer.” (This is an error also seen in the news release headline.) The piece makes a reference to one other study, saying “randomized, controlled studies—experiments carefully designed to establish cause-and-effect relationships—have reached the same conclusion: that medication to control ADHD can reduce the high price in psychic pain,” But the study that is linked to is not a randomized, controlled study. It, like the study in question, is a retrospective review of health records. Again, these don’t prove cause and effect. There is no disease mongering in the story. We do note, though, that there seems to be a general assumption with the piece that ADHD is a significant problem that must be treated with medication. There is considerable debate on this point, here’s just one example. And the news release discusses this as well, noting: “Evidence [for long-term benefits of medicating kids with ADHD] so far points to positive effects on some outcomes but not others.” There are no independent sources in the piece, which straddles the line between commentary and news. We found it in the health section where it wasn’t labeled as opinion and the headline reads like a straight news story. But some first-person passages make one wonder if it’s more of an opinion piece. Regardless, we would have liked to have seen at least some references to work outside of this one study, since the claim being made is significant, while the evidence being given for the claim is less so. We want to know: What kind of evidence is required before pediatricians can feel confident saying “treating ADHD will not only take care of immediate behaviors, it will create safer behavior as your child grows?” There is no mention of alternatives in the piece, but there are several. It is clear in the story that the drugs in question are available for prescription. However, the U.S.’s complex behavioral health system and prescription drug payment policies makes obtaining them difficult for many, and the story would have served readers better if it discussed this barrier to access. The piece does not establish the novelty of the findings. Again, this was something better handled by the news release, which states “While previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of medications in treating the core symptoms of ADHD, little has been known about the effects of treatment on health, behavioral and educational outcomes in the long run. Evidence so far points to positive effects on some outcomes but not others.” The story does not rely on the news release.


“On February 7, the WHO warned about the limited stock of PPE. That same day, the Trump administration announced it was sending 18 tons of masks, gowns and respirators to China.”

Explanation: The State Department announced Feb. 7 that it had “facilitated the transportation of nearly 17.8 tons of donated medical supplies to the Chinese people.”   The same day, the WHO director general said, “There is limited stock of (personal protective equipment) and we need to make sure we get it to the people who need it most in the places that need it most,” citing health care workers and caretakers. A State Department spokesperson told us efforts aimed at responding to the threat of the coronavirus overseas also help mitigate the spread in the U.S.

National, China, Health Care, Public Health, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

National shortages of masks, gowns and other personal protective equipment have exacerbated concerns that U.S. doctors and nurses are not getting the supplies needed to help COVID-19 patients. The surging demand for masks led President Donald Trump to charge, without evidence, that the equipment earmarked for New York’s hospitals has been "going out the back door." But some people are pointing the blame back at Trump, who downplayed the threat of the virus early on despite warnings from experts about the health care system’s readiness. One claim we’ve heard from politicians, TV commentators and social media users is that the U.S. gave away medical supplies that are now sorely needed at home. "On February 7, the (World Health Organization) warned about the limited stock of PPE," said a March 31 Facebook post, using an acronym for personal protective equipment. "That same day, the Trump administration announced it was sending 18 tons of masks, gowns and respirators to China. Now our health care workers are dying because of no PPE." The post from Blue Dem Warriors was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat potential false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In this case, the information is largely accurate. The State Department announced on Feb. 7 that it had "facilitated the transportation of nearly 17.8 tons of donated medical supplies to the Chinese people, including masks, gowns, gauze, respirators, and other vital materials." The Facebook post cited as its source of information a CNN editorial criticizing the shipment. The move came more than two weeks after the first U.S. coronavirus case was detected in Washington state on Jan. 21. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted Feb. 7 that the delivery would "help save lives" in China, which had reported more than 31,000 cases by then. We have coordinated with U.S. organizations to transport more humanitarian relief to people in Wuhan. Personal protective equipment and other medical supplies donated by these organizations can help save lives in #China and help protect people from the #coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/57SN2TXfLP Pompeo touted the assistance again in remarks to reporters on March 31, saying it was an example of American generosity and part of an effort to keep the virus contained to China. The materials sent to China, Pompeo said, were donated by Samaritan’s Purse, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other private organizations. Boeing and Intermountain Healthcare were also involved, according to a Feb. 15 State Department press release. On Feb. 7, the State Department also pledged to commit up to $100 million in existing funds to assist China and other countries. A State Department spokesperson told us the $100 million promise has been fulfilled with funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.S. aid to date also includes about $110 million in humanitarian assistance for up to 64 different countries and roughly $64 million in refugee-related assistance for the United Nations. The spokesperson told us the security and health of Americans comes first, but that "the spread of COVID-19 is a threat to our shared international security" and that efforts aimed at responding to the virus abroad are also meant to help mitigate the spread in the U.S. We won’t weigh in on whether the distribution of donated protective equipment to China was the right move. But the Facebook post is correct that the U.S. announced the delivery in February. Other fact-checkers said the same about a similar claim from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. The Facebook post also notes that the timing of the China shipment coincided with a press conference in which the World Health Organization sounded the alarm about a "limited stock" of personal protective equipment. That’s accurate. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned on Feb. 7 of a potential supply shortage across the globe and especially in China. The warning was for the world, not the U.S. in particular. "The world is facing severe disruption in the market for personal protective equipment," Ghebreyesus said. "Demand is up to 100 times higher than normal and prices are up to 20 times higher." Ghebreyesus said the situation was made worse by people outside of patient care using masks, for example. He said health workers and caretakers should be first to receive items from the limited stock, and that health workers in China needed "the bulk of PPE supplies." "WHO discourages stockpiling of (personal protective equipment) in countries and areas where transmission is low," he said. The Facebook post closes by saying "our health care workers are dying because of no PPE." News reports indicate that some health workers — who are at an increased risk of exposure — are among the more than 200,000 infected Americans and over 4,500 who have died. Doctors and nurses have made shortages known and are tweeting the hashtag #GetMePPE. Some medical supplies are now coming into the U.S. from abroad. The White House arranged for the transport of tons of equipment from China, and the New England Patriots recently lent its team plane to pick up 1.2 million N95 masks from China for Massachusetts’ health workers. We asked the State Department whether any of the donated materials sent to China in February made their way back to the U.S., and whether the donations would have gone straight to U.S. hospitals had they not been shipped overseas. We didn’t get answers to those questions. A Facebook post said: "On February 7, the WHO warned about the limited stock of PPE. That same day, the Trump administration announced it was sending 18 tons of masks, gowns and respirators to China." The State Department announced the delivery of nearly 18 tons of donated materials on Feb. 7, the same day that the WHO sounded the alarm about the world’s supply of personal protective equipment. The donated materials came from private groups.


Bats are pictured on the reverse of a U.S. quarter issued in 2020, an indicator that COVID-19 is connected to a government plot.

Explanation: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison issued a rare public apology on Friday and cut short a Hawaiian vacation in response to mounting public anger after two volunteer firefighters were killed battling bushfires sweeping the country’s east coast.

Some areas of Sydney are set for “catastrophic” conditions on Saturday, and the deadly fires are now engulfing other parts of the country. One person was killed in a car crash on Friday near South Australia’s capital city of Adelaide where an emergency warning is in place, though the precise circumstances surrounding the death is not yet clear. Australia has been fighting wildfires across three states for weeks, with blazes destroying more than 700 homes and nearly 3 million acres (1.2 million hectares) of bushland. The death of the two firefighters overnight when their fire truck was struck by a falling tree as it traveled through the front line of a fire brought the fires death toll in New South Wales to eight since the start of October. Ten more firefighters were seriously injured on Thursday, with four in South Australia being treated for burns and smoke inhalation. “The worst imaginable set of circumstances unfolded,” New South Wales (NSW) Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons told reporters in Sydney. “This hurts everybody to the core.”  Shortly after the pair’s deaths were announced, Morrison issued a statement saying he would return as soon as possible from a family holiday in Hawaii, a trip that has drawn sharp criticism in recent days as the wildfires crisis deepened. “I deeply regret any offence caused to any of the many Australians affected by the terrible bushfires by my taking leave with family at this time,” Morrison said in the statement. Morrison later told 2GB radio that the trip had been planned as a surprise to his young daughters to replace leave originally scheduled for January that he had canceled because of official trips to Japan and India. His return comes as firefighters prepare for “catastrophic” fire danger - the most severe level - in NSW on Saturday as searing heat and high winds are forecast, leading officials to urge people to evacuate their homes early if they live close to bushland. “It is a fairly strong likelihood that we will lose homes tomorrow, it would be a miracle if we don’t,” RFS Deputy Commissioner Rob Rogers told reporters in Sydney. There are more than 200 fires burning across Australia - 70 of which are classified as uncontrolled, mostly in NSW. In South Australia, more than 120 blazes have broken out in catastrophic conditions. Bracing for more potential fatalities, authorities said an emergency fire in Lameroo, 210 km (130.5 miles) east of Adelaide may pose a threat to lives directly in its path and urged residents to flee now. Morrison’s conservative Liberal-National coalition government has been under sustained pressure to defend its climate change policies as it has downplayed links to the unprecedented early arrival and severity of this year’s bushfire season. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Morrison’s Sydney residence on Thursday. One protestor, wearing an Hawaiian shirt, carried a sign reading, “ScoMo, where the bloody hell are you?” referencing the leader’s nickname and a well-known international advertisement for Tourism Australia. Australia is one of the world’s largest carbon emitters per capita because of its reliance on coal-fired power plants. It has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 26% from 2005 levels by 2030, but critics accuse Morrison of paying lip service to that commitment. In June, the government approved the construction of a new coal mine in Queensland state by India’s Adani Enterprises that is expected to produce 8 million to 10 million tonnes of thermal coal a year. As Morrison was apologizing on radio on Friday morning, opposition Labor Party leader Anthony Albanese was serving breakfast to firefighters near the front line of a fire in rural Bilpin. The fires have resulted in days of heavy pollution in Sydney, pushing air quality to unprecedented hazardous levels and resulting in viral images of heavy smoke haze over the usually sparkling harbor and landmarks like the Opera House. The fires are being spurred this week, by record temperatures across the country which led NSW, the most populous state with 7 million people, to declare a seven-day state of emergency. Thursday’s declaration gave firefighters broad powers to control government resources, force evacuations, close roads and shut down utilities. Days out from Christmas, a time when many Australians head to the coast for the holidays, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian urged people to reconsider travel plans. “What is most important for us is that everyone is safe and if that means changing your plans for Christmas, we ask you do to that,” Berejiklian told reporters in Sydney. (GRAPHIC: Forests in flames: Images from space show Australia's bushfires in different light - here)


Study: Fatty acids can help ease PMS symptoms

Explanation: The story didn’t even report which symptoms improved, or even a list of what was being measured. There are so many symptoms associated with PMS — ranging from physical to behavioral — that it’s important to know which symptoms they are talking about. Studies of PMS are notorious for showing a strong placebo effect, but we can’t tell whether taking the supplement adds much benefit. There was also no discussion of cost and no independent expert perspective. Consumers spend millions of dollars on supplements, and these supplements are not well regulated. Any story about benefits runs the risk of sending people to their wallets, and they should be particularly cautious. Pre-menstrual syndrome, which is the butt of many jokes, is a severe problem for a small minority of women and can cause cyclic symptoms: bloating, fatigue, mood swings and headache. While only a minority has severe symptoms, many women have some of these. Journalists have an additional responsibility to provide context and caution when they report on claims of benefit from an unregulated substance for a huge population.

The story does not mention costs of the supplements. As we’ve reported, about 70% of the stories we reviewed don’t discuss costs. It’s a bad trend, easily corrected, and takes only another few words in a story. The story doesn’t tell us which symptoms improved, or even a list of what was being measured. There are so many symptoms associated with PMS — ranging from physical to behavioral — that it’s important to know which symptoms they are talking about. Studies of PMS are notorious for showing a strong placebo effect, but we can’t tell whether taking the supplement adds much benefit. The story mentions there were few side effects and mostly “mild.” But what were they? And what does “mild” mean? After all, PMS has a range of symptoms as well. So did this story really help women think about the tradeoffs? Nonetheless, since the story at least mentioned harms, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt – barely. The writer didn’t evaluate the quality of the evidence and didn’t include any independent expert voice doing so either. Single source science stories aren’t healthy. It’s more like stenography than journalism. The story does not exaggerate symptoms of PMS. As stated above, this story needed some independent expert comment. There were also no statements made about conflicts of interest. Since the market for PMS is so big, it would have been helpful to know if these scientists had any vested interest in the results. The story only gave half of the picture of alternative approaches; it mentions other supplements that have been studied for PMS, but fails to note that there are also prescription medications for PMS such as SSRIs. The story described the availability of essential fatty acids in diet and in supplement form. The idea of using supplements for PMS is not new, and the authors mention past research on the same topic. The story shows no sign of original reporting and may have relied largely on a release. But since we didn’t find a news release, we’ll rule this Not Applicable.


NFL suspends Patriots’ Gordon for substance abuse violation.

Explanation: Patriots receiver Josh Gordon was suspended indefinitely Thursday by the NFL for violating an agreement that allowed him to play after multiple drug suspensions, casting doubt on whether the talented but troubled playmaker would ever play in the league again.

Josh Gordon, Health, NFL, North America, Sports, Football

League officials said Thursday that Gordon was returned to the reserve/commissioner suspended list indefinitely for breaking the terms of his reinstatement under the NFL substance abuse policy. The news came several hours after Gordon said he was stepping away from football to focus on his mental health. Gordon said on Twitter his decision was spurred by his own feelings that he could have a better grasp on things mentally. He thanked the Patriots for their support and vowed to work his way back. “We support Josh Gordon in his continued efforts to focus on his health. His attempt to do so is a private and personal matter, which we intend to respect,” Patriots team officials said. Gordon has been suspended several times by the NFL for violations of its drug policies since being drafted by the Browns in 2012, and missed the entire 2015 and 2016 seasons. After being reinstated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in 2017, Gordon revealed in an interview with GQ magazine that he drank or used marijuana before games. “Probably every game of my career,” he said. Gordon also said in a 2017 mini-documentary on Uninterreupted.com that he took Xanax, cocaine, marijuana and other narcotics. Gordon’s outlook had improved with New England, where he landed in September in a trade after the Browns felt it was time to cut ties. He had 40 receptions for 720 yards and three touchdowns with the Patriots, five years removed from an All-Pro season in 2013 with 87 catches for 1,646 yards and nine touchdowns. Special teams captain and receiver Matt Slater said despite his suspension, Gordon still has support inside the Patriots locker room. “My No. 1 concern is with him as a man,” Slater said. “I’m thankful for the approach he took here, how he was as a teammate. I enjoyed getting to know him in that process and I’ll continue to support him in any way I can.” Safety Devin McCourty said the 27-year-old’s well-being is his biggest concern, not football. “Life comes before all of that,” McCourty said. “I think we wish him the best and care about that more than wins or losses.” New England officials had insulated Gordon and focused him on getting acclimated to the team’s highly-disciplined culture, while also limiting his time with reporters. Coach Bill Belichick said last week that Gordon was thriving on the field, developing chemistry with quarterback Tom Brady and learning the offensive system. “He’s a smart kid, so he learns well,” Belichick said. “For better or worse, he’s been in a lot of different systems. I know it was only one team, but it was a lot of different systems up there. Most everything we’ve asked him to do he’s done somewhere along the line for somebody. “As we go through each week, I would say we’ve gained a little more ground on the overall knowledge of the system,” he said. Gordon said earlier this month he thought he was settling in well with New England. “It felt like home a long time ago,” Gordon said. “The atmosphere is very welcoming. It took me a little bit to get acclimated to the area. Other than that, it’s been pretty smooth so far, and that’s due in part to the facility, the organization, just everybody helping me along the way.” ___ More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL


Broccoli May Slow or Reverse Some Atherosclerosis

Explanation: This story takes a look at a small study investigating the positive effects of a natural compound called sulforaphane–found in cruciferous vegetables including broccoli–on cholesterol levels, inflammation and blood vessel health in rabbits. Unfortunately, the story implies that the compound–and more specifically broccoli consumption–may be beneficial for humans for the same reasons. That’s a big, unproven leap: Basic research in 15 rabbits is a long way from the kinds of data needed to nail down the value of this compound for people. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, and anything that has been proven to lower the risk of atherosclerosis in people deserves coverage in national news outlets. But this level of research doesn’t meet that bar, and stories about this study could mislead people into thinking they merely need to eat more broccoli to reverse or prevent heart disease.

The rabbits were given a supplement. Is this supplement available and if so, what does it cost? We’re not told. The story provided comparative quantified specifics on the benefits of sulforaphane in the three groups of rabbits, in the form of percentage decrease in lipid levels. We’ll call that good enough for a Satisfactory rating, although ideally we’d like to see some discussion of what the results might mean for cardiovascular risk in a human. We’ll address that deficiency below under the Evidence criterion. At first glance, it’s hard to imagine there are any dangers: Chemicals in broccoli are harmless, right? But as revealed by this very study–that sulforaphane has the capacity to significantly change blood lab levels–these chemicals can work like medication. That means they also may carry harms, too. In this case, specifically, it’s for people taking the blood thinner Coumadin (warfarin), who must be very careful when eating broccoli and other vegetables rich in Vitamin K. The story does a good job of describing the experiment, which was conducted on 15 rabbits, and it also offers a helpful link to the research article itself. But it makes little effort to help the reader leap the chasm between rabbits and human beings–a problem exacerbated by the headline, which invites application of the results of this small, basic study to people. The only cautionary note in the story occurs at the very end, when the author inserts a “caveat” warning readers that clinical studies in people have not yet been undertaken. It would have been more useful to warn that these findings might not have any application to humans at all. And although this appears to be a randomized clinical trial, the story doesn’t explain if there was blinding of the researchers who were examining the rabbits’ blood vessels. This is important because a lack of blinding could affect the results of observations. See a more detailed explanation for why this and other study details matter. Given the ubiquity of heart disease in the American populace, anything that reduces atherosclerosis should be of keen interest. The danger with this piece is the hyping of early animal research, implying the findings are for readers to act upon now. This story included no quotes from the researchers or outside sources–both could have provided important context and caveats about this kind of early-stage animal research, and the emerging results of this chemical, which also made recent headlines in cancer research, making us curious about why this study, now. As for conflicts of interest, the article didn’t mention any, and because the study coauthors declare none, we will assume that to be the case. There is no discussion of alternate strategies for minimizing either the accumulation of arterial plaques specifically or heart disease generally. The article offers no information on availability of the supplement, nor does it reflect on the type of intervention that might make sense to people (i.e., eat lots of cruciferous veggies, take sulforaphane supplements). The basic nature of the research likely makes all of that premature, but that then raises the question of why a media outlet would publicize research at such an early stage. And this is an important question to ask, because it’s not hard to envision that based on this story alone, companies that make supplements (which are held to a much lower standard of efficacy compared to medication classified as drugs) could start marketing this supplement, and use this single study and news story to back up its usefulness. The text asserts that this study of sulforaphane’s effects on atherosclerosis is the first to examine that link. We could not locate a news release related to this research article, although it seems implausible that WSJ reporters are scouring obscure research journals such as this one for story ideas. But while we have no evidence that the story relied excessively on any news release, we’re hesitant to give credit because there’s no evidence of original reporting. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.


New adult behavioral health unit opens in northern Arkansas.

Explanation: The discussion of “mental health” seems to be a regular topic in the news these days.

Mountain Home, Mental health, Health, Arkansas, Jack Nicholson

It seems to come up regularly following an incident where an alleged lone shooter brings a weapon to their workplace, or in a more positive light, such as when a celebrity breaks their silence to discuss the personal medical struggles they have undergone. Author Ken Kesey wrote “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” in 1962, and the movie starring Jack Nicholson in 1975 is what people still most often think about when they discuss mental facilities — a white, sterile, institution where people are locked up. While it’s true that the U.S. is struggling overall to keep up with the growing need for in-patient facilities across the country, Baxter Regional Medical Center recently opened its own 16-bed adult behavioral health center to meet the needs of the community. According to Jodi Leeker, program director at BRMC, the Hensley Senior Behavior Health Center at BRMC has been around for years, serving members of the 55 and older population, but there hadn’t been any local options for those 18 to 54. A licensed clinical social worker, Leeker has seen the need grow in the 18 years she has been with BRMC. “We had been watching the patients come through our emergency room and saw that there was a need,” Leeker said. Like any other organ in the body, the brain can get sick and that anyone can find themselves in need of help from time to time. “We serve our neighbors, friends, family members,” Leeker said. “Mental health touches everyone; mental health doesn’t discriminate. Anyone can face a crisis.” Before the unit opened on April 4, young adults facing a crisis such as intense depression, anxiety, a bipolar episode, or suicidal thoughts had no other option than go to facilities in Batesville, Little Rock, Fayetteville or West Plains, Missouri. “It’s been frustrating when a patient is in crisis to send them three hours away from their local support system to get help,” Leeker said. Patients will go through medication management, and have opportunities for individual, group and family therapy when appropriate. Other programs are offered to individuals so they learn healthy coping skills so they can regain stability. Nursing Director Crystal Brightwell has been busy interviewing, hiring and training staff to prepare them to serve a younger population, the Baxter Bulletin reported . Brightwell said the average patient will stay in the state-of-the-art unit for three to five days and most insurance plans are accepted. During their stay, patients will have access to primary-care physicians, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses and social workers that will address both medical and mental issues and help the individual get back on track. Dr. Tom Foster serves at the unit’s medical director and the behavioral clinical psychiatrist. He has been with BMRC for more than four years and has been with the Hensley Senior Behavior Health Center in that time. Dr. Daniel Goodwin serves as the medical physician. The unit, located on the third floor of BRMC, has a calming color scheme and layout of a high-end day spa. The whole floor was designed with health and safety in mind, from the individual rooms with artist-painted affirmations on the walls, to the rounded corners on the walls and window frames. Like other patients in BRMC, those in the adult behavioral health center have a menu to select their meals from and nicely appointed day room where they can stretch out on recliners, watch television and relax. From the time an individual is admitted, either through a referral, self-admission, or mandatory hold through the emergency room, the staff works to put together a discharge plan for them. Leeker said the staff will set up out-patient therapy and follow ups with the patient’s primary care physician if needed. ___ Information from: The Baxter Bulletin, http://www.baxterbulletin.com


California lawmakers want to repeal HIV criminalization laws.

Explanation: Exposing a person to HIV is treated more seriously under California law than infecting someone with any other communicable disease, a policy some lawmakers say is a relic of the decades-old AIDS scare that unfairly punishes HIV-positive people based on outdated science.

U.S. News, San Francisco, Scott Wiener, Health, California, Bills

Several lawmakers are promoting a bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that would make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV, the virus that causes the immune system-weakening disease AIDS. The change would treat HIV like other communicable diseases under California law. Under current law, if a person who knows they are infected with HIV has unprotected sex without telling their partner they have the virus, they can be convicted of a felony and face years of jail time. Intentional transmission of any other communicable disease, even a potentially deadly condition like hepatitis, is a misdemeanor. “These laws were passed at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic when there was enormous fear and ignorance and misinformation around HIV,” Wiener said. “It’s time for California to lead and to repeal these laws to send a clear signal that we are going to take a science-based approach to HIV not a fear-based approach.” Wiener’s bill, SB239, would also repeal California laws that require people convicted of prostitution for the first time to be tested for AIDS and that increase penalties for prostitution if the sex worker tested positive for AIDS in connection with a previous conviction. The original laws were passed during the 1980s and 1990s based on incomplete and outdated science, said Dr. Edward Machtinger, director of the Women’s HIV Program at the University of California, San Francisco. Transmission rates are much lower than people believed when the laws were enacted. Modern treatment dramatically reduces the effects of the virus and chances for transmission, he said. Although modern treatments are highly effective, the current laws deter people from getting tested for HIV and seeking treatment, Wiener said. Between 1988 and 2014, at least 800 people were arrested, charged or otherwise came into contact with the criminal justice system related to their HIV status, according to a study conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study found “HIV criminalization” laws disproportionately affected women and people of color.


More (people) die from indoor air pollution than from malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB combined.

Global News Service, Energy, Public Health, James Rockall,

Emphasizing the need to bring clean fuel to the world’s poor, James Rockall, CEO of the World LPG Association, recently said that "more (people) die of indoor air pollution than malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis combined." Rockall’s statement showed up in a tweet from Stanford Energy, a research group at Stanford University, after he spoke there May 9. Rockall confirmed that he did make this claim, and we decided to check it out. Public health researchers have known for some time that in many poorer nations, fumes from dirty cooking stoves pose a health threat. Rockall’s group represents the interests of the liquified petroleum gas industry, but that self-interest aside, there’s no question that gas burns more cleanly than wood or coal. Rockall told us he got his numbers from the World Health Organization. He took a 2016 report on deaths from indoor air pollution and compared that to 2015 estimates of death from HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The indoor air pollution deaths, however, were based on 2012 data. To keep the comparison fair, we looked at 2012 mortality estimates for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. We consulted three different sources -- UNAIDS, WHO and the Global Burden of Disease Study -- and used the highest available estimate. Here’s what the numbers show:  Deaths in 2012 HIV/AIDS 1.6 million Malaria 0.8 million TB 1.3  million Total 3.7  million Indoor air pollution total 4.2  million As you can see, the total mortality from the three diseases comes to 3.7 million in 2012, less than the 4.2 million people estimated to have died from diseases attributable to indoor air pollution. Rockall used different underlying estimates to reach a total of 2.9 million deaths due to the three diseases. Our total is higher, but we found no estimates from any source that undercut his basic point. Deaths from indoor air pollution are higher than the sum of deaths from the world’s major leading infectious diseases. Counting deaths from indoor air pollution is more complicated than tracking deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Mark Wilson, professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, said it is easier to identify someone who has HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. "Much more difficult is defining how one dies from indoor air pollution because it will never be the sole immediate cause of death," Wilson said. "Rather, a variety of physiological, immunological and toxicological processes would compromise someone’s health, such that the cause might be defined as some sort of respiratory insufficiency, asthma, heart disease, etcetera." The WHO study made various assumptions to link diseases such as lung cancer, pneumonia, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease to indoor air pollution. Rockall said more people die of indoor air pollution than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. We compared 2012 estimates of indoor air pollution deaths to a range of estimates for the three infectious diseases for 2012 and later. No matter how we did it, the deaths due to indoor air pollution trumped those due to HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. But an epidemiologist offered the caveat that the indoor air pollution study relied on assumptions that introduce a greater chance of uncertainty than counts of deaths from the leading infectious diseases. For that reason.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is ordering that all deaths no matter the cause be counted as COVID-19 deaths via a new ICD code.

Explanation: Did the CDC Order All Deaths Be Recorded as a Result of COVID-19 — Even Heart Attacks and Accidents?

In April 2020, a conspiracy theory spread on Facebook and Twitter which maintained that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explicitly ordered that all deaths in the United States, regardless of their true cause, be attributed to the novel coronavirus or COVID-19:Covid-19 tests are giving an 80 percent false positive rate. they also are counting deaths that have nothing to do with covid-19 in the death toll which means the numbers the media are giving us are completely false.— Reese (@ReeseModeTv) April 11, 2020CDC is skewing the death number counting all deaths as Covid-19 counting a man hit by bus and heart attack victim as covid-19 deaths— Tim (@timber036) April 6, 2020The CDC sends out a Bulletin to all Hospitals and Coroners telling them the NEW WAY to fill out a DEATH CERTIFICATE pertaining to a person who POSSIBLY died of COVID-19…but not the main cause…SO EVERYBODY WHO DIES…DIES OF COVID-19! pic.twitter.com/SsLWDDvWco— Scott C'one (@HardcoreTruther) April 13, 2020Recommended from the CDC to report all deaths as Covid19…money is given to change the cause of death…https://t.co/28Ldn6VB1K— Kkriewer (@kkriewer) April 14, 2020I was wrong. Straight from the CDC website. A confirmed test isn't even necessary to add COVID-19 as the cause of death on the death certificate. "Assumed" is all that is required. So assuming is okay for a virus we now little about. Inflating numbers confirmed. pic.twitter.com/Mfrf4WTL2U— Rhonda Banks (@blackie325) April 12, 2020Variations on the rumor also appeared on Reddit:CDC Guidelines Allow Deaths to Be Attributed to COVID-19, Even If They Weren’t – Liberty Headlines from ConservativeThe CDC Confesses to Lying About COVID-19 Death Numbers: The normal rules about reporting deaths have been violated by that city [NY] in the rush to inflate the body count, presumably to steer more taxpayer money to the Big Apple. from conspiracyOccasionally, the posts linked to blog posts about the rumors, writings which invariably attributed the CDC’s purported manipulation of the COVID-19 death toll (measured globally) to a conspiracy aimed at purposely destroying the American economy:Although, an emerging body of evidence suggest shutting down an entire nation may not be a good idea after all to combat such a virus. As Ariel Pablos-Mendez, M.D., MPH a professor of Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, New York and former head of global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) explains:At the end of the day, super-spreader COVID-19 is likely to infect a majority of the population, no matter how far apart we stay from one another in the coming weeks. The good news is that once immune, most people can go back to work. Our containment efforts must focus on the most vulnerable: the elderly and patients with underlying cardiopulmonary diseases.We need to flatten the curve for the elderly but accelerate herd immunity for the healthy so that we don’t kill the economy trying to outrun the pandemic in lockdown. While home isolation for one month might stop an outbreak, it merely sets the clock back as the virus may return if it is not globally defeated.As indicated above, COVID-19 spread globally — any assumptions that its reporting solely affected the United States conveniently elided its effects in other countries. Another subset of theories maintained that the purported inflation of COVID-19 death rates was a cash grab, in which hard-hit states like New York boosted the number of COVID-19 deaths to tap into lucrative federal assistance.Those conspiracy theories were not consistent or congruent. Some claimed that the CDC or other entities would somehow profit more from a higher COVID-19 count of deaths; primarily, the claims were presented as proof that public health officials were gaming the statistics to somehow cause political harm to the sitting United States president.Both linked posts appeared to be aggregations of a piece originally posted by the site GreatGameIndia.com from April 10 2020, itself predicated on a YouTube video uploaded by LibertyFellowshipMT four days earlier. The video featured a woman who identified herself as “Dr. Annie Bukacek,” who began by addressing the “alleged death rate of COVID-19.” (Bukacek was described as “no stranger to controversy” in a 2009 Rewire.News item about how she was investigated on multiple counts of Medicaid fraud in Montana; she also allegedly insisted that her patients pray with her. )Bukacek then referenced answers to her own Facebook post, which queried people about their experiences with COVID-19. Bukacek derided the comments as anecdotal, and immediately thereafter put forth positions based only on anecdotes:A Montana based physician Dr. Annie Bukacek has blown the whistle on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is exaggerating the COVID-19 death toll by manipulating #Coronavirus death certificates.https://t.co/YBJFNtFWgf— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) April 10, 2020She began a speech peppered with emphasis on “quotes” and “end quotes”:I posted the following question on Facebook yesterday: “Know anybody personally with baseline good health who has been hospitalized for COVID-19 alone, or allegedly died from COVID-19?”I asked the question this way because if you know someone personally, you may know their baseline health status and some details of the case, and [testing positive] for COVID-19 does not mean you have the disease. Even asking the question this specifically, I still got some people saying their spouse knows a friend of a friend of a nephew in New York, and some who answered “yes” but didn’t give the details, even though I asked them, “could you please submit some more details?”I got over 350 comments and received dozens of “no” answers, if not scores. Last I counted, there were 3 or 4 who answered “yes” and said their case fit the criteria, and they gave me some details. But even those 3 or 4, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were answering honestly to the best of their knowledge, does that mean that the person they described was actually stricken with COVID-19?Bukacek subsequently maintained that her experience with death certificates informed her position that COVID-19 was being overstated as a cause of death:Few people know how much individual power and leeway is given to the physician, coroner, or medical examiner signing the death certificate. How do I know this? I’ve been filling out death certificates for over 30 years.More often than we want to admit, we don’t know with certainty the cause of death when we fill out death certificates … that is just life. We are doctors, not God. Autopsies are rarely performed — and even when an autopsy is done the actual cause of death is not always clear. Physicians make their best guesstimate and fill out the form. Then that listed cause of death is entered into a vital records data bank to use for statistical analysis, which then gives out inaccurate numbers — as you can imagine. Those inaccurate numbers then become accepted as factual information, even though much of it is false.So even before we heard of COVID-19, death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses that go unquestioned. When it comes to COVID-19 there is the additional data skewer, that is … get this … there is no universal definition of a COVID-19 death. The Centers for Disease Control, updated from yesterday, April 4th [2020], still states that mortality quote unquote data includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19. That’s from their website.Translation? The CDC counts both true COVID-19 cases and speculative guesses of COVID-19 the same. They call it death by COVID-19. They automatically overestimate the real death numbers, by their own admission.On the subject of COVID-19 as a cause of death, Bukacek claimed:To drive this home, we need to understand how the CDC – a national vital statistics system – are instructing physicians to fill out death certificates related to COVID-19. Brace yourselves and please pay attention, and let what I am about to tell you sink in.The assumption of COVID-19 death could be made even without testing. Based on assumption alone, the death can be reported to the public as another COVID-19 casualty. The March 24th 2020 National Vital Statistics System Memo states:“The rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”The CDC report of cases in the US memo from yesterday states the death numbers are “preliminary, and have not been confirmed.” That’s from the CDC website.Here’s a quote even more laden with meaning. Steven Schwartz, national director of the Division of Vital Statistics says an answer to the question as stated in the organization’s COVID-19 alert, “Should COVID-19 be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?”Check out his answer, and I quote from this memo of which I have a copy:“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.”I’m sure you all feel so reassured the government is asking doctors to provide their very best guess work. Not.Fact: “COVID-19 caused death” end of quote, and “assumed death by COVID-19″ end of quote are not the same thing, and for those who died from something else and had an incidental finding of COVID-19 positivity dying with COVID-19 is not the same as dying from COVID-19.Bukacek referenced at least two documents in her talk — one of which was a March 24 2020 memo about COVID-19 mortality issued by the National Vital Statistics System [NVSS, PDF] and titled, “New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths.” That reference, emphasis ours, appears above.This is the actual text of that memo, with the questions underlined for clearer reading. That memo specifically described an introduction to a new ICD (International Classification of Diseases) code for COVID-19 deaths on death certificates.New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths This email is to alert you that a newly-introduced ICD code has been implemented to accurately capture mortality data for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on death certificates.Please read carefully and forward this email to the state statistical staff in your office who are involved in the preparation of mortality data, as well as others who may receive questions when the data are released.What is the new code? The new ICD code for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is U07.1, and below is how it will appear in formal tabular list format. U07.1 COVID-19 Excludes: Coronavirus infection, unspecified site (B34.2) Severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], unspecified (U04.9)The WHO has provided a second code, U07.2, for clinical or epidemiological diagnosis of COVID-19 where a laboratory confirmation is inconclusive or not available. Because laboratory test results are not typically reported on death certificates in the U.S., NCHS is not planning to implement U07.2 for mortality statistics.When will it be implemented? Immediately.Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause? The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than not.What happens if certifiers report terms other than the suggested terms? If a death certificate reports coronavirus without identifying a specific strain or explicitly specifying that it is not COVID-19, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify whether or not the coronavirus was COVID-19. As long as the phrase used indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, NCHS expects to assign the new code. However, it is preferable and more straightforward for certifiers to use the standard terminology (COVID-19).What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty? If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases. If “pending COVID-19 testing” is reported on the death certificate, this would be considered a pending record. In this scenario, NCHS would expect to receive an updated record, since the code will likely result in R99. In this case, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify if test results confirmed that the decedent had COVID19.Do I need to make any changes at the jurisdictional level to accommodate the new ICD code? Not necessarily, but you will want to confirm that your systems and programs do not behave as if U07.1 is an unknown code.Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)The memo was issued specifically to personnel working with ICD codes, an area of medical administration with which the public at large has little familiarity. In other words, in the hands of laymen, the ICD direction was removed from its typical context — medical administration.For instance, the question “What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?” contained instructions about codes likely resulting in “an R99.” “An R99” is unspecified or unknown cause of death, highly relevant information in the context of the claim. That answer explained:If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases. If “pending COVID-19 testing” is reported on the death certificate, this would be considered a pending record. In this scenario, NCHS would expect to receive an updated record, since the code will likely result in R99. In this case, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify if test results confirmed that the decedent had COVID19.In the very same memo that Bukacek claimed created a new medical code to classify all deaths as COVID-19 based on guesses and rough estimates, NVSS indicated the use of specific codes would cause requests for states to “verify if test results confirmed that the decedent [was diagnosed with] COVID-19.”That specificity versus ambiguity was again addressed in the memo’s final piece of guidance: “If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.”Bukacek pivoted to a purported quote from Division of Vital Statistics National Director Steven Schwartz:Here’s a quote even more laden with meaning. Steven Schwartz, national director of the Division of Vital Statistics says an answer to the question as stated in the organization’s COVID-19 alert, “Should COVID-19 be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?”Check out his answer, and I quote from this memo of which I have a copy:“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.”That excerpt was from the memo reproduced above, just above a footer with Schwartz’s contact information. It wasn’t as if those answers were being widely and separately disseminated, and in its proper context, Schwartz was clearly addressing an effort to ensure all contributing cases of COVID-19 were captured as the new ICD code was introduced.Bukacek, as quoted above, referenced additional unspecified information that she claimed appeared on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website on April 4 2020:When it comes to COVID-19 there is the additional data skewer, that is … get this … there is no universal definition of a COVID-19 death. The Centers for Disease Control, updated from yesterday, April 4th [2020], still states that mortality quote unquote data includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19. That’s from their website.Without further clarification, it was impossible to say for sure where Bukacek found the quote, and therefore impossible to verify its context. A likely source, however, was a regularly-updated page (“Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease [COVID-19. ]”) We found a copy of the page archived on April 5 2020 which possibly served as the source for that claim.Both pages, as of April 14 2020, began with an explanation of how COVID-19 deaths were tabulated, and explained why lags in data affected those figures:The provisional counts for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths are based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia that have been received and coded as of the date specified. It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods. Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.The provisional data presented on this page include the weekly provisional count of deaths in the United States due to COVID-19, deaths from all causes and percent of expected deaths (i.e., number of deaths received over number of deaths expected based on data from previous years), pneumonia deaths (excluding pneumonia deaths involving influenza), and pneumonia deaths involving COVID-19; (a) by week ending date, (b) by age at death, and (c) by specific jurisdictions. Future updates to this release may include additional detail such as demographic characteristics (e.g., sex), additional causes of death (e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome or other comorbidities), or estimates based on models that account for reporting delays to generate more accurate predicted provisional counts.In its third paragraph, the introduction explained that data are adjusted, and that pneumonia deaths might present as COVID-19 (or vice versa):Pneumonia deaths are included to provide context for understanding the completeness of COVID-19 mortality data and related trends. Deaths due to COVID-19 may be misclassified as pneumonia deaths in the absence of positive test results, and pneumonia may appear on death certificates as a comorbid condition. Thus, increases in pneumonia deaths may be an indicator of excess COVID-19-related mortality. Additionally, estimates of completeness for pneumonia deaths may provide context for understanding the lag in reporting for COVID-19 deaths, as it is anticipated that these causes would have similar delays in reporting, processing, and coding. However, it is possible that reporting of COVID-19 mortality may be slower or faster than for other causes of death, and that the delay may change over time. Analyses to better understand and quantify reporting delays for COVID-19 deaths and related causes are underway. The list of causes provided in these tables may expand in future releases as more data are received, and other potentially comorbid conditions are determined.Nothing in that information described a directive to class any and all deaths to COVID-19 or to say that the coronavirus strain was a cause of death if the patient had contracted it before dying from an unrelated incident — such as getting “hit by a bus.” Further, the NVSS/CDC document noted that the data changed as more details were recorded, and that deaths due to pneumonia or COVID-19 might be adjusted up or down.Daily tables were followed by a “notes” field, stipulations of which seemed to be aligned with Bukacek’s claims:NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. *Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.1 Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.12 Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for this week in 2020 compared to the average number across the same week in 2017–2019. Previous analyses of 2015–2016 provisional data completeness have found that completeness is lower in the first few weeks following the date of death (7).3 Pneumonia death counts exclude pneumonia deaths involving influenza.No versions of the page were archived prior to April 5 2020, and all archives antedated the March 24 2020 memo introducing the new ICD code: U07.1 COVID-19. That code was referenced in the tables’ notes, and indeed referenced “confirmed or presumed” COVID-19.Nevertheless, the devil was in the details, and Bukacek’s speech advanced the idea the CDC or NVSS was exaggerating the number of deaths deliberately for political purposes.In fact, the CDC/NVSS specifically stated:Deaths due to COVID-19 may be misclassified as pneumonia deaths in the absence of positive test results, and pneumonia may appear on death certificates as a comorbid condition. Thus, increases in pneumonia deaths may be an indicator of excess COVID-19-related mortality.Both the NVSS and the CDC referenced initial ambiguity between pneumonia and COVID-19 deaths pending additional testing, stipulating that at least some data was likely to be revised later. Nothing in that wording suggested non-respiratory causes of death such as accident or injury were being attributed to COVID-19 as the rumors suggested.To recap, rumors that the CDC or NVSS purposefully directed medical personnel to falsify death certificates and count all deaths as COVID-19 related were amplified by Bukacek’s talk, which was viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Her reference to a memo about ICD codes was out of context, and the memo’s wide availability on the internet meant that users could search the “quote, unquote” portions of her commentary, find the memos on the CDC’s website, and conclude that her decontextualized claims were true. In their full context, it was clear neither the CDC nor NVSS were directing mass-misreporting of unrelated death as COVID-19-related — in actuality, the code simply enabled medical administrations to accurately list COVID-19 as a contributed cause where known or suspected. Unconfirmed cases were, per the memos, likely to be adjusted as more data came in.


U.S. President Donald Trump referred to the new coronavirus as a "hoax.

Explanation: What's true: During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu. What's false: Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.

On the last Friday of February 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump held a campaign rally in South Carolina and made comments during a speech in which he accused Democrats of “politicizing” the coronavirus outbreak that left many with the impression that he had referred to the virus itself as a “hoax.” Various news media outlets and personalities reported that he did so, including syndicated columnist Dana Milbank, who tweeted:  Likewise, Politico ran a story headlined “Trump rallies his base to treat coronavirus as a ‘hoax. '” And in an article headlined “Trump calls coronavirus Democrats’ ‘new hoax,'” NBC News correspondent Lauren Egan wrote: “President Donald Trump accused Democrats of ‘politicizing’ the deadly coronavirus during a campaign rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is ‘their new hoax’ as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S.”  These prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who asked us to verify the accuracy of the claim. Trump held the rally on Feb. 28 on the eve of the South Carolina Democratic primary, which former Vice President Joe Biden ultimately won. During his roughly one-hour, 20-minute commentary, Trump hit back at his political opponents in the Democratic Party for their critiques of his administration’s handling of a potential pandemic. Here are Trump’s exact words on the topic at the South Carolina rally: Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that. In context, Trump did not say in the passage above that the virus itself was a hoax. He instead said that Democrats’ criticism of his administration’s response to it was a hoax. He muddied the waters a few minutes later, however, by comparing the number of coronavirus fatalities in the U.S. (none, at that point in time) to the number of fatalities during an average flu season, and accusing the press of being in “hysteria mode”: So a number that nobody heard of that I heard of recently and I was shocked to hear it, 35,000 people on average die each year from the flu. Did anyone know that? 35,000. That’s a lot of people. It could go to 100,000, it could be 27,000, they say usually a minimum of 27, it goes up to 100,000 people a year who die, and so far we have lost nobody to coronavirus in the United States. Nobody. And it doesn’t mean we won’t, and we are totally prepared, it doesn’t mean we won’t. But think of it. You hear 35 and 40,000 people, and we’ve lost nobody, and you wonder, the press is in hysteria mode.


Disability rights advocates sue Montana over Medicaid cuts.

Explanation: Montana disability rights advocates sued the state health department Tuesday seeking to overturn cuts in Medicaid reimbursement rates that have led to a loss of services and put clients at increased risk of institutionalization.

Health, Lawsuits, Helena, Montana, Medicaid, Health care services

“This lawsuit is the direct result of unlawful and unconstitutional decisions by the state that threaten significant and long-lasting harm to Montanans and their families,” said Beth Brenneman, attorney for Disability Rights Montana. The 2017 Legislature authorized the health department to cut reimbursement rates for primary health care services for people covered by Medicaid in the case of funding shortfalls, but did not authorize cuts in community-based services for people with physical or developmental disabilities or serious mental illness, the lawsuit argues. The petitioners include mental health and disability services providers and independent living organizations. The lawsuit, filed in District Court in Helena, also argues the Department of Public Health and Human Services failed to follow state rule-making requirements in authorizing the reductions that led providers to cut staff, reduce wages, close offices and discontinue services. The Medicaid cuts also violate the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act because the cuts to community-based services put patients at increased risk of institutionalization, the lawsuit argues. Last week, Gov. Steve Bullock said some cuts would be restored, but it is unclear when or how the rates will change. The health department plans a listening session Wednesday in Helena to set priorities in restoring targeted case management services, such as those provided by the petitioners. Those decisions may not be made until September, the governor’s office has said. “The department looks forward to working with Medicaid providers and the people they serve as the rates are restored,” Sheila Hogan, director of the state health department, said in a statement Tuesday. In the meantime, the petitioners are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the continued cuts and to schedule a hearing on a preliminary injunction. Because of the cuts, clients are losing their homes and their jobs and are seeking services through hospitals, nursing homes or state institutions, the organizations argue. “It is well-established that community-based services for the physically disabled and severely mentally ill are less expensive than institutionalization or placement in less restrictive settings,” the lawsuit argues. The Montana Health Care Association filed a similar lawsuit against the health department in June that also alleges the agency didn’t follow state rule-making processes in reducing Medicaid provider reimbursement rates for nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.


Singer and actress Demi Lovato passed away in August 2018.

Explanation: As of this writing, Lovato remains (alive) at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles and is expected to leave that facility within a week.

Junk News, celebrity death hoax, celebrity death hoaxes, death hoaxes

In July 2018, pop singer Demi Lovato made headlines when she was hospitalized after an overdose. Although she was reportedly recovering well afterwards, one website soon rehashed the news coverage of her overdose and prefaced their write-up with a couple of paragraphs claiming Lovato had passed away:  American pop star and actress Demi Lovato who was rushed to hospital in Los Angeles after a reported heroin overdose has died, spokesman said in a statement. Lovato died at the age of 25 while on admission at the hospital but the statement did not mention the cause of her death. The report of Lovato’s death was false and originated solely with a website called “New York Timely Reports” (whose domain name, nytiwes.com imitates that of the legitimate New York Times). “New York Timely Reports” is a junk news site which has published other celebrity death hoaxes, such as falsely reporting that former president George H.W. Bush had passed away.